 |
The Gamer's Quarter
A quarterly publication
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mister Toups
Hates your favorite videogame
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Posts: 1693
Location: Lafayette, LA
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:38 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
disneyland's fallacy is that developers are looking forward to this. Some are but many aren't -- see Greg Costikyan's famoun rant. For many developers the next generation of hardware is a headache and introduces more problems thatn it solves. Valve's Gabe Newell isn't a fan of any of them, for instance, and I've read a few other developers complaining about how difficult it will be to develop for the new consoles.
_________________
where were you when nana komatsu got a wii? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bai
.
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Two arguments:
1. More power doesn't necessarily equate to (gaming) strength.
1.1 New features (graphical, processing, etc.) are only useful if they can be harnessed and implemented within the development cycle. If new features are difficult to program they will likely be ommitted due to time and money constraints. Without next-gen API programming experience, it is difficult for anyone to argue that new features completely justify new technology.
1.2 History tells us that new games are usually prettier versions of old games. I challenge anyone in this thread to argue otherwise.
The problem, as ApM, player2 and SuperWes argue, is one of culture. Gaming technology advances, the culture stays the same. New games are new expressions of old designs. This is hardly advancement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swimmy
.
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 990
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bai wrote: | | The problem, as ApM, player2 and SuperWes argue, is one of culture. Gaming technology advances, the culture stays the same. New games are new expressions of old designs. This is hardly advancement. |
What, then, changes culture?
Will Nintendo change the culture by totally changing the way we think about games and whatnot? Perhaps! Personally, I think it's already changing. There's a larger market than ever for niche / quirky / inventive / etc. games.
In other words, the success of Katamari Damacy may mean that this generation won't suck.
We'll see. I'll avoid any hype machines until then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperWes
Updated the banners, but not his title
Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 3725
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Two rebuttles:
1. No shit. I'm just saying that more power equates to more possibility, thus more potential for "(gaming) strength".
1.1 Your argument here only really applies to graphical prowess, which I think we should stray from mentioning because it moves away from the core of what will actually set next gen stuff apart. But if we're going to talk about graphics - so what if they leave out some graphic filters at the last minute. If a game is built around the use of the technology in ways that haven't been done before that's not exactly something they can cut.
To further expound, take a look at GTA3. I don't care if you like the game or not, it does some cool shit. And it does these things because it looks like shit. I mean, they really had to push the PS2 in order to make the game do what it does and it shows. At the very least, more power will mean that the promise GTA's world brings can finally be done in such a way that it looks presentable.
1.2 I can argue against this. The PS2's first year resulted in a lot of very unique games that were done because they finally could be. Fantavision, Cookies and Cream, Onimusha, SSX, Kessen, Ico, Devil May Cry, Grand Theft Auto 3. Ignoring this, take a look at the Dreamcast! You could really feel the developers' lust to take advantage of the new technology with games that just weren't possible before. And I'm not talking about graphics, I'm talking about game designs that couldn't have been done justice without more powerful systems.
So the new systems aren't going to allow developers to expand their vision of what games can be? Check out that Metal Gear 4 example I gave earlier. Not convinced? Check out 99 Nights. A game about armies of heroic Knights battling it out against each other. Check out Dead Rising. A game about a guy who has to photograph Zombies!?
What about the Picture in Picture storytelling of Perfect Dark? How about the context sensitive as FUCK Too Human? A game that Silicon Knights has wanted to do since the N64 days but hasn't had the power available.
We're getting so jaded that we don't realize that developers want to provide us with new experiences just as much as we want them. They've just been waiting for the power to do so.
-Wes
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
disneyland
.
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 131
Location: Shinsei
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Ignoring this, take a look at the Dreamcast! You could really feel the developers' lust to take advantage of the new technology with games that just weren't possible before. And I'm not talking about graphics, I'm talking about game designs that couldn't have been done justice without more powerful systems. |
God I love Power Stone. The first one. So simple and intuitive. Still looks great. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mister Toups
Hates your favorite videogame
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Posts: 1693
Location: Lafayette, LA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Too Human looks neat, I'll admit that, though I don't understand why it couldn't be done on Xbox or Gamecube.
And, anyway, we're kind of arguing across purposes here.
_________________
where were you when nana komatsu got a wii? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
disneyland
.
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 131
Location: Shinsei
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The DS interface: "gimmick" concept?
Gamasutra on Dawn of Sorrow:
| Quote: | The chief flaw brought up by all the reviewers was the game's use of the touch screen, often cited as getting in the way of the onscreen action. GameSpy's Justin Leeper complains that: "Dawn of Sorrow does its best to utilize the DS' capabilities, but I'm not too crazy about the end result. To put bosses away for good, you need to draw lines on the touch-screen to cast spells. Since you're not using the stylus normally, there's no chance that you can pull it out to cast the spell in time. Thus, you're left with your finger, which isn't nearly as accurate. As nifty as it is, using the touch-screen to clear debris off the screen and carve a path is more gimmick than anything."
Despite that eternal bugbear of DS reviews, the "gimmick" concept, rearing its ugly head again, most reviewers seemed happy with the relatively straightforward gameplay in a DS game, proving that innovative touchscreen technology isn't necessarily required for a critical success in the DS market -- and with such a popular and anticipated franchise, it's a good bet that the new Castlevania will become a decent commercial success compared to other DS games, too. |
Drawing (ahem) the lines between novelty, throwaway innovation and purposeful gameplay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | What, then, changes culture? |
culture changes culture.
that's obviously an oversimplification, but there's this horrid technocratic ideal that somehow the human being can be terraformed from the top-down. worse yet, people actually try that shit on a non-voluntary basis. (the difference between a kibbutz and year zero, for example)
anyway, i think in this case - not that gaming is a culture in any real sense, but we're stuck with that terminology because enough people started using it to describe 3 or more people who were into the same thing at the same time and used slang, but i digress - you're right, in that new kinds of game interaction can be adopted by enough people to create new modes. i.e. enough people took after the gameboy and made that style, size and shape the leader in portable gaming, just as the directional pad is with us now not because of coleco's power of suggestion, but the nes' popularity.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bai
.
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My basic point is that new technology is neutral and is neither 'good' nor 'bad' in itself. New technology can be used to explore new possibilities (good) or regurgitate past products (bad). Ultimately, political and economic factors determine how new technology is used. Videogaming's current state; the proliferation of licenses, lack of independent studios, growing annual sales and dominant corporate presence (as compared to other industries) would suggest that new technology would be used for derivation rather than innovation.
As the videogame industry grows more lucrative each year, it is difficult to argue that technological advance, just like the 'old days', is about expanding artistic vision rather than simply making more money. Technological advance, after all, doesn't exist in a vacuum and its reasons are historical.
| SuperWes wrote: |
1.1 Your argument here only really applies to graphical prowess, which I think we should stray from mentioning because it moves away from the core of what will actually set next gen stuff apart. But if we're going to talk about graphics - so what if they leave out some graphic filters at the last minute. If a game is built around the use of the technology in ways that haven't been done before that's not exactly something they can cut.
|
My argument applies to all programming because all programming can become more difficult in new generations, negating or lessening supposed qualitative benefits. My argument questions whether the supposed benefits can actually be used effectively within the time/money constraints of the development cycle, an equation which has remained more or less static or arguably longer, given greater programming complexity in new technology. In other words, do the supposed benefits of new technology outweigh the time and money spent learning how to use it and then implementing it in a meaningful way within a gaming context?
I don't understand the rest of your argument, please clarify.
| SuperWes wrote: |
To further expound, take a look at GTA3. I don't care if you like the game or not, it does some cool shit. And it does these things because it looks like shit. I mean, they really had to push the PS2 in order to make the game do what it does and it shows. At the very least, more power will mean that the promise GTA's world brings can finally be done in such a way that it looks presentable.
|
I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here.
| SuperWes wrote: |
1.2 I can argue against this. The PS2's first year resulted in a lot of very unique games that were done because they finally could be. Fantavision, Cookies and Cream, Onimusha, SSX, Kessen, Ico, Devil May Cry, Grand Theft Auto 3. Ignoring this, take a look at the Dreamcast! You could really feel the developers' lust to take advantage of the new technology with games that just weren't possible before. And I'm not talking about graphics, I'm talking about game designs that couldn't have been done justice without more powerful systems.
|
My argument is that most games were prettier versions of their counterparts, not that there were no unique games at all. Thus, you will have to look at all the games released and come back with a comparative figure on games that were conceived using new technology or games that were merely updated and repackaged using new technology.
I will admit, though, that the further back you go, the more leaps and bounds you will get in terms of gaming possibilities. Certainly the games you mentioned were unique in their time. Whether or not they were possible on previous systems is up for grabs. Again, lacking videogame API programming experience, it is difficult to say.
I would like to address the assumption that all developers respond positively to new technology; some may not and may wish for simpler tools. New technology brings new obligations to use it for purely commercial reasons ('obsolete' technology doesn't sell). It is reasonable to assume that some developers are tired of running the tech treadmill and continually updating their skills. In this sense, new technology stifles innovation because a developer is spending more time on purely technical work. Of course, some developers may get ideas from playing around with new technology, some may relish learning new programming skills as part of the creative process. It is important to acknowledge both sides.
Referring to the more recently released systems though, it seems gaming technology is reaching a plateau where it is becoming more difficult to justify advancing processing power to unlock new gaming possibilities. Of course, this is a long-standing equation of videogame technology but it will be more obvious in this generation than ever, due to aforementioned political and economic factors.
| SuperWes wrote: |
We're getting so jaded that we don't realize that developers want to provide us with new experiences just as much as we want them. They've just been waiting for the power to do so.
|
Time will reveal the truth of this statement. I would argue that most developers provide us with experiences that they know we will buy. In this case, as in every generation, the promise of new technology married with the usual screenshot/demo showreels seem to give gamers enough motivation to open their wallets.
Swimmy: I don't know what you are trying to argue in your last post, clarify, please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shapermc
Hot Sake!
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 6279
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
This reminds me of a few games that everyone knows and loves.
I was reading The Ultimate History of Videogames and come across a section about LD games. Well for one man, Tom Zito, they seemed like the future of gaming.
“[Sewer Shark and Night Trap], were originally made for Isix's ill-fated Control-Vision console (the console was to use VHS tapes for the games), but after Isix's console project (code-named NEMO) got the axe, this game and Sewer Shark (both made by Digital Pictures) were 'saved' by being ported over to the Sega CD.”
You can find more info on the console here.
Sewer Shark and Night Trap were “filmed” in 1987, but unable to be used until the technology was available in 1994 with the Sega CD "because they finally could be." At the time $20million was poured into the NEMO project in an attempt to make the technology available, but it was just not possible. Looking back we can see both the games and the technology as a bad idea.
Technology in relation to games does not always bring about better games based on innovation. I can think of more bad examples of uses for new technology than good. Luckily nothing about the XB2 and PS3 is too new. It is safe. It is charted territory.
Now we just have to worry about the same thing in a different package with a fresh coat of paint (yes, this has been said). I don’t think the technology itself is anything to be nervous of as far as design and innovation goes. Stagnation is something to worry about though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ketch
.
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 420
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| player 2 wrote: | Guh. Wes is just being contrarian.
The way I see it is that games need to stop masturbating over themselves. I don't care if you can make your old games bigger and better. I really don't give a fuck. All I play now is Street Fighter III which is really just the natural evolution of Street Fighter II which was released 15 years ago.. |
Yes, who cares about new fangled Physics, when the old eight-directional movement 2d-game objects were more fun? Until they make a *game* that takes advantage of these physics so that they are part of the *game* and not just elaborate window-dressing, and that game is ALSO fun, who cares? How about demolition bowling, where you need to knock things over with a cannon ball / boulder? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tablesaw
.
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 303
Location: LACAUSA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shapermc wrote: | | Tablesaw wrote: | | shapermc wrote: | Snakejimbo
Fistful of Gears
Last Snake Standing |
And who can forget Snakes on a Plane? |
...
I was following a different line of though. |
I know, but it's very hard to find a punchline better than Snakes on a Plane.
How about When Harry Met Snake?
| Quote: | | You know that a soldier and a scientist can never be just friends . . . |
_________________
It's the saw of the table! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Until they make a *game* that takes advantage of these physics so that they are part of the *game* and not just elaborate window-dressing, and that game is ALSO fun, who cares? |
they made that game. it's called half life 2.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ketch
.
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 420
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dhex wrote: | | Quote: | | Until they make a *game* that takes advantage of these physics so that they are part of the *game* and not just elaborate window-dressing, and that game is ALSO fun, who cares? |
they made that game. it's called half life 2. |
Actually, I thought that HL2 physics was mainly window dressing, wow! I can throw things at zombies and hurt them. It was still primarily a Shooter to me (even if you were shooting bits of scenery instead of bullets).
Come 'on, how about a hover-boarding game where the scenery moves, so you could grind on a rolling dustbin, then jump on to a drainpipe that breaks away from the wall in slow mo' and allows you to backflip onto a sofa on the back of a truck? that then falls down onto the road? So that the more detailed physics affects the gameplay? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
again, they made that game. it's called half-life 2.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
disneyland
.
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 131
Location: Shinsei
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Speaking of HL2, indie goodness coming on the 12th via Steam, Valve and Lionhead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
yeah, i hope steam takes off as a distribution system.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bai
.
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hmm, any chance of getting a reply on this one, SuperWes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperWes
Updated the banners, but not his title
Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 3725
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sure! I hope Steam doesn't take off as a distribution system because the only people willing to buy games on Steam are nerds. The breadth of people who play games should be expanding, not limiting.
That said, Steam is great if you happen to be a nerd.
--------------------------------------------------
I have a feeling you were talking about your previous post so I'll reply to that too!
| Bai wrote: | | My basic point is that new technology is neutral and is neither 'good' nor 'bad' in itself. New technology can be used to explore new possibilities (good) or regurgitate past products (bad). Ultimately, political and economic factors determine how new technology is used. Videogaming's current state; the proliferation of licenses, lack of independent studios, growing annual sales and dominant corporate presence (as compared to other industries) would suggest that new technology would be used for derivation rather than innovation. |
The falacy in this argument is that current technology is being used for derivation rather than innovation and new technology ain't exactly going to push the trend toward the derivation side of the scale (in fact, I'm arguing the opposite).
Check out the coming soon section of PS2 games at EB's website. Discounting Shadow of Colossus, the most innovative game listed is The Bible Game, and that's just because an officially licensed game that sways in a direction of religious favor is unprecedented on a console.
| Bai wrote: | | As the videogame industry grows more lucrative each year, it is difficult to argue that technological advance, just like the 'old days', is about expanding artistic vision rather than simply making more money. Technological advance, after all, doesn't exist in a vacuum and its reasons are historical. |
I don't know. If you look at the numbers, it's often much more lucrative for game companies to continue with the current technology instead of jumping forward. Whenever a new system comes out it usually takes well over a year before any titles can sell in the millions, whereas on current systems it seems like there are quite a few million sellers each year. For example: the Game Boy Advance technology was available for several years while the Game Boy was on the market, but Nintendo put off releasing it because they didn't want to cut into sales.
But lets take off our rose-colored glasses for a bit, new systems have NEVER been about expaning artistic vision. It's always been about making money and either trying to topple the next guy or stay in the number one position.
| Bai wrote: | My argument applies to all programming because all programming can become more difficult in new generations, negating or lessening supposed qualitative benefits. My argument questions whether the supposed benefits can actually be used effectively within the time/money constraints of the development cycle, an equation which has remained more or less static or arguably longer, given greater programming complexity in new technology. In other words, do the supposed benefits of new technology outweigh the time and money spent learning how to use it and then implementing it in a meaningful way within a gaming context?
I don't understand the rest of your argument, please clarify. |
Yes the programming can become more difficult, but from what I've seen even badly programmed games using next gen technology can be better than what we've got now. When the PS2 first came out, developers didn't have enough time to learn how to get the processors to work together correctly. As a result, they wrote games that used only the core processor, ignoring the multithreading processes that the PS2 was put together with the intention of using. With that in mind, compare Tekken 3 to Tekken Tag Tournament. Tekken 3 was the final Tekken game on the Playstation. It took all of Namco's development knowhow to fit a game that looked that good on the PSOne. Then the PS2 came out and they were able to create Tekken Tag in under six months. Tekken Tag looked downright amazing at the time, and the character swapping just wouldn't have been possible on the PSOne. They were able to do this while primarily using just one of the several processors inside of the Playstation 2.
| Bai wrote: | | I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. |
I was just saying that if a game's graphics are unable to do the design justice (as in the case of the GTA series and, to some extent, Shadow of Colossus), the new systems will allow these designs to finally come into their own and fulfill the promises that their concepts hold. This makes the new systems worthwhile.
| Bai wrote: | | My argument is that most games were prettier versions of their counterparts, not that there were no unique games at all. Thus, you will have to look at all the games released and come back with a comparative figure on games that were conceived using new technology or games that were merely updated and repackaged using new technology. |
This goes back to my point above, how is this different than what's happening on current systems? New systems aren't going to make the trend any more prevalent. I can see the rebuttle to this. You're going to say that with development costs rising, developers can't afford to take chances. All I can say to that is go ahead and look at the glass half full for once. Naughty Dog threw Crash out of the window when they moved from PS1 to PS2 because they realized that the character was a product of the technology. They proceeded to create a new character and new game design that took advantage of the new technology. This kind of thing will happen again with the next set of consoles.
But ignoring this, who cares? It's easy to wade through the crap at EB and find what I'm interested in playing. The amount of heavily marketed trash out there doesn't get in the way of me finding the games I'm interested in, and there's always just enough out there to keep my wallet thin. I haven't played a true sports game in 7 years, but that doesn't mean I think they should stop making sports games. None of us are in a position to judge other people's taste in games as long as they don't get in the way of our tastes being met also.
| Bai wrote: | I would like to address the assumption that all developers respond positively to new technology; some may not and may wish for simpler tools. New technology brings new obligations to use it for purely commercial reasons ('obsolete' technology doesn't sell). It is reasonable to assume that some developers are tired of running the tech treadmill and continually updating their skills. In this sense, new technology stifles innovation because a developer is spending more time on purely technical work. Of course, some developers may get ideas from playing around with new technology, some may relish learning new programming skills as part of the creative process. It is important to acknowledge both sides.
Referring to the more recently released systems though, it seems gaming technology is reaching a plateau where it is becoming more difficult to justify advancing processing power to unlock new gaming possibilities. Of course, this is a long-standing equation of videogame technology but it will be more obvious in this generation than ever, due to aforementioned political and economic factors. |
This is bullshit. If a designer doesn't get excited by the possibility that new technology brings, they're probably not very creative designers in the first place. If you're anything like me, you've had awesome game ideas that you know isn't possible on current consoles. We're not at a point where designers can come up with anything imaginable and a programmer can put it to the screen. Not even close. With each new console and each new programming innovation that possibility grows, but until that time comes, I don't think in any way that we should be praying for time to stand still.
| Bai wrote: | | Time will reveal the truth of this statement. I would argue that most developers provide us with experiences that they know we will buy. In this case, as in every generation, the promise of new technology married with the usual screenshot/demo showreels seem to give gamers enough motivation to open their wallets. |
Welcome to Earth. If you're expecting companies to make games that they don't think are going to sell I've got a business proposition for you.
-Wes
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | That said, Steam is great if you happen to be a nerd. |
or an independent developer who caters to nerds!
seriously though, steam only adds an avenue. it doesn't take away avenues. i'm a small-market tastes kinda guy, so i don't really care about licensed games or bongo shit or 3d dildo waving eye toy type shit. i don't want to swing link's sword - i can go swing a real sword if i want to swing swords. my carpal tunnel is bad enough as it is.
seriously though, steam-like stuff is the future. even greg costikyan says so! (well, i assume he does. i'll find out next week)
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ajutla
Moderator
Joined: 25 Oct 2004
Posts: 264
Location: Kansas City
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
See - the first thing I did after installing Half-Life 2 was find a crack for it that let me play offline without the Steam client. It's more convenient that way. The game starts faster. I don't have to worry about waiting for Steam to load and logging in and getting done playing and then closing Steam and finding out it's still open and will load automatically every time Windows starts.
And it kind of annoys me how the "play games" menu doesn't actually list games you own; it lists games you own plus the games you haven't bought yet but Valve would like you to buy. Generally, I keep looking over my shoulder in dark alleyways, half-expecting Steam to be right behind me with a knife.
THE POINT IS, I'm a nerd, and only nerds give a damn about these things. If you just want a slick way to install games and not have to worry about physical discs or even about finding where your games are on the Start menu, then Steam is great. It's easy to use, updates itself, lets you see a list of games that are JUST A CLICK AWAY, etc. I don't like it, but if things like it take over, you'll see a lot more non-nerds playing games.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mister Toups
Hates your favorite videogame
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Posts: 1693
Location: Lafayette, LA
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
I seem to remember you freaking out about it tinfoil hat-style when HL2 was released.
_________________
where were you when nana komatsu got a wii? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
i was wrong about steam, that's for sure. it's far less intrusive and crazy than i thought it would be.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ajutla
Moderator
Joined: 25 Oct 2004
Posts: 264
Location: Kansas City
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mister Toups wrote: | | I seem to remember you freaking out about it tinfoil hat-style when HL2 was released. |
This is why I bypass it.
I mean, I don't see your POINT, man.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bai
.
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey, thanks for replying!
I'm wary when developers talk about realising their 'true vision'. It is just part of marketing in my opinion. But everyone has their own interpretation.
I think every good artist learns to work within the limits. Blaming the tools at hand is laziness. 'Vision', after all, comes from understanding what the medium can do for you *right now*, not fantasising about a future perfect situation. Maybe this is something about the 'culture' of developers that deserves attention.
I won't speculate on whether all developers like (or should like) technology or not, but both sides can be left open.
It's true that companies lose money in launching new consoles but this is simply a rule of the market. New technology is necessary every few years because the competitor's PR will call you 'backward' and 'slow'. And gamers will accept it, they will accept the value of the platform as representing the value of the titles on it. This is true to an extent but the reason is primarily political. Investing in new technology is vital because the rhetoric of being on the 'innovative' side of things is valuable in discrediting competitors.
Apart from this we seem to be arguing past each other although we do agree on some things! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mister Toups
Hates your favorite videogame
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Posts: 1693
Location: Lafayette, LA
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ajutla wrote: | | Mister Toups wrote: | | I seem to remember you freaking out about it tinfoil hat-style when HL2 was released. |
This is why I bypass it.
I mean, I don't see your POINT, man. |
But I never saw yours.
I mean. Yeah, it's a hassle, but not anymore than like, packaging and dealing with a pimply EB clerk who will try to make me buy Halo 2 instead.
Hell, I have Steam installed on my computer and it starts up every time I boot up, and it doesn't bother me. And I don't even have any games that run with it!
(Short, uninteresting story behind that one)
_________________
where were you when nana komatsu got a wii? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ajutla
Moderator
Joined: 25 Oct 2004
Posts: 264
Location: Kansas City
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pimply EB clerks totally don't follow you home and live in your computer.
And I speak as a guy who pulls up the task manager every 45 minutes in an obsessive-compulsive way to find and kill suspicious process, and runs msconfig every so often to make sure unnecessary shit isn't getting pulled into memory on startup.
So yes, from that perspective, Steam really bothers me. I just..acknowledge that it doesn't bother people with more sanity than this.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swimmy
.
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 990
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dhex wrote: | | not that gaming is a culture in any real sense, but we're stuck with that terminology because enough people started using it to describe 3 or more people who were into the same thing at the same time and used slang |
I've been thinking about this, and it annoys me more and more. Subcultures of subcultures of subcultures are now just cultures. I will amend my ways.
I'm mostly just making this post to point out an excellent (as always) Joseph Epstein article. There's only a few paragraphs on the topic, but they're interesting. As is the rest of the article, particularly if, like me, you've given up TV altogether because of "celebrity culture."
_________________
"Ayn Rand fans are the old school version of Xenogears fanboys."
-seryogin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
