 | Studio Archcraft
Studio Archcraft Forums
|
|
|
COMPULSORY UPGRADE!!! Request for an upgrade NOW! 32+ Pre-installed Modifications! 3 Server Locations to choose from: USA, UK and JAPAN.
12th December 2012 - Yabbers: All servers are upgraded to run using SSD drive. Click Here to report problems!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Which of the next-generation video game consoles do you currently plan to purchase? |
| Nintendo Wii. |
|
68% |
[ 24 ] |
| Sony Playstation 3. |
|
5% |
[ 2 ] |
| Microsoft Xbox 360. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Two of the above. (Specify) |
|
17% |
[ 6 ] |
| None of the above. |
|
8% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 35 |
|
| Author |
Message |
MCarper
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 7
:
Items
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:58 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Here is an interesting series of articles regarding the state of the video game industry. I'm posting these because they relate to my bit on big budget video games: the more money that is required to produce and sell a title, the less likely a developer is to take creative risks, resulting in a simple, business-driven rehashing of previously successful titles (Madden anyone?).
I'm hoping that the Wii's low price tag will attract more consumers than its competitors, motivating developers to create games for the Wii out of necessity. Since the Wii's technology is unique, developers are almost forced to be creative with the way in which they design their games because for a title to be successful on the Wii, it must capitalize on the Wii's potential.
If my hopes and predictions are true, innovation will breed more innovation, which is good for both gamers and the video game industry as a whole.
Anyways, those articles:
http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=13236
| Quote: | | 3. Increased Risk Means Decreased Creativity - The next-gen systems require publishers to place very large bets with each title. This will mean decreased risk taking and just regurgitated sequels of big brand franchises. How many publishers will take risks with multiplatform original IP? This is clearly not good news for the consumer as innovation has driven our industry from the beginning. The irony is that the amazing tools, capabilities and quality of the new systems may very well doom what is most important, which is the game itself. Reconciling what a creative team wants and what the executive suite needs in terms of profits will be a growing challenge for many companies. |
http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=13314
| Quote: | | I think Microsoft gets this model with Xbox Live and its Arcade services. If publishers engage consumers with excellent experiences, they will spend time and money. If publishers just hope to sell the same repackaged crap with license for $60, they will lose. Today's gamer is a media consumer. The competition is MySpace, music, blogs, YouTube and online games. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
arsmoriendi
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 13
:
Items
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I hope you all realize that the Wii is designed for simplicity of use above all else. Not some weird, niche new genre of games that are going to have developers thinking in circles trying to outsmart or come up with better innovations then a competitor. Yeah, encouraging new ideas is a part of it, but making things easier for the average consumer overall is the nintendo's main strategy. My main point here is that originality doesn't always equal a fun experience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ManDarK
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 289
:
Location: Wels (Austria)
Items
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But somehow in this case simplicity and innovation are close together.
And if this innovation wouldn't be fun then Nintendo wouldn't use it or Nintendo wouldn't have so many fans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keige
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 113
:
Location: Texas
Items
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I put down Wii, but I mean Wii and 360. The PS3 is way to expensive, even though my dad said he'd buy me one. I couldn't ask anyone to buy me a game console that expensive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MCarper
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 7
:
Items
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| arsmoriendi wrote: | | I hope you all realize that the Wii is designed for simplicity of use above all else. Not some weird, niche new genre of games that are going to have developers thinking in circles trying to outsmart or come up with better innovations then a competitor. Yeah, encouraging new ideas is a part of it, but making things easier for the average consumer overall is the nintendo's main strategy. My main point here is that originality doesn't always equal a fun experience. |
In the E3 reel for the Wii I saw a game where the Wiimote acted as a sword. Swinging and thrusting at the angles the player swung and thrusted.
Sorry, you can't have that kind of action with 2 joy sticks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Talicus
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Posts: 2
:
Items
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Being a fan of Nintendo series such as the Zelda and Mario franchises, I have already pre-ordered my Nintendo Wii console. Due to the low development costs, I'm pretty sure the third party support will also be fine on Wii. Not only that, but I really like the idea of playing something entirely different.
However, I'm pretty sure I will once buy either an Xbox 360 or a Playstation 3, as I wouldn't want to miss out on RPG's like Blue Dragon, Eternal Sonata (Trusty Bell: Chopin no Yume) and the Final Fantasy series. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Warlock
Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 12
:
Items
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well looks like the Wii position is established. Virtual Console is great too
Metroid Prime 3 (best use of the Wii controller so far, controls are amazing, it's Metroid!)
Zelda: TP (obviously a GCN game, the next Zelda will make great use of the Wii controller)
Smash bros. Brawl soon
Super Mario Galaxy looks promising
The 360 has Bioshock, Gears of War, Mass Effect, Halo 3, Xbox Live Arcade.. great console
The PS3 is a great Blue-ray dvd player, i have high hopes for MGS4 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luminance
Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 134
:
Items
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You can say that with just about any genre, not just with RPGs. Like FPSs; seriously, I don't get the hype about Halo. I played the first one and it was a good game, but it wasn't OMG amazing. I've also played some others like Call of Duty, Unreal, etc. and they're all pretty much the same. Honestly, I think the best FPS was Goldeneye for the N64. They just change the music, graphics, weapons, story and environment which is analog to how RPGs differ from one another. One of the reasons why Project Exile looks so promising is because of the nostalgia that it carries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ManDarK
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 289
:
Location: Wels (Austria)
Items
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
For me Halo was amazing. It had something special. Nowadays the game isn't really special, beacuse most of the other shooters copied a lot from Halo. But back when it was released it had some features that weren't available in any other shooter. The whole game was a perfect mix. Indoor and huge outdoor levels, nice, balanced weapons, vehicles that were fun to play, a nice style, good enemy A.I., multiplayer modes that were fun to play and a nice soundtrack.
Here's a nice review of Halo by a guy named Murphy:
| Quote: | Here is a small review that shows what makes this game special or rather, what made this game special six years ago. Don't forget how old the game is you are playing. No one would honestly buy Doom1 and complain about the primitive gameplay and the boring graphics in 2007. Yet because its the same xbox that plays games from 2005 too people expect games from 2001 to be as revolutionary today as they were when they were released.
Also, there are thousands of reviews about Halo out there, most of them are from 2001 or 2002 and they praise the graphics. Seen from 2007 they look bland but the review still sais "Oh, look: Shiney graphics" because no one too the time to alter it so some people are decieved into thinking that the game would be as great today as it was six (SIX! in numbers 6!) years ago.
So here is a review that shows you the good aspects of the game in the context of 2001:
The melee button.
You could simply press a button during combat so your character would smack the enemies with the butt of his current weapon. It added a new factor to the combat, because didn't have to switch to a super-powerfull melee weapon anymore (like the spades in Day of Defeat) but you could simply dish out damage if you got near enough and it was a last fail safe for situations where you ran out of ammo in a tight fight.
The grenade button.
You could simply throw a grenade at the press of a button. In most other games, this was only possible with assault rifles that had a grenade launcher attached. Other than that you had to scroll towards the grenades, throw them with an animation and then switch back to your last weapon. So grenades were much less versatile and slower to use. In Halo they added a whole new factor to the combat because you could use them instantly.
The vehicles.
Most shooters before either had no vehicles at all or whole vehicle levels. Where you started in a vehicle and had to stay in there. They were mostly racing-type levels or railshooter-like missions.
Halo had the vehicles seamlessly integrated into the rest of the game so you ran around in a level, jumped into a warthog to drive a few meters, then hop out again to go on on foot.
The vehicles could also be manned by multiple players which was pretty rare too. That way co-op was a whole lot more fun be it in the co-op mode or be it cooperating in the competetive multiplayer mode. You don't have to run along the jeep, you can hop in and man the mg.
The AI.
The AI in Halo was spectacular for its time. Enemies went to cover, positioned them relatively intelligently, used what they had (e.g. they also used melee and grenades effectively) and had good voice samples for various situations that made them seem more alive than other enemies in other games. For examples if an Elite accidentaly shoots a Grunt, the Grunt screams "Ouch, not me!". So you don't just think: Oh, the stupid AI commits friendly fire - You think: Oh, that stupid Elite commits friendly fire because the AI is so advanced.
Apart from that, the AI was very varied and largely randomized so the same fight could be totally different and constantly challenging.
Another thing that is great about the AI is that there is a different AI for the different races. So the Jackals use their shield. Instead of running to cover they duck down and extend their shield to save them from your bullets. Grunts run away if you kill their leader because they are cowards and Elites behave like, well, Elites. There aren't too many different enemies in Halo but they behave very different from one another and due to their good AI they even behave differently from fight to fight. So even though there are only like five or six different aliens, they are a lot more varied to fight than 25 variations of different terrorist models where one has more health than the other.
The Shield.
Most games up to Halo either had no real health (like Delta Force or Rainbow Six where one shot kills you) or health points and armor points that can be replenished by collecting medi packs.
You had to watch out for your health because what you got had to last to the next medi-pack so you played tactically, thoughtfull and cautious (read: The game was thrilling because you feared for your virtual lifes).
BUT: You could become extremely frustrated if enemies shot you through bushes where you couldn't even see them. You were angry with yourself for each tiny tactical mistake, because it cost you lives and you had the urge to save everyhere you could, often hammering the quick-save button every 2 seconds.
In Halo you had healthpoints that had to be enough until the next medi-pack was found, but you also had a replenishable energy shield.
So if you are shot because you made a tiny mistake e.g. poked your head a tad to far around that corner, or because you are inevitably damaged in a heated fight no matter how good you play - the energy shield sucks up smaller mistakes because after each fight it recharges itself.
That means relatively frustration-free gaming because small mistakes don't cost you your live, but bigger mistakes are still punished because once your shields are down, you get damage.
As stupid as that may sound at first: The added savety device of the Shield, also made them play more tactically, using cover more often.
Let me explain it to you:
If you have 100 healthpoints and you are shot at in a video game. What do you do?
a) Try to run for cover and get shot on the way just so you have to fight back with less health than you have now.
b) Turn around and try to kill your enemy before he costs you even more health.
I for one am one of the "b" type players. Except for Halo. Because in Halo you shields are drained when you are shot at but you have enough to run to cover unharmed. There you wait for your shield to recharge and BAM you can ifght back with more health than when you were caught in the open.
So the shields add both a fail-save device so you don't have to worry about tiny mistakes by you or the ai (which might hit you although you played perfectly) AND a new tactical dimension.
Speaking of tactical dimensions:
The seperation of shields and health had another effect too. Plasma weapons where much more effective against energy shields than projectile weapons, while projectile weapons did a lot more damage to unprotected targets than plasma weapons.
So you had to change your weapons according to the type or you enemy, to the situation, to the range and to the type of his shield or the lack thereof.
Which brings us to the next point:
The weapons.
As explained at "The shield." there is the seperation of plasma based weapons and projectile based weapons which added a new factor to the gameplay, but there is more to the weapons.
The also looked very cool. More creative and more functional than most other sci-fi weapons in other sci-fi games. The Rocket Launcher in UT for example looks like something, but not like a weapon. A toaster maybe.
The Assault Rifle in Halo looks like some aluminium rifle that could be invented in, say, 20 years from now.
The alien weapons however were some cheap rip-offs of human guns like in some games where they look like a regular assault rifle but they shoot blue balls. The Halo alien weapons really looked "alien" and a gem like the Needler that shooters slow semi-hooming needles that stick in people for a few seconds and then they explode and do extra damage. Who wouldn't like stuff like that?
Then there are the plasma grenades that can be sticked to people, which makes them much more different from the regular time-triggered grenades like this description might sound.
As with the enemies, there aren't overwhelmingly many different weapons, but they are all totally different and all serve a different purpose so there is more variety in the few weapons in Halo they in the ten different incarnations of an MP5 or a Kalashnikov found in some other games.
Last but not least, the technical execution of the weapons was outstanding. Look at the plasma grenades in Timesplitters: Future Perfect as an example of how the almost exactly same grenade can be made totally unfun to use.
Other small details like if you have a weapon and you can carry ten more rounds and you run over the same weapon on the ground you get the ten rounds but the weapon on the ground doesn't dissapear until all of its ammo is taken up. E.g. in Halflife 1 an MP holds 25 rounds and if you can only carry 5 more and you run over one you get your five rounds but the weapon is lost along with its 20 rounds that should still be in there. Halo wasn't the first game to have that but the sum of the parts makes a better whole. Everything was very thoughtout and worked well.
The Sounds.
The soundtrack is really well made. From the menu music to the "covenant dance". Even if some tracks are generic they fit the atmopshere of the game perfectly and they were played "context sensitive" if I remember correctly. Although Halo didn't invent this it was fairly new and added a lot to the atmosphere.
The sounds for weapons, wheels scratching over hard ground and things like that were good too.
The voice acting was well done AND there were a huge number of random one liners for various situations for all the different character classes. You could play the game 10 times and still hear new phrases whih of course makes the game characters seem more alive than when they just shout "Intruder Alert" or "Shoot ze Ami" all the time.
The co-op.
Using vehicles with a friend. Playing a very hard difficulty mode with a friend because you can hardly beat it alone. Of course that's fun.
(Especially for those who want to play Halo for above mentioned things but are too bad to stand a chance against human competition. So non-console player could still have great times with consoleros even if they can't hit sh!t in comparison.  )
The multiplayermodes.
Not only are there a number of different multiplayer modes most of which were seen before and the new ones were only alterations of known modes, but they were fun ones and there were a lot and you could change them using a huge cariety of options to create your own personal perfect gamemode.
The controls.
Play the stutterfest Perfect Dark or the single-joystick bubbling Turok on the N64 in comarison. Those were cool games back in the days, but play them after you have played a few rounds of an xbox shooter.
Not only in comparison to games on older consoles, but also in comparison to later games on the xbox, Halo's controls are great. Almost every later console shooter copied its control scheme.
The release.
It was the only good action for the new xbox for a while so it gained some fame due to that too.
It was hyped to death to promote the xbox which obviously brought it some fame too.
The far superiour xbox hardware (e.g. the super presise controller compared to N64 ones, the much higher resolution, the superior sound output etc.) were also partly attributed to Halo because it was the first good action on the new console. For some, the first playable console shooter and even when half of that success was due to the great xbox controller, it was still Halo that got the fame for it.
Also its graphics were spectacular for the time it was released. Bumpmaps were fairly new and Halo was full of them so it had some "wow" effects in the graphcis department. Especially with the awesome looking flashlight casting real time shadows onto the bumpmapped environments.
Obviously the N64 pales in comparison, as does the ps1 and even though this was due to the faster console it runs on, it was still good for Halo because Halo and the xbox were connected like Iberian Warrior and Ninja Gaiden. 
People who don't know what the fuzz is about either never played Halo personaly or they played it too late. Nowadays almost every console shooter lets you throw grenades with a single button and a melee button can be found in almost everyone too. Rechargable health even found its way into games that are sold as realistic (Call of Duty 2) and every shooter that wouldn't be worth jack because it would be boring and generic is spiced up with vehicles.
So comparing Halo with modern games lets Halo look like a mediocre, slightly above average game. Because modern games already copied Halo's unique features, or they expanded them. People who say something else are mindless fanboys (or fans of that exact gameplay, just as there are fans of the Doom2 gameplay even today even if its dated). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FrankDanJohansen
Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 8
:
Items
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PS3 kicks ass, no hassle like with the Xbox 360's ring of death. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ManDarK
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 289
:
Location: Wels (Austria)
Items
|
| Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FrankDanJohansen wrote: | | PS3 kicks ass, no hassle like with the Xbox 360's ring of death. |
Never had one and I also haven't seen any ring of deaths.  |
|
| 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
