That makes sense... anyway for now they haven't really decided what to do with the higher level cap themselves, so I won't worry over it for at least a couple more years. However, it is currently the single greatest point of contention when it comes to people feeling ambivalent about GW2, and it may have been too early to announce the high/nonexistent level cap.
I track what Gaile says for the most part... I talk to her on Alliance Chat sometimes... and yeah lately she's been mostly put on the defensive about the issue:-/
I've put in 2000 hours on a single character alone and I have 3 at this point... as far as RPG quests go, Guild Wars's quests fall strictly into the "linear" pile. Open-ended quests such as what Elder Scrolls games have (or Fable, and to a lesser extent Bioware RPGs) are sadly nowhere to be found in GW. As an ex-alpha I've tried to suggest more open-ended quests which allowed for multiple approaches (as have others), but so far have seen nothing go in that direction. It may be that GW2 will have *less* linearity, but I have very strong doubts there it will be as open-ended as an MMORPG has the potential to be.
It would be ridiculous if other enterprises started considering a strategy like this... what incentive would there be to excel and command a higher salary if you're going to be booted on a whim if the company has some financial trouble?
The point used to be to become valuable to a company so you would STAY ON when layoffs had to happen. Now how would one go about being valuable to Circuit City, for instance?
Granted it IS Circuit City, which isn't exactly some important IT firm and more like something for college students to work at so they can pay for tuition, but even so this is business strategy that really confuses me.
Well as far as design teams are concerned, I just basically never see a single design team do a total 180 and make something 10x more creative in the same genre (let alone a sequel). So, yeah I don't expect the current design team to make GW2 much less linear than the current game.
I'm still curious to see just how the concept of a very high or nonexistent level cap is going to factor into the Guild Wars design of PVE-even-with-PVP. Considering how focused ArenaNet has been at keeping PVP a very level playing field for everyone, any levels above something like 20 or 30 I assume will provide PVE-only benefits, if anything. Gaile Gray says the high level cap was a direct result of player request, but I imagine that request came from predominately PVE players. PVP-oriented players tend to want nothing to do with PVE and many resent the two modes of gameplay being so closely related.
Guild Wars suffered more than anything from poor, linear level design. There were no open-ended quests, no two ways to go about solving a particular problem. Replaying the game with multiple characters truly amounted to doing the exact same thing all over again. That is what I hope they are able to avoid with GW2, although I think the design team would need to be replaced by another for that to happen...
I predict that the average global temperature will go up by 3000+ degrees by the year 5,000,000,000 if we maintain the current rate of PS3 usage for Folding@Home.
If the DS in the US gets a browser that would basically make it kick so much more booty than it already does that I think even Batman might give it a slot in his belt.
And yes I agree with adding rumble to make it vibrate. Then Batgirl might give it a..yah...
FFXII got stellar reviews for the most part and sold something like a million copies in one month.
It's the franchise that I think helped the Playstation dominate the N64, and has sold very well regardless of game quality (though you can find enough fans of any FF game). In terms of "the RPG mountain," there are no JRPGs out there that are strictly better (Tales of ___ia are okay, Xenosagas are basically dirt, and everything else falls in-between). Sure, Bethesda and Bioware are the kings of "Western" RPGs, but for some odd reason folks just choose to prefer JRPGs over those, individual game quality notwithstanding. That make a big difference for SONY.
Heck, I even bought a PS2 just to play FFXII because I liked what they finally did with it (disliked the previous ones:-/), but that's just me.
I'm ranty today... I also first wrote "I'm randy today..." and thankfully re-read my post before hitting submit.
XP might be the most popular gaming OS at the moment, but the video cards in most computers with XP are likely going to be upgraded simultaneously with everything else (including the OS -- to Vista). The video cards most folks have in their machines aren't so hardcore that DX10 is very critical. By far most of them don't support it anyway.
You seem to be saying that higher resolutions are the only thing the new Playstation and Xbox have to offer. Their beefier hardware allows them to do much more than just that... many more characters on-screen at the same time, more advanced lighting effects, more complicated AI scripts running simultaneously, etc. Believe me, you can notice the difference between Halo 2 and Gears of War on a 640x480 TV *very* easily. An original Xbox can't run Oblivion. PS2? Forget it, heh.
HDTVs make the new games look even nicer due to higher res, but you can still enjoy most of what the new consoles have to offer on an older TV.
With a number of previously-PS3-exclusive titles having gone multiplatform, are there any efforts to prevent this from occurring further, or is it of little concern to SCE? That is, should we expect to see more PS3-exclusives go multiplatform?
The article dwells on phrases such as "risk-taking" without really explaining what that refers to. Something might qualify as "risky" for a poor driver and as "not risky" for a highly skilled driver. On top of that, there is such as thing as driving "too cautiously" and that can be just as risky. For instance, stopping on an on-ramp and proceeding only when the adjacent lane is clear of cars rather than moving continuously and merging with traffic normally. I'd say the "stopping" is done by overly cautious drivers, but these drivers would definitely not show up in such a study as "risk-taking" people.
So, I basically don't care about what this study has to say considering how much detail is lacking in that report on it.
Hehe well since I was just pulling numbers out my arse to make a general point I don't really care what you think of my grasp of statistics. I still claim that most of the adults that said they had children and owned a game console had the game console so that their children could [also] play it. Those with consoles older than the kids are likely a minority. Also, I don't know what sort of statistician Zonk is so I don't really understand your comparison of me to him.
Not to mention that my 13% was me swagging 34% of 27%, so your "one counterexample which proves" is kinda rubbish with that in mind.
Also, the study says that the Wii sells for $250, which is "half the price of the high-end Xbox 360." Bollocks it is. $250 is half the prices of the low-end PS3. The high-end 360 is $400 if you're lazy, and $300 if you buy it at Micro Center ($100 rebate offer that's been on-off for the last 6-8 months).
Do adults that have bought consoles for their children not consider themselves as owners of a game console? Are the children the owners?
If 66% of the adults that have a console also have a child, I submit that those 66% actually bought it for their child. So, I'd say only about 13% of adults are console *users* (at least exclusively in the household).
Anyway IMO all such studies are total rubbish and seem to rely on bogus phrasing to make total BS seem plausible.
If it's a game designed with the pacing and "aim adjustment" that console FPS's have, the guy with the controller is at no disadvantage. IGN found this out by using the 360 USB controller in Halo 1 and promptly owning the mouse-and-keyboard users (of comparable skill level, of course).
UT and other mouse-and-keyboard-oriented games are designed differently because of the interface they support. If a game was meant to support both, then neither should be at any real disadvantage. Halo games I reckon would actually give the guy with the controller an advantage if they are straight ports in terms of how they're controlled and how their pacing is.
No no I mean they'll suffer from a major climate change when Yellowstone goes kaboom and slowly die out. Maybe one or two magazines will evolve through this period and become VR feeds you plug directly into your brain, but most will turn into, um, oil reserves.
This isn't the first gaming magazine I've seen go (or announce going) away. I guess it just isn't cost-effective enough to operate a gaming magazine nowadays. Sites like Gamespot, IGN, etc. are probably proving to be just too much competition. Perhaps eventually gaming magazines altogether will go the way of the dinosaur.
That's ok with me, personally. I like magazines for their exclusive screenshots and such, but otherwise they really are redundant with respect to the internet. Nowadays the only mags I find worth looking at anymore are automotive or graphics design mags. The former I subscribe to because they're cheap and have decent writing about pretty cars (and better photos than I see online). The latter are just a good resource for learning how to use graphics software, even though they are way overpriced (especialy the British mags). Plus, girls dig the graphics mags lying around. Not so much the Gamepros.
Yeah, you're probably right. The Infinium Phantom, on the other hand, was hot hot hot! It was in such demand stores stopped taking preorders. I myself ordered six of them. Gilbert Arenas I hear ordered seventeen! But sadly due to unit shortages I'm only expected to get mine in 2034.
People in general are far more passive than some of us would like to think. I don't know how many examples of people willingly accepting stuff far more damaging/extreme than DRM there have been in history (including recent), but I know that number is too huge to be optimistic.
The market doesn't always take care of everything. The better product doesn't always come out on top. The fair laws don't always get voted in favor of. One who dislikes Bush (compared to Kerry) can say "look at the president we voted in" to make a similar point.
I think I should read the to-be-published chapters once they're released. I would also like to read the scientific debate presented by those with competing theories.
Unfortunately I'm lazy:-( Also, the "dissenters" that are easiest to find online are unfortunately also the most misinformed (or disingenuous). As a result I have to be extremely diligent in discerning what is and isn't "good science" as presented by those with competing theories. It would probably be easiest to just go along with the majority that the increase in CO2 is the major culprit behind recent global warming, but I'm eager to be further convinced. I want to be able to account for the very non-steady climb in temperatures over the last 150 years as compared to the more steady climb in CO2 concentration, etc. Scientific models don't need to be perfect, but either the sources of error are enough to explain correlation below 1, or there is more to be taken into account.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL @ "add a maverick voice to the mix" I like the pun :-) Go Suns!
(yes it's offtopic)
It's only cause all of the Russian pr0n pirates distribute is so hot.
That makes sense... anyway for now they haven't really decided what to do with the higher level cap themselves, so I won't worry over it for at least a couple more years. However, it is currently the single greatest point of contention when it comes to people feeling ambivalent about GW2, and it may have been too early to announce the high/nonexistent level cap.
:-/
I track what Gaile says for the most part... I talk to her on Alliance Chat sometimes... and yeah lately she's been mostly put on the defensive about the issue
I've put in 2000 hours on a single character alone and I have 3 at this point... as far as RPG quests go, Guild Wars's quests fall strictly into the "linear" pile. Open-ended quests such as what Elder Scrolls games have (or Fable, and to a lesser extent Bioware RPGs) are sadly nowhere to be found in GW. As an ex-alpha I've tried to suggest more open-ended quests which allowed for multiple approaches (as have others), but so far have seen nothing go in that direction. It may be that GW2 will have *less* linearity, but I have very strong doubts there it will be as open-ended as an MMORPG has the potential to be.
It would be ridiculous if other enterprises started considering a strategy like this... what incentive would there be to excel and command a higher salary if you're going to be booted on a whim if the company has some financial trouble?
The point used to be to become valuable to a company so you would STAY ON when layoffs had to happen. Now how would one go about being valuable to Circuit City, for instance?
Granted it IS Circuit City, which isn't exactly some important IT firm and more like something for college students to work at so they can pay for tuition, but even so this is business strategy that really confuses me.
Well as far as design teams are concerned, I just basically never see a single design team do a total 180 and make something 10x more creative in the same genre (let alone a sequel). So, yeah I don't expect the current design team to make GW2 much less linear than the current game.
I'm still curious to see just how the concept of a very high or nonexistent level cap is going to factor into the Guild Wars design of PVE-even-with-PVP. Considering how focused ArenaNet has been at keeping PVP a very level playing field for everyone, any levels above something like 20 or 30 I assume will provide PVE-only benefits, if anything. Gaile Gray says the high level cap was a direct result of player request, but I imagine that request came from predominately PVE players. PVP-oriented players tend to want nothing to do with PVE and many resent the two modes of gameplay being so closely related. Guild Wars suffered more than anything from poor, linear level design. There were no open-ended quests, no two ways to go about solving a particular problem. Replaying the game with multiple characters truly amounted to doing the exact same thing all over again. That is what I hope they are able to avoid with GW2, although I think the design team would need to be replaced by another for that to happen...
I predict that the average global temperature will go up by 3000+ degrees by the year 5,000,000,000 if we maintain the current rate of PS3 usage for Folding@Home.
If the DS in the US gets a browser that would basically make it kick so much more booty than it already does that I think even Batman might give it a slot in his belt.
And yes I agree with adding rumble to make it vibrate. Then Batgirl might give it a..yah...
FFXII got stellar reviews for the most part and sold something like a million copies in one month.
:-/), but that's just me.
It's the franchise that I think helped the Playstation dominate the N64, and has sold very well regardless of game quality (though you can find enough fans of any FF game). In terms of "the RPG mountain," there are no JRPGs out there that are strictly better (Tales of ___ia are okay, Xenosagas are basically dirt, and everything else falls in-between). Sure, Bethesda and Bioware are the kings of "Western" RPGs, but for some odd reason folks just choose to prefer JRPGs over those, individual game quality notwithstanding. That make a big difference for SONY.
Heck, I even bought a PS2 just to play FFXII because I liked what they finally did with it (disliked the previous ones
I'm ranty today... I also first wrote "I'm randy today..." and thankfully re-read my post before hitting submit.
XP might be the most popular gaming OS at the moment, but the video cards in most computers with XP are likely going to be upgraded simultaneously with everything else (including the OS -- to Vista). The video cards most folks have in their machines aren't so hardcore that DX10 is very critical. By far most of them don't support it anyway.
Though I may have misunderstood the question...
You seem to be saying that higher resolutions are the only thing the new Playstation and Xbox have to offer. Their beefier hardware allows them to do much more than just that... many more characters on-screen at the same time, more advanced lighting effects, more complicated AI scripts running simultaneously, etc. Believe me, you can notice the difference between Halo 2 and Gears of War on a 640x480 TV *very* easily. An original Xbox can't run Oblivion. PS2? Forget it, heh.
HDTVs make the new games look even nicer due to higher res, but you can still enjoy most of what the new consoles have to offer on an older TV.
With a number of previously-PS3-exclusive titles having gone multiplatform, are there any efforts to prevent this from occurring further, or is it of little concern to SCE? That is, should we expect to see more PS3-exclusives go multiplatform?
The article dwells on phrases such as "risk-taking" without really explaining what that refers to. Something might qualify as "risky" for a poor driver and as "not risky" for a highly skilled driver. On top of that, there is such as thing as driving "too cautiously" and that can be just as risky. For instance, stopping on an on-ramp and proceeding only when the adjacent lane is clear of cars rather than moving continuously and merging with traffic normally. I'd say the "stopping" is done by overly cautious drivers, but these drivers would definitely not show up in such a study as "risk-taking" people.
So, I basically don't care about what this study has to say considering how much detail is lacking in that report on it.
Hehe well since I was just pulling numbers out my arse to make a general point I don't really care what you think of my grasp of statistics. I still claim that most of the adults that said they had children and owned a game console had the game console so that their children could [also] play it. Those with consoles older than the kids are likely a minority. Also, I don't know what sort of statistician Zonk is so I don't really understand your comparison of me to him.
Not to mention that my 13% was me swagging 34% of 27%, so your "one counterexample which proves" is kinda rubbish with that in mind.
I said 13% not 0%, or are you alone a representative sample of the internet-visiting adult population :-P
Also, the study says that the Wii sells for $250, which is "half the price of the high-end Xbox 360." Bollocks it is. $250 is half the prices of the low-end PS3. The high-end 360 is $400 if you're lazy, and $300 if you buy it at Micro Center ($100 rebate offer that's been on-off for the last 6-8 months).
This is really lame journalism.
Do adults that have bought consoles for their children not consider themselves as owners of a game console? Are the children the owners? If 66% of the adults that have a console also have a child, I submit that those 66% actually bought it for their child. So, I'd say only about 13% of adults are console *users* (at least exclusively in the household). Anyway IMO all such studies are total rubbish and seem to rely on bogus phrasing to make total BS seem plausible.
If it's a game designed with the pacing and "aim adjustment" that console FPS's have, the guy with the controller is at no disadvantage. IGN found this out by using the 360 USB controller in Halo 1 and promptly owning the mouse-and-keyboard users (of comparable skill level, of course).
UT and other mouse-and-keyboard-oriented games are designed differently because of the interface they support. If a game was meant to support both, then neither should be at any real disadvantage. Halo games I reckon would actually give the guy with the controller an advantage if they are straight ports in terms of how they're controlled and how their pacing is.
No it isn't they're all over the place. Every time I go to the mall I get the urge to pick up a chainsaw or lawnmower and just start owning.
No no I mean they'll suffer from a major climate change when Yellowstone goes kaboom and slowly die out. Maybe one or two magazines will evolve through this period and become VR feeds you plug directly into your brain, but most will turn into, um, oil reserves.
This isn't the first gaming magazine I've seen go (or announce going) away. I guess it just isn't cost-effective enough to operate a gaming magazine nowadays. Sites like Gamespot, IGN, etc. are probably proving to be just too much competition. Perhaps eventually gaming magazines altogether will go the way of the dinosaur.
That's ok with me, personally. I like magazines for their exclusive screenshots and such, but otherwise they really are redundant with respect to the internet. Nowadays the only mags I find worth looking at anymore are automotive or graphics design mags. The former I subscribe to because they're cheap and have decent writing about pretty cars (and better photos than I see online). The latter are just a good resource for learning how to use graphics software, even though they are way overpriced (especialy the British mags). Plus, girls dig the graphics mags lying around. Not so much the Gamepros.
Yeah, you're probably right. The Infinium Phantom, on the other hand, was hot hot hot! It was in such demand stores stopped taking preorders. I myself ordered six of them. Gilbert Arenas I hear ordered seventeen! But sadly due to unit shortages I'm only expected to get mine in 2034.
People in general are far more passive than some of us would like to think. I don't know how many examples of people willingly accepting stuff far more damaging/extreme than DRM there have been in history (including recent), but I know that number is too huge to be optimistic.
The market doesn't always take care of everything. The better product doesn't always come out on top. The fair laws don't always get voted in favor of. One who dislikes Bush (compared to Kerry) can say "look at the president we voted in" to make a similar point.
I think I should read the to-be-published chapters once they're released. I would also like to read the scientific debate presented by those with competing theories.
:-( Also, the "dissenters" that are easiest to find online are unfortunately also the most misinformed (or disingenuous). As a result I have to be extremely diligent in discerning what is and isn't "good science" as presented by those with competing theories. It would probably be easiest to just go along with the majority that the increase in CO2 is the major culprit behind recent global warming, but I'm eager to be further convinced. I want to be able to account for the very non-steady climb in temperatures over the last 150 years as compared to the more steady climb in CO2 concentration, etc. Scientific models don't need to be perfect, but either the sources of error are enough to explain correlation below 1, or there is more to be taken into account.
Unfortunately I'm lazy