No, console upgrades are nothing new or exclusive to the 360 (if this news proves to be true).
From memory (there may be more): PS1 had the standard and slim version. PS2 had the original, updated and slim version, with different connections options depending on the model. GBA had the original and the SP versions. DS now has the "lite" version.
I'm pretty sure some of the older consoles from the 80s had more than one versions.
In shops like Best buys and Future Shops, it is frequent that Sony TVs and electronics are placed separately, in their own private rooms, away from, the others. Not all shops mind you, but i've seen it in more than a couple of ones.
And yes, while i agree that IF there are more games for a console than the other, then it's normal that there is less shelf space than the other. But as i said in my parent post, is that i see often more shelf space for PS games - for the same amount of games - than GameCube or XBOX. In fact they can have as much as twice the number. I can understand that PS products have the potential to sell more, but to put a game like "The Warriors" or "State of emergency" for Playstation 2 (for exemple) with more visibility where you can see the full cover near the entrance of the store than Super Smash Bros or Zelda:Windwaker which are cramped among the other GameCube games, at the back of the store, where you can only see the side of the box because there are too many games to put in such a restricted place... (I'm looking at at least four EBGames stores i've seen in my area that have set-ups like this). The XBOX receives a bit less harsh treament than the GameCube, but it's still pitiful. (personal opinion here).
One has to wonder, however, if people would even bother to buy more new games to get the achievements in order to play publicity games.
Whatever the achievements are in term of points, if you can have something in return for them, they basically serve as a currency, thus a form of "money", thus the need for a well-balanced system. Achievements, because they are established by different companies and/or entities, can never have that required "balance".
Nope. Nintendo WOULD lose a considerable amount of money.
It would be another discussion altogether, but basically Nintendo competes for your leisure time.
Every minute you would pass playing one of their "free" games would be a minute you wouldn't pass playing a Wii title.
Just as XBOX Live arcade games actually competes with the 360 games on DVD, it is the same market. Giving a "free" game on Live arcade would actually remove time you would spend playing other games.
Average people have trouble understanding how a computer works. They got used painstakingly to using Windows.
Q: Apple computers? A: More expansive than PC and i don't know how it work.
Q: Linux OS? A: What is Linux? - or - A: Too complicated (and let's be frank, it still IS way more complicated than Windows to use. Most of the provided programs still comes in the form of command lines.)
This is why i think your analogy for OS is wrong regarding company image because it is a very particular market.
When you go into a mall and see a Sony shop that scream prestige and high class where no other electronic manufacturer even HAS a shop.
When you go into an electronics store and notice that Sony televisions are placed in their own private sections aways from the others.
When you go into a video game store and notice that the PlayStation brands are located at the front of the store and the rest are in small corners or at the back, behind the PS3 advertisements that are hanging on the ceiling.
When you go into a large retailer and notice that PlayStation games take twice the amount of shelf space for the same amount of games available than it's competitors.
Those are the signs that say that Sony "dictates" to some retailers how to put them in a positive way and how they "manipulate" their own image.
Here's Mr. Jow average's reasoning: The product in front of my eyes in the diamond incrusted mahogany display that cost 1000$ has GOT to be better than the one in the back of the store, on the lower metallic cheap shelf with dust all over it that is priced at 500$. I don't need to do research, it's fairly obvious...
The Wal-Mart i find funny is the one next to my home.
Twice when i was there in the last 2 months i heard over the intercom:
"We have just received a shipment of X number of Nintendo Wiis. If you are interested, please report in our electronics department."
To me, i heard: "We have just received a shipment of X number of Nintendo Wiis. If you are interested, please come and fight for it with other entousiasts in our electronics department".
Sure enough, because i was curious, i went to the electronics department, where no cohesive lines were formed and more than twice the number of people that were gathered over the counter for the number of Wiis available.
The Nintendo Wii has stole all the thunder this holiday season because everybody wants to "try" the "new" way to play videogames. I hear Wii everywhere i go, from work to the family. The PS3 is barely mentionned, with the one question that always comes when it is from those who don't follow the gaming industry: "why is it priced so high?" followed by a "what is Blu Ray?" when the answer is provided.
The 360 doesn't get mentionned much because people already know about it.
However, the video game world isn't perfect. All "achievements" arn't equal. Some EA games are really easy to obtain for exemple. That would mean more points to the gamers for which to get new games online (if i follow your idea). Because of that, you are right to say that people would buy more Wii games to get more online stuff. The only problem i see is that soon people would realize that EA games are more easy and buy mostly EA games because they give free online stuff you can download.
Great for EA, bad for the other developpers. Their answer would be to "dumb down" the achievements so that they become even easier than EAs to attract people to their games instead. You get a spiral downward to let the achievements become easier and easier.
Pretty soon, the "achievements" would just become "free points" you get when you buy a Wii game. Kind of like Air Miles points you get for each purchase that you can spend on online games and stuff.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft have thought about letting gamers get "stuff" for their points, but they figured it wouldn't work.
Letting Nintendo "rule" the achievements and their values would be a bit better, but equally tough to implement. Nintendo would have to review all games extensively just to figure out the "challenge level" of an achievement. All results would always be arbitrary. Is an achievement in an RPG for finishing the game (that anybody can finish if they play long enough) worth the same as killing 10 people in a single deathmatch game in an FPS?
I think this is one of the major reason why achievements arn't "currency". You need a solid base to evaluate what the achievements are actually "worth" in order for them to equal money.
Arn't there better ways to "address complex social issues" than in a game where people are supposed to have "fun" with it?
If it was an educational game that actually teached something, i'd have less problem with it, but this one was clearly meant for the entertainment value.
Like someone else said: it is of poor taste.
In other news on/.: a game maker is making a game about nazis gas chambers: a simulator of people choking to death and a second game about kidnapping and raping people. When confronted on the controversy of it's games, the game maker said: "it is freedom of speech, it gives me the license to do whatever i want".
Conker's Live and Reloaded is a good game. Saying it's "just another DK ripoff" is painting with a WIDE brush. They are both game in the same genre, but clearly not the same game. It's like saying Halo is a Doom ripoff and Forza is a Gran Turismo ripoff.
Kameo was a moderate success. Perfect Dark Zero was received well-enough by critics.
Viva Pinata, while not a commercial success so far, is a critically acclaimed game. Most gamers who played it were pleasantly surprised to have an actual fun and addictive game.
They are not "Halo" or "Gears of War", but they are good games. With the possible exception of Grabbed by the Ghoulies (that i've always seen as a tech demo for other future games more than a full game of it's own), all of their games have scored over 80/100 in average from major critics and are received well enough by gamers.
This is not, to me, a bad game company. Seeing "RARE" on a game box actually tells me it should be a good game.
Most action games are around the 10 to 15 hours mark. (Unreal, while it was indeed quite long for an FPS at the time, didn't require more than 10 hours to go through.)
RPG were always longer at around 30 hours (they still are). Adventure games are around 5 or 6 hours (but since the nature of those games is "puzzle solving" it can take dozens of hours to get through it with no help). RTS games are usually always longer than action games.
If you go back to older games, usually they lasted only a quarter of the time they do today, sometimes even less. Super Mario Bros takes around one hour if you do all the levels and don't do "warps". The original Zelda takes around 3 hours. The first adventure games could be completed in a matter of minutes (i have Bedlam and Rakathu in mind, back in the late-70s early-80s) (if you knew the puzzles). The first RPGs i've played (D&D Treasure of Tarmin on the Intellivision and Rogue) were usually impossible affairs in which you were "Game Over" after 10 to 15 minutes of playing.
Games take LONGER now that they've ever required. People have the PERCEPTION that games take less time because the TYPE of games coming out are not the same. Where they used to play dozens of hours of Ultima and Monkey Island (while not knowing the puzzles), now they play Gears of War and Unreal Tournament.
If you want recent long games, take KOTOR, Oblivion or basically any modern RPG. There are also some adventure games that are as long as any Grim Fandango, Sam & Max or Monkey Island that are coming out. Benoit Sokal's Paradise comes to mind. If you don't constantly look at a walkthrough, it'll take you forever to get through it. Modern RTS games also take a long time (usually).
Just don't expect shooters to be longer than an RPG/Adventure game. They never will be.
Xbox Live anywhere will pit PC VS 360 gamers in FPS games.
ShadowRun will be the first of these and playtest suggest that contrary to what people beleives, the mouse/keyboard DOES NOT provide an advantage over a controller.
In tests, it was reported that mouse/keyboard gave an advantage in snipping at long range where the controller, because of it's analog controls, gives an advantage in close range because of easier circle-strafing.
We'll have to see when the game ships, but all i'm saying is that in a future PC release of Halo 3, there is a non-negligible chance that it will use Live anywhere to pit PC VS 360 gamers against/with each other.
The guy would have kept the same position if he went to work on the PS4.
While he may be trully be working on the PS4, my guess is that he really was "promoted" in order to be "removed" from public appearances.
The guy was/is a PR nightmare. Everytime he talked to the media, we'd see tons of information about the "arrogance" of Sony towards it's customers pop-up, and not just on "/.".
Re:A Perfect Example Of Why Microsoft Is Failing
on
Final Fantasy XII Review
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
But Microsoft took a different approach than Sony that is just as valid, and perhaps more (at least in my opinion).
Microsoft made the 360 similar to the architecture of a regular PC. Meaning that games can be easilly ported to both platform.
For example, Square, the makers of the Final Fantasy franchise, have said that it took them around two months of coding to port Final Fantasy XI to the 360 (from it's PC version). They have also said that the same job would have taken them around 2 years to port it to the PS3s architecture since it is entirely new and "alien" to anything already existing. The entire core of the game would need to be re-written.
This means a bigger library of games for both the PC and the 360 platform. That compatibility has a tendancy to attract numerous different games based on numerous engines instead of making more similar games that uses engines adapted to a singular platform like those made by Sony.
Also, i think the fact that people are camping out for a PS3 is more due to the massive shortage of it than any "good" design made by Sony...
The thing is, Microsoft just hasn't really "pissed-off" it's customers in the XBOX division.
Sony has annoyed it's customers more than once with their gaming division. Also a strong case of dissapointing them (over promising and under-delivering on just about everything).
Exemples: Dual-HDMI ports that were promised for dual screen gaming, lack of feedback in controllers (rumble), lower graphics capabilities than expected from both the PS2 and PS3, higher price than anybody would've liked, hardly any units to speak of for the launch of the PS3, lack of HD cables in a console that is sold with the promise of HD content and so on and on...
News sources about the fact that Microsoft has also been good towards it's developpers and provided them with more support than Sony and also provide them with better tools to create games don't help Sony's gaming division image either.
What Microsoft does in the PC market is irrelevant (to a point) when it comes to consoles, just like Sony televisions and MP3 players are irrelevant to the console market. It's a different market.
It seems that Sony falls to the same marketting problem it had in the past. It's simply over-promissing and under-delivering. It really doesn't matter that your hardware is the best and your game catalogue is the most recognized when you keep under-delivering. At one point, your customers get annoyed with you.
Or it might simply be a case of "hating the leader to be more cool". In the OS market, Microsoft is the leader, let's hate them. In the games market, Sony is the leader, let's hate them. In the fast-food industry, McDonalds is the biggest, they are also the most hated. In the giant retailers, it's WalMart. In the gas market, it's Exxon/Esso (or whatever that company name is in your country).
Granted the PS2 market share is bigger for it's generation than what the SNES had, but to be so bold as to say it will win on name alone? Nintendo sure would've liked that back in the N64's days.
I also have always doubted the way they calculate the market shares. It is common knowledge that Sony systems have statistically been more prone to hardware failures than Nintendo systems (for exemple). Yet they count the people who bought multiple PS2 (for exemple) as different customers. Shouldn't they revise the market share percentage by the estimated defective rate?
I'd be really curious to see if the PS2 is really in the lead that much from it's competition if you removed the estimated number of defective PS2 from the total?
I am 100% positive that there were content that was only available for gold members download back during E3, last spring. This news is just really late... By about 6 months.
Of course all content that was available last E3 has been removed from the marketplace soon after the show's end. I still have some of it's content on my 360's harddrive though.
XBOX 360 is already nearing the 8 million units sold in less than a year.
it's anything BUT "laskluster". It's acutally doing really well.
Just so you know, Japan, where the 360 performs the less, is only the third market in importance. The 360 has high reception in North America (the biggest market) and moderate to good support in Europe (the second biggest).
Are those from the same people that are yelling about Microsoft releasing the 360 hardware too soon before it was tested?
If they start early, maybe they won't repeat the mistakes of the past? When it comes to hardware and consoles, i find that Microsoft is actually one of the only company that listens to it's user base and try to meet and improve on their expectations. They actually learn from past mistakes.
Why exactly do people say the 360 is already obsolete, that MS wants your money and other such stuff? What exactly is WRONG with this news? It's a good news for everyone concerned as it will mean better hardware and an overall better product if we decide to buy it when it comes. At least in theory and i'm betting it's the same calculations that Microsoft is making.
Just a note. Quake and Quake 2 are not sequels but in name only.
The developpers have said that they wanted Quake 2 to be a different name than "Quake" but had trouble finding one at the last minute before a public game show (E3? can't remember which one). All the titles they wanted to use were already taken or could cause problems in court after they reserched them. At the last minute they stapled "Quake 2" on it just so it could have a title.
The stories are completely different. Quake 3 is also an off-series. So the Quake "series" is really only two games long: Quake 2 and Quake 4.
Also, i kind of failed to see your point. You say you "hate" sequels, yet you name a whole bunch of series with sequels and more than half of them you list the sequels as "good" or "excellent".
I don't think you understood the problem of learning how to program. Something like Python is the worst solution for a kid that wants to program. Here's why:
Situation: you are a kid. You want to create a neat program. You don't know how.
What do you do?
You read a bit about programming languages on the Internet.
You stumble upon Visual Basic, C++, Java... near the end of the list you will see something like Python.
Let's see what Python can do, because someone told me it was easy to use. After fumbling for 3 hours on Python resource that i somehow managed to find, and let's assume i actually managed to find and install Python on Windows (forget Linux as no kid really even know how to work with it as most computer newbies don't even know it exist) and let's assume i understood the Python documentation and tutorials that always assume you know about computer languages before you use it.
Assuming all that, i can manage to make a simple "hello world".
Yippie, my first program. Now i want to do something cool with it. I want to create buttons, forms, anything... Whoops, Python looks a lot more dificult suddenly.
Ok, what the heck can i do with Python? Tough luck there... there are no explicit explanation of what Python can and cannot do (i'm a professional programmer and even i had trouble figuring out what could Python be used for. What were it's advantages over other programming language that could help me? Don't expect a kid to figure it out).
See that i made TONS of assumption here: 1) Assumed he even knew Python existed. 2) Assumed he can actually manage to find the Python documentation and understand it enough to know i need a package(tougher than it sounds. especially in the case of Python). 3) Assumed he figured out where the package is and that he found it and installed it on his machine. At this level, he might even be confused between the Windows and the Linux machine. 4) Assumed he can complete a "hello world". 5) Assumed he can actually do something more with it, with GUI because a kid will want "seeable" results.
An awful lots of assumptions.
Visual Basic would be a better start for him. He installs the Visual Basic package. Starts it up. Create his forms. Code just a little bit behind his buttons. The interface can show him a bit of his errors before he compile. Click and "start". Voilà, his first program.
Assuming of course that: 1) he has Visual Basic 2) he can manage to install it. 3) figure out the need for compilation.
The documentation and tutorials of Visual Basic are a lot more easier to understand than something like Python, he won't be confused with Linux/Windows cross-platform installation and workings and he'll have a more direct feel of what he can do since VB is more visual than Python.
So VB is a bit easier than Python to learn and use.
We are still VERY FAR from the "easyness" of earlier languages. Basic being on top. OLD BASIC: - no installation, you just type your program from the command line. - doesn't need to compile anything to make it work. - simpler documentation and tutorials that was intended for beginners (also doesn't have modules, forms, OOP and complex programming concepts).
Some people have mentionned VBScript and JavaScript as simple languages. I cannot disagree more. JavaScript and VBScript by themselves are mostly worthless, they need to use HTML and CSS in order to do anything meaningful beside the basic "hello world". The integration of all that and DHTML is about the toughest things a programmer can have today. Web programming with javascript/HTML/VBScript has almost nothing more complex in advanced programming languages.
After writting all this, i think i would even refer a kid to "flash". Flash includes a very nice tutorial that even he can understand easilly. It would allow him to: 1) Create animations. 2) Have basic Gui functions. 3) Use multimedia in his program (something tough as hell with any other languages). 4) Program with ActionScript. The kid need only learn the very basics of it. 5) Create a web site (as a bonus to his learning).
Their number 1 game of all time was Super Mario Bros 1.
I agree with them. This is arguably THE most recognized video game in the world. Everyone over 20 played it at some point in their life. Everybody knows it's music by heart.
Unless i'm wrong, it's also the game the sold the most in video game history (although it may be more due to the fact that it came with the NES).
Slashdot Mirror
No, console upgrades are nothing new or exclusive to the 360 (if this news proves to be true).
From memory (there may be more):
PS1 had the standard and slim version.
PS2 had the original, updated and slim version, with different connections options depending on the model.
GBA had the original and the SP versions.
DS now has the "lite" version.
I'm pretty sure some of the older consoles from the 80s had more than one versions.
In shops like Best buys and Future Shops, it is frequent that Sony TVs and electronics are placed separately, in their own private rooms, away from, the others. Not all shops mind you, but i've seen it in more than a couple of ones.
And yes, while i agree that IF there are more games for a console than the other, then it's normal that there is less shelf space than the other.
But as i said in my parent post, is that i see often more shelf space for PS games - for the same amount of games - than GameCube or XBOX. In fact they can have as much as twice the number.
I can understand that PS products have the potential to sell more, but to put a game like "The Warriors" or "State of emergency" for Playstation 2 (for exemple) with more visibility where you can see the full cover near the entrance of the store than Super Smash Bros or Zelda:Windwaker which are cramped among the other GameCube games, at the back of the store, where you can only see the side of the box because there are too many games to put in such a restricted place... (I'm looking at at least four EBGames stores i've seen in my area that have set-ups like this). The XBOX receives a bit less harsh treament than the GameCube, but it's still pitiful. (personal opinion here).
Yeah, it would work for publicity games.
One has to wonder, however, if people would even bother to buy more new games to get the achievements in order to play publicity games.
Whatever the achievements are in term of points, if you can have something in return for them, they basically serve as a currency, thus a form of "money", thus the need for a well-balanced system. Achievements, because they are established by different companies and/or entities, can never have that required "balance".
Nope. Nintendo WOULD lose a considerable amount of money.
It would be another discussion altogether, but basically Nintendo competes for your leisure time.
Every minute you would pass playing one of their "free" games would be a minute you wouldn't pass playing a Wii title.
Just as XBOX Live arcade games actually competes with the 360 games on DVD, it is the same market. Giving a "free" game on Live arcade would actually remove time you would spend playing other games.
Average people have trouble understanding how a computer works. They got used painstakingly to using Windows.
Q: Apple computers?
A: More expansive than PC and i don't know how it work.
Q: Linux OS?
A: What is Linux?
- or -
A: Too complicated (and let's be frank, it still IS way more complicated than Windows to use. Most of the provided programs still comes in the form of command lines.)
This is why i think your analogy for OS is wrong regarding company image because it is a very particular market.
When you go into a mall and see a Sony shop that scream prestige and high class where no other electronic manufacturer even HAS a shop.
When you go into an electronics store and notice that Sony televisions are placed in their own private sections aways from the others.
When you go into a video game store and notice that the PlayStation brands are located at the front of the store and the rest are in small corners or at the back, behind the PS3 advertisements that are hanging on the ceiling.
When you go into a large retailer and notice that PlayStation games take twice the amount of shelf space for the same amount of games available than it's competitors.
Those are the signs that say that Sony "dictates" to some retailers how to put them in a positive way and how they "manipulate" their own image.
Here's Mr. Jow average's reasoning:
The product in front of my eyes in the diamond incrusted mahogany display that cost 1000$ has GOT to be better than the one in the back of the store, on the lower metallic cheap shelf with dust all over it that is priced at 500$. I don't need to do research, it's fairly obvious...
The Wal-Mart i find funny is the one next to my home.
Twice when i was there in the last 2 months i heard over the intercom:
"We have just received a shipment of X number of Nintendo Wiis. If you are interested, please report in our electronics department."
To me, i heard:
"We have just received a shipment of X number of Nintendo Wiis. If you are interested, please come and fight for it with other entousiasts in our electronics department".
Sure enough, because i was curious, i went to the electronics department, where no cohesive lines were formed and more than twice the number of people that were gathered over the counter for the number of Wiis available.
The Nintendo Wii has stole all the thunder this holiday season because everybody wants to "try" the "new" way to play videogames. I hear Wii everywhere i go, from work to the family.
The PS3 is barely mentionned, with the one question that always comes when it is from those who don't follow the gaming industry: "why is it priced so high?" followed by a "what is Blu Ray?" when the answer is provided.
The 360 doesn't get mentionned much because people already know about it.
This idea, in a perfect world, would be great.
However, the video game world isn't perfect. All "achievements" arn't equal.
Some EA games are really easy to obtain for exemple. That would mean more points to the gamers for which to get new games online (if i follow your idea).
Because of that, you are right to say that people would buy more Wii games to get more online stuff. The only problem i see is that soon people would realize that EA games are more easy and buy mostly EA games because they give free online stuff you can download.
Great for EA, bad for the other developpers. Their answer would be to "dumb down" the achievements so that they become even easier than EAs to attract people to their games instead. You get a spiral downward to let the achievements become easier and easier.
Pretty soon, the "achievements" would just become "free points" you get when you buy a Wii game. Kind of like Air Miles points you get for each purchase that you can spend on online games and stuff.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft have thought about letting gamers get "stuff" for their points, but they figured it wouldn't work.
Letting Nintendo "rule" the achievements and their values would be a bit better, but equally tough to implement. Nintendo would have to review all games extensively just to figure out the "challenge level" of an achievement. All results would always be arbitrary. Is an achievement in an RPG for finishing the game (that anybody can finish if they play long enough) worth the same as killing 10 people in a single deathmatch game in an FPS?
I think this is one of the major reason why achievements arn't "currency". You need a solid base to evaluate what the achievements are actually "worth" in order for them to equal money.
Arn't there better ways to "address complex social issues" than in a game where people are supposed to have "fun" with it?
/.: a game maker is making a game about nazis gas chambers: a simulator of people choking to death and a second game about kidnapping and raping people. When confronted on the controversy of it's games, the game maker said: "it is freedom of speech, it gives me the license to do whatever i want".
If it was an educational game that actually teached something, i'd have less problem with it, but this one was clearly meant for the entertainment value.
Like someone else said: it is of poor taste.
In other news on
From their last 4 games:
Conker's Live and Reloaded is a good game. Saying it's "just another DK ripoff" is painting with a WIDE brush. They are both game in the same genre, but clearly not the same game. It's like saying Halo is a Doom ripoff and Forza is a Gran Turismo ripoff.
Kameo was a moderate success. Perfect Dark Zero was received well-enough by critics.
Viva Pinata, while not a commercial success so far, is a critically acclaimed game. Most gamers who played it were pleasantly surprised to have an actual fun and addictive game.
They are not "Halo" or "Gears of War", but they are good games. With the possible exception of Grabbed by the Ghoulies (that i've always seen as a tech demo for other future games more than a full game of it's own), all of their games have scored over 80/100 in average from major critics and are received well enough by gamers.
This is not, to me, a bad game company. Seeing "RARE" on a game box actually tells me it should be a good game.
Games are longer today than they have been.
Most action games are around the 10 to 15 hours mark. (Unreal, while it was indeed quite long for an FPS at the time, didn't require more than 10 hours to go through.)
RPG were always longer at around 30 hours (they still are). Adventure games are around 5 or 6 hours (but since the nature of those games is "puzzle solving" it can take dozens of hours to get through it with no help).
RTS games are usually always longer than action games.
If you go back to older games, usually they lasted only a quarter of the time they do today, sometimes even less. Super Mario Bros takes around one hour if you do all the levels and don't do "warps". The original Zelda takes around 3 hours. The first adventure games could be completed in a matter of minutes (i have Bedlam and Rakathu in mind, back in the late-70s early-80s) (if you knew the puzzles). The first RPGs i've played (D&D Treasure of Tarmin on the Intellivision and Rogue) were usually impossible affairs in which you were "Game Over" after 10 to 15 minutes of playing.
Games take LONGER now that they've ever required. People have the PERCEPTION that games take less time because the TYPE of games coming out are not the same. Where they used to play dozens of hours of Ultima and Monkey Island (while not knowing the puzzles), now they play Gears of War and Unreal Tournament.
If you want recent long games, take KOTOR, Oblivion or basically any modern RPG. There are also some adventure games that are as long as any Grim Fandango, Sam & Max or Monkey Island that are coming out. Benoit Sokal's Paradise comes to mind. If you don't constantly look at a walkthrough, it'll take you forever to get through it. Modern RTS games also take a long time (usually).
Just don't expect shooters to be longer than an RPG/Adventure game. They never will be.
The Alien game is said to be made by Obsidian (NeverWinter Nights 2), and that the game will be an RPG.
/., i'm guessing the fact that it's an RPG is actually good news)
Sorry folks, no FPS, RTS or Action title.
(Although from the demographics at
Here's a link:
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/750/750837p1.html
Xbox Live anywhere will pit PC VS 360 gamers in FPS games.
ShadowRun will be the first of these and playtest suggest that contrary to what people beleives, the mouse/keyboard DOES NOT provide an advantage over a controller.
In tests, it was reported that mouse/keyboard gave an advantage in snipping at long range where the controller, because of it's analog controls, gives an advantage in close range because of easier circle-strafing.
We'll have to see when the game ships, but all i'm saying is that in a future PC release of Halo 3, there is a non-negligible chance that it will use Live anywhere to pit PC VS 360 gamers against/with each other.
The guy would have kept the same position if he went to work on the PS4.
While he may be trully be working on the PS4, my guess is that he really was "promoted" in order to be "removed" from public appearances.
The guy was/is a PR nightmare. Everytime he talked to the media, we'd see tons of information about the "arrogance" of Sony towards it's customers pop-up, and not just on "/.".
But Microsoft took a different approach than Sony that is just as valid, and perhaps more (at least in my opinion).
Microsoft made the 360 similar to the architecture of a regular PC. Meaning that games can be easilly ported to both platform.
For example, Square, the makers of the Final Fantasy franchise, have said that it took them around two months of coding to port Final Fantasy XI to the 360 (from it's PC version). They have also said that the same job would have taken them around 2 years to port it to the PS3s architecture since it is entirely new and "alien" to anything already existing. The entire core of the game would need to be re-written.
This means a bigger library of games for both the PC and the 360 platform. That compatibility has a tendancy to attract numerous different games based on numerous engines instead of making more similar games that uses engines adapted to a singular platform like those made by Sony.
Also, i think the fact that people are camping out for a PS3 is more due to the massive shortage of it than any "good" design made by Sony...
Just so people remember,
The 360 released with an update to the dashboard in november 2005 that needed to be downloaded, on it's launch day.
The thing is, Microsoft just hasn't really "pissed-off" it's customers in the XBOX division.
Sony has annoyed it's customers more than once with their gaming division. Also a strong case of dissapointing them (over promising and under-delivering on just about everything).
Exemples: Dual-HDMI ports that were promised for dual screen gaming, lack of feedback in controllers (rumble), lower graphics capabilities than expected from both the PS2 and PS3, higher price than anybody would've liked, hardly any units to speak of for the launch of the PS3, lack of HD cables in a console that is sold with the promise of HD content and so on and on...
News sources about the fact that Microsoft has also been good towards it's developpers and provided them with more support than Sony and also provide them with better tools to create games don't help Sony's gaming division image either.
What Microsoft does in the PC market is irrelevant (to a point) when it comes to consoles, just like Sony televisions and MP3 players are irrelevant to the console market. It's a different market.
It seems that Sony falls to the same marketting problem it had in the past. It's simply over-promissing and under-delivering. It really doesn't matter that your hardware is the best and your game catalogue is the most recognized when you keep under-delivering. At one point, your customers get annoyed with you.
Or it might simply be a case of "hating the leader to be more cool". In the OS market, Microsoft is the leader, let's hate them. In the games market, Sony is the leader, let's hate them. In the fast-food industry, McDonalds is the biggest, they are also the most hated. In the giant retailers, it's WalMart. In the gas market, it's Exxon/Esso (or whatever that company name is in your country).
Nintendo:
NES: market leader.
SNES: market leader.
N64: market loser.
Sony:
PS1: market leader.
PS2: market leader.
PS3: ???
Granted the PS2 market share is bigger for it's generation than what the SNES had, but to be so bold as to say it will win on name alone? Nintendo sure would've liked that back in the N64's days.
I also have always doubted the way they calculate the market shares. It is common knowledge that Sony systems have statistically been more prone to hardware failures than Nintendo systems (for exemple). Yet they count the people who bought multiple PS2 (for exemple) as different customers.
Shouldn't they revise the market share percentage by the estimated defective rate?
I'd be really curious to see if the PS2 is really in the lead that much from it's competition if you removed the estimated number of defective PS2 from the total?
Just food for thoughts.
GoW is not really the first content.
I am 100% positive that there were content that was only available for gold members download back during E3, last spring.
This news is just really late... By about 6 months.
Of course all content that was available last E3 has been removed from the marketplace soon after the show's end. I still have some of it's content on my 360's harddrive though.
XBOX 360 is already nearing the 8 million units sold in less than a year.
it's anything BUT "laskluster". It's acutally doing really well.
Just so you know, Japan, where the 360 performs the less, is only the third market in importance.
The 360 has high reception in North America (the biggest market) and moderate to good support in Europe (the second biggest).
So many sarcastic comments around.
Are those from the same people that are yelling about Microsoft releasing the 360 hardware too soon before it was tested?
If they start early, maybe they won't repeat the mistakes of the past? When it comes to hardware and consoles, i find that Microsoft is actually one of the only company that listens to it's user base and try to meet and improve on their expectations. They actually learn from past mistakes.
Why exactly do people say the 360 is already obsolete, that MS wants your money and other such stuff? What exactly is WRONG with this news? It's a good news for everyone concerned as it will mean better hardware and an overall better product if we decide to buy it when it comes. At least in theory and i'm betting it's the same calculations that Microsoft is making.
3rd person cannot persuade? 4 words: Ghost Recon Advanced WarFighter
Just a note. Quake and Quake 2 are not sequels but in name only.
The developpers have said that they wanted Quake 2 to be a different name than "Quake" but had trouble finding one at the last minute before a public game show (E3? can't remember which one). All the titles they wanted to use were already taken or could cause problems in court after they reserched them. At the last minute they stapled "Quake 2" on it just so it could have a title.
The stories are completely different.
Quake 3 is also an off-series.
So the Quake "series" is really only two games long: Quake 2 and Quake 4.
Also, i kind of failed to see your point. You say you "hate" sequels, yet you name a whole bunch of series with sequels and more than half of them you list the sequels as "good" or "excellent".
I don't think you understood the problem of learning how to program. Something like Python is the worst solution for a kid that wants to program. Here's why:
Situation: you are a kid. You want to create a neat program. You don't know how.
What do you do?
You read a bit about programming languages on the Internet.
You stumble upon Visual Basic, C++, Java... near the end of the list you will see something like Python.
Let's see what Python can do, because someone told me it was easy to use. After fumbling for 3 hours on Python resource that i somehow managed to find, and let's assume i actually managed to find and install Python on Windows (forget Linux as no kid really even know how to work with it as most computer newbies don't even know it exist) and let's assume i understood the Python documentation and tutorials that always assume you know about computer languages before you use it.
Assuming all that, i can manage to make a simple "hello world".
Yippie, my first program. Now i want to do something cool with it. I want to create buttons, forms, anything...
Whoops, Python looks a lot more dificult suddenly.
Ok, what the heck can i do with Python? Tough luck there... there are no explicit explanation of what Python can and cannot do (i'm a professional programmer and even i had trouble figuring out what could Python be used for. What were it's advantages over other programming language that could help me? Don't expect a kid to figure it out).
See that i made TONS of assumption here:
1) Assumed he even knew Python existed.
2) Assumed he can actually manage to find the Python documentation and understand it enough to know i need a package(tougher than it sounds. especially in the case of Python).
3) Assumed he figured out where the package is and that he found it and installed it on his machine. At this level, he might even be confused between the Windows and the Linux machine.
4) Assumed he can complete a "hello world".
5) Assumed he can actually do something more with it, with GUI because a kid will want "seeable" results.
An awful lots of assumptions.
Visual Basic would be a better start for him. He installs the Visual Basic package. Starts it up. Create his forms. Code just a little bit behind his buttons. The interface can show him a bit of his errors before he compile. Click and "start". Voilà, his first program.
Assuming of course that:
1) he has Visual Basic
2) he can manage to install it.
3) figure out the need for compilation.
The documentation and tutorials of Visual Basic are a lot more easier to understand than something like Python, he won't be confused with Linux/Windows cross-platform installation and workings and he'll have a more direct feel of what he can do since VB is more visual than Python.
So VB is a bit easier than Python to learn and use.
We are still VERY FAR from the "easyness" of earlier languages. Basic being on top.
OLD BASIC:
- no installation, you just type your program from the command line.
- doesn't need to compile anything to make it work.
- simpler documentation and tutorials that was intended for beginners (also doesn't have modules, forms, OOP and complex programming concepts).
Some people have mentionned VBScript and JavaScript as simple languages. I cannot disagree more. JavaScript and VBScript by themselves are mostly worthless, they need to use HTML and CSS in order to do anything meaningful beside the basic "hello world". The integration of all that and DHTML is about the toughest things a programmer can have today. Web programming with javascript/HTML/VBScript has almost nothing more complex in advanced programming languages.
After writting all this, i think i would even refer a kid to "flash". Flash includes a very nice tutorial that even he can understand easilly. It would allow him to:
1) Create animations.
2) Have basic Gui functions.
3) Use multimedia in his program (something tough as hell with any other languages).
4) Program with ActionScript. The kid need only learn the very basics of it.
5) Create a web site (as a bonus to his learning).
A few years back, IGN made a top 100 list.
Their number 1 game of all time was Super Mario Bros 1.
I agree with them. This is arguably THE most recognized video game in the world. Everyone over 20 played it at some point in their life. Everybody knows it's music by heart.
Unless i'm wrong, it's also the game the sold the most in video game history (although it may be more due to the fact that it came with the NES).