That's what I thought when I saw the footage. "Wow, this game actually looks like it could be good".
My next thought was, of course, "If they can do this with spongebob, imagine what the guys who made Ikaruga could do with the Wiimote."
This is the very reason why Nintendo didn't reveal their pricing scheme.
I'm sure the development of the Wiimote was costly, as was the development of the Wii's CPU and GPU (don't kid yourself, they spent money refining it to be a better fit for the controller, Wii Connect, and other things. They didn't just up the clock speeds)... But Nintendo is going for a certain market here, and this certainly isn't the time to be changing their pricing model.
I expect 2$00 (at most) for the system, 50 bucks for all the big games, and a more variable pricing scheme for the Wii's version of "Touch Generation" titles (Wii Sports, for example).
Re:It's no wonder people buy into Intellegent Desi
on
One Big Bang, Or Many?
·
· Score: 1
You're right. I meant (supporting) evidence, not proof. My bad.
Re:It's no wonder people buy into Intellegent Desi
on
One Big Bang, Or Many?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Your nitpicking is exactly what I was talking about.
Just because a scientific law isn't an absolute (as there is no such thing in science), doesn't mean we shouldn't try to take advantage of the fact that most people think that a law is something that's absolute. To draw an analogy, imagine that science is a germophobe and intellegent design (and other anti-science movements) have cut a big gash in science's side. It's much better to stop the flow of blood with a dirty rag and risk some minor infection, than to bleed to death while trying to figure out a better solution. Playing into the common vocabulary is that dirty rag, and I really think it's worth using it if it stops some people from abandoning the sciences over religious and political issues.
Re:It's no wonder people buy into Intellegent Desi
on
One Big Bang, Or Many?
·
· Score: 1
I used to agree with you about the whole scientific law nomenclature issue, but since people already take laws to mean "Absolutely true" and theories to mean "Wild guesses", it makes a lot of sense to break apart the theory of evolution, and name individual components to drive home the aspects that are absolutely unquestioned by modern biologists.
I think a lot of scientists (myself included) are horrible idealists. We don't like doing things unless we can do them right. However, in times like these, it seems that taking some questionable baby steps (such as the renaming scheme I mentioned earlier) will buy us time to work towards the loftier goal of improving science literacy. We can't expect everyone to suddenly become so interested in science that the popular menaing of theory will change overnight. We can, on the other hand, play on their existing vocabularies to combat anti-scientific rhetoric in the short term.
It's no wonder people buy into Intellegent Design
on
One Big Bang, Or Many?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Sorry to be off-topic, but articles like this throw around the word theory like every new hypothesis that's met with even a shred of success deserves to be called a theory. It's no wonder that so many people out there fail to realise that "It's just a theory, there's no proof" is a complete contradiction.
I'm favoring, more and more, a redefinition of the terms used in biological science to match those in the physical sciences. Start calling hypotheses theories, and drop the whole "Theory" label from the theory of evolution. Teach it as a combination of evidence-driven research, and base principles (Natural Selection becomes "Darwin's Laws", Mendellian Inheritence becomes "Mendel's Laws", and so forth).
Getting rid of the vague "theory" description will make it much easier to convey which parts of the modern theory of evolution should be considered fact, and which parts are still active areas of research.
That's on a list of the new features added to the Phantom.
Re:Igor international?
on
Both Sides of Wii
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The original name for the NES in the US was the Advanced Video System, and was a top-loading system just like all previous cartridge units. Everyone was afraid of it, because of the Atari crash, so Nintendo redesigned and renamed the system.
I think that's what they are trying to do again. Small and sleak versus big and scary. Easy to remember name. It sounds like they are trying to create a new market, just like they did in the 80s.
The big questions are whether or not there needs to be a new one (Atari killed the one in the 80s, so there was an obvious need there), and whether or not they can actually do it
Actually, it's more like a new sort of realism (or, atleast, it should be if EA is worth anything).
The controller very accurately conveys hand movements into the game. So if they do it right, you should beable to take aim and throw (without actually having it leave your hands), and see the results of that throw on screen. It could potentially even help people improve their aim.
I think it'd be better if they used a button. I had an idea for a novelty flying disk game that involved holding the A button and B trigger down, and making a gesture like you were going to throw the disc. When you let go of the A and B buttons, the representation on screen would let go of the frisby, and it would fly based upon real world physics. If your angle or timing was off, or you didn't release both buttons at the same time, it wouldn't fly as true as it should.
There's a lot of potential here, and it's great that EA is atleast pretending to tap into it.
Even more telling is the fact that the PSP game is a port of a 6 year old PSX title. It's one of the better RPGs on the PSX, of course... but still, it's an aged port.
I wonder if these games listed are only the ones that Square themselves are publishing, and not necessarily all of the games Square has in development.
FF:CC is supposedly a Revolution launch title, and I believe Nintendo published the first one for the GCN (although I thought that that was because of the Fund Q, which centered around games that involved GBA/GCN connectivity).
I'm surprised that I didn't immediately assume "Turbo" meant "repeating button presses"
He was refering to the turbo button on old computers. It was essentially a button that increased the clock multiplier. I think the one on my 486 made it go from 100 to 133MHz, or 50 to 66MHz or something. It was so long ago, I don' remember.
And then there was the 286 I had. The turbo button switched it from like 10MHz to 12MHz. Or was it KHz back then?
Glorified light gun?
Does 5 very natural axises of control mean anything to you? A light gun, at best, has 2 axises of control. If you've got the dexterity to manipulate two analog sticks independently of one another, then you get a maximum of 4 with traditional controllers. Hardcore gamers may have that kind of dexterity, but have you ever seen an average person try to pick up Katamari or any number of FPS games for any of the current gen systems? It's almost painful to watch.
And even if you DO have that kind of dexterity, the 5 axises of motion can still add a LOT to games. I mean, imagine what the guys who made games like Ikaruga could do with that kind of freedom. I could list a number of ideas of my own, and I'm just a regular joe-shmo gamer.
There's one issue with your complaint about physics and AI - The Revolution is an extension of the GCN, an extremely streamlined games machine, while the PS3 and X360 are both using hardware that'd be more suited to a database server or something of that nature.
While the raw horsepower of Xenon and Cell may make up from the lack of branch predicting, out of order programming, and all of the other features that make AI and physics code run well, how many developers are actually going to fight with a design not meant for physics or AI calculations in order to get good results? I'd assume not many. And Game Informer is apparently pleased with Red Steel's AI, so I'm really not worried.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what I thought when I saw the footage. "Wow, this game actually looks like it could be good". My next thought was, of course, "If they can do this with spongebob, imagine what the guys who made Ikaruga could do with the Wiimote."
This is the very reason why Nintendo didn't reveal their pricing scheme. I'm sure the development of the Wiimote was costly, as was the development of the Wii's CPU and GPU (don't kid yourself, they spent money refining it to be a better fit for the controller, Wii Connect, and other things. They didn't just up the clock speeds)... But Nintendo is going for a certain market here, and this certainly isn't the time to be changing their pricing model. I expect 2$00 (at most) for the system, 50 bucks for all the big games, and a more variable pricing scheme for the Wii's version of "Touch Generation" titles (Wii Sports, for example).
You're right. I meant (supporting) evidence, not proof. My bad.
Your nitpicking is exactly what I was talking about.
Just because a scientific law isn't an absolute (as there is no such thing in science), doesn't mean we shouldn't try to take advantage of the fact that most people think that a law is something that's absolute. To draw an analogy, imagine that science is a germophobe and intellegent design (and other anti-science movements) have cut a big gash in science's side. It's much better to stop the flow of blood with a dirty rag and risk some minor infection, than to bleed to death while trying to figure out a better solution. Playing into the common vocabulary is that dirty rag, and I really think it's worth using it if it stops some people from abandoning the sciences over religious and political issues.
I used to agree with you about the whole scientific law nomenclature issue, but since people already take laws to mean "Absolutely true" and theories to mean "Wild guesses", it makes a lot of sense to break apart the theory of evolution, and name individual components to drive home the aspects that are absolutely unquestioned by modern biologists.
I think a lot of scientists (myself included) are horrible idealists. We don't like doing things unless we can do them right. However, in times like these, it seems that taking some questionable baby steps (such as the renaming scheme I mentioned earlier) will buy us time to work towards the loftier goal of improving science literacy. We can't expect everyone to suddenly become so interested in science that the popular menaing of theory will change overnight. We can, on the other hand, play on their existing vocabularies to combat anti-scientific rhetoric in the short term.
Sorry to be off-topic, but articles like this throw around the word theory like every new hypothesis that's met with even a shred of success deserves to be called a theory. It's no wonder that so many people out there fail to realise that "It's just a theory, there's no proof" is a complete contradiction. I'm favoring, more and more, a redefinition of the terms used in biological science to match those in the physical sciences. Start calling hypotheses theories, and drop the whole "Theory" label from the theory of evolution. Teach it as a combination of evidence-driven research, and base principles (Natural Selection becomes "Darwin's Laws", Mendellian Inheritence becomes "Mendel's Laws", and so forth). Getting rid of the vague "theory" description will make it much easier to convey which parts of the modern theory of evolution should be considered fact, and which parts are still active areas of research.
That's on a list of the new features added to the Phantom.
The original name for the NES in the US was the Advanced Video System, and was a top-loading system just like all previous cartridge units. Everyone was afraid of it, because of the Atari crash, so Nintendo redesigned and renamed the system. I think that's what they are trying to do again. Small and sleak versus big and scary. Easy to remember name. It sounds like they are trying to create a new market, just like they did in the 80s. The big questions are whether or not there needs to be a new one (Atari killed the one in the 80s, so there was an obvious need there), and whether or not they can actually do it
Actually, it's more like a new sort of realism (or, atleast, it should be if EA is worth anything). The controller very accurately conveys hand movements into the game. So if they do it right, you should beable to take aim and throw (without actually having it leave your hands), and see the results of that throw on screen. It could potentially even help people improve their aim. I think it'd be better if they used a button. I had an idea for a novelty flying disk game that involved holding the A button and B trigger down, and making a gesture like you were going to throw the disc. When you let go of the A and B buttons, the representation on screen would let go of the frisby, and it would fly based upon real world physics. If your angle or timing was off, or you didn't release both buttons at the same time, it wouldn't fly as true as it should. There's a lot of potential here, and it's great that EA is atleast pretending to tap into it.
Even more telling is the fact that the PSP game is a port of a 6 year old PSX title. It's one of the better RPGs on the PSX, of course... but still, it's an aged port.
I wonder if these games listed are only the ones that Square themselves are publishing, and not necessarily all of the games Square has in development. FF:CC is supposedly a Revolution launch title, and I believe Nintendo published the first one for the GCN (although I thought that that was because of the Fund Q, which centered around games that involved GBA/GCN connectivity).
Hah.
I'm surprised that I didn't immediately assume "Turbo" meant "repeating button presses"
He was refering to the turbo button on old computers. It was essentially a button that increased the clock multiplier. I think the one on my 486 made it go from 100 to 133MHz, or 50 to 66MHz or something. It was so long ago, I don' remember.
And then there was the 286 I had. The turbo button switched it from like 10MHz to 12MHz. Or was it KHz back then?
Glorified light gun? Does 5 very natural axises of control mean anything to you? A light gun, at best, has 2 axises of control. If you've got the dexterity to manipulate two analog sticks independently of one another, then you get a maximum of 4 with traditional controllers. Hardcore gamers may have that kind of dexterity, but have you ever seen an average person try to pick up Katamari or any number of FPS games for any of the current gen systems? It's almost painful to watch. And even if you DO have that kind of dexterity, the 5 axises of motion can still add a LOT to games. I mean, imagine what the guys who made games like Ikaruga could do with that kind of freedom. I could list a number of ideas of my own, and I'm just a regular joe-shmo gamer.
There's one issue with your complaint about physics and AI - The Revolution is an extension of the GCN, an extremely streamlined games machine, while the PS3 and X360 are both using hardware that'd be more suited to a database server or something of that nature.
While the raw horsepower of Xenon and Cell may make up from the lack of branch predicting, out of order programming, and all of the other features that make AI and physics code run well, how many developers are actually going to fight with a design not meant for physics or AI calculations in order to get good results? I'd assume not many. And Game Informer is apparently pleased with Red Steel's AI, so I'm really not worried.