It's reasonable, but with regards to FFXII it's a moot point. The only reason people even complain about the Zodiac Spear is that the "secret" way to get it is a sure-fire way to do so and not "waste" time with it. What about the best gun? The ribbon? There are so many high-level "uber" items that are FAR bigger pains in the arse to get than the Zodiac Spear, that to me it makes more sense to critique *that* than the spear alone.
You have like a 1/100 chance to get some of the weapons in chests, and you can always wait for the chests to respawn (travel 2 areas away) and return to try again. The sheer magnitude of such a time sink is to me a bigger deal than the Zodiac Spear. By the way, the Zodiac Spear can also be acquired via such a time sink. However, its chest has a 1/1000 chance of giving you the spear (1/10 chance appearing, 1/10 chance of giving you non-gil, 1/10 chance of giving you the Zodiac Spear if non-gil). I'm willing to bet if this were the *only* method of acquiring the item, you wouldn't hear all the complaints about Square "trying to sell the guide."
So... yeah the whole "hints at acquiring items" design is a good one, and that's where Elder Scrolls games shine, but FFXII doesn't follow that paradigm what-so-ever, with almost ANY of its awesome items.
That's what a huge number of people I know refer to the Nitendo DS as. It was a VERY successful name. After all, the Game Boy Advance line has sold how many units at this point?
And people bashing the "Game Boy" name... are you guys serious? It's the only non-ridiculous name Nintendo has come up with ever!
NES, SNES = don't count as "names" IMO. same goes for Famicom (family computer). Virtual Boy -- not a bad name but a TERRIBLE idea so whatever. N64... hah yeah right. One of the least marketable names ever. Gamecube -- certainly no better than Gameboy. It was referred to as the "GCN" for extra confusion. And last but not least, the Wii.
Gameboy isn't that bad if you think about it.
Anyway, they'll probably bring back the Gameboy name for the next generation of handhelds. Though you never know, maybe it'll be called the Pii.
Hehehe, well given the crowd *I* know, (try www.smashboards.com), SSBB is going to be a game for the HARDCORE for sure. Much more so than MP or Mario. Smash Bros is actually part of MLG's (Major League Gaming) lineup, making it "legitimately" a hardcore game while at the same time a casual one for most people. I guess that makes it like Halo, since by far most folks that buy Halo are casual players.
I still have the "NES Game Atlas" I got free with my first Nintendo Power subscription all those years ago... (it was a very good magazine back then, by the way).
It has the complete maps for the Mario Bros games, Zelda Games, Ninja Gaiden, TMNT, Mega Man, Castlevania, and maybe something else I'm forgetting.
It also had tips and tricks for various areas and bosses.
I don't know about not making it through SMB w/o the strat guide, but there was certainly a strat guide for the game, hehe.
Yeah... um... good thing it's 100% unnecessary to get the "best" weapons because the game is fully beatable with Balfonheim gear as long as you're at a decent level.
You won't do nearly everything in Oblivion or Morrowind without the strategy guides, either, but it's hardly necessary so only those wishing to "clear out" the game would bother in the first place.
What confuses ME isn't Square's design -- FFXII is a hell of a game -- but players' expectations that a game should spoon-feed you EVERYTHING that was put into it, even if it was a legit 5 years' worth of content that you have the option to engage in or not. Seriously, people might as well whine about Yiazmat's 50 million HP since most car leases don't last as long as that fight. But nobody's making you fight him if you don't feel like it. Likewise the Zodiac Spear is fun and all since it deals 9999 dmg, but it's about as useful as superstrength and eye beams in a dance competition. What sort of OCD do people need to have if they're mad that they need a guide to get "the ultimate weapon," which is just around for the sake of an ultimate weapon...
Anyway that's not a way to sell guides. People buy guides because they want *everything* in the game, or for the artwork, or I don't know what but if you want the Zodiac Spear you can log on to Gamefaqs instead of complaining about Square.
I agree the Zodiac Spear acquisition design is CRAP, but considering it's a completely miniscule and totally irrelevant part of the game, I don't understand why people care so much.
Hehehe.... hmmm Zelda 2 is quite hard for a Zelda game. Then there's Kabuki Quantum Fighter made by HAL (they should put that guy into Smash Bros btw) which is HARD (similar to the old Ninja Gaidens). Really though I bet if I looked even through my game library back home I'd find a number of old Nintendo games that were hard.
But I'm trying to think of something recent and challenging they've done... hmm... ah, F-Zero GX. That was IMO quite a difficult game in Story Mode, especially on Hard Mode.
Not at all, bro. I grew up on Nintendo and believe me there was more than enough to make someone hardcore. And certainly more hardcore than even current "hardcore" gamers consider themselves. Ninja Gaiden 1 and 2 for SNES, Gradius and Life Force -- these are OLD, and they are HARD but awesome and lots of people played the heck out of them and got very good.
SNES had plenty of challenging games that kept you playing for months because they were that good -- FFVI, Killer Instinct, etc. I still don't know a single person who has beaten Captain America and the Avengers for SNES (Genesis, yeah, but not SNES because in Genesis Captain could at least block with his shield...)
I don't think games have gotten more hardcore at all. In fact I think they've gotten *less* so in terms of challenge. How many people whined and moaned about how difficult the Ninja Gaiden for Xbox was? Those people were all spoiled by the fact that every game that's released nowadays is beatable by even remotely dedicated players. Ninja Gaiden 2 eats Xbox's NG alive in terms of difficulty on every level except Master Ninja (which was added later just for kicks, and isn't really relevant because one could have always slid the difficulty meter all the way to max in Baldur's Gate making that game impossible but who cares).
Well, race walking seems to use an even more rigorous definition for "walking" than usual (adding that the supporting leg must be straight as the torso passes over it)... so I was just sticking to definition. I figure if you look up "fastest walking human" somewhere, you'll find exactly that definition used rather than... "actual walking," whatever that could be.
If the article made a comparison to "average walking speed" then yes that would be "actual walking" as far as everyone is concerned. In any case the definition for walking is straightforward and "racewalking" is just barely within its bounds but it still is, so it's still "walking" I guess.
3 leg lengths per second is just short of the speed of the "fastest walking human"?? Somehow I doubt that. Racewalking is an Olympic even, even, and I know that some folks can do like a 6-min mile walking. Assuming a leg length is a yard, that robot would take closer to 10 minutes to walk a mile. So... it's kind of a dubious claim.
Ah, an interesting article. I really wish we had a better understanding of all the mechanisms that relate the sun to earth's climate. The sun clearly has had an effect in the past (and no reason the earth's climate should suddenly become a closed system), so whatever effect it's having now would have to simply be overshadowed by anthropogenic changes to our climate. It may well be.
In any case, there is a bit much back-and-forth going on here, with politics so mixed up in it all that, that I'm just sticking with the one thing that I know for certain and that's that the earth seems to be slowly warming and we need to both try to slow the warming as best we *can* (and that's where the political agendas start to get in the way, I reckon), and work towards adapting to this warming as a global effort.
Birds in general, yes. I wonder about certain rare birds of prey, though. I think the issue has something to do with *where* the wind energy farms happen to be located.
But, of course buildings can't be changed to something else (jelly walls would be kinda neat though). Cars... hey bud if we could change to high-speed trains instead I would be ALL FOR IT!!
How is my pointing out that some countries just can't (or maybe won't) invest the LOTS OF MONEY needed to push large-scale energy conservation an argument that those that *can* "have the right to pollute more than anyone else"?
"Rights" have nothing to do with such an issue in the first place. This is a practical problem, not a moral one.
The reason I mentioned what I did, was I wanted to point out that what is clearly a long-term global problem (global warming -- if it indeed a problem, of course) needs to have long-term global solutions, and cleaner energy in the US alone isn't such a solution nor will it be anywhere near sufficient. It's also not a solution that many developing countries can even *afford* to participate in. If global warming will create problems such as rising coast lines, increases in the spread of certain illnesses, etc., then those problems would be more efficiently tackled *directly* and in a way that the global economy suffers as little as possible so we don't end up in a major depression. I fully support investment in cost-effective clean energy (nuclear mostly). But rather than putting all money that is to be spent towards 'fighting global warming' into clean energy, I would use much of it to create international programs to help populations all over the world deal with the *effects* of global warming. Assuming, of course, that we will have to deal with them (according to.. "proponents?" of global warming, we will, and soon enough).
I guess by what I wrote you can tell that I am on the fence with global warming being anthropogenic (and will be for about 10 years, or however long it will take to make sure the Sun isn't the culprit), but it's happening and the effects are being felt in some parts of the world. Every model predicts they will worsen, although some show that the degree of this "worsening" is dependent on continued output of CO2 into the atmosphere. But if it *will* worsen, why do I hear so much about reducing carbon footprints and so little about programs to combat the spread of malaria, etc.
The investigations... perhaps. I certainly see a need for hunting down suspected terrorists, but I do understand that many of those who are tasked with the job are not fit for it. Irresponsibility certainly has no place when you are talking about making decisions and taking actions that will ruin people's lives.
Nuclear, yes. Solar... I'd like more research into R&D on how to make panels more efficient. Wind... not cost-effective at all. And it kills stupid eagles, who despite being stupid are still cool.
Vehicles... also not yet cost-effective enough. Once the technology matures enough, these will hopefully make more sense. For now they are expensive vehicles, the manufacturing process is more energy-costly than for normal vehicles of the same kind (hybrid Civic vs regular Civic, not hybrid Civic vs Hummer H2 naturally), etc.
Research into making normal internal combustion engines more efficient is also quite fruitful, by the way.
Energy-conservation initiatives are GOOD things, but there's also the reality that only countries with the LUXURY of being able to afford to invest in such initiatives will do so (at best). India, China -- these are becoming some of the world's largest sources of pollution, and unless Superman starts getting up early for work sometime soon here, I don't see their energy production becoming predominately nuclear or water/wind/solar anyt ime soon.
Also, initiatives to combat global warming aim to reduce CO2 output. CO2 is not a pollutant and so indeed, would be a FAR lower priority than actual pollutants for those who are not concerned with global warming to the extent that some are currently.
So... reducing CO2 won't make anyone's air any cleaner. Reducing other particles might, depending on what they are.
Gears of War actually has quite innovative gameplay. It doesn't feel at all like a "typical shooter." As for Halo, it is less innovative than Gears in ways but it also has a legacy that far precedes Killzone, let alone notions of a "typical shooter."
Seeing as "adults" are *arbitrarily* considered people 18+, the whole "mental" aspect is kinda moot as it's different for every person. Some are fine with war from the age of 10, others can't cope with it their whole life. Proclaiming someone an adult starting from some random day doesn't make him/her any more capable in any way whatsoever.
Anyway, until we're dealing with outright virtual reality, no game will "realistically recreate" the experience of war. If you have the same reaction to killing an enemy in a game as to taking an actual human life, you have some SERIOUS issues and making a game "adult only" isn't going to make them go away.
Ok so... that was one of the most nonsense reviews of a supposedly "AAA" title I've read in some time. The wait was worth it for a "fairly linear... basic run and gun... mini boss that was quite unremarkable..." ????? If that's all it takes PS3 owners to get super-excited about a game, then things are grim indeed.
It's a generic shooter with a fittingly generic name. Even the "favorable" review manages to make this painfully obvious.
Well, if you haven't played NG or NG Black and you're considering a PS3 for whatever reasons, then NG Sigma is most certainly a must-buy (I'd say just like Zelda: TP is a must-buy for Wii despite being on the Gamecube). It's a great game, despite not being new at all.
Though buying an original Xbox, NG Black, and a new set of tires makes more sense ^^
Ah, well I can't disagree on the lack of good games on the Wii right now. Wii sports is bundled and it's something I'd rather them take out so I could save some money when I *do* buy the system. Zelda is IMO better on GCN, and certainly not much worse (not $250 worse that's for sure).
On the other hand, those AAA titles you listed for PS3 are spanked by 360's current lineup, which might be one of the biggest problems the lineup hasn't helped the PS3 much. Resistance was almost universally rated "good but worse than Gears of War." Motorstorm looks cool but racing folks probably look(ed) towards 360 for Forza 2 and Project Gotham Racing. And NG Sigma, while A MASTERPIECE (yes I love NG and consider it the best game of the last generation), is less of a jump from its predecessor (NG Black) than NG Black was from the original NG. So... it's *definitely* not worth the price of a new console.
So, the "no games" rap is deserved (for BOTH PS3 and Wii) I think. And I'm not so confused about why the PS3 isn't selling with regards to that, I'm actually more confused about why the Wii is impossible to find in stores when there's diddly squat to play on it. Though it's a bit cheaper than some of the competition (PS2 is still in the game), I can't see it as an investment from a gamer's perspective until something like Smash Bros hits shelves.
It's doing "alright," but the Wii was launched at the same time and it's doing MUCH better.
The sheer number of games doesn't matter. The quality of the games (and marketability, etc. of course) is what makes the difference. A console can have only 10 games and still be fine if those 10 games are so awesome that everyone buys all 10. Halo 3 for MS is better than 20 crap RPG games for Sony that will barely sell. Likewise FFXIII and FFXIII Versus will do more for PS3 than 20 rubbish sports games on 360. Indeed, you are 100% correct when you mention "great exclusives," because those are key to a console's success and legacy.
And nowadays, doing "alright" for a console just isn't good enough because when these "exclusives" end up costing as much as they do, the potential sales on that console simply aren't enough to make the game profitable. Selling as many units as the PS2 did in 7 months, or even a bit more, just isn't good enough considering how much more expensive PS3 games are to produce than first-generation PS2 games were.
Oh, I know that few games require the nunchuck for multiplayer at the moment, but the Wii's going to get more games soon (and for a while, I'd hope), and I would think some good ones might require nunchucks in multiplayer. And Nintendo's controllers won't drop in price before that happens, and probably never, I'm fairly certain.
Hehehehe well not everyone lives in a state with a Wii, either. (I'm not sure if that helps my previous points or not but it's a new day and I'm sleepy)
Slashdot Mirror
It's reasonable, but with regards to FFXII it's a moot point. The only reason people even complain about the Zodiac Spear is that the "secret" way to get it is a sure-fire way to do so and not "waste" time with it. What about the best gun? The ribbon? There are so many high-level "uber" items that are FAR bigger pains in the arse to get than the Zodiac Spear, that to me it makes more sense to critique *that* than the spear alone.
You have like a 1/100 chance to get some of the weapons in chests, and you can always wait for the chests to respawn (travel 2 areas away) and return to try again. The sheer magnitude of such a time sink is to me a bigger deal than the Zodiac Spear. By the way, the Zodiac Spear can also be acquired via such a time sink. However, its chest has a 1/1000 chance of giving you the spear (1/10 chance appearing, 1/10 chance of giving you non-gil, 1/10 chance of giving you the Zodiac Spear if non-gil). I'm willing to bet if this were the *only* method of acquiring the item, you wouldn't hear all the complaints about Square "trying to sell the guide."
So... yeah the whole "hints at acquiring items" design is a good one, and that's where Elder Scrolls games shine, but FFXII doesn't follow that paradigm what-so-ever, with almost ANY of its awesome items.
That's what a huge number of people I know refer to the Nitendo DS as. It was a VERY successful name. After all, the Game Boy Advance line has sold how many units at this point?
... hah yeah right. One of the least marketable names ever.
And people bashing the "Game Boy" name... are you guys serious? It's the only non-ridiculous name Nintendo has come up with ever!
NES, SNES = don't count as "names" IMO. same goes for Famicom (family computer).
Virtual Boy -- not a bad name but a TERRIBLE idea so whatever.
N64
Gamecube -- certainly no better than Gameboy. It was referred to as the "GCN" for extra confusion.
And last but not least, the Wii.
Gameboy isn't that bad if you think about it.
Anyway, they'll probably bring back the Gameboy name for the next generation of handhelds. Though you never know, maybe it'll be called the Pii.
Hehehe, well given the crowd *I* know, (try www.smashboards.com), SSBB is going to be a game for the HARDCORE for sure. Much more so than MP or Mario. Smash Bros is actually part of MLG's (Major League Gaming) lineup, making it "legitimately" a hardcore game while at the same time a casual one for most people. I guess that makes it like Halo, since by far most folks that buy Halo are casual players.
ACTUALLY...
I still have the "NES Game Atlas" I got free with my first Nintendo Power subscription all those years ago... (it was a very good magazine back then, by the way).
It has the complete maps for the Mario Bros games, Zelda Games, Ninja Gaiden, TMNT, Mega Man, Castlevania, and maybe something else I'm forgetting.
It also had tips and tricks for various areas and bosses.
I don't know about not making it through SMB w/o the strat guide, but there was certainly a strat guide for the game, hehe.
Yeah... um... good thing it's 100% unnecessary to get the "best" weapons because the game is fully beatable with Balfonheim gear as long as you're at a decent level.
You won't do nearly everything in Oblivion or Morrowind without the strategy guides, either, but it's hardly necessary so only those wishing to "clear out" the game would bother in the first place.
What confuses ME isn't Square's design -- FFXII is a hell of a game -- but players' expectations that a game should spoon-feed you EVERYTHING that was put into it, even if it was a legit 5 years' worth of content that you have the option to engage in or not. Seriously, people might as well whine about Yiazmat's 50 million HP since most car leases don't last as long as that fight. But nobody's making you fight him if you don't feel like it. Likewise the Zodiac Spear is fun and all since it deals 9999 dmg, but it's about as useful as superstrength and eye beams in a dance competition. What sort of OCD do people need to have if they're mad that they need a guide to get "the ultimate weapon," which is just around for the sake of an ultimate weapon...
Anyway that's not a way to sell guides. People buy guides because they want *everything* in the game, or for the artwork, or I don't know what but if you want the Zodiac Spear you can log on to Gamefaqs instead of complaining about Square.
I agree the Zodiac Spear acquisition design is CRAP, but considering it's a completely miniscule and totally irrelevant part of the game, I don't understand why people care so much.
Hehehe.... hmmm Zelda 2 is quite hard for a Zelda game. Then there's Kabuki Quantum Fighter made by HAL (they should put that guy into Smash Bros btw) which is HARD (similar to the old Ninja Gaidens). Really though I bet if I looked even through my game library back home I'd find a number of old Nintendo games that were hard.
But I'm trying to think of something recent and challenging they've done... hmm... ah, F-Zero GX. That was IMO quite a difficult game in Story Mode, especially on Hard Mode.
Not at all, bro. I grew up on Nintendo and believe me there was more than enough to make someone hardcore. And certainly more hardcore than even current "hardcore" gamers consider themselves. Ninja Gaiden 1 and 2 for SNES, Gradius and Life Force -- these are OLD, and they are HARD but awesome and lots of people played the heck out of them and got very good.
SNES had plenty of challenging games that kept you playing for months because they were that good -- FFVI, Killer Instinct, etc. I still don't know a single person who has beaten Captain America and the Avengers for SNES (Genesis, yeah, but not SNES because in Genesis Captain could at least block with his shield...)
I don't think games have gotten more hardcore at all. In fact I think they've gotten *less* so in terms of challenge. How many people whined and moaned about how difficult the Ninja Gaiden for Xbox was? Those people were all spoiled by the fact that every game that's released nowadays is beatable by even remotely dedicated players. Ninja Gaiden 2 eats Xbox's NG alive in terms of difficulty on every level except Master Ninja (which was added later just for kicks, and isn't really relevant because one could have always slid the difficulty meter all the way to max in Baldur's Gate making that game impossible but who cares).
Well, race walking seems to use an even more rigorous definition for "walking" than usual (adding that the supporting leg must be straight as the torso passes over it)... so I was just sticking to definition. I figure if you look up "fastest walking human" somewhere, you'll find exactly that definition used rather than ... "actual walking," whatever that could be.
If the article made a comparison to "average walking speed" then yes that would be "actual walking" as far as everyone is concerned. In any case the definition for walking is straightforward and "racewalking" is just barely within its bounds but it still is, so it's still "walking" I guess.
3 leg lengths per second is just short of the speed of the "fastest walking human"?? Somehow I doubt that. Racewalking is an Olympic even, even, and I know that some folks can do like a 6-min mile walking. Assuming a leg length is a yard, that robot would take closer to 10 minutes to walk a mile. So... it's kind of a dubious claim.
Ah, an interesting article. I really wish we had a better understanding of all the mechanisms that relate the sun to earth's climate. The sun clearly has had an effect in the past (and no reason the earth's climate should suddenly become a closed system), so whatever effect it's having now would have to simply be overshadowed by anthropogenic changes to our climate. It may well be.
In any case, there is a bit much back-and-forth going on here, with politics so mixed up in it all that, that I'm just sticking with the one thing that I know for certain and that's that the earth seems to be slowly warming and we need to both try to slow the warming as best we *can* (and that's where the political agendas start to get in the way, I reckon), and work towards adapting to this warming as a global effort.
Birds in general, yes. I wonder about certain rare birds of prey, though. I think the issue has something to do with *where* the wind energy farms happen to be located.
But, of course buildings can't be changed to something else (jelly walls would be kinda neat though). Cars... hey bud if we could change to high-speed trains instead I would be ALL FOR IT!!
Strawman alert T_T
.. "proponents?" of global warming, we will, and soon enough).
How is my pointing out that some countries just can't (or maybe won't) invest the LOTS OF MONEY needed to push large-scale energy conservation an argument that those that *can* "have the right to pollute more than anyone else"?
"Rights" have nothing to do with such an issue in the first place. This is a practical problem, not a moral one.
The reason I mentioned what I did, was I wanted to point out that what is clearly a long-term global problem (global warming -- if it indeed a problem, of course) needs to have long-term global solutions, and cleaner energy in the US alone isn't such a solution nor will it be anywhere near sufficient. It's also not a solution that many developing countries can even *afford* to participate in. If global warming will create problems such as rising coast lines, increases in the spread of certain illnesses, etc., then those problems would be more efficiently tackled *directly* and in a way that the global economy suffers as little as possible so we don't end up in a major depression. I fully support investment in cost-effective clean energy (nuclear mostly). But rather than putting all money that is to be spent towards 'fighting global warming' into clean energy, I would use much of it to create international programs to help populations all over the world deal with the *effects* of global warming. Assuming, of course, that we will have to deal with them (according to
I guess by what I wrote you can tell that I am on the fence with global warming being anthropogenic (and will be for about 10 years, or however long it will take to make sure the Sun isn't the culprit), but it's happening and the effects are being felt in some parts of the world. Every model predicts they will worsen, although some show that the degree of this "worsening" is dependent on continued output of CO2 into the atmosphere. But if it *will* worsen, why do I hear so much about reducing carbon footprints and so little about programs to combat the spread of malaria, etc.
The investigations... perhaps. I certainly see a need for hunting down suspected terrorists, but I do understand that many of those who are tasked with the job are not fit for it. Irresponsibility certainly has no place when you are talking about making decisions and taking actions that will ruin people's lives.
Nuclear, yes. Solar... I'd like more research into R&D on how to make panels more efficient. Wind... not cost-effective at all. And it kills stupid eagles, who despite being stupid are still cool.
Vehicles... also not yet cost-effective enough. Once the technology matures enough, these will hopefully make more sense. For now they are expensive vehicles, the manufacturing process is more energy-costly than for normal vehicles of the same kind (hybrid Civic vs regular Civic, not hybrid Civic vs Hummer H2 naturally), etc.
Research into making normal internal combustion engines more efficient is also quite fruitful, by the way.
Energy-conservation initiatives are GOOD things, but there's also the reality that only countries with the LUXURY of being able to afford to invest in such initiatives will do so (at best). India, China -- these are becoming some of the world's largest sources of pollution, and unless Superman starts getting up early for work sometime soon here, I don't see their energy production becoming predominately nuclear or water/wind/solar anyt ime soon.
Also, initiatives to combat global warming aim to reduce CO2 output. CO2 is not a pollutant and so indeed, would be a FAR lower priority than actual pollutants for those who are not concerned with global warming to the extent that some are currently.
So... reducing CO2 won't make anyone's air any cleaner. Reducing other particles might, depending on what they are.
Gears of War actually has quite innovative gameplay. It doesn't feel at all like a "typical shooter." As for Halo, it is less innovative than Gears in ways but it also has a legacy that far precedes Killzone, let alone notions of a "typical shooter."
The next time a witch bombs a bus full of people coming home from work in the afternoon, I'll understand where you're coming from on that comment.
HOW ON EARTH was your comment modded "insightful"
Hmm I have both Xbox and Xbox 360 and NG Black... and for some reason NG Black lags on my 360 :-/
Seeing as "adults" are *arbitrarily* considered people 18+, the whole "mental" aspect is kinda moot as it's different for every person. Some are fine with war from the age of 10, others can't cope with it their whole life. Proclaiming someone an adult starting from some random day doesn't make him/her any more capable in any way whatsoever.
Anyway, until we're dealing with outright virtual reality, no game will "realistically recreate" the experience of war. If you have the same reaction to killing an enemy in a game as to taking an actual human life, you have some SERIOUS issues and making a game "adult only" isn't going to make them go away.
Ok so... that was one of the most nonsense reviews of a supposedly "AAA" title I've read in some time. The wait was worth it for a "fairly linear... basic run and gun... mini boss that was quite unremarkable..." ????? If that's all it takes PS3 owners to get super-excited about a game, then things are grim indeed.
It's a generic shooter with a fittingly generic name. Even the "favorable" review manages to make this painfully obvious.
So you're saying it's a bundle for idiots.
Well, if you haven't played NG or NG Black and you're considering a PS3 for whatever reasons, then NG Sigma is most certainly a must-buy (I'd say just like Zelda: TP is a must-buy for Wii despite being on the Gamecube). It's a great game, despite not being new at all.
Though buying an original Xbox, NG Black, and a new set of tires makes more sense ^^
Ah, well I can't disagree on the lack of good games on the Wii right now. Wii sports is bundled and it's something I'd rather them take out so I could save some money when I *do* buy the system. Zelda is IMO better on GCN, and certainly not much worse (not $250 worse that's for sure).
On the other hand, those AAA titles you listed for PS3 are spanked by 360's current lineup, which might be one of the biggest problems the lineup hasn't helped the PS3 much. Resistance was almost universally rated "good but worse than Gears of War." Motorstorm looks cool but racing folks probably look(ed) towards 360 for Forza 2 and Project Gotham Racing. And NG Sigma, while A MASTERPIECE (yes I love NG and consider it the best game of the last generation), is less of a jump from its predecessor (NG Black) than NG Black was from the original NG. So... it's *definitely* not worth the price of a new console.
So, the "no games" rap is deserved (for BOTH PS3 and Wii) I think. And I'm not so confused about why the PS3 isn't selling with regards to that, I'm actually more confused about why the Wii is impossible to find in stores when there's diddly squat to play on it. Though it's a bit cheaper than some of the competition (PS2 is still in the game), I can't see it as an investment from a gamer's perspective until something like Smash Bros hits shelves.
It's doing "alright," but the Wii was launched at the same time and it's doing MUCH better.
The sheer number of games doesn't matter. The quality of the games (and marketability, etc. of course) is what makes the difference. A console can have only 10 games and still be fine if those 10 games are so awesome that everyone buys all 10. Halo 3 for MS is better than 20 crap RPG games for Sony that will barely sell. Likewise FFXIII and FFXIII Versus will do more for PS3 than 20 rubbish sports games on 360. Indeed, you are 100% correct when you mention "great exclusives," because those are key to a console's success and legacy.
And nowadays, doing "alright" for a console just isn't good enough because when these "exclusives" end up costing as much as they do, the potential sales on that console simply aren't enough to make the game profitable. Selling as many units as the PS2 did in 7 months, or even a bit more, just isn't good enough considering how much more expensive PS3 games are to produce than first-generation PS2 games were.
Oh, I know that few games require the nunchuck for multiplayer at the moment, but the Wii's going to get more games soon (and for a while, I'd hope), and I would think some good ones might require nunchucks in multiplayer. And Nintendo's controllers won't drop in price before that happens, and probably never, I'm fairly certain.
Hehehehe well not everyone lives in a state with a Wii, either. (I'm not sure if that helps my previous points or not but it's a new day and I'm sleepy)