Originally Posted by Kipman725 Therfore the ps3 with it's eye is ideal as it can assess the hotness of the player and then edit the main female characters to be slightly less hot. Women are tipicaly very shallow and like to be the best looking person in a room.
I'm losing track of who's being sarcastic and who's being over-serious; was this a straight-faced suggestion?
Originally Posted by devdevil85 I don't see how 360/PS3 haven't shown innovation themselves? That's what's confusing me....For example, I see the PS3 with it's SIXAXIS controller and the Playstation Eye to be (what I would consider) innovative.....
This sort of viewpoint would get you a job at Sony/Microsoft and it's why they will never acheive anything revolutionary in the same way as the Wii. Everything the 360 and PS3 have done has been incremental on previous incarnations and is essentially within the same paradigm of gaming as the previous incarnations. The Wii has gone to a completely different way of playing and that's why it's innovative - because it doesn't build upon previous ideas, it completely restarts them.
Originally Posted by dgb This sort of viewpoint would get you a job at Sony/Microsoft and it's why they will never acheive anything revolutionary in the same way as the Wii. Everything the 360 and PS3 have done has been incremental on previous incarnations and is essentially within the same paradigm of gaming as the previous incarnations. The Wii has gone to a completely different way of playing and that's why it's innovative - because it doesn't build upon previous ideas, it completely restarts them.
The Wii is not as new or innovative as people think in terms of its technology, only in how it is marketted.
Originally Posted by dgb This sort of viewpoint would get you a job at Sony/Microsoft and it's why they will never acheive anything revolutionary in the same way as the Wii. Everything the 360 and PS3 have done has been incremental on previous incarnations and is essentially within the same paradigm of gaming as the previous incarnations. The Wii has gone to a completely different way of playing and that's why it's innovative - because it doesn't build upon previous ideas, it completely restarts them.
The Wii is not as new or innovative as people think in terms of its technology, only in how it is marketted.
Well for that matter no consumer good is ever innovative, simply because by the time someone actually creates a consumer good, chances are selection of other people have already tried it as specialist product, and before that hundreds will have played around with it in a scientific setting. Hell, I'm struggling to think of a single technology that by the time it makes it to mainstream isn't old hat in specialist circles. For consumer goods such as the Wii, the innovation is in the delivery or the technologies, the monetisation of the invention is the innovation behind the product.
The trouble is an oversaturated market, with the end product being FAR to over-priced. They blame it on the torrent scene but the prices are as they are because they can get away with it.
I for one have never downloaded anything and I always buy but the trouble is when I do go into the shops the shelves are lined with vast quantities of obscure nonsence and follow-ups. I mean a great percentage must just be money laundering fronts as they seem to pose no real reason to gaming what-so-ever?
But then someone must buy it all otherwise there wouldn`t be soooooo much crap on the shelves and the developers would be forced to create some interesting progressive pieces of game art?
Originally Posted by vts I dont know about you, but i'm glad for once that Nintendo, who have tried to give us something innovative in gaming, are beating back those who seem to churn out the same worthless roster updated games every year.
I'm not saying the Wii is perfect by any means, but it is definetley a step in the right direction.
I don't wanna sound like an ass but a new controller isn't really innovation. They need new games to go with it, so far all of their big games have had exactly the same gameplay, just with a new controller(MP3, Zelda), they could've just became PC developers and acheived the same effect.
Also I think the innovation bandwagon is getting out of hand, I will admit that I still like playing old genres, and I don't want to play most of them with the wiimote. Also, the whole gameplay over graphics argument is pathetic. Theres no reason to choose one or the other, games can have both (imagine that). It is possible to innovate a game within an already existing genre, and with the same controller, I don't see why people make the argument that the wii is automatically more innovative than the 360 or ps3.
Originally Posted by boiled_elephant I arrived at this conclusion following a WoW discussion thread in which most proponents (or former proponents) of WoW thought the Burning Crusade expansion was ass on a plate (paraphrased, obviously). General satisfaction with WoW was overwhelming; with the first exp. pack, moderate; with the latest, luke-warm. This trend led me to the conclusion that they are losing sight of what pleases gamers.
Short version: granted, they found a winning formula, but they seem incapable of refreshing it lately.
All good things come to an end, that's the nature of games. The burning crusade is just highlighting the point that WOW has probably run it's course. Have you seen the trailer for Starcraft II yet? It's looking very promising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiled_elephant Also, I take it as a mark against the company that the social climate of their games generates people as rude and affrontational as you. Then again, this may be a consequence of humans all being mouthy idiots, rather than Blizzard's success at managing an online game.
I can't help if you have a sensitive nature. As for your last statement, that really doesn't justify a response.
Originally Posted by Bungle All good things come to an end, that's the nature of games. The burning crusade is just highlighting the point that WOW has probably run it's course. Have you seen the trailer for Starcraft II yet? It's looking very promising.
New expansion pack for WoW due next year sometime. Take you all the way to lvl 80 if you want
.
I personally find online games (aka multi-player) to be the games that give the most replay value. Each time you play it, it's still the same thing you do but you keep playing it frequently because you interact with other people and can share the joy.
I love VALVe's single-player games but I'm only playing them through maybe one or two times then I'm on to experimenting with the game in entirely new ways (like searching for exploits and other oddities). After that it's pretty much back to waiting for the next game to come around.
And I totally agree with the comment regarding graphics vs. gameplay. It's true that you can do both which Half-Life 2 clearly demonstrated. That was also one of the first games (as I'm concerned) to take physics (a third factor) seriously too. A game can look good, be fun to play (gameplay) but still doesn't feel real if the physics are missing. Of course physics can be seen as just another gimmick but then again what does it matter if it's fun?
Movies and games should clearly divorce. I hate games made purely for marketing purposes. It sucks. When it comes to movies based on games I disagree that they always suck. At least you have Resident Evil which is entertaining although just a stupid action flick with zombies. But don't say you expected more from it given the back story it is based on. In this particular case I enjoy the movies, but dislike the games.
Comments 26 to 36 of 36
I'm losing track of who's being sarcastic and who's being over-serious; was this a straight-faced suggestion?
hell, theres already a game like this .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Girl_2
This sort of viewpoint would get you a job at Sony/Microsoft and it's why they will never acheive anything revolutionary in the same way as the Wii. Everything the 360 and PS3 have done has been incremental on previous incarnations and is essentially within the same paradigm of gaming as the previous incarnations. The Wii has gone to a completely different way of playing and that's why it's innovative - because it doesn't build upon previous ideas, it completely restarts them.
The Wii is not as new or innovative as people think in terms of its technology, only in how it is marketted.
Well for that matter no consumer good is ever innovative, simply because by the time someone actually creates a consumer good, chances are selection of other people have already tried it as specialist product, and before that hundreds will have played around with it in a scientific setting. Hell, I'm struggling to think of a single technology that by the time it makes it to mainstream isn't old hat in specialist circles. For consumer goods such as the Wii, the innovation is in the delivery or the technologies, the monetisation of the invention is the innovation behind the product.
So yeah, in other words, you're right.
I for one have never downloaded anything and I always buy but the trouble is when I do go into the shops the shelves are lined with vast quantities of obscure nonsence and follow-ups. I mean a great percentage must just be money laundering fronts as they seem to pose no real reason to gaming what-so-ever?
But then someone must buy it all otherwise there wouldn`t be soooooo much crap on the shelves and the developers would be forced to create some interesting progressive pieces of game art?
I don't wanna sound like an ass but a new controller isn't really innovation. They need new games to go with it, so far all of their big games have had exactly the same gameplay, just with a new controller(MP3, Zelda), they could've just became PC developers and acheived the same effect.
Also I think the innovation bandwagon is getting out of hand, I will admit that I still like playing old genres, and I don't want to play most of them with the wiimote. Also, the whole gameplay over graphics argument is pathetic. Theres no reason to choose one or the other, games can have both (imagine that). It is possible to innovate a game within an already existing genre, and with the same controller, I don't see why people make the argument that the wii is automatically more innovative than the 360 or ps3.
New expansion pack for WoW due next year sometime. Take you all the way to lvl 80 if you want
.
I love VALVe's single-player games but I'm only playing them through maybe one or two times then I'm on to experimenting with the game in entirely new ways (like searching for exploits and other oddities). After that it's pretty much back to waiting for the next game to come around.
And I totally agree with the comment regarding graphics vs. gameplay. It's true that you can do both which Half-Life 2 clearly demonstrated. That was also one of the first games (as I'm concerned) to take physics (a third factor) seriously too. A game can look good, be fun to play (gameplay) but still doesn't feel real if the physics are missing. Of course physics can be seen as just another gimmick but then again what does it matter if it's fun?
Movies and games should clearly divorce. I hate games made purely for marketing purposes. It sucks. When it comes to movies based on games I disagree that they always suck. At least you have Resident Evil which is entertaining although just a stupid action flick with zombies. But don't say you expected more from it given the back story it is based on. In this particular case I enjoy the movies, but dislike the games.