Here's a quick brain teaser: what's the difference between playing with your friends online and playing with your friends right next to you? Try to answer that question without just restating the question and you might have trouble...or you might not, depending on how you play online.
Here's an easier question: in terms of the actual experience, what's the difference between playing against a person and playing against bots? You can actually talk to a person, and that's it. Bots may not be quite as smart as human players, but in the middle of the game, you're not going to be thinking about that.
So for online gaming to really be worthwhile, at least in my opinion, it's got to be something like Xbox Live that lets you talk to other players. People always say gaming isn't a social experience, but it can be if we make it one.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Friday, July 13, 2007
Public Relations
While I put unity over my own opinions, I do have opinions. Very strong ones. For example, I hate Sony. It wasn't always this way; I've hated Sony for only about a year now. It all started at last year's E3, when Sony announced that the PS3 controller would have motion-sensing. This announcement generated tons of backlash for Sony, because it was a clear rip-off of Nintendo's Wii Remote. Then came the comments about how you're not a true gamer if you don't work a second job to afford a PS3 and that people would buy it even without any launch games. People do not like being taken advantage of, as the negative response to these comments showed.
It's all gone downhill from there, with racist billboards and bloody sheep carcasses, among many other things. It was enough to stop me and many other people from purchasing a PS3; while I wanted one pre-E3, I wanted a 360 post-E3 (I wanted a Wii from the beginning, and it was the first of the three that I got; I got a 360 later). Sony needs to remember that a high price point and lack of games will stop someone from buying your console at first, but bad PR will stop people like me from buying your console at all.
It's all gone downhill from there, with racist billboards and bloody sheep carcasses, among many other things. It was enough to stop me and many other people from purchasing a PS3; while I wanted one pre-E3, I wanted a 360 post-E3 (I wanted a Wii from the beginning, and it was the first of the three that I got; I got a 360 later). Sony needs to remember that a high price point and lack of games will stop someone from buying your console at first, but bad PR will stop people like me from buying your console at all.
(Price) cut, that's not a wrap
It was a shock to some when Sony cut the price of the PS3; others expected it. It certainly drove up sales...at first. But Sony made two crucial errors and two non-crucial error in the price cut that I predict will keep it from making a long-term impact.
The first crucial error was that they only cut the price to 500 dollars. 500 dollars is still 100 dollars more than the Xbox 360 Premium, and with Blu-ray players becoming cheaper, that angle won't convince people much longer. It's also double the price of Wii, which is still killing the PS3 in sales and gaining on the 360. Also, the 360 and Wii are likely to get price cuts in the near future as well, so this may not make a whole lot of difference for long.
Second, they released the 80 gigabyte version at the original price of 600 bucks. That means the now-500 dollar unit has become the "gimped" version, and that may push it in the direction of the version that originally cost 500. Furthermore, Kaz Hirai said they're going to phase out the 60 GB version. If that's the case, people will once again have to pay 600 bucks for a PS3.
The first non-crucial error was bundling a game with the 80 GB version. The biggest reason why this is a problem is that Nintendo already did it; copying Nintendo the first time around made Sony look really bad. That's one aspect. The other is that looking at game sales in Japan will tell you that bundling Wii Sports with Wii probably didn't make a huge difference; they didn't bundle it in Japan and it's been one of the top selling games over there since launch.
The second non-crucial error was not extending this price cut to Europe. I say it's a non-crucial error because North America and Japan (which got a price cut right at the beginning) are bigger markets (especially combined) than Europe. That said, bundling a game with the system in Europe will not boost sales as much as a price cut would, and that was a mistake.
I say this not to incite a flame war; that's the LAST thing I want to do. I say it because I want to quell the flame wars that the price cut no doubt started; this post doesn't say that the PS3 is doomed, only that I don't believe it's in a significantly better place than it was before.
What value do my predictions hold, you ask? After last year's E3 I predicted that the high price, Sony's PR (see my last post), and focus on Blu-ray over games would hurt the PS3's sales. Now that it's out, it's trailing far behind its competitors. True, that was an obvious prediction, but not so obvious that a lot of people didn't disagree with me.
(
The first crucial error was that they only cut the price to 500 dollars. 500 dollars is still 100 dollars more than the Xbox 360 Premium, and with Blu-ray players becoming cheaper, that angle won't convince people much longer. It's also double the price of Wii, which is still killing the PS3 in sales and gaining on the 360. Also, the 360 and Wii are likely to get price cuts in the near future as well, so this may not make a whole lot of difference for long.
Second, they released the 80 gigabyte version at the original price of 600 bucks. That means the now-500 dollar unit has become the "gimped" version, and that may push it in the direction of the version that originally cost 500. Furthermore, Kaz Hirai said they're going to phase out the 60 GB version. If that's the case, people will once again have to pay 600 bucks for a PS3.
The first non-crucial error was bundling a game with the 80 GB version. The biggest reason why this is a problem is that Nintendo already did it; copying Nintendo the first time around made Sony look really bad. That's one aspect. The other is that looking at game sales in Japan will tell you that bundling Wii Sports with Wii probably didn't make a huge difference; they didn't bundle it in Japan and it's been one of the top selling games over there since launch.
The second non-crucial error was not extending this price cut to Europe. I say it's a non-crucial error because North America and Japan (which got a price cut right at the beginning) are bigger markets (especially combined) than Europe. That said, bundling a game with the system in Europe will not boost sales as much as a price cut would, and that was a mistake.
I say this not to incite a flame war; that's the LAST thing I want to do. I say it because I want to quell the flame wars that the price cut no doubt started; this post doesn't say that the PS3 is doomed, only that I don't believe it's in a significantly better place than it was before.
What value do my predictions hold, you ask? After last year's E3 I predicted that the high price, Sony's PR (see my last post), and focus on Blu-ray over games would hurt the PS3's sales. Now that it's out, it's trailing far behind its competitors. True, that was an obvious prediction, but not so obvious that a lot of people didn't disagree with me.
(
Thursday, July 5, 2007
DarkDiamond
If you like my stuff, you might be interested to know that I am now blogging on darkdiamond.com, a video game and anime blog. The content will mostly be the same stuff I post here, but I will no longer be updating my 1up.com blog because 2 is enough.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
PS3 and Blu-ray: A Match Made in Heaven?
IMPORTANT: I have nothing against the Playstation 3 or Blu-ray. Never having played the PS3 or watched a movie on Blu-ray, I really COULDN'T have anything against them. My statements about the PS3's current sales are based on the numbers as I know them, not my opinions or any data that I can directly and personally confirm. This is purely objective, from an economic standpoint, not from a gaming standpoint.
It certainly looks like Blu-ray is winning the format wars, which is exactly what Sony's Playstation division wanted. Sony has been reasoning all along that the success of Blu-ray would help the PS3, and their reasoning was relatively sound. However, now that both have been around for a while, we see Blu-ray with strong success and the PS3 trailing its competitors. Why?
I believe Sony was hoping Blu-ray and the PS3 would help each other, but it only ended up working one way: the PS3 helped Blu-ray, but Blu-ray didn't help the PS3. I believe Sony's mistake rests in the branding: rather than calling this device the Playstation 3, they should have given it a new name to separate it from its video game-focused predecessors. Why? Well, the only way someone can know that the PS3 plays Blu-ray movies is to seek information about it, but if you're not interested in a video game console, you're probably not going to check out the details. As such, to non-gamers, the PS3 is just a 600 dollar video game console. Advertising certainly helps bring the news to some, but for everyone else, Playstation=video game console.
Can I prove my theory? Of course not; I haven't conducted a mass survey or anything like that. However, price has always been labeled as the biggest factor hurting the PS3. The price is bad for a video game console, but not for a Blu-ray player. That indicates that people are primarily looking at it as a video game console; if they weren't, the price wouldn't turn them off.
It's understandable that Sony wouldn't want to give up the Playstation brand, but if that's the case, they should have left out the Blu-ray. If they did, while Blu-ray would have slightly less support, the PS3 would have much more because it would be cheaper. It seems Sony is beginning to realize that its functionality as a Blu-ray player is not selling the PS3, given that they've released a Blu-ray player that's cheaper than the console. Now they have to find a way to make the console much cheaper. Even analysts who predict the PS3 will win the console wars tend to base that prediction on the system having a massive price cut; if Sony doesn't deliver, it will turn out very differently.
Designing their console in part to sell another product was a mistake, one from which they seem to have learned. Now they have to rectify it in order for the PS3 to be as successful as they want it to be. They can't offer an alternate model without Blu-ray, because games are also on Blu-ray discs, so they'll have to figure out something else.
It certainly looks like Blu-ray is winning the format wars, which is exactly what Sony's Playstation division wanted. Sony has been reasoning all along that the success of Blu-ray would help the PS3, and their reasoning was relatively sound. However, now that both have been around for a while, we see Blu-ray with strong success and the PS3 trailing its competitors. Why?
I believe Sony was hoping Blu-ray and the PS3 would help each other, but it only ended up working one way: the PS3 helped Blu-ray, but Blu-ray didn't help the PS3. I believe Sony's mistake rests in the branding: rather than calling this device the Playstation 3, they should have given it a new name to separate it from its video game-focused predecessors. Why? Well, the only way someone can know that the PS3 plays Blu-ray movies is to seek information about it, but if you're not interested in a video game console, you're probably not going to check out the details. As such, to non-gamers, the PS3 is just a 600 dollar video game console. Advertising certainly helps bring the news to some, but for everyone else, Playstation=video game console.
Can I prove my theory? Of course not; I haven't conducted a mass survey or anything like that. However, price has always been labeled as the biggest factor hurting the PS3. The price is bad for a video game console, but not for a Blu-ray player. That indicates that people are primarily looking at it as a video game console; if they weren't, the price wouldn't turn them off.
It's understandable that Sony wouldn't want to give up the Playstation brand, but if that's the case, they should have left out the Blu-ray. If they did, while Blu-ray would have slightly less support, the PS3 would have much more because it would be cheaper. It seems Sony is beginning to realize that its functionality as a Blu-ray player is not selling the PS3, given that they've released a Blu-ray player that's cheaper than the console. Now they have to find a way to make the console much cheaper. Even analysts who predict the PS3 will win the console wars tend to base that prediction on the system having a massive price cut; if Sony doesn't deliver, it will turn out very differently.
Designing their console in part to sell another product was a mistake, one from which they seem to have learned. Now they have to rectify it in order for the PS3 to be as successful as they want it to be. They can't offer an alternate model without Blu-ray, because games are also on Blu-ray discs, so they'll have to figure out something else.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Back to our Roots
Let's check a trend, shall we?
Gamerankings scores by series, from old to new
Super Mario World: 96.7
Super Mario 64: 95.7
Super Mario Sunshine: 91.5
Sonic the Hedgehog 3: 97.5
Sonic Adventure: 87.2
Sonic Heroes: 74.4 (highest; xbox version)
Sonic and the Secret Rings: 70.8
Sonic the Hedgehog 2006: 46.2 (highest; xbox 360 version)
Soul Calibur: 96.4
Soul Calibur 2: 92.5 (highest; Gamecube version)
Soul Calibur 3: 86.5
Star Fox: 85.8
Star Fox 64: 89.8
Star Fox Assault: 70.8
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2: 94.9 (highest; Dreamcast version)
Tony Hawk's Underground: 90.9 (highest; PS2 version)
Tony Hawk's Project 8: 82 (highest; Xbox 360 version)
Pokemon Blue: 88.3
Pokemon Silver: 91.1
Pokemon Ruby: 83.8
Pokemon Diamond: 84.8
Notice the trend? Each new generation nets lower and lower scores for these popular franchises. Pokemon is the exception; we'll get to that later. Now think about this: New Super Mario Bros. and Sonic Rush were hailed for sticking to the roots of their franchises.
New technology creates great new opportunities. Sometimes they can be beneficial, like the jump to 3D in Super Mario 64 (one of the most popular in the series even though it didn't score as high as Super Mario World); other times it can be harmful, like touch screen control for Super Mario 64 DS. However, Super Mario 64 was a rare case. Generally, straying too far from a franchise's roots is not a good thing. On the flip side, staying too close to its roots hurt Pokemon Diamond and Pearl. Still, because they didn't change drastically, the games got higher review scores than Sonic the Hedgehog, Tony Hawk's Project 8, and Star Fox Assault.
I also want to point out that Pokemon Silver and Star Fox 64 did better than their predecessors. These two games didn't add anything drastically new to their series', but they made use of new technology for strong benefits: Star Fox 64 got detailed, true 3D graphics and Pokemon Silver got color. That seems to be the best way to implement new technology.
Gamerankings scores by series, from old to new
Super Mario World: 96.7
Super Mario 64: 95.7
Super Mario Sunshine: 91.5
Sonic the Hedgehog 3: 97.5
Sonic Adventure: 87.2
Sonic Heroes: 74.4 (highest; xbox version)
Sonic and the Secret Rings: 70.8
Sonic the Hedgehog 2006: 46.2 (highest; xbox 360 version)
Soul Calibur: 96.4
Soul Calibur 2: 92.5 (highest; Gamecube version)
Soul Calibur 3: 86.5
Star Fox: 85.8
Star Fox 64: 89.8
Star Fox Assault: 70.8
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2: 94.9 (highest; Dreamcast version)
Tony Hawk's Underground: 90.9 (highest; PS2 version)
Tony Hawk's Project 8: 82 (highest; Xbox 360 version)
Pokemon Blue: 88.3
Pokemon Silver: 91.1
Pokemon Ruby: 83.8
Pokemon Diamond: 84.8
Notice the trend? Each new generation nets lower and lower scores for these popular franchises. Pokemon is the exception; we'll get to that later. Now think about this: New Super Mario Bros. and Sonic Rush were hailed for sticking to the roots of their franchises.
New technology creates great new opportunities. Sometimes they can be beneficial, like the jump to 3D in Super Mario 64 (one of the most popular in the series even though it didn't score as high as Super Mario World); other times it can be harmful, like touch screen control for Super Mario 64 DS. However, Super Mario 64 was a rare case. Generally, straying too far from a franchise's roots is not a good thing. On the flip side, staying too close to its roots hurt Pokemon Diamond and Pearl. Still, because they didn't change drastically, the games got higher review scores than Sonic the Hedgehog, Tony Hawk's Project 8, and Star Fox Assault.
I also want to point out that Pokemon Silver and Star Fox 64 did better than their predecessors. These two games didn't add anything drastically new to their series', but they made use of new technology for strong benefits: Star Fox 64 got detailed, true 3D graphics and Pokemon Silver got color. That seems to be the best way to implement new technology.
A Gamer's Suggestions
I'm not an expert in business no matter how you slice it, but I am an expert in video games. On that note, I'm going to look at the biggest problem plaguing each console maker right now and give my thoughts on them. You may think it's pointless, and it may be, but I have a pretty good track record with video game-related predictions.
Sony's problem is obvious: people do not want to pay 600 dollars for a video game console. Sony's attempts to counter this problem are certainly true; it is cheap for a Blu-ray player, and it certainly does have the potential to last a long time. The problem is that the average consumer doesn't read gaming news sites and doesn't think about these benefits. The average consumer just sees a 600 dollar video game console. If a price cut is not economically viable for Sony right now, they should bring their defense to the public somehow. If they can dissuade the average consumer from seeing nothing but a 600 dollar game console, they might be more successful.
Nintendo's problem doesn't lie with the average consumer, but with the hardcore gamers. Now, I'm a hardcore gamer and I absolutely love my Wii, so I don't really agree with these concerns, but they certainly exist. On that note, Nintendo needs more hardcore games to snag the hardcore gamers. I suggest they get a move on with Project H.A.M.M.E.R. and Metroid Prime 3. They're certainly getting started, but they need to pick it up.
Microsoft is doing great in North America, and pretty good in Europe, but it's lacking in Japan. Japanese gamers like RPGs, plain and simple. When popular Japanese gaming magazine Famitsu polled its readers to get the top 10 video games of all time just a couple years ago, the only game on the list not made by RPG giant Square-Enix (or one of its two parts) was The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time at number 10. So Microsoft needs more RPGs to snag Japan. Blue Dragon was good, but they need more. Microsoft, keep working with publishers.
Sony's problem is obvious: people do not want to pay 600 dollars for a video game console. Sony's attempts to counter this problem are certainly true; it is cheap for a Blu-ray player, and it certainly does have the potential to last a long time. The problem is that the average consumer doesn't read gaming news sites and doesn't think about these benefits. The average consumer just sees a 600 dollar video game console. If a price cut is not economically viable for Sony right now, they should bring their defense to the public somehow. If they can dissuade the average consumer from seeing nothing but a 600 dollar game console, they might be more successful.
Nintendo's problem doesn't lie with the average consumer, but with the hardcore gamers. Now, I'm a hardcore gamer and I absolutely love my Wii, so I don't really agree with these concerns, but they certainly exist. On that note, Nintendo needs more hardcore games to snag the hardcore gamers. I suggest they get a move on with Project H.A.M.M.E.R. and Metroid Prime 3. They're certainly getting started, but they need to pick it up.
Microsoft is doing great in North America, and pretty good in Europe, but it's lacking in Japan. Japanese gamers like RPGs, plain and simple. When popular Japanese gaming magazine Famitsu polled its readers to get the top 10 video games of all time just a couple years ago, the only game on the list not made by RPG giant Square-Enix (or one of its two parts) was The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time at number 10. So Microsoft needs more RPGs to snag Japan. Blue Dragon was good, but they need more. Microsoft, keep working with publishers.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Video Game Companies can Learn from Comic Companies
Competition is at the very heart of capitalism. We as gamers should be glad that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are trying to beat each other because that ensures we'll get the highest quality gaming experience. The problem is, sometimes the competition goes beyond the realm of business. Gamers are certainly more responsible for the console wars problem than the game companies, but representatives of the Big Three make comments that don't exactly help matters.
They're totally different from another well-known set of rivals: Marvel and DC Comics. Probably the two biggest comic book companies around, they are in fierce competition for readership. But there's no bad blood between them; in fact, they often publish cross-overs featuring characters owned by both companies. Now imagine the video game equivalent of that: an official, retail-sold game featuring Mario, Master Chief, and Kratos. Ok, I'll give you a second to stop laughing.
It's preposterous, of course; Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft would NEVER work together like that. But why not? Why are video game companies so different from comic companies? Why is it that Link will never meet Jak or Kameo, but Superman has met Spiderman at least twice?
Maybe crossovers are taking it a little too far; baby steps at first, right? So here's a challenge to the Big Three: try being friendlier with each other. Poke fun at each other playfully. Bungie, a second-party developer for Microsoft, has provided a good example. When Shigeru Miyamoto said he could have made a game like Halo but decided on a different path, many people, including people at Bungie, took the comment as Shiggy dismissing Halo's quality and success. I don't think that's what he meant at all; Reggie is the only guy at Nintendo who's big on the trash talk. But Bungie responded by saying they're working on a side-scrolling game featuring two brothers who are plumbers. That's a friendly jab; it's a good start.
Who knows; if the Big Three start playing nice with each other, we may see a day when the "console wars" don't matter. Who knows; we may even see Ratchet and Joanna Dark in a future Super Smash Bros. game.
They're totally different from another well-known set of rivals: Marvel and DC Comics. Probably the two biggest comic book companies around, they are in fierce competition for readership. But there's no bad blood between them; in fact, they often publish cross-overs featuring characters owned by both companies. Now imagine the video game equivalent of that: an official, retail-sold game featuring Mario, Master Chief, and Kratos. Ok, I'll give you a second to stop laughing.
It's preposterous, of course; Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft would NEVER work together like that. But why not? Why are video game companies so different from comic companies? Why is it that Link will never meet Jak or Kameo, but Superman has met Spiderman at least twice?
Maybe crossovers are taking it a little too far; baby steps at first, right? So here's a challenge to the Big Three: try being friendlier with each other. Poke fun at each other playfully. Bungie, a second-party developer for Microsoft, has provided a good example. When Shigeru Miyamoto said he could have made a game like Halo but decided on a different path, many people, including people at Bungie, took the comment as Shiggy dismissing Halo's quality and success. I don't think that's what he meant at all; Reggie is the only guy at Nintendo who's big on the trash talk. But Bungie responded by saying they're working on a side-scrolling game featuring two brothers who are plumbers. That's a friendly jab; it's a good start.
Who knows; if the Big Three start playing nice with each other, we may see a day when the "console wars" don't matter. Who knows; we may even see Ratchet and Joanna Dark in a future Super Smash Bros. game.
Fortune Faded
First of all, for those who didn't know, "Fortune Faded" is the name of a song by Red Hot Chili Peppers.
The gaming world has, or at least its blog comments and message boards have, been filled with talk about the cover of a recent issue of Fortune magazine. The cover shows a silhouette of a hand holding a Wii Remote with the words "How Wii Won". Needless to say, many gamers are outraged, as the console wars are not over yet (in fact, they've just begun). As you know if you've been reading this blog, I'm against "console wars" anyway, but I agree that it's way too early, as far as gamers are concerned, to declare a winner.
But as far as Fortune is concerned, the timing is perfect. Gamers shouldn't get mad or excited about what Fortune says, because Fortune is not a gaming magazine. Fortune doesn't cover games, features, or variety; they cover business. And from a business standpoint, Wii certainly is the winner. That doesn't mean it will sell the most consoles or have the best games; again, Fortune doesn't care about that. They care that Wii is cheap to produce, selling well, and netting Nintendo a profit for each system sold. The way Fortune is looking at it, what they're saying is totally true.
Don't look at the Fortune cover as the magazine's view on the console wars as gamers know them, because that's not what it's saying.
The gaming world has, or at least its blog comments and message boards have, been filled with talk about the cover of a recent issue of Fortune magazine. The cover shows a silhouette of a hand holding a Wii Remote with the words "How Wii Won". Needless to say, many gamers are outraged, as the console wars are not over yet (in fact, they've just begun). As you know if you've been reading this blog, I'm against "console wars" anyway, but I agree that it's way too early, as far as gamers are concerned, to declare a winner.
But as far as Fortune is concerned, the timing is perfect. Gamers shouldn't get mad or excited about what Fortune says, because Fortune is not a gaming magazine. Fortune doesn't cover games, features, or variety; they cover business. And from a business standpoint, Wii certainly is the winner. That doesn't mean it will sell the most consoles or have the best games; again, Fortune doesn't care about that. They care that Wii is cheap to produce, selling well, and netting Nintendo a profit for each system sold. The way Fortune is looking at it, what they're saying is totally true.
Don't look at the Fortune cover as the magazine's view on the console wars as gamers know them, because that's not what it's saying.
Add-ons Never Win
It is completely against the point of this blog for me to defend one video game company over another under normal circumstances. However, I've been hearing something a lot that is severely unfair to one such company, and unlike with most similar cases, I haven't seen a lot of defense. That's why, in the interest of balance, I'm going to present the reason why I believe the SNES Playstation would have failed.
First, a little background for those who need it. The Playstation was originally the result of Nintendo working with Sony to create a CD add-on for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES). At some point, however, the deal fell through and Sony instead turned Playstation into a new, standalone console themselves. When the Playstation greatly outsold the Nintendo 64, people started forming the conclusion that Nintendo brought its own demise by severing the deal with Sony. They believe that if Nintendo had stuck with it, Sony would not be a competitor and Nintendo would have continued to rule the industry. Now, they reason, Nintendo is paying for its mistake.
But that belief completely contradicts what video game history has told us: add-ons never win. Sega's equivalent of the original Playstation concept, the Sega CD, is a good example. The Sega CD (or Sega Mega CD depending on your region) is known for Sonic CD and a lot of terrible FMV-based games (look up "Night Trap" if you don't know what I mean). Sony's own EyeToy, while successful by peripheral standards, did not sell all that well overall. Nintendo's 64DD, a disk-based add-on for the N64, only came out in Japan and was not even very popular there. Therefore, the odds of the SNES Playstation being a success were pretty low. If nothing else, I think everyone can agree on that point.
So if the SNES Playstation failed, would Sony just give up on video games? Not likely. There is certainly the possibility that Sony would leave the video game business, but with the industry growing at the time, it's not likely. I believe, in the face of the SNES Playstation failing, Sony would decide to make its own console anyway. Sony's a huge company; they could afford the experiment.
Meanwhile, Nintendo is not and has never been "dead." While the N64 and Gamecube didn't sell as well as Sony's counterparts, they sold considerably and crushed their Sega counterparts. With the recent success of the DS and Wii, Nintendo is doing fine. To say Nintendo was dead because Sony's products sold better would be like saying Sony's dead because the PS3 and PSP aren't doing as well as their Nintendo counterparts.
The point is, it's unfair to say that Nintendo acted stupidly in severing its deal with Sony. The deal would probably have been disastrous for Nintendo, and Sony wouldn't give up easily.
First, a little background for those who need it. The Playstation was originally the result of Nintendo working with Sony to create a CD add-on for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES). At some point, however, the deal fell through and Sony instead turned Playstation into a new, standalone console themselves. When the Playstation greatly outsold the Nintendo 64, people started forming the conclusion that Nintendo brought its own demise by severing the deal with Sony. They believe that if Nintendo had stuck with it, Sony would not be a competitor and Nintendo would have continued to rule the industry. Now, they reason, Nintendo is paying for its mistake.
But that belief completely contradicts what video game history has told us: add-ons never win. Sega's equivalent of the original Playstation concept, the Sega CD, is a good example. The Sega CD (or Sega Mega CD depending on your region) is known for Sonic CD and a lot of terrible FMV-based games (look up "Night Trap" if you don't know what I mean). Sony's own EyeToy, while successful by peripheral standards, did not sell all that well overall. Nintendo's 64DD, a disk-based add-on for the N64, only came out in Japan and was not even very popular there. Therefore, the odds of the SNES Playstation being a success were pretty low. If nothing else, I think everyone can agree on that point.
So if the SNES Playstation failed, would Sony just give up on video games? Not likely. There is certainly the possibility that Sony would leave the video game business, but with the industry growing at the time, it's not likely. I believe, in the face of the SNES Playstation failing, Sony would decide to make its own console anyway. Sony's a huge company; they could afford the experiment.
Meanwhile, Nintendo is not and has never been "dead." While the N64 and Gamecube didn't sell as well as Sony's counterparts, they sold considerably and crushed their Sega counterparts. With the recent success of the DS and Wii, Nintendo is doing fine. To say Nintendo was dead because Sony's products sold better would be like saying Sony's dead because the PS3 and PSP aren't doing as well as their Nintendo counterparts.
The point is, it's unfair to say that Nintendo acted stupidly in severing its deal with Sony. The deal would probably have been disastrous for Nintendo, and Sony wouldn't give up easily.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Take Reviews Lightly
I've played a lot of games lately, most of which I've liked. Three recently-played games I enjoyed are particularly notable: Red Steel (Wii), Shadow the Hedgehog (various), and Deep Labyrinth (DS).
Why are they notable? Because they all got awful reviews. If I had let the reviews stop me from trying them, I'd be missing out on a whole lot of fun. True, Shadow and Deep Labyrinth aren't the greatest games out there, but I like them much more than reviewers seem to. As for Red Steel, I absolutely love it.
Even if you disagree with my liking those games, I hope my point is clear: don't let reviews scare you away from a game you think you'll like. If it looks good to you, try it. If you don't want to waste money on a game you might not like, I reccommend Gamefly; it's a great value. You've got very little to lose. And if you're sure you'll like a game despite what reviews say, just buy it; that's what I did with Red Steel, and I don't regret it at all.
Similarly, don't waste money on a game that doesn't appeal to you just because it gets good reviews. I never had much interest in Final Fantasy VII, but since everyone raves about it, I decided to give it a try. The result? I absolutely hated it. Don't get me wrong; it's good to try games outside your normal favorites, but don't rush out to buy a game just because it's greatly hyped.
Reviews are ultimately one person's opinion, and even if reviewers do their best to take an objective look at a game, it's impossible for them to take every gamer's tastes into account. Nobody has a better idea of what you'll like than you do, so if you think you're going to like a game, give it a try.
Here's a good example of reviews not reflecting the average gamer: Pokemon Mystery Dungeon got awful reviews from pretty much every source, but it sold extremely well. On the flip side, Psychonauts got excellent reviews but did not sell as well as one would think. I enjoyed both games (Psychonauts more than PMD), and I played them before hearing any reviews or reading any sales stats.
So clearly, reviews aren't always right. Trust yourself, and you'll get the most out of your gaming experience.
Why are they notable? Because they all got awful reviews. If I had let the reviews stop me from trying them, I'd be missing out on a whole lot of fun. True, Shadow and Deep Labyrinth aren't the greatest games out there, but I like them much more than reviewers seem to. As for Red Steel, I absolutely love it.
Even if you disagree with my liking those games, I hope my point is clear: don't let reviews scare you away from a game you think you'll like. If it looks good to you, try it. If you don't want to waste money on a game you might not like, I reccommend Gamefly; it's a great value. You've got very little to lose. And if you're sure you'll like a game despite what reviews say, just buy it; that's what I did with Red Steel, and I don't regret it at all.
Similarly, don't waste money on a game that doesn't appeal to you just because it gets good reviews. I never had much interest in Final Fantasy VII, but since everyone raves about it, I decided to give it a try. The result? I absolutely hated it. Don't get me wrong; it's good to try games outside your normal favorites, but don't rush out to buy a game just because it's greatly hyped.
Reviews are ultimately one person's opinion, and even if reviewers do their best to take an objective look at a game, it's impossible for them to take every gamer's tastes into account. Nobody has a better idea of what you'll like than you do, so if you think you're going to like a game, give it a try.
Here's a good example of reviews not reflecting the average gamer: Pokemon Mystery Dungeon got awful reviews from pretty much every source, but it sold extremely well. On the flip side, Psychonauts got excellent reviews but did not sell as well as one would think. I enjoyed both games (Psychonauts more than PMD), and I played them before hearing any reviews or reading any sales stats.
So clearly, reviews aren't always right. Trust yourself, and you'll get the most out of your gaming experience.
Sigh...Console Wars Again
Sorry it's been so long; between homework and my new job, I haven't had much time. Since my last post, I've compiled a long list of topics I'd like to cover. But after reading some comments at QJ.net, my gaming news site of choice (despite its average user base), I felt the need to revisit an old topic first. It was originally a comment to an article on QJ about the creator of Folding@Home discussing the possibility of putting the project on the Xbox 360. The article ended with a claim that the noble cause of Folding@Home is "worthy enough to break even the toughest fanboyism." Here's what I had to say:
Regarding the last sentence of this article: sadly, NOTHING is "worthy enough to break even the toughest fanboyism." Want proof? Look at the other comments to this article.
Fanboyism and its brother, the console wars, are more destructive to gamers than Jack Thompson and Uwe Boll combined. They take the fun out of gaming, as we care more about competition than enjoying our games. We as gamers must stop this competitive nonsense before it gets as ridiculous and all-encompassing as the battle between Democrats and Republicans has become to the United States government.
I want to highlight that comparison, because I think it works well. Nowadays, politicians are solely focused on beating the other party. Republicans fire attourneys for disagreeing with the President while Hilary Clinton bullsh*ts to make herself look good and Nancy Polosi is the biggest bitch since...well, since Hilary Clinton. Meanwhile, kids too young to vote who don't even follow the news talk about how the President orchestrated 9/11 while at the same time saying he's too stupid to tie his shoes (apparently harder than orchestrating a massive conspiracy, eh?) and others have the nerve to say the military hospital issue was no big deal. Nobody is using common sense in politics anymore; it's just "us vs. them".
The same thing is happening in gaming, and it has to stop. Forget which system you own and which company you have been supporting for years. Even if you dislike company A for a reason you consider justifiable (i.e., something more reasonable than disliking company A just because you like company B), express it rationally and specifically. You can like and dislike whatever you want, but don't take it to the extremes or you'll just come out sounding stupid.
All the time we spend posting these comments could better be spend playing the very games about which we comment. It's not easy; we can't just make a choice to stop caring about competition unless we have unbelievable willpower. Everybody, especially people who write for gaming media, needs to stop. Because even though I know all the stuff I'm saying is true, I still get drawn in by the artificial prospect of any company failing that this sort of nonsense creates. I posted about this at my blog (unknownwarrior33.blogspot.com) and on MyQJ, and I got some comments from people who agree, so I know there are some of you out there. Please help me spread this message.
And in case any QJ writers are reading this, you guys can have a huge impact on this. Many of your articles mention the console wars and competition, specifically how certain events may affect them, and they also make or mention unnecessary comparisons between systems. For example, in this article, the paragraph asking about why they chose the PS3 was unnecessary. And when reporting on sales charts, you don't have to comment on them. Some of your articles keep neutrality excellently, but others are greatly lacking.
I'm not asking anyone to censor themselves; I'm just asking everyone to tone it down. I'll once again pose the question I posed in my blog entry: if you didn't know anything about the other systems, would you enjoy your system more? If the answer is yes, you know what I'm getting at. It's hard to enjoy system A when comments by writers and other gamers constantly make you second-guess your choice not to support system B. Writers (at QJ and elsewhere) and game company executives (executives at all three console manufacturers have furthered the console wars), if gamers really come first, please stop all the comparisons. Let us make our own choices and enjoy what we have.
That version of my comment was for the masses. This next session is for people like many of my fellow commentors, who go on and on about why one console sucks without even using evidence or, even more basic, proper grammar. Here's what I say to those people: SHUT UP ALREADY! We don't care which console you like. We don't care what genre you prefer. We don't care about your spin on the info we've already heard. We don't care about the tricks and deceptions you think a company uses. Unless you're going to be civil and/or back it up with solid facts or reasoning, we don't want to hear what you have to say. Your comments will not make Nintendo eliminate friend codes, Sony drop the price of the PS3, or Microsoft make online play free. You can state your opinion without turning it into an exercise in mindless bashing.
That's where I ended in my QJ comment, but I'm going to go a step further here and address the people to whom I directed the previous section but who still do not get the point: NOBODY CARES WHAT YOU THINK, YOU MORONS. PLAY THE GAMES YOU WANT TO PLAY, LET US PLAY THE GAMES WE WANT TO PLAY, AND SHUT THE F*** UP ALREADY. You're not going to change anyone's opinion with the b.s. you're spouting, so don't waste your time.
We all have a responsibility. That's why I will never make comparisons between consoles in this blog. Someone might claim I'm a hypocrite because I noted that "Sonic and the Secret Rings" for Wii got higher reviews than "SONIC the Hedgehog" for PS3/360, but those are two completely different games that just happen to be in the same series.
I will make one exception, but for the sake of balance: Wii tends to be bashed the most, but it continues to outsell its competition even despite a shortage of units, so it can't be that bad. I'm not even saying it's a better system; I'm just saying the bashing is disproportionate to the sales. Also note that I gave reasoning, and if anyone wants me to, I can cite specific evidence that it is outselling the competition. Just ask in a comment and I'll give it.
And just in case that's not enough for everyone, I'll say something in defense of the other two systems as well. The PS3 may be expensive, but that hasn't stopped a heck of a lot of people from buying it. And the Xbox Live may not be as interactive or creative as Playstation Home, but its core service is tried-and-true and already has a huge user base.
See? Balance. To all the console bashers out there, try it some time; it's not that hard.
Regarding the last sentence of this article: sadly, NOTHING is "worthy enough to break even the toughest fanboyism." Want proof? Look at the other comments to this article.
Fanboyism and its brother, the console wars, are more destructive to gamers than Jack Thompson and Uwe Boll combined. They take the fun out of gaming, as we care more about competition than enjoying our games. We as gamers must stop this competitive nonsense before it gets as ridiculous and all-encompassing as the battle between Democrats and Republicans has become to the United States government.
I want to highlight that comparison, because I think it works well. Nowadays, politicians are solely focused on beating the other party. Republicans fire attourneys for disagreeing with the President while Hilary Clinton bullsh*ts to make herself look good and Nancy Polosi is the biggest bitch since...well, since Hilary Clinton. Meanwhile, kids too young to vote who don't even follow the news talk about how the President orchestrated 9/11 while at the same time saying he's too stupid to tie his shoes (apparently harder than orchestrating a massive conspiracy, eh?) and others have the nerve to say the military hospital issue was no big deal. Nobody is using common sense in politics anymore; it's just "us vs. them".
The same thing is happening in gaming, and it has to stop. Forget which system you own and which company you have been supporting for years. Even if you dislike company A for a reason you consider justifiable (i.e., something more reasonable than disliking company A just because you like company B), express it rationally and specifically. You can like and dislike whatever you want, but don't take it to the extremes or you'll just come out sounding stupid.
All the time we spend posting these comments could better be spend playing the very games about which we comment. It's not easy; we can't just make a choice to stop caring about competition unless we have unbelievable willpower. Everybody, especially people who write for gaming media, needs to stop. Because even though I know all the stuff I'm saying is true, I still get drawn in by the artificial prospect of any company failing that this sort of nonsense creates. I posted about this at my blog (unknownwarrior33.blogspot.com) and on MyQJ, and I got some comments from people who agree, so I know there are some of you out there. Please help me spread this message.
And in case any QJ writers are reading this, you guys can have a huge impact on this. Many of your articles mention the console wars and competition, specifically how certain events may affect them, and they also make or mention unnecessary comparisons between systems. For example, in this article, the paragraph asking about why they chose the PS3 was unnecessary. And when reporting on sales charts, you don't have to comment on them. Some of your articles keep neutrality excellently, but others are greatly lacking.
I'm not asking anyone to censor themselves; I'm just asking everyone to tone it down. I'll once again pose the question I posed in my blog entry: if you didn't know anything about the other systems, would you enjoy your system more? If the answer is yes, you know what I'm getting at. It's hard to enjoy system A when comments by writers and other gamers constantly make you second-guess your choice not to support system B. Writers (at QJ and elsewhere) and game company executives (executives at all three console manufacturers have furthered the console wars), if gamers really come first, please stop all the comparisons. Let us make our own choices and enjoy what we have.
That version of my comment was for the masses. This next session is for people like many of my fellow commentors, who go on and on about why one console sucks without even using evidence or, even more basic, proper grammar. Here's what I say to those people: SHUT UP ALREADY! We don't care which console you like. We don't care what genre you prefer. We don't care about your spin on the info we've already heard. We don't care about the tricks and deceptions you think a company uses. Unless you're going to be civil and/or back it up with solid facts or reasoning, we don't want to hear what you have to say. Your comments will not make Nintendo eliminate friend codes, Sony drop the price of the PS3, or Microsoft make online play free. You can state your opinion without turning it into an exercise in mindless bashing.
That's where I ended in my QJ comment, but I'm going to go a step further here and address the people to whom I directed the previous section but who still do not get the point: NOBODY CARES WHAT YOU THINK, YOU MORONS. PLAY THE GAMES YOU WANT TO PLAY, LET US PLAY THE GAMES WE WANT TO PLAY, AND SHUT THE F*** UP ALREADY. You're not going to change anyone's opinion with the b.s. you're spouting, so don't waste your time.
We all have a responsibility. That's why I will never make comparisons between consoles in this blog. Someone might claim I'm a hypocrite because I noted that "Sonic and the Secret Rings" for Wii got higher reviews than "SONIC the Hedgehog" for PS3/360, but those are two completely different games that just happen to be in the same series.
I will make one exception, but for the sake of balance: Wii tends to be bashed the most, but it continues to outsell its competition even despite a shortage of units, so it can't be that bad. I'm not even saying it's a better system; I'm just saying the bashing is disproportionate to the sales. Also note that I gave reasoning, and if anyone wants me to, I can cite specific evidence that it is outselling the competition. Just ask in a comment and I'll give it.
And just in case that's not enough for everyone, I'll say something in defense of the other two systems as well. The PS3 may be expensive, but that hasn't stopped a heck of a lot of people from buying it. And the Xbox Live may not be as interactive or creative as Playstation Home, but its core service is tried-and-true and already has a huge user base.
See? Balance. To all the console bashers out there, try it some time; it's not that hard.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Musical Treasures
The importance of music in video games is a topic often discussed, but a less common topic is that of songs from video games that stand on their own as excellent pieces of music. I'm not referring to a game's score, although that too is a great source of music (ask any Zelda or Castlevania fan, both of which I am). I'm talking about non-repeating songs with vocals.
The "Sonic the Hedgehog" series is an excellent source of such music. Every Sonic game since "Sonic Adventure" has had a theme song and other great songs. "Open Your Heart" and "Live and Learn", the themes from the two "Sonic Adventure" titles (in that order), are excellent alternative metal-ish tracks. They, and many other Sonic songs, are by a band called Crush 40 which was formed specifically for the games. I believe Crush 40 was also behind "Seven Rings in Hand", the theme song of the recent Wii game "Sonic and the Secret Rings". That song is so excellent that I find myself playing the game more than I normally would just because I want to hear it.
Sonic games also have songs by established groups. One example is Julien-K, a side project of the two guitarists from the band Orgy. Some may know Julien-K from their remix/rendition of Linkin Park lead-singer Chester Bennington's song "The Morning After", which appeared on the soundtrack of the movie "Underworld Evolution" and had decent radio play as well. Anyway, Julien-K wrote and performed one song each for "Sonic Heroes" and "Shadow the Hedgehog". Their song from the former is the theme of Team Dark, entitled "This Machine", and it is an amazing song. If you have not heard this song, you are missing out. While it doesn't completely stand on its own because it mentions the names of the characters Rouge, E-123, and Eggman; it still works on its own. "Waking Up", Julien-K's track from "Shadow the Hedgehog", is not quite as good but still excellent.
The other example is Powerman 5000, probably best known for their song "When Worlds Collide." In addition to being a single in its own right, that song appeared in the game "Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2" and in the movie "Little Nicky." Powerman 5000 wrote and performed the song "Almost Dead" for "Shadow the Hedgehog", and if you're into that sort of music, you will definitely enjoy the song.
Now, I personally have never heard of the band "The Nelsons", but apparently they exist. One of the band's members, Gunnar Nelson, wrote and performed the song "Team Chaotix" (the theme for the team of the same name) for "Sonic Heroes". The lyrics are corny and have a lot to do with the characters, but it's still a very good and upbeat song.
It's not just the Sonic games, of course. Adema, a band of which I am very fond, wrote and performed a song called "Immortal" for the game "Mortal Kombat Deadly Alliance" and even made a music video for the song featuring game footage. If you're into Adema's alt-metalish style, you should definitely check this song out. It's one of two songs that got me interested in the band. Also, "Tony Hawk's American Wasteland" includes exclusive covers of 80s hits by current popular bands, and some of the covers are great. The band Thursday's cover of "Ever Fallen in Love?" is particularly noteworthy. Finally, the theme songs of Kingdom Hearts ("Simple and Clean") and Kingdom Hearts 2 ("Sanctuary") are very popular, and for good reason.
Keep an ear out for good music when you're gaming; you may find some excellent tracks.
By the way, you can find all the Sonic songs I mentioned at www.soahcity.com
The "Sonic the Hedgehog" series is an excellent source of such music. Every Sonic game since "Sonic Adventure" has had a theme song and other great songs. "Open Your Heart" and "Live and Learn", the themes from the two "Sonic Adventure" titles (in that order), are excellent alternative metal-ish tracks. They, and many other Sonic songs, are by a band called Crush 40 which was formed specifically for the games. I believe Crush 40 was also behind "Seven Rings in Hand", the theme song of the recent Wii game "Sonic and the Secret Rings". That song is so excellent that I find myself playing the game more than I normally would just because I want to hear it.
Sonic games also have songs by established groups. One example is Julien-K, a side project of the two guitarists from the band Orgy. Some may know Julien-K from their remix/rendition of Linkin Park lead-singer Chester Bennington's song "The Morning After", which appeared on the soundtrack of the movie "Underworld Evolution" and had decent radio play as well. Anyway, Julien-K wrote and performed one song each for "Sonic Heroes" and "Shadow the Hedgehog". Their song from the former is the theme of Team Dark, entitled "This Machine", and it is an amazing song. If you have not heard this song, you are missing out. While it doesn't completely stand on its own because it mentions the names of the characters Rouge, E-123, and Eggman; it still works on its own. "Waking Up", Julien-K's track from "Shadow the Hedgehog", is not quite as good but still excellent.
The other example is Powerman 5000, probably best known for their song "When Worlds Collide." In addition to being a single in its own right, that song appeared in the game "Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2" and in the movie "Little Nicky." Powerman 5000 wrote and performed the song "Almost Dead" for "Shadow the Hedgehog", and if you're into that sort of music, you will definitely enjoy the song.
Now, I personally have never heard of the band "The Nelsons", but apparently they exist. One of the band's members, Gunnar Nelson, wrote and performed the song "Team Chaotix" (the theme for the team of the same name) for "Sonic Heroes". The lyrics are corny and have a lot to do with the characters, but it's still a very good and upbeat song.
It's not just the Sonic games, of course. Adema, a band of which I am very fond, wrote and performed a song called "Immortal" for the game "Mortal Kombat Deadly Alliance" and even made a music video for the song featuring game footage. If you're into Adema's alt-metalish style, you should definitely check this song out. It's one of two songs that got me interested in the band. Also, "Tony Hawk's American Wasteland" includes exclusive covers of 80s hits by current popular bands, and some of the covers are great. The band Thursday's cover of "Ever Fallen in Love?" is particularly noteworthy. Finally, the theme songs of Kingdom Hearts ("Simple and Clean") and Kingdom Hearts 2 ("Sanctuary") are very popular, and for good reason.
Keep an ear out for good music when you're gaming; you may find some excellent tracks.
By the way, you can find all the Sonic songs I mentioned at www.soahcity.com
Gaming Violence Follow-Up
In an earlier post, I noted my belief that violent video games breed violent tendencies only in people who have other, greater causes for their violence. A recent study (read about it at http://www.qj.net/Study-Violent-games-don-t-alter-normal-kids/pg/49/aid/88522) confirms this idea. To quote the QJ article: "According to Professor Grant Devilly, only children who were diagnosed to have excessive worrying, neurotic behaviour and predisposed to aggression were the ones who reacted to the violent stimuli and very few showed aggressive behavior as a result."
Look at the recently-publicized case from last September, in which a murderer claimed Grand Theft Auto San Andreas told him to kill people. This guy was a paranoid schizophrenic who was heavily stoned at the time. Now, this is an extreme case, but it's a good example of video game violence breeding violence in people who already have bigger issues. Going after video games in cases like these would be like blaming Mapquest for a murderer's ability to find his victim: it's a factor, sure, but not a deciding one.
On a related note, Florida anti-gaming lawyer Jack Thompson is currently the subject of a complaint being examined by the Florida Supreme Court. If he loses this case, he will "face professional sanctions", to quote QJ's article on the event. The complaint was issued by the judge who heard Thompson's case against Take Two Interactive, parent company of Rockstar Games, attempting to block the release of the Rockstar game "Bully". Not only did Thompson lose the case, he threatened and insulted the judge, who noted in his decision that he wasn't sure Thompson should be allowed to practice law. Gamers all over are pulling for Thompson to lose his certification; an online petition for him to be disciplined or disbarred currently has 1457 signatures. I signed it; I know these never make a difference, but I had to show my support for getting rid of Jack Thompson. If you would like to sign, here's the link:http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?podjt
Look at the recently-publicized case from last September, in which a murderer claimed Grand Theft Auto San Andreas told him to kill people. This guy was a paranoid schizophrenic who was heavily stoned at the time. Now, this is an extreme case, but it's a good example of video game violence breeding violence in people who already have bigger issues. Going after video games in cases like these would be like blaming Mapquest for a murderer's ability to find his victim: it's a factor, sure, but not a deciding one.
On a related note, Florida anti-gaming lawyer Jack Thompson is currently the subject of a complaint being examined by the Florida Supreme Court. If he loses this case, he will "face professional sanctions", to quote QJ's article on the event. The complaint was issued by the judge who heard Thompson's case against Take Two Interactive, parent company of Rockstar Games, attempting to block the release of the Rockstar game "Bully". Not only did Thompson lose the case, he threatened and insulted the judge, who noted in his decision that he wasn't sure Thompson should be allowed to practice law. Gamers all over are pulling for Thompson to lose his certification; an online petition for him to be disciplined or disbarred currently has 1457 signatures. I signed it; I know these never make a difference, but I had to show my support for getting rid of Jack Thompson. If you would like to sign, here's the link:http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?podjt
Friday, March 30, 2007
How to End the Console Wars
I'm a blogging machine today; this is my third post in a row. I have a lot to say, so I'm saying it.
Previously I wrote about why the console wars are harmful and pointless. Now you know, and knowing is half the battle. The other half is actually fighting it, and that is more difficult. We as gamers need to put an end to the console wars as they exist today, but we are not alone in our responsibility.
The first people I wish to address are the console manufacturers themselves. Competition is necessary for a business to thrive, but the big 3 console makers have been perpetuating fan competition, and that needs to stop. I don't mean to sound biased, but other than a couple low blows from Reggie Fils-Aime, Nintendo has been pretty good about this. That doesn't mean I'm excusing them; I'm just saying they don't do it nearly as much as Sony and Microsoft. Guys, if people want your consoles, they'll buy them. Stop attacking each other, and understand that there's no point in someone from your company saying your company's product is the best. If you really care about your customers, stop giving us reasons to get into heated arguments so we can spend more time enjoying your products.
Next, I wish to address gaming journalists. That includes both my fellow bloggers and big-name media outlets. Stop pitting systems against each other. Every time a new set of consoles comes out, gaming media outlets pick a winner. That just gets people angry, even though they usually tell people not to take their winners too seriously. Review, praise, and criticize systems all you want, but don't pit them against each other. We can make our own choices. Declaring a winner means declaring a loser, and that's what gets people angry and defensive.
Now I will address the group of gamers that lives for the console wars, intelligently declaring "PSWii suxors", "Nintendo Weenie is for babies", "Xbox 180 is for l00sers", etc. What in the world is the point of all that? Comments like those will definitely not change any minds, so quit being annoying.
And finally, to the rest of us gamers: if you're going to discuss your preferences, do it rationally and civilly. Don't bash other people's views. And more importantly, don't blindly follow one company. Keep an open mind when making your choices. If your preferences are objective, you won't drift to one side of the console wars. Now, if you happen to select one company's systems every time, that's fine. But don't be a blind follower. Remember all the things I said in my first post about the console wars, and you won't fall into the trap of fighting for a company that won't know about it anyway.
I heard a story from a friend recently, and it told me just how important this advice is. He told me that another friend of his is going to buy a Playstation 3 just to spite Nintendo. Barring medical disorders, I think anyone smart enough to read is smart enough to realize that this guy's plan is stupid. Not only will buying a Playstation 3 not hurt Nintendo, Nintendo won't even know about it. This story is an example of what people will do when the console wars get out of hand.
I don't mean to sound arrogant here; I'm just as responsible for the console wars as any other gamer. We all need to respect each other's choices and be civil. Are you with me? Awesome.
Previously I wrote about why the console wars are harmful and pointless. Now you know, and knowing is half the battle. The other half is actually fighting it, and that is more difficult. We as gamers need to put an end to the console wars as they exist today, but we are not alone in our responsibility.
The first people I wish to address are the console manufacturers themselves. Competition is necessary for a business to thrive, but the big 3 console makers have been perpetuating fan competition, and that needs to stop. I don't mean to sound biased, but other than a couple low blows from Reggie Fils-Aime, Nintendo has been pretty good about this. That doesn't mean I'm excusing them; I'm just saying they don't do it nearly as much as Sony and Microsoft. Guys, if people want your consoles, they'll buy them. Stop attacking each other, and understand that there's no point in someone from your company saying your company's product is the best. If you really care about your customers, stop giving us reasons to get into heated arguments so we can spend more time enjoying your products.
Next, I wish to address gaming journalists. That includes both my fellow bloggers and big-name media outlets. Stop pitting systems against each other. Every time a new set of consoles comes out, gaming media outlets pick a winner. That just gets people angry, even though they usually tell people not to take their winners too seriously. Review, praise, and criticize systems all you want, but don't pit them against each other. We can make our own choices. Declaring a winner means declaring a loser, and that's what gets people angry and defensive.
Now I will address the group of gamers that lives for the console wars, intelligently declaring "PSWii suxors", "Nintendo Weenie is for babies", "Xbox 180 is for l00sers", etc. What in the world is the point of all that? Comments like those will definitely not change any minds, so quit being annoying.
And finally, to the rest of us gamers: if you're going to discuss your preferences, do it rationally and civilly. Don't bash other people's views. And more importantly, don't blindly follow one company. Keep an open mind when making your choices. If your preferences are objective, you won't drift to one side of the console wars. Now, if you happen to select one company's systems every time, that's fine. But don't be a blind follower. Remember all the things I said in my first post about the console wars, and you won't fall into the trap of fighting for a company that won't know about it anyway.
I heard a story from a friend recently, and it told me just how important this advice is. He told me that another friend of his is going to buy a Playstation 3 just to spite Nintendo. Barring medical disorders, I think anyone smart enough to read is smart enough to realize that this guy's plan is stupid. Not only will buying a Playstation 3 not hurt Nintendo, Nintendo won't even know about it. This story is an example of what people will do when the console wars get out of hand.
I don't mean to sound arrogant here; I'm just as responsible for the console wars as any other gamer. We all need to respect each other's choices and be civil. Are you with me? Awesome.
Saving Sonic
Sonic the Hedgehog was my first gaming hero, basically because "Sonic the Hedgehog 2" came with my very first video game console, the Sega Genesis (or Sega Mega Drive depending on where you live). Back in the 16-bit days, Sonic was a fierce rival of Nintendo's mascot, Mario.
A lot has changed since then. Not only have Sonic and Mario buried the hatchet to costar in an upcoming Wii/DS game (see my very first entry), Sonic is also no longer a highly-praised series. Sonic's first true 3-D games were the Dreamcast's "Sonic Adventure" and "Sonic Adventure 2". While they were not praised as highly as their two-dimensional predecessors, they gained very favorable reviews. Both have an average rating in the mid-80's on GameRankings (a site that combines and averages video game reviews). However, fans were unhappy with the great departure from the series' roots in levels other than those starring Sonic and Shadow. The first game had many different play styles; the second narrowed it down to the three most popular. The fan opinion was clear: Sonic should stick to his roots. This does not just apply to main games in the series; the low review scores for the Mario Party-esque "Sonic Shuffle" suggest Sonic is not as talented in spin-offs as his former rival.
Sega got the message, at least somewhat, with the first original multi-platform Sonic game entitled "Sonic Heroes". Players picked one of 4 teams of 3 Sonic characters and played through levels similar to those of Sonic and Shadow in the Adventure games. However, with the team idea came character-switching and strategizing that took away from the game's speed. Some gamers were also upset with the sheer number of characters, though I personally do not see why. As a result of these complaints, "Sonic Heroes" netted lower scores than its predecessors, averaging in the mid-70's. I should note that the GameRankings score for this game in particular seems slightly higher than fan reactions would suggest.
Not terrible scores, but not as high as previous games. However, after "Sonic Heroes", Sega really took a turn for the worse. They made a game starring fan-favorite character Shadow the Hedgehog (which was also the title of the game). All the levels played pretty much like those in "Sonic Heroes" but without the character switching. There were optional missions, creating interruptions in the action and speed, but depending on which of the many endings you wanted, you could potentially avoid them. The missions would have been forgivable, but Sega decided that anti-hero Shadow needed weapons. Swords, plasma guns, pistols; you name it. He also could drive various vehicles. As a result, combat was no longer on-the-go as it had been in previous games. Players often had to stop to shoot enemies, negating the return to classic Sonic speed. The game averaged in the low 50's.
A unique racing game, "Sonic Riders," managed to score slightly better, in the low 60s, but spin-offs are a different story. After "Shadow the Hedgehog", people seriously began to lose faith in the franchise. Sega had a big job ahead of it: bringing its flagship hero to his former glory. They completely re-envisioned Sonic, showing a breathtaking trailer at E3 2005 with realistic scenery and classic high-speed Sonic action. The second screenshot at the top of this post is from that game. People had high hopes for this game, simply titled "Sonic the Hedgehog" to reflect the rebirth of the series. Sega had the chance to save Sonic once and for all. Instead, "Sonic the Hedgehog" for the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 averaged even less than "Shadow the Hedgehog", scoring in the mid 40's.But alas, the game is not over. Sonic sped his way onto all 3 current major consoles. Originally, "Sonic the Hedgehog" was to appear on Wii as well. At some point, however, Sega decided to create an original game that made full use of Wii's features. At E3 2006, they showed a brief trailer of a simple Sonic game tentatively called "Sonic Wildfire". It looked interesting and fast, but so did "Sonic the Hedgehog", so gamers were skeptical. The game, retitled "Sonic and the Secret Rings", came out for Wii this month, not long after the reviews came in for "Sonic the Hedgehog". It scored in the low 70s, higher than any Sonic game since Heroes or, depending on the source, since Sonic Adventure 2. By no means was it heralded as an amazing game, but it was good enough to be worth buying.
So what made "Secret Rings" more successful than previous games? Simply simplicity. First of all, rather than choosing between a bevy of characters with different abilities, players get one character for the main game: Sonic. Second, the missions that weren't a matter of getting to the end of the level were fairly simple, thus allowing gameplay to focus on Sonic's trademark speed. Finally, all of Sonic's attacks were all performed by movement, so he could generally keep moving. In other words, it was much more similar to Sonic's earlier games.
Also similar to Sonic's earlier games are his handheld games, which tend to score much better than their console counterparts. The first two "Sonic Advance" games for the Game Boy Advance played just like 16-bit Sonic games, but with more character choices. "Sonic Rush" for the DS also played like the classic games, with only 2 playable characters and the addition of 3D character graphics and limited 3D movement in boss battles. These games scored in the mid to low 80s. Sonic Advance 3 added a buddy system somewhat similar to (but less important to gameplay than) that in "Knuckles' Chaotix", giving it slightly lower but very close scores. On the other hand, the PSP title "Sonic Rivals" added racing to the classic sidescrolling gameplay and did not have many different levels. It scored in the mid 60s.
Sonic fans want speed and basic gameplay, and it seems like Sega is finally beginning to figure it out. "Sonic and the Secret Rings" is a good start for a Sonic console game. If they can perfect the Wii controls and bring similarly simple gameplay to other consoles, Sonic may very well see his second coming. I understand that making a game out of just levels like Sonic's in "Sonic Adventure" would not include the variety today's gamers want, but "Secret Rings" showed that variety can come from goals as opposed to characters and gameplay styles. Yuji Naka created Sonic the Hedgehog to show of the speed of the Genesis, and speed has always been the franchise's theme. Now they have to recapture that speed.
Elebits and Wii Potential
Konami's "Elebits" (retitled "Eledees" in PAL regions) was one of Wii's most anticipated early titles, and it does not disappoint. It is very entertaining, but more importantly, it shows the potential of Wii to really create unique play experiences. Players control a boy named Kai who uses a "capture gun" (essentially a beam one can use to move and manipulate heavy objects from a distance) to collect little electricity-giving creatures called Elebits. At first, Kai can only lift small objects that he'd be able to lift himself. However, by collecting enough Elebits to activate an appliance (which he activates by pressing a switch or performing another action with the capture gun's beam), he gains more power and can lift heavier things. In later levels, this goes as far as allowing Kai to lift houses, tankers, amusement park rides, and more.
Part of the uniqueness of "Elebits" is that you can do more than just lift or check the objects. By grasping them with the beam using the A or B button and moving or turning the Wii Remote, you can manipulate the objects in any way possible. Lift, move, rotate, flip, open, spin; you name it. There is more to the game than that, of course, but the unique gameplay style is my focus. This is the kind of game for which Wii was made; it wouldn't be the same on any other system. The sensor bar and the unique shape and setup of the Wii Remote and Nunchuk allow for precision and comfort not possible with Sony's Sixaxis controller, and playing the game simply with joysticks would be very difficult because you need to move objects fully and freely in three dimensions. True, full three-dimensional movement works fine with standard controllers in level editing features, but it would be too clumsy for a game like Elebits.
Other developers should follow Konami's example when setting out to create original IPs for Wii. Motion sensing controllers exist so players can feel like they're actually controlling the on-screen action, so developers must look beyond simple gestures and create totally immersive gameplay.
Now, this is not a review of "Elebits" and I'm not saying it is the ultimate Wii game, but I am saying that it makes the best use of Wii's unique features so far. I'm also not suggesting I don't like other uses for the Wii Remote either; I've tried 7 Wii games so far and I think all of them use the features very well. But "Elebits" is the first one I've played that creates an experience impossible on any other console. Games like that will propel Wii to even greater success.
Part of the uniqueness of "Elebits" is that you can do more than just lift or check the objects. By grasping them with the beam using the A or B button and moving or turning the Wii Remote, you can manipulate the objects in any way possible. Lift, move, rotate, flip, open, spin; you name it. There is more to the game than that, of course, but the unique gameplay style is my focus. This is the kind of game for which Wii was made; it wouldn't be the same on any other system. The sensor bar and the unique shape and setup of the Wii Remote and Nunchuk allow for precision and comfort not possible with Sony's Sixaxis controller, and playing the game simply with joysticks would be very difficult because you need to move objects fully and freely in three dimensions. True, full three-dimensional movement works fine with standard controllers in level editing features, but it would be too clumsy for a game like Elebits.
Other developers should follow Konami's example when setting out to create original IPs for Wii. Motion sensing controllers exist so players can feel like they're actually controlling the on-screen action, so developers must look beyond simple gestures and create totally immersive gameplay.
Now, this is not a review of "Elebits" and I'm not saying it is the ultimate Wii game, but I am saying that it makes the best use of Wii's unique features so far. I'm also not suggesting I don't like other uses for the Wii Remote either; I've tried 7 Wii games so far and I think all of them use the features very well. But "Elebits" is the first one I've played that creates an experience impossible on any other console. Games like that will propel Wii to even greater success.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Challenging Gaming-Inspired Violence
I downloaded a controversial PC freeware game a while ago, and in my effort to tie up loose ends before spring break is over, I finally played it today. I did not get very far, but from what I have seen, this game has real merit.
For the uninitiated, "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" is a 16-bit-style role-playing game (think Chrono Trigger or 2D Final Fantasy games) created with the "RPG Maker" program. It recreates the Columbine shootings and surrounding events from the point of view of the shooters. It becomes surreal at one point, but it aims to recreate the events as accurately as possible. Other than the true storyline, it plays like any other RPG.
People have criticized the game for "trivializing" or "glorifying" the shootings. Some of these points are well taken, like the argument against the game "humorously" (in some opinions) using factors in the shootings as RPG staples. For example, you can use the PC game "Doom" or a Marilyn Manson CD as stat-boosting accessories, and battles play out much like those in the Final Fantasy series. Some people were just angry that someone would make a game based on these events, and others were concerned that it would spawn more shootings.
But the game, as the creator once stated, is a documentary of sorts. It brings players into the world and minds of the shooters, showing what led to the event. Because it is based on the true details, it shows what went into and caused the shootings. It is very educational, and when observed properly, it can teach us what leads to these shootings so we know how to prevent them in the future. I learned a lot from the small part of the game I've played so far.
It also challenges the boundaries of gaming. World War II resulted in many more deaths than the Columbine shootings, but it has become a video game cliche. True, it the span of time between the events and the games is much larger, but it doesn't make the connection any different. After all, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was partially based on the much more recent L.A. riots, but the historical context was one of few aspects of the game that did not come under fire from critics.
In a similar vein, it reminds the public that video games are no different from any other medium. The movie "Bowling for Columbine" came out significantly earlier, and what did it get for turning the tragedy into inaccurate political propaganda? An Oscar. The obvious surreal parts aside, "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" was much more accurate, sympathetic, and candid than that "documentary." I'll save my rant about how much I hate Michael Moore for another day and another blog, but the fact is that the game shouldn't have been shunned after the movie was honored. Video games are here to stay, just like movies, music, TV, and books. Demonizing them because they're more interactive than other media is like demonizing imagination. Anyone can pretend to kill someone else without a video game.
People who look at video games as a root for violence have it backwards. For example, a school shooting perpetrator listed "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" and other, much more violent games as his favorites. Some people saw that as proof that such games lead to murder. But ask any psychologist, and he or she will tell you that it's much more likely that people play these games BECAUSE they have violent intentions than it is the other way around.
I'm not saying video games never lead to real violence. If you live in such conditions; because of your environment, your age, mental disabilities, etc.; that murder seems like a viable option, video games might just be the driving force that lead you to action. But that's a very different message than the one people like Jack Thompson are sending. These people want us to believe that video games can turn any normal, well-behaved person into a murderer, and they are always the first media target after a young person commits murder or suicide. I've played all the Grand Theft Auto games, Silent Scope, Red Steel, the Mortal Kombat series, Doom (including levels designed by one of the Columbine shooters), Quake, and even Night Trap. However, of all the kids at my high school, I am probably the LEAST likely to ever shoot anyone. You can't look at video games as a universal evil; they only factor into violence in rare, specific cases in which they are not the main culprits anyway.
If Jack Thompson and other "crusaders" want to stop youth violence, they need to stop looking at the easy target of video games and start improving living conditions. If regular citizens want to protect their kids from violence at school, they should teach their kids not to mistreat others. Getting rid of violent video games might help a little bit, but improving people's lives will stop the raw emotions that inspire the violence in the first place.
For the uninitiated, "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" is a 16-bit-style role-playing game (think Chrono Trigger or 2D Final Fantasy games) created with the "RPG Maker" program. It recreates the Columbine shootings and surrounding events from the point of view of the shooters. It becomes surreal at one point, but it aims to recreate the events as accurately as possible. Other than the true storyline, it plays like any other RPG.
People have criticized the game for "trivializing" or "glorifying" the shootings. Some of these points are well taken, like the argument against the game "humorously" (in some opinions) using factors in the shootings as RPG staples. For example, you can use the PC game "Doom" or a Marilyn Manson CD as stat-boosting accessories, and battles play out much like those in the Final Fantasy series. Some people were just angry that someone would make a game based on these events, and others were concerned that it would spawn more shootings.
But the game, as the creator once stated, is a documentary of sorts. It brings players into the world and minds of the shooters, showing what led to the event. Because it is based on the true details, it shows what went into and caused the shootings. It is very educational, and when observed properly, it can teach us what leads to these shootings so we know how to prevent them in the future. I learned a lot from the small part of the game I've played so far.
It also challenges the boundaries of gaming. World War II resulted in many more deaths than the Columbine shootings, but it has become a video game cliche. True, it the span of time between the events and the games is much larger, but it doesn't make the connection any different. After all, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was partially based on the much more recent L.A. riots, but the historical context was one of few aspects of the game that did not come under fire from critics.
In a similar vein, it reminds the public that video games are no different from any other medium. The movie "Bowling for Columbine" came out significantly earlier, and what did it get for turning the tragedy into inaccurate political propaganda? An Oscar. The obvious surreal parts aside, "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" was much more accurate, sympathetic, and candid than that "documentary." I'll save my rant about how much I hate Michael Moore for another day and another blog, but the fact is that the game shouldn't have been shunned after the movie was honored. Video games are here to stay, just like movies, music, TV, and books. Demonizing them because they're more interactive than other media is like demonizing imagination. Anyone can pretend to kill someone else without a video game.
People who look at video games as a root for violence have it backwards. For example, a school shooting perpetrator listed "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" and other, much more violent games as his favorites. Some people saw that as proof that such games lead to murder. But ask any psychologist, and he or she will tell you that it's much more likely that people play these games BECAUSE they have violent intentions than it is the other way around.
I'm not saying video games never lead to real violence. If you live in such conditions; because of your environment, your age, mental disabilities, etc.; that murder seems like a viable option, video games might just be the driving force that lead you to action. But that's a very different message than the one people like Jack Thompson are sending. These people want us to believe that video games can turn any normal, well-behaved person into a murderer, and they are always the first media target after a young person commits murder or suicide. I've played all the Grand Theft Auto games, Silent Scope, Red Steel, the Mortal Kombat series, Doom (including levels designed by one of the Columbine shooters), Quake, and even Night Trap. However, of all the kids at my high school, I am probably the LEAST likely to ever shoot anyone. You can't look at video games as a universal evil; they only factor into violence in rare, specific cases in which they are not the main culprits anyway.
If Jack Thompson and other "crusaders" want to stop youth violence, they need to stop looking at the easy target of video games and start improving living conditions. If regular citizens want to protect their kids from violence at school, they should teach their kids not to mistreat others. Getting rid of violent video games might help a little bit, but improving people's lives will stop the raw emotions that inspire the violence in the first place.
Why Console Wars Don't Matter
NOTE: I originally wrote this post for my.qj.net so if you see it there, know that I didn't steal it. Gryff33 is just the name I go by there.
-----------------------------------------------------
First of all: my goal in this post is to be 100% neutral and bias-free.� My preferences may come out subconsciously, but this is not a psychology class, so I won't go into that.� Just trust me when I say that I am not trying to push my console preferences.
It happens every time new consoles come out: the console wars heat up and gamers take their choices in consoles very seriously.� It leads to insults (look at the comments of any console wars-related post on QJ), stress, and distraction from the entertainment of gaming.� We are all guilty of it.� You, me; even the people who repeatedly state the same kind of thing I'm saying right now are soldiers in the console wars.� But as a gamer since the 16 bit days, I can tell you that I never first picked the console that would eventually win until the DS (and that war isn't technically over yet), but I've still loved every console I ever had.� The console wars mentality is a problem, and as I hope to explain in this post, meaningless.
As long as you like the console you have, you'll always have good games.� Games make a console good, and just because something is less popular doesn't mean you should like it any less.� As long as your console doesn't fail (and I'll get into what that means in a moment), the games will keep coming and you'll have plenty to play.� The matter of what console sells best would only matter if the loser would no longer have any new games (that's what "failing" really means) because the console would become useless pretty fast.� Obviously, that is exceedingly rare for mainstream consoles (which for our purposes currently means PS3, Wii, 360, PSP, and DS).� So there's a million to one chance that you'll have new games until the next generation comes around, and maybe after.
True, the losing console's release schedule will be pretty bleak after it's been losing for a while, but does that matter as much as one might think?� Let's look at the consoles that have "lost" or are "losing" their respective console wars, shall we?� First off, the Gamecube.� While support dropped off considerably as Wii approached, I can tell you that I'm still playing Gamecube games even though I own an Xbox (not 360), PS2 (not 3), and Wii.� I still play all my old games, and it's important to remember that new games kept coming until very recently in the grand scheme of things.� To say the Gamecube "failed" is preposterous.
It's too early to say that the PS3 is losing the current console war (especially as it is not yet out it Europe), but I think it's safe to say the PSP is losing to the DS.� Whether it will end that way is anyone's guess, but that has been the case for a long time.� There are still plenty of awesome games coming, like Final Fantasy titles, Oblivion (eventually), the newly-released and under-rated (in my opinion) M.A.C.H., Full Auto, Burnout Dominator, and more.� Add homebrew and PSX downloads and you've got plenty to play.
Let's look back even farther than the Gamecube to the N64.� Check out this list: Goldeneye, Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Banjo-Kazooie, Super Smash Bros, Majora's Mask, Mario Party, Donkey Kong 64, Perfect Dark (and those are just first- and second-party games), Legend of the Mystical Ninja, Quake 64, Doom 64, Chameleon Twist, Bomberman Hero, Tonic Trouble, and Extreme-G are just some of the games I still play.
None of the big 3 console makers (Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft) are likely to throw in the towel any time soon.� Each one has its own ways of staying around.
First, Nintendo: From a business and financial perspective, it doesn't matter how many consoles you sell.� It's all about profit.� Because Nintendo is making profit on every Wii sold, they can have the highest profit (and thus the lowest chance of going under) even if they don't sell the most consoles.� Also, DS-mania (I made up that term) doesn't look like it's going to stop any time soon, and it will add to Nintendo's already high profits.� Of course, this only comes into play if Wii loses, and given sales records so far, that is far from the case.
Second, Sony: With the overwhelming success of the PS2, Sony's game division has an excellent track record, and the people in the company with the power to shut down a division won't go down on the game division so quickly.� Also, regardless of its current position in the console war, the PS3 seems poised for success with the likes of Final Fantasy XIII, Oblivion, and more (I don't mean to give the impression that there are only two noteworthy games coming out; it's just that I don't know many because not owning a PS3, I have no reason to).
Last, but opposite of least at the moment, Microsoft: I don't think I even need to tell you that Microsoft is not in any financial trouble.� Despite what Apple would have you believe, Windows is still by a large margin the most widely-used operating system, and Office is so popular that Apple bundles demos of it with new Mac laptops.� The Windows part affects Microsoft's gaming division as well: the success of Windows means more computer game developers will make games for it, and because of the structure similarity, a lot of those games are ending up on the 360.� Given the success of Xbox Live, on its own a reason that Microsoft has nothing to worry about, this trend will probably increase as the Live service extends to PCs.� It will allow developers of MMO games to maximize the number of players by getting PC and console gamers together.
Sega's cessation of console production inspired predictions of companies, particularly Nintendo, "going the way of Sega." I can assure you that Sega's situation was much different from any current console maker's. The Saturn and Dreamcast sold worse than the N64 and Gamecube (respectively), the Genesis lost its console war as well (giving them 3 losses in a row, to Nintendo's 2), and Sega did not have a popular handheld out. Also, despite the appeal of Sonic, Sega's exclusive titles couldn't compete with the likes of Mario, Zelda, Halo, Fable, Ratchet and Clank, and Resistance. In other words, it was a lot more than the Dreamcast coming in last place that forced Sega to stop making consoles, and no current console maker is in danger.
My point with all this is that none of the current consoles will fail, so it doesn't matter who wins; they will all succeed and they will all have good games. If nothing else convinces you, consider this: if your console of choice lost the console war and you found out only after the next generation began, would it make your time with the console any less fun? Here's another way to look at it: if you couldn't tell which console was winning, would you still care?
-----------------------------------------------------
First of all: my goal in this post is to be 100% neutral and bias-free.� My preferences may come out subconsciously, but this is not a psychology class, so I won't go into that.� Just trust me when I say that I am not trying to push my console preferences.
It happens every time new consoles come out: the console wars heat up and gamers take their choices in consoles very seriously.� It leads to insults (look at the comments of any console wars-related post on QJ), stress, and distraction from the entertainment of gaming.� We are all guilty of it.� You, me; even the people who repeatedly state the same kind of thing I'm saying right now are soldiers in the console wars.� But as a gamer since the 16 bit days, I can tell you that I never first picked the console that would eventually win until the DS (and that war isn't technically over yet), but I've still loved every console I ever had.� The console wars mentality is a problem, and as I hope to explain in this post, meaningless.
As long as you like the console you have, you'll always have good games.� Games make a console good, and just because something is less popular doesn't mean you should like it any less.� As long as your console doesn't fail (and I'll get into what that means in a moment), the games will keep coming and you'll have plenty to play.� The matter of what console sells best would only matter if the loser would no longer have any new games (that's what "failing" really means) because the console would become useless pretty fast.� Obviously, that is exceedingly rare for mainstream consoles (which for our purposes currently means PS3, Wii, 360, PSP, and DS).� So there's a million to one chance that you'll have new games until the next generation comes around, and maybe after.
True, the losing console's release schedule will be pretty bleak after it's been losing for a while, but does that matter as much as one might think?� Let's look at the consoles that have "lost" or are "losing" their respective console wars, shall we?� First off, the Gamecube.� While support dropped off considerably as Wii approached, I can tell you that I'm still playing Gamecube games even though I own an Xbox (not 360), PS2 (not 3), and Wii.� I still play all my old games, and it's important to remember that new games kept coming until very recently in the grand scheme of things.� To say the Gamecube "failed" is preposterous.
It's too early to say that the PS3 is losing the current console war (especially as it is not yet out it Europe), but I think it's safe to say the PSP is losing to the DS.� Whether it will end that way is anyone's guess, but that has been the case for a long time.� There are still plenty of awesome games coming, like Final Fantasy titles, Oblivion (eventually), the newly-released and under-rated (in my opinion) M.A.C.H., Full Auto, Burnout Dominator, and more.� Add homebrew and PSX downloads and you've got plenty to play.
Let's look back even farther than the Gamecube to the N64.� Check out this list: Goldeneye, Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Banjo-Kazooie, Super Smash Bros, Majora's Mask, Mario Party, Donkey Kong 64, Perfect Dark (and those are just first- and second-party games), Legend of the Mystical Ninja, Quake 64, Doom 64, Chameleon Twist, Bomberman Hero, Tonic Trouble, and Extreme-G are just some of the games I still play.
None of the big 3 console makers (Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft) are likely to throw in the towel any time soon.� Each one has its own ways of staying around.
First, Nintendo: From a business and financial perspective, it doesn't matter how many consoles you sell.� It's all about profit.� Because Nintendo is making profit on every Wii sold, they can have the highest profit (and thus the lowest chance of going under) even if they don't sell the most consoles.� Also, DS-mania (I made up that term) doesn't look like it's going to stop any time soon, and it will add to Nintendo's already high profits.� Of course, this only comes into play if Wii loses, and given sales records so far, that is far from the case.
Second, Sony: With the overwhelming success of the PS2, Sony's game division has an excellent track record, and the people in the company with the power to shut down a division won't go down on the game division so quickly.� Also, regardless of its current position in the console war, the PS3 seems poised for success with the likes of Final Fantasy XIII, Oblivion, and more (I don't mean to give the impression that there are only two noteworthy games coming out; it's just that I don't know many because not owning a PS3, I have no reason to).
Last, but opposite of least at the moment, Microsoft: I don't think I even need to tell you that Microsoft is not in any financial trouble.� Despite what Apple would have you believe, Windows is still by a large margin the most widely-used operating system, and Office is so popular that Apple bundles demos of it with new Mac laptops.� The Windows part affects Microsoft's gaming division as well: the success of Windows means more computer game developers will make games for it, and because of the structure similarity, a lot of those games are ending up on the 360.� Given the success of Xbox Live, on its own a reason that Microsoft has nothing to worry about, this trend will probably increase as the Live service extends to PCs.� It will allow developers of MMO games to maximize the number of players by getting PC and console gamers together.
Sega's cessation of console production inspired predictions of companies, particularly Nintendo, "going the way of Sega." I can assure you that Sega's situation was much different from any current console maker's. The Saturn and Dreamcast sold worse than the N64 and Gamecube (respectively), the Genesis lost its console war as well (giving them 3 losses in a row, to Nintendo's 2), and Sega did not have a popular handheld out. Also, despite the appeal of Sonic, Sega's exclusive titles couldn't compete with the likes of Mario, Zelda, Halo, Fable, Ratchet and Clank, and Resistance. In other words, it was a lot more than the Dreamcast coming in last place that forced Sega to stop making consoles, and no current console maker is in danger.
My point with all this is that none of the current consoles will fail, so it doesn't matter who wins; they will all succeed and they will all have good games. If nothing else convinces you, consider this: if your console of choice lost the console war and you found out only after the next generation began, would it make your time with the console any less fun? Here's another way to look at it: if you couldn't tell which console was winning, would you still care?
Mario and Sonic: Finally Together
Gamers have been waiting for this moment. Crudely-animated flash battles on Newgrounds.com, rumors about the Super Smash Bros games, theories when Sega became a third party developer; we've been ready for this moment for a long time: Mario and Sonic in the same game. I give you...
That's right. Mario and Sonic characters will come together to compete in events based on those included in the 2008 summer olympics. However, the game will not take place in Beijing; rather, it will include locales from the Sonic and Mario games. Confirmed playable characters so far are Mario, Luigi, Yoshi, Sonic, Tails, and Knuckles. I'm hoping for my favorite character in each series to make the final cut: Bowser Jr from Mario, and Silver from Sonic. Here's hoping the Sega/Nintendo friendship will lead to Sonic appearing in Super Smash Brothers Brawl!
"Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games" is coming out at the end of 2007 for Wii and the DS. We've got a while to wait, but it will be worth it.
That's right. Mario and Sonic characters will come together to compete in events based on those included in the 2008 summer olympics. However, the game will not take place in Beijing; rather, it will include locales from the Sonic and Mario games. Confirmed playable characters so far are Mario, Luigi, Yoshi, Sonic, Tails, and Knuckles. I'm hoping for my favorite character in each series to make the final cut: Bowser Jr from Mario, and Silver from Sonic. Here's hoping the Sega/Nintendo friendship will lead to Sonic appearing in Super Smash Brothers Brawl!
"Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games" is coming out at the end of 2007 for Wii and the DS. We've got a while to wait, but it will be worth it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
