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.
Friday, March 30, 2007
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)
