476
TalkBack / RE: Disney Gives to Goods on New Narnia Game
« on: March 08, 2005, 07:53:10 AM »
heh, well judging by the last paragraph the film is on track to be good
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
477
TalkBack / RE: PGC is Six Years Old!
« on: March 07, 2005, 11:57:05 AM »
wow, we're 3rd highest for just plain old gamecube (right under nintendo.com and cube.ign.com)
478
TalkBack / RE: PGC is Six Years Old!
« on: March 06, 2005, 08:55:15 PM »
Planet N2000 started a good two and a half years before the GameCube was released which gives a good idea of where we are today (expecting a new Nintendo console in just a year and a half tops). Nintendo is just as tight-lipped as ever, that's for sure.
479
TalkBack / RE: New Famitsu Scores
« on: March 01, 2005, 08:57:12 PM »
I think I had heard of meteos before now, but I have no idea what it is.
480
TalkBack / RE:Phoenix Unveils Market Research Results
« on: February 28, 2005, 07:51:49 PM »
When I have a game I like, I probably manage to devote at least 10 hours a day to it (on average) throughout the week(s) that I'm playing it. When I have no new games I like, I might pop in a game for 2 hours a couple nights a week. I don't know how to squeeze that into one of their little poll style questions.
481
TalkBack / RE:Iwata, Tsujimoto and Others Talk Next Week
« on: February 28, 2005, 12:42:56 PM »
Actraiser is the best game of all time.
ok maybe not, but it's awesome
peter m. yeah I agree he's a bit overated. I dug up an article or speech he made concerning the future of gameplay and found it extremely weak (especially in light of what happened to fable).
ok maybe not, but it's awesome
peter m. yeah I agree he's a bit overated. I dug up an article or speech he made concerning the future of gameplay and found it extremely weak (especially in light of what happened to fable).
482
TalkBack / RE: Phoenix Unveils Market Research Results
« on: February 28, 2005, 09:33:17 AM »
kingvudu, that is all very likely true. However, even with the best of intentions, I don't think most people can accurately estimate the amount of time they spend playing games.
483
TalkBack / RE: Phoenix Unveils Market Research Results
« on: February 28, 2005, 07:48:45 AM »
Research like this is interesting, but I question the validity of the data. When someone (or more likely an online poll) asks me how many hours per day I spend playing video games, I generally don't answer. If I'm compelled to answer, my answer will be a poor estimate at best. The reason, of course, is that I don't measure my game time and it varies greatly each day. When I go home with a game like Resident Evil 4, I may spend 8 hours a day for a week playing. When I'm tired of the game, I may go several days (or weeks) without playing anything substantial. Of course, that information sounds good in a press release and the ultimate goal of a market research firm is to sell market research.
Questions that I'd be more interested in are how many games do we purchase? How often do we purchase them at full price verses discounted prices or used prices and why? What kind of stores do we shop at most often? What consoles do we own and how does this relate to other statistics? Why do GameCube owners appear to spend more time per day playing than PS2 and XBox owners?
Questions that I'd be more interested in are how many games do we purchase? How often do we purchase them at full price verses discounted prices or used prices and why? What kind of stores do we shop at most often? What consoles do we own and how does this relate to other statistics? Why do GameCube owners appear to spend more time per day playing than PS2 and XBox owners?
484
TalkBack / RE:Jeff Corwin Explores the Nintendo DS
« on: February 28, 2005, 07:24:47 AM »
It'll be intesting to see what developers do with games that must be ported to or from the DS. The interface is drastically different and even the graphical capabilities are significantly less than those of any current console and Sony's PSP. I would imagine PSP to DS ports and vice versa will be very infrequent, but simultaneous development such as this won't be.
I imagine that once a clear lead is established in terms of units sold (either the PSP or DS) then they will cater to that system as they develop simultaneously and then sort of port to the other system. Eitherway, these kinds of third party games tend to be weak the vast majority of the time so I'm more interested in the behavior of the developers and publishers rather than the games themselves.
I imagine that once a clear lead is established in terms of units sold (either the PSP or DS) then they will cater to that system as they develop simultaneously and then sort of port to the other system. Eitherway, these kinds of third party games tend to be weak the vast majority of the time so I'm more interested in the behavior of the developers and publishers rather than the games themselves.
485
TalkBack / RE: EDITORIAL: Choose Your Weapons
« on: February 27, 2005, 09:33:14 PM »
You know, I can't imagine they'd wire that GBA port into the system without planning to use it kinda like the N64's memory card slot. The new DS carts/cards are way too msall for things like rumble and tilt sensor I think, but as long as they thought ahead when designing the system, they could easily have a DS game/card/app access whatever's in the GBA game slot.
"Heh, can you guess which one is mine? The next 'Question of the Week', which should be up soon, asks developers about what innovations they think the next generation of consoles will help them bring. It will be very interesting to see what they say."
Is that so? I seem to remember doing an editorial on that subject recently...
I wonder if they'll give ridiculous answers or realistic ones (or a good mix).
"Heh, can you guess which one is mine? The next 'Question of the Week', which should be up soon, asks developers about what innovations they think the next generation of consoles will help them bring. It will be very interesting to see what they say."
Is that so? I seem to remember doing an editorial on that subject recently...
I wonder if they'll give ridiculous answers or realistic ones (or a good mix).
486
TalkBack / RE:EDITORIAL: Choose Your Weapons
« on: February 27, 2005, 12:17:59 PM »
It's never too early for a price cut. The N64's US price was cut 50 dollars before it even went on sale.
487
TalkBack / RE:EDITORIAL: Choose Your Weapons
« on: February 27, 2005, 08:13:46 AM »
"The fact that PSP will undoubtedly sell out at launch is a good point. Nintendo isn't going to stop that no matter what they do because the launch PSPs will be snapped up by all the early-adopters. But they at least need to announce something to sway those people that are saying, "Maybe I'll buy a PSP a few months after launch"."
Point. Even if there isn't stock, launch is the big hype time and any major DS anouncements will be equally hyped and visible. Launch is the time to strike even if there is a shortage of units on Sony's.
What Nintendo needs is someway to get people who are going into get a PSP, find that there's no stock, and decides to get a DS instead. I doubt there's any app that Nintendo could dream up (even with a lot of time) that could achieve that in vast numbers though.
Point. Even if there isn't stock, launch is the big hype time and any major DS anouncements will be equally hyped and visible. Launch is the time to strike even if there is a shortage of units on Sony's.
What Nintendo needs is someway to get people who are going into get a PSP, find that there's no stock, and decides to get a DS instead. I doubt there's any app that Nintendo could dream up (even with a lot of time) that could achieve that in vast numbers though.
488
TalkBack / RE:EDITORIAL: Choose Your Weapons
« on: February 26, 2005, 11:28:24 PM »
I think there's a good possibility that the PSP's timing and likely shortages will work against it. For the PS2, the shortages didn't hurt because there were a riduclous amount of people trying to get one. The PSP may have shortages, but I think they'll likely be more Sony's fault than the result of hoards of people looking for a PSP. By the time they get some stock on shelves, interest may wane. Some who couldn't find one may change their mind and never get one. It depends on how the PSP and Nintendo's DS are marketed. Depending on Sony's stock situation, it may make more sense for Nintendo to hold off on big anouncements until a time after the launch. They likely cannot prevent Sony from selling every single unit at launch considering they don't have a huge stockpile to work with (unless I'm wrong on that assumption).
Anyway, making big DS (and even GBA2) anouncements just before the PSP goes on sale is just the kind of tactic that works (as Sony proved by using those exact measures against Sega's Dreamcast 5 years ago). It'll be interesting to see if Nintendo does anything noticable.
Anyway, making big DS (and even GBA2) anouncements just before the PSP goes on sale is just the kind of tactic that works (as Sony proved by using those exact measures against Sega's Dreamcast 5 years ago). It'll be interesting to see if Nintendo does anything noticable.
489
TalkBack / RE:EDITORIAL: With Great Power ...
« on: February 26, 2005, 08:56:06 AM »
avinish, I meant that if they used the tech in that video g-tron linked to it would be suicide... I expect them to make major changes to the controller and that will probably be a good thing (mostly)
490
TalkBack / RE:EDITORIAL: With Great Power ...
« on: February 25, 2005, 11:27:07 PM »
You forget how conservative Nintendo is. On one hand they want to come upon something that will make their system a must have (they don't want to simply create an image and run with it as Sony and MS largely did/do). However, they don't want to chase their current fanbase away either as that would be suicide. Revolution will be, at the most, traditional video games with a radically different controller. This would not be a revolution, it would be suicide.
Including props would not help the situation. It would only be interesting and compelling if they were very expensive props. Cheap props would not do.
The lemmings idea, at least shows that you're putting some thought into this. Fun game designs could be made, however, I still think it's just way too far out there. The tech isn't ripe enough. THIS (unlike the DS) might have made a good third pillar. A true third pillar. But it's not a replacement or successor to Nintendo's console. Most of their franchises would be almost completely useless in this context. Mario could jump around your room and that would work, but Zelda would be pretty much useless (for example). Since the game has to remain on the TV, I think it'd be a much better system if you used gloves as I mentioned to manipulate virtual things rather than your real hands to manipulate real things that affected the virtual agents on the tv (you'd be looking at your environment while things on the tv changed in that case which is not good). It's just got way too many problems to be revolution.
When Nintendo says they don't want to compete with MS and Sony, they mean they don't want to try and take over the world and be the adult game company. They want to remain an all ages company and remain profitable without great risk. They've also said that we should look at the DS as an example of the kind of change revolution would be. In other words, it's going to be an interface change (controller) not something crazy like VR or this device.
By the way, when/where did Nintendo anounce the lack of A and B buttons? Anyway, this tech would still benefit from a controller. Nintendo is already using gyroscopes (kirby tilt and tumble, ware ware with the gryoscope in the GBA cart). Unless they come up with some device that makes it obsolete (a power glove type thing) they'll probably include a gyroscope on their next controller.
I'll mail you a 100 bucks if Nintendo uses the tech on that video.
That gamespy article just bolsters my case. Nintendo can revolutionize things with a simple change in the packed in controller (sure anyone can release eye toy, but to pack something weird like that in as the standard controller makes it really count). They're not going to go out on a limb and do something crazy. Nintendo doesn't have to take that kind of risk.
"But the crazy part is, this isn't some sort of weird hypothetical future scenario. The technology is pretty much here. This is being worked on right now. By the end of the next console generation, per-pixel distance-measurement cameras will be available at a consumer price point."
The funny thing is, I think this is way overboard. It's not even necessary. It's hardly useful to track full body movement because you're stuck in your room (so you can't go walk somewhere in the game world). The best thing we can have right now is something new to do with our hands. Even head tracking is useless without VR goggles (becuase you turn your head away from the screen otherwise).
xts3: hindsight is 20/20. The N64 format had advantages for games: it had much faster transfer rates (no loading times). We're stuck with them now, but at the time choosing a medium that would add big loading times to games didn't seem like a good idea, especially when the only thing that storage was needed for was FMV which isn't even strictly part of the game. The reason CD won is because it's very, very cheap. Carts are too expensive for their size.
As for nintendo burying the current paradigm... yeah that was more of a flashy sentence than a well thought out one. Nintendo doesn't want to bury anything. In all honesty, I'll be surprised if they do anything more than add a gyro and a touch screen to the revolution controller. If they go as far as to take the glove route, they won't truly have buried anything. Now if they go the g-tron route and use the tech in that video, they will have completely buried the past for all intents and purposes (which is why I know they won't do it).
Including props would not help the situation. It would only be interesting and compelling if they were very expensive props. Cheap props would not do.
The lemmings idea, at least shows that you're putting some thought into this. Fun game designs could be made, however, I still think it's just way too far out there. The tech isn't ripe enough. THIS (unlike the DS) might have made a good third pillar. A true third pillar. But it's not a replacement or successor to Nintendo's console. Most of their franchises would be almost completely useless in this context. Mario could jump around your room and that would work, but Zelda would be pretty much useless (for example). Since the game has to remain on the TV, I think it'd be a much better system if you used gloves as I mentioned to manipulate virtual things rather than your real hands to manipulate real things that affected the virtual agents on the tv (you'd be looking at your environment while things on the tv changed in that case which is not good). It's just got way too many problems to be revolution.
When Nintendo says they don't want to compete with MS and Sony, they mean they don't want to try and take over the world and be the adult game company. They want to remain an all ages company and remain profitable without great risk. They've also said that we should look at the DS as an example of the kind of change revolution would be. In other words, it's going to be an interface change (controller) not something crazy like VR or this device.
By the way, when/where did Nintendo anounce the lack of A and B buttons? Anyway, this tech would still benefit from a controller. Nintendo is already using gyroscopes (kirby tilt and tumble, ware ware with the gryoscope in the GBA cart). Unless they come up with some device that makes it obsolete (a power glove type thing) they'll probably include a gyroscope on their next controller.
I'll mail you a 100 bucks if Nintendo uses the tech on that video.
That gamespy article just bolsters my case. Nintendo can revolutionize things with a simple change in the packed in controller (sure anyone can release eye toy, but to pack something weird like that in as the standard controller makes it really count). They're not going to go out on a limb and do something crazy. Nintendo doesn't have to take that kind of risk.
"But the crazy part is, this isn't some sort of weird hypothetical future scenario. The technology is pretty much here. This is being worked on right now. By the end of the next console generation, per-pixel distance-measurement cameras will be available at a consumer price point."
The funny thing is, I think this is way overboard. It's not even necessary. It's hardly useful to track full body movement because you're stuck in your room (so you can't go walk somewhere in the game world). The best thing we can have right now is something new to do with our hands. Even head tracking is useless without VR goggles (becuase you turn your head away from the screen otherwise).
xts3: hindsight is 20/20. The N64 format had advantages for games: it had much faster transfer rates (no loading times). We're stuck with them now, but at the time choosing a medium that would add big loading times to games didn't seem like a good idea, especially when the only thing that storage was needed for was FMV which isn't even strictly part of the game. The reason CD won is because it's very, very cheap. Carts are too expensive for their size.
As for nintendo burying the current paradigm... yeah that was more of a flashy sentence than a well thought out one. Nintendo doesn't want to bury anything. In all honesty, I'll be surprised if they do anything more than add a gyro and a touch screen to the revolution controller. If they go as far as to take the glove route, they won't truly have buried anything. Now if they go the g-tron route and use the tech in that video, they will have completely buried the past for all intents and purposes (which is why I know they won't do it).
491
TalkBack / RE:Walk of Game Unveiling at GDC
« on: February 25, 2005, 08:14:00 AM »
Halo deserves a spot, but it seems a bit early. I don't know. How does hollywood go about doing their st upid walk?
492
TalkBack / RE:EDITORIAL: With Great Power ...
« on: February 24, 2005, 08:35:03 PM »
It's still useless. It's just a cheap way of combining real world images with an interactive element. Either way it completely takes the possibility of level design away from the game designers. That leaves them with nothing but toy design. They can make some toy that acts a certain way. They could even make AI controlled enemies, but they could not control the terrain because that is defined by whatever you point the camera out. This would be a poor medium for video games as we know them. You want to fight some epic battles with your living room as the back drop? That hardly seems like an improvement, just a gimmick.
Anyway, Nintendo could use some help, but I'm sure they could be effective without any revolutions except maybe a revolution in their marketing strategy. I'm not really concerned about Nintendo being on top of things though. As long as they're profitable and don't release severely underpowered consoles I'm happy.
Anyway, Nintendo could use some help, but I'm sure they could be effective without any revolutions except maybe a revolution in their marketing strategy. I'm not really concerned about Nintendo being on top of things though. As long as they're profitable and don't release severely underpowered consoles I'm happy.
493
TalkBack / RE:EDITORIAL: With Great Power ...
« on: February 24, 2005, 01:02:23 PM »
There was at one time talk of an xbox port, but the time for that is drawing to a close (with a likely XBox2 release at the end of this year). The final specs for the game were a 1.2 Ghz processor and even without the encumberance of the windows OS, I'm not sure the XBox's old 733 Mhz P3 can handle that. Of course, Doom 3's minimum specs are even higher (50% more memory and a 1.5 Ghz CPu instead of 1.2) however, Doom 3's requirements stem more from graphics issues than gameplay so perhaps they made cuts to the xbox version's physics engine (for example). If they did manage to get it to work, it would likely be incredibly butchered (for example, Lemmings on the NES does not come close to capturing the feeling of the SNES version).
494
TalkBack / RE:EDITORIAL: With Great Power ...
« on: February 24, 2005, 10:16:57 AM »
"As far as the Half-Life issue, I will have to concede since I haven't played it. BUT, I think you'll have to admit that any advancement that Half-Life might have introduced is nowhere near the "revolution" that something like that video that I posted would be to gameplay."
As I've already stated, the technology demonstrated in that video would be horrible for gameplay. It would be like having a remote controlled car, except you can't watch the real car you have to watch it on a TV. And you can't take it outside because it can only play in the area captured by the camera. It would be a very poor technology for video games. It's more of a virtual toy system than a video game. So not only will I not admit it, but I will contradict it. That device could not be used effectively for compelling video games in my opinion. Replacing the vibrant imagintive worlds of video games with static shots of the actual environment is not revolutionary, it's severely limiting.
"Sony supposedly has some interest in this technology too. So the gaming companies are definately looking at it. "
I'm sure they are. And I'm sure they are shaking their heads saying to themselves... this will not make a good video game. It would make a good gimmick (like eye toy) that you could attach to a console, but as a stand alone product, it could not be the focus of a new console (unless that console wanted to fail).
Stop and think for a second. What kind of games could be made with such a system? Who wants to play pac-man in a real city? It's a gimmick. There's very little in the way of really good game design that could be made with this system without huge compromises to what we think of as a video game. The problem is that every game would have to take place in the real world and that would quite simply suck.
VR is going to require a lot more than graphics technology. The headsite doesn't make VR. Total immersion does. Ideal VR would tap directly into your brain and substitute real sensory information with imaginary information. The second best thing would accomplish the same thing with external devices, but the the problem of transferring sensory information to a person's skin, nose and tongue are completely unsolved right now. Movement is also a problem because you can only move your head and arms without going anywhere (i.e. you move your legs and you start walking around while playing games which is a problem). Real VR is still quite far from a consumer application.
As I've already stated, the technology demonstrated in that video would be horrible for gameplay. It would be like having a remote controlled car, except you can't watch the real car you have to watch it on a TV. And you can't take it outside because it can only play in the area captured by the camera. It would be a very poor technology for video games. It's more of a virtual toy system than a video game. So not only will I not admit it, but I will contradict it. That device could not be used effectively for compelling video games in my opinion. Replacing the vibrant imagintive worlds of video games with static shots of the actual environment is not revolutionary, it's severely limiting.
"Sony supposedly has some interest in this technology too. So the gaming companies are definately looking at it. "
I'm sure they are. And I'm sure they are shaking their heads saying to themselves... this will not make a good video game. It would make a good gimmick (like eye toy) that you could attach to a console, but as a stand alone product, it could not be the focus of a new console (unless that console wanted to fail).
Stop and think for a second. What kind of games could be made with such a system? Who wants to play pac-man in a real city? It's a gimmick. There's very little in the way of really good game design that could be made with this system without huge compromises to what we think of as a video game. The problem is that every game would have to take place in the real world and that would quite simply suck.
VR is going to require a lot more than graphics technology. The headsite doesn't make VR. Total immersion does. Ideal VR would tap directly into your brain and substitute real sensory information with imaginary information. The second best thing would accomplish the same thing with external devices, but the the problem of transferring sensory information to a person's skin, nose and tongue are completely unsolved right now. Movement is also a problem because you can only move your head and arms without going anywhere (i.e. you move your legs and you start walking around while playing games which is a problem). Real VR is still quite far from a consumer application.
495
TalkBack / RE:EDITORIAL: With Great Power ...
« on: February 24, 2005, 09:29:18 AM »
"A doubled or tripled polygon count isn't a fraction as significant as the jump from 8 - 16 bit color. Back then, that was lightyears difference. At a certain point, you just get diminishing returns. I simply think that the current generation's lifespan should have been extended until those improvements were more significant."
Who said anything about double or triple? From the N64 to GameCube the polygon count increased by 100 to 1000 times depending on the software. If you think the next gen consoles will merely double or triple polygon count then you're going to be in for a surprise. It won't be quite as dramatic a jump as fromt he N64 to the Cube (which was the result of adding transform hardware), but it will still be large. I'm expecting real-time polygon counts to go from 10 million per second max to at least 100 million per second max.
As for that video demonstration, I was not impressed at all. That's hardly any different than a remote control car except it's stuck in your computer monitor which is playing footage of the environment around you. In other words, the game "world" would not be in control of the designer, just the game objects. It would make for very poor video game technology imo (it's not unlike volumetric 3D which would also make for poor game technology: see my old editorial on Volumetric 3D).
I'd be willing to bet lots of money that this technology has nothing to do with Nintendo and that Nintendo's revolution is nothing like this technology. I stand by my belief that revolution's special feature will be some kind of modification to the controller (if not a new kind of controller all together). The game's themselves will continue to be traditional 3D (although augmented by whatever new control technology Nintendo has come up with).
Who said anything about double or triple? From the N64 to GameCube the polygon count increased by 100 to 1000 times depending on the software. If you think the next gen consoles will merely double or triple polygon count then you're going to be in for a surprise. It won't be quite as dramatic a jump as fromt he N64 to the Cube (which was the result of adding transform hardware), but it will still be large. I'm expecting real-time polygon counts to go from 10 million per second max to at least 100 million per second max.
As for that video demonstration, I was not impressed at all. That's hardly any different than a remote control car except it's stuck in your computer monitor which is playing footage of the environment around you. In other words, the game "world" would not be in control of the designer, just the game objects. It would make for very poor video game technology imo (it's not unlike volumetric 3D which would also make for poor game technology: see my old editorial on Volumetric 3D).
I'd be willing to bet lots of money that this technology has nothing to do with Nintendo and that Nintendo's revolution is nothing like this technology. I stand by my belief that revolution's special feature will be some kind of modification to the controller (if not a new kind of controller all together). The game's themselves will continue to be traditional 3D (although augmented by whatever new control technology Nintendo has come up with).
496
TalkBack / RE:EDITORIAL: With Great Power ...
« on: February 24, 2005, 08:41:27 AM »
"Perhaps... but I'm doubtful that the advancements are as integral as you suggest. Ultimately, I can't answer that question since I haven't played either. Hardcore gamers and techies get overly excited over every litte advancement, citing things as "more realistic water dynamics!!!" as creating a whole new game experience."
I suggest you play Half-Life 2 before we continue down this road. The physics engine is an integeral part of the gameplay, not just graphical dressing. The AI is not such a noticable thing, but it is good.
". But to think that they're really the only PC games that are so tricky to port should show you that we're reaching a technological/creative plateau -"
Every game from now on will be tricky to port (that is every game that uses their engines for example). You're trying to say that current hardware is good enough to realize all game designs. It's clearly not.
"Arcade games can't look and behave all that much better than their little console brothers."
The reason for this is software related not hardware. Arcade games don't generate enough money to pay for the massive costs associated with developing state of the art graphics. The hardware for arcade machines could easily be designed to be more expensive than console hardware, but htere is no point.
I have to run, I'll address the rest later
I suggest you play Half-Life 2 before we continue down this road. The physics engine is an integeral part of the gameplay, not just graphical dressing. The AI is not such a noticable thing, but it is good.
". But to think that they're really the only PC games that are so tricky to port should show you that we're reaching a technological/creative plateau -"
Every game from now on will be tricky to port (that is every game that uses their engines for example). You're trying to say that current hardware is good enough to realize all game designs. It's clearly not.
"Arcade games can't look and behave all that much better than their little console brothers."
The reason for this is software related not hardware. Arcade games don't generate enough money to pay for the massive costs associated with developing state of the art graphics. The hardware for arcade machines could easily be designed to be more expensive than console hardware, but htere is no point.
I have to run, I'll address the rest later
497
TalkBack / RE: EDITORIAL: With Great Power ...
« on: February 23, 2005, 04:45:28 PM »
I think one could be designed that doesn't require anymore effort than a controller for the most part. Of course, a large part of that would be up to the game designer.
498
TalkBack / RE:EDITORIAL: With Great Power ...
« on: February 23, 2005, 01:57:20 PM »
Broadband is getting better. My Cable company now offers three different tiers of service (with the standard 50 dollar tier being the middle one now). But more importantly, many more people are upgrading to broadband from modem's. That's mostly what I meant by increasing bandwidth. Even world of warcraft (the most recent high profile MMORPG) requires only a 56k modem at worst. Soon more games will require a broadband connection at the minimum and that will have an effect on MMOG design.
"Bah! 2D games don't make a "leap" to 3D. For the most part, they're just 2D franchise names, that get whored out to help sell new (hit or miss) 3D franchises."
That's what people who don't like 3D games much like to say. And it's true in many cases. However, completely false in many other cases. Metroid Prime, for example, has a lot in common with 2D metroids. It has a similar weapon/energy system, similar upgrade system and similar basic design (with exploration and backtracking). I won't bother citing the details of other examples, but I think it's clear to most people that Mario 64 and Zelda OoT borrow quite a bit from their 2D brethren. Other good examples are: Metal Gear Solid and Pricnce of Persia. Excitebike 64 is an example of a game that has very little in common with the original, but still turned out quite well (of course it does still feature the redlining from the classic and the track editor). You sound a bit jaded to me (probably thanks to the castlevania, mega man, contra, rygar, ninja gaiden etc. transitions to 3D).
"Either way, Nintendo has been a force for 2D, with their home consoles, with their own franchises, with the GBA, with the DS, you name it. If they usher in an age beyond what we call "3D", will they really abandon the past? I'm leaning towards "hell no", but you never know what the future might hold. Especially when Nintendo won't tell anyone squat about what they're thinking."
Not a bad point. However, the controller may be designed in such a way as to force the past to be abandoned (at least on that console).
Ian Sane: that device you described is far too complex for Nintendo's style. You're talking about the company that refused to put a second Z button on the left side of their GameCube controller (which would have made PS2 ports so much easier). It would be good if such a device could have an analog stick on it... but I could see them doing something like that and leaving it out. However, your hand could easily function as an analog stick with a glove on it. There would be one censor on your wrist that would only move if you moved your arm. For analog functionality your arm movements would be ignored. Instead, it would measure the movement if, say, your index finger with respect to your wrist (so essentially you would just pivot your hand around on your wrist just as you pivot the analog stick around in its socket to move a character). Imagine how much more intuitive that would be for people who have not yet adjusted to analog sticks (and there are many).
You know, I like the sound of this idea more and more as I think about it. Two gloves sounds bad, but one glove with an auxillary device in the other hand could work excellently.
ruby, that could work, but it would be more difficult than it sounds. THat would require extraordinary precision and you would need standardized dummy devices (or else you'd have to calibrate any device you need to use). It would work in theory, but I think it would be too complex. It's cool though, because such a glove on one hand could function as an analog stick or as a mouse.
"Bah! 2D games don't make a "leap" to 3D. For the most part, they're just 2D franchise names, that get whored out to help sell new (hit or miss) 3D franchises."
That's what people who don't like 3D games much like to say. And it's true in many cases. However, completely false in many other cases. Metroid Prime, for example, has a lot in common with 2D metroids. It has a similar weapon/energy system, similar upgrade system and similar basic design (with exploration and backtracking). I won't bother citing the details of other examples, but I think it's clear to most people that Mario 64 and Zelda OoT borrow quite a bit from their 2D brethren. Other good examples are: Metal Gear Solid and Pricnce of Persia. Excitebike 64 is an example of a game that has very little in common with the original, but still turned out quite well (of course it does still feature the redlining from the classic and the track editor). You sound a bit jaded to me (probably thanks to the castlevania, mega man, contra, rygar, ninja gaiden etc. transitions to 3D).
"Either way, Nintendo has been a force for 2D, with their home consoles, with their own franchises, with the GBA, with the DS, you name it. If they usher in an age beyond what we call "3D", will they really abandon the past? I'm leaning towards "hell no", but you never know what the future might hold. Especially when Nintendo won't tell anyone squat about what they're thinking."
Not a bad point. However, the controller may be designed in such a way as to force the past to be abandoned (at least on that console).
Ian Sane: that device you described is far too complex for Nintendo's style. You're talking about the company that refused to put a second Z button on the left side of their GameCube controller (which would have made PS2 ports so much easier). It would be good if such a device could have an analog stick on it... but I could see them doing something like that and leaving it out. However, your hand could easily function as an analog stick with a glove on it. There would be one censor on your wrist that would only move if you moved your arm. For analog functionality your arm movements would be ignored. Instead, it would measure the movement if, say, your index finger with respect to your wrist (so essentially you would just pivot your hand around on your wrist just as you pivot the analog stick around in its socket to move a character). Imagine how much more intuitive that would be for people who have not yet adjusted to analog sticks (and there are many).
You know, I like the sound of this idea more and more as I think about it. Two gloves sounds bad, but one glove with an auxillary device in the other hand could work excellently.
ruby, that could work, but it would be more difficult than it sounds. THat would require extraordinary precision and you would need standardized dummy devices (or else you'd have to calibrate any device you need to use). It would work in theory, but I think it would be too complex. It's cool though, because such a glove on one hand could function as an analog stick or as a mouse.
499
TalkBack / RE:EDITORIAL: With Great Power ...
« on: February 23, 2005, 01:20:14 PM »
Hmm, yeah, I should qualify my agreement with Ian by saying that I too enjoyed Mario Sunshine and felt that FLUDD was a worthy addition. I just wish the game had some more variety in location (too much beach/sun/water).
However, I do agree that Wario Ware DS is mostly a gimmicky game. So was the original, however, it was unique then. On the DS the most worthwhile games are minigames (Mario 64 mini games and wario ware mini games). I want a *real* DS game that uses its features. A game like Zelda that somehow uses the touch screen.
However, I do agree that Wario Ware DS is mostly a gimmicky game. So was the original, however, it was unique then. On the DS the most worthwhile games are minigames (Mario 64 mini games and wario ware mini games). I want a *real* DS game that uses its features. A game like Zelda that somehow uses the touch screen.
500
TalkBack / RE:EDITORIAL: With Great Power ...
« on: February 23, 2005, 01:10:33 PM »
Exactly Ian Sane. The best barameter of the revolution is the DS. Unfortunately it hasn't been around long enough to get a great reading and I'm confident the revolution will have a very different launch (it will be supported by original Nintendo titles not ports with bonus features and 3rd party games). What I'm worried about is the revolution's "secret".
However, there is some hope. Controllers are clearly not the optimal input device for all games (compare keyboard and mouse). There may be some other method of controlling games that no one else has thought of yet that could truly revolutionize the industry. Who knows, perhaps Nintendo came up with a great idea and all of this revolution talk is market speak. In other words... I'd be more optimistic If I was sure the idea behind revolution came before the idea that there needs to be a revolution.
Maybe the input device is being changed to a more keyboard and mouse like setup. You'd have some kind of thing with buttons in your left (or right) hand and some kind of glove or gryoscopic device in your right hand (that would have mouse-like functionality). Both devices would be wireless and work in either hand to accomodate lefties.
However, there is some hope. Controllers are clearly not the optimal input device for all games (compare keyboard and mouse). There may be some other method of controlling games that no one else has thought of yet that could truly revolutionize the industry. Who knows, perhaps Nintendo came up with a great idea and all of this revolution talk is market speak. In other words... I'd be more optimistic If I was sure the idea behind revolution came before the idea that there needs to be a revolution.
Maybe the input device is being changed to a more keyboard and mouse like setup. You'd have some kind of thing with buttons in your left (or right) hand and some kind of glove or gryoscopic device in your right hand (that would have mouse-like functionality). Both devices would be wireless and work in either hand to accomodate lefties.
The entire contents of this Web site, unless otherwise noted, are Copyright © 1999 - 2012 NINWR, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ™ and © for all products, characters, and indicia related thereto which are contained herein are owned by the companies who market or license those products. This Web site is not endorsed, sponsored, nor otherwise affiliated with Nintendo. It has been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and knowledge. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form without consent from NINWR, LLC is prohibited.
