I've been watching these documentaries since weeks ago... (note that I live in Mexico). They're fabulous. I watch them and fondly remember the old times. I specially liked the chapter about hobbyists who made games for the Commodore 64, and I remember the Compute! and RUN magazines.
Those discovery documentaries are an eye-opener which shows you the social causes and effects of videogames (generational breachs, the influence of the WWII and the Cold war in the first videogames).
The problem the parent eludes to is that many developers think graphics are more important than the game. Graphics are nice, but if the game sucks, a polished turd is still a turd. I'd rather play a great game with decent graphics than a mediocre game that awes me with shiny for the 30 minutes I play until I decide that it sucks.
The problem the parent eludes to is that many developers think graphics are more important than the game. Graphics are nice, but if the game sucks, a polished turd is still a turd. I'd rather play a great game with decent graphics than a mediocre game that awes me with shiny for the 30 minutes I play until I decide that it sucks.
Graphics are one part of a whole. Very few successful games take the route you mentioned. Heavenly sword looks very good, but it's also a pretty decent brawler; Gears of war was gorgeous, and was a fun third person shooter; Ratchet and Clank future:TOD was really good looking, and an awesome combat platformed.
Where is this mythical "graphics before gameplay" game that sold really well? Madden 08? Lair (hahaha sells well? haha)? Halo 3 (if you call terrible normal/bump maps looking good)?
Graphics are one part of a whole. Very few successful games take the route you mentioned. Heavenly sword looks very good, but it's also a pretty decent brawler; Gears of war was gorgeous, and was a fun third person shooter; Ratchet and Clank future:TOD was really good looking, and an awesome combat platformed.
See, I think these games actually show that graphics alone can't make a game. HS was a "decent brawler", but it was only a decent brawler, and it was over after 6 hours. It didn't really offer anything other than great graphics and incredible cut-scenes.
I'll say that GoW did combine innovation and graphics, so I won't argue with this one; but R&C? Really? In my opinion, it's not an awesome platformer. It's an average, linear shooter and a crappy platformer. Its gameplay just can't keep up with its gr
See, I think these games actually show that graphics alone can't make a game. HS was a "decent brawler", but it was only a decent brawler, and it was over after 6 hours. It didn't really offer anything other than great graphics and incredible cut-scenes.
I'll say that GoW did combine innovation and graphics, so I won't argue with this one; but R&C? Really? In my opinion, it's not an awesome platformer. It's an average, linear shooter and a crappy platformer. Its gameplay just can't keep up with its graphics.
You really didn't play HS did you? Every who bounds about the 6h figure is actually quoting from 1 source. The game is longer then that, a bit shorter then halo 3 but much longer then 6h. R&T is extremely open. Linear shooter does not describe it. Each level is about 1/2 hidden secrets and every other level has 2 or more ways around or has goals that you can per sue as you please. Did you actually play it or did you just read a review?
I think that's kind of the point: Most of these games don't sell really well, yet devs keep on making them because even though they don't sell well, it's still less risk than innovating with gameplay and risking a total bomb.
As for the "gameplay before graphics" games: Wii Sports. I think that game alone shows that games (and even consoles) can sell on gameplay alone.
Wii sports does sell wii's. To non gamers. The idea that major franchises will move there is the reason gamers go there.
You really didn't play HS did you? Every who bounds about the 6h figure is actually quoting from 1 source.
The lacking playtime was mentioned in pretty much all reviews. And I did play it; i just didn't finish it. I don't own it (I'm not going to pay full price for a six-hours-game), a friend of mine does.
The game is longer then that, a bit shorter then halo 3 but much longer then 6h.
I also didn't buy Halo 3 (in my opinion, it's a pretty crappy FPS compared to stuff like CoD4), but in its defense, people mainly buy that for the online component, which does provide dozens of hours of entertainment, and which HS does not have.
R&T is extremely open.
I'm guessing you mean "extremely open" as in "more than one
The lacking playtime was mentioned in pretty much all reviews. And I did play it; i just didn't finish it. I don't own it (I'm not going to pay full price for a six-hours-game), a friend of mine does.
So your speculating and spreading mis information. The game is short. But no shorter then it's peers. Many games have been getting shorter. Ala Halo 3. However this may nto be a bad thing because halo 3 and HS simply lacked the filler you find in other similar games like halo 1.
I also didn't buy Halo 3 (in my opinion, it's a pretty crappy FPS compared to stuff like CoD4), but in its defense, people mainly buy that for the online component, which does provide dozens of hours of entertainment, and which HS does not have.
It really depends if you're an online gamer or not. My GF's brother bought it and I finished it with him. He just wanted to finish the story. He never played it again.
I'm guessing you mean "extremely open" as in "more than one path," not as in "I see that sky scraper over there, so I can go there." I want the second.
Yeah, that's what I thought. But in my opinion, "more than one way around" does not a non-linear game make.
That is a silly complaint. You want a different game genre. Platformers aren't necessarily sand box games. If you played it for a few stages in you'd hit section where it almost is a sandbox games. the levels are huge. Not many platformers are as open as you implied you want. In fact off the top of my head I can't think of one. Crash bandicoot? no. Mario 64? no. Mario Galaxy? no. Sonic? no. Ico? maybe. I think you really want GTA or crackdown.
I don't quite understand the distinction between "people who play Wii sports" and "gamers." Aren't people who play Wii Sports - and even buy a console for the privilege - gamers by definition? I'm not entirely sure what your point is: Are you saying that people who previously owned other consoles can't appreciate Wii Sports?
There is a quantitative difference between gaming hobbyists. Gamers. and Casual gamers. NDP did a study, found "Gamers" still represent more money even though there are mroe casual gamers. It really comes down to how much time people play and how much money they spend. For instance my sister will play wii sports but nothing else. Not mario party not nintendogs, nothing. she is a casual gamer. Her purchases won't exceed wii sports and perhaps a sequel or a clone.
The lacking playtime was mentioned in pretty much all reviews. And I did play it; i just didn't finish it. I don't own it (I'm not going to pay full price for a six-hours-game), a friend of mine does.
So your speculating and spreading mis information.
What part of "The lacking playtime was mentioned in pretty much all reviews." did you not understand? Maybe it took you 7 hours to finish the game. Maybe it took you 10 hours. It doesn't really matter; it's still too short a game.
The game is short. But no shorter then it's peers. Many games have been getting shorter. Ala Halo 3.
Again, people buy Halo 3 for the online component. If your girlfriend's brother bought the game for the single-player mode, whether the game is long enough or not is his judgment to make. It would be too short for me. The fact that Halo 3 has a short single-player mode in no way helps your argument that HS was long enough.
Yeah, that's what I thought. But in my opinion, "more than one way around" does not a non-linear game make.
That is a silly complaint. You want a different game genre.
One, it's not silly. Two, you're right. That's what I said all along: I wanted an innovative platformer. Instead, I got a boring old shooter with PS2 gameplay mechanics.
Platformers aren't necessarily sand box games.
And R&C isn't a platformer to begin with. It's a shooter.
If you played it for a few stages in you'd hit section where it almost is a sandbox games. the levels are huge. Not many platformers are as open as you implied you want. In fact off the top of my head I can't think of one. Crash bandicoot? no. Mario 64? no. Mario Galaxy? no. Sonic? no. Ico? maybe. I think you really want GTA or crackdown.
Have you even played Mario 64? The game is entirely open. You enter a level, and you're free to go wherever you want. The whole level is open to you. There's no comparison to something like R&C, where you follow a narrow path. None at all.
I don't quite understand the distinction between "people who play Wii sports" and "gamers." Aren't people who play Wii Sports - and even buy a console for the privilege - gamers by definition? I'm not entirely sure what your point is: Are you saying that people who previously owned other consoles can't appreciate Wii Sports?
There is a quantitative difference between gaming hobbyists. Gamers. and Casual gamers. NDP did a study, found "Gamers" still represent more money even though there are mroe casual gamers.
"Heavy gamers make up only 3% of the gaming population"
Obviously each "heavy gamer" buys way more games than the other market segments, but even taking this into account, heavy gamers are a small part of the market in terms of total money spent.
It really comes down to how much time people play and how much money they spend. For instance my sister will play wii sports but nothing else. Not mario party not nintendogs, nothing. she is a casual gamer. Her purchases won't exceed wii sports and perhaps a sequel or a clone.
Too bad for your sister, but the Wii's attach rate suggests that most casual gamers will buy quite a bunch of games.
What part of "The lacking playtime was mentioned in pretty much all reviews." did you not understand? Maybe it took you 7 hours to finish the game. Maybe it took you 10 hours. It doesn't really matter; it's still too short a game.
15h two shy of how long it took me and my Gf's brother to finish Halo 3.
Have you even played Mario 64? The game is entirely open. You enter a level, and you're free to go wherever you want. The whole level is open to you. There's no comparison to something like R&C, where you follow a narrow path. None at all.
Yes indeed i have. The levels are 1 way to a first goal and multiple ways to extra goals. Ratchet and blank is similar. However it doesn't seem you've played much of R&T or at all. Exploration is a large part of the game. The number of levels in mario 64 is greater, the size of the levels in R&T f is generally greater.
I'm not sure if you're lying or if you're not remembering this correctly. Here's a link to an article about the study. To quote:
"Heavy gamers make up only 3% of the gaming population"
Obviously each "heavy gamer" buys way more games than the other market segments, but even taking this into account, heavy gamers are a small part of the market in terms of total money spent.
here [npd.com] is the press release for the actual report. That ~2% out spends other market segments. 7:1 to "avid gam
Have you even played Mario 64? The game is entirely open. You enter a level, and you're free to go wherever you want. The whole level is open to you. There's no comparison to something like R&C, where you follow a narrow path. None at all.
Yes indeed i have. The levels are 1 way to a first goal and multiple ways to extra goals.
That is actually not true. You can get to the first star however you want, too. There's no path in any of the levels (apart from very few, like the sledding levels). For some obstacles, there's only one way to negotiate them, but most of the time, you can find your own path to the star.
I'm not sure if you're lying or if you're not remembering this correctly. Here's a link to an article about the study. To quote:
"Heavy gamers make up only 3% of the gaming population"
Obviously each "heavy gamer" buys way more games than the other market segments, but even taking this into account, heavy gamers are a small part of the market in terms of total money spent.
here [npd.com] is the press release for the actual report. That ~2% out spends other market segments. 7:1 to "avid gamers". they did not list a stat in the free release about "casual" gamers. It's safe to assume it is less then avid gamers.
That evaluates to 14% of the actual money spent. As I've said, heavy gamers are a small part of the market in terms of total money spent. Comparing the "Mass Market Gamers" (which I guess is NPD's term for casual gamers)
There is a quantitative difference between gaming hobbyists. Gamers. and Casual gamers. NDP did a study, found "Gamers" still represent more money even though there are more casual gamers.
That evaluates to 14% of the actual money spent. As I've said, heavy gamers are a small part of the market in terms of total money spent. Comparing the "Mass Market Gamers" (which I guess is NPD's term for casual gamers) to the heavies gives the following picture: 2%x13 games = 26 for the heavies (I'm not going to normalize this); 15%x2 games = 30 for the casuals. So the casuals buy more games than the heavies according to this study; and that doesn't even include "casual kids."
Actually heavy gamers, avid gamers and "mass market gamers" would be the gaming hobbyists I was refering to. The casual ones are the secondary gamers and casual kids. which are abotu 30% numerically but far lower economically. If you was you who singled out "heavy gamers" to represent hobbyists, not I nor NDP.
Secondary gamers make up 22% and casual kids 8%. Anyone who spends ~10 hours a week on something can be reasonably be called a hobbyist in that something. But we're diving into meaning sema
Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle.
-- Steinbach
My humble 2 cents... (Score:5, Informative)
They're fabulous. I watch them and fondly remember the old times. I specially liked the chapter about hobbyists who made games for the Commodore 64, and I remember the Compute! and RUN magazines.
Those discovery documentaries are an eye-opener which shows you the social causes and effects of videogames (generational breachs, the influence of the WWII and the Cold war in the first videogames).
What can I say? I liked them al
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem the parent eludes to is that many developers think graphics are more important than the game. Graphics are nice, but if the game sucks, a polished turd is still a turd. I'd rather play a great game with decent graphics than a mediocre game that awes me with shiny for the 30 minutes I play until I decide that it sucks.
Graphics are one part of a whole. Very few successful games take the route you mentioned. Heavenly sword looks very good, but it's also a pretty decent brawler; Gears of war was gorgeous, and was a fun third person shooter; Ratchet and Clank future:TOD was really good looking, and an awesome combat platformed.
Where is this mythical "graphics before gameplay" game that sold really well? Madden 08? Lair (hahaha sells well? haha)? Halo 3 (if you call terrible normal/bump maps looking good)?
Almost any game on
Re: (Score:2)
Graphics are one part of a whole. Very few successful games take the route you mentioned. Heavenly sword looks very good, but it's also a pretty decent brawler; Gears of war was gorgeous, and was a fun third person shooter; Ratchet and Clank future:TOD was really good looking, and an awesome combat platformed.
See, I think these games actually show that graphics alone can't make a game. HS was a "decent brawler", but it was only a decent brawler, and it was over after 6 hours. It didn't really offer anything other than great graphics and incredible cut-scenes.
I'll say that GoW did combine innovation and graphics, so I won't argue with this one; but R&C? Really? In my opinion, it's not an awesome platformer. It's an average, linear shooter and a crappy platformer. Its gameplay just can't keep up with its gr
Re: (Score:2)
See, I think these games actually show that graphics alone can't make a game. HS was a "decent brawler", but it was only a decent brawler, and it was over after 6 hours. It didn't really offer anything other than great graphics and incredible cut-scenes.
I'll say that GoW did combine innovation and graphics, so I won't argue with this one; but R&C? Really? In my opinion, it's not an awesome platformer. It's an average, linear shooter and a crappy platformer. Its gameplay just can't keep up with its graphics.
You really didn't play HS did you? Every who bounds about the 6h figure is actually quoting from 1 source. The game is longer then that, a bit shorter then halo 3 but much longer then 6h. R&T is extremely open. Linear shooter does not describe it. Each level is about 1/2 hidden secrets and every other level has 2 or more ways around or has goals that you can per sue as you please. Did you actually play it or did you just read a review?
I think that's kind of the point: Most of these games don't sell really well, yet devs keep on making them because even though they don't sell well, it's still less risk than innovating with gameplay and risking a total bomb.
As for the "gameplay before graphics" games: Wii Sports. I think that game alone shows that games (and even consoles) can sell on gameplay alone.
Wii sports does sell wii's. To non gamers. The idea that major franchises will move there is the reason gamers go there.
Re: (Score:2)
You really didn't play HS did you? Every who bounds about the 6h figure is actually quoting from 1 source.
The lacking playtime was mentioned in pretty much all reviews. And I did play it; i just didn't finish it. I don't own it (I'm not going to pay full price for a six-hours-game), a friend of mine does.
The game is longer then that, a bit shorter then halo 3 but much longer then 6h.
I also didn't buy Halo 3 (in my opinion, it's a pretty crappy FPS compared to stuff like CoD4), but in its defense, people mainly buy that for the online component, which does provide dozens of hours of entertainment, and which HS does not have.
R&T is extremely open.
I'm guessing you mean "extremely open" as in "more than one
Re: (Score:2)
The lacking playtime was mentioned in pretty much all reviews. And I did play it; i just didn't finish it. I don't own it (I'm not going to pay full price for a six-hours-game), a friend of mine does.
So your speculating and spreading mis information. The game is short. But no shorter then it's peers. Many games have been getting shorter. Ala Halo 3. However this may nto be a bad thing because halo 3 and HS simply lacked the filler you find in other similar games like halo 1.
I also didn't buy Halo 3 (in my opinion, it's a pretty crappy FPS compared to stuff like CoD4), but in its defense, people mainly buy that for the online component, which does provide dozens of hours of entertainment, and which HS does not have.
It really depends if you're an online gamer or not. My GF's brother bought it and I finished it with him. He just wanted to finish the story. He never played it again.
I'm guessing you mean "extremely open" as in "more than one path," not as in "I see that sky scraper over there, so I can go there." I want the second.
Yeah, that's what I thought. But in my opinion, "more than one way around" does not a non-linear game make.
That is a silly complaint. You want a different game genre. Platformers aren't necessarily sand box games. If you played it for a few stages in you'd hit section where it almost is a sandbox games. the levels are huge. Not many platformers are as open as you implied you want. In fact off the top of my head I can't think of one. Crash bandicoot? no. Mario 64? no. Mario Galaxy? no. Sonic? no. Ico? maybe. I think you really want GTA or crackdown.
I don't quite understand the distinction between "people who play Wii sports" and "gamers." Aren't people who play Wii Sports - and even buy a console for the privilege - gamers by definition? I'm not entirely sure what your point is: Are you saying that people who previously owned other consoles can't appreciate Wii Sports?
There is a quantitative difference between gaming hobbyists. Gamers. and Casual gamers. NDP did a study, found "Gamers" still represent more money even though there are mroe casual gamers. It really comes down to how much time people play and how much money they spend. For instance my sister will play wii sports but nothing else. Not mario party not nintendogs, nothing. she is a casual gamer. Her purchases won't exceed wii sports and perhaps a sequel or a clone.
Re:My humble 2 cents... (Score:2)
What part of "The lacking playtime was mentioned in pretty much all reviews." did you not understand? Maybe it took you 7 hours to finish the game. Maybe it took you 10 hours. It doesn't really matter; it's still too short a game.
Again, people buy Halo 3 for the online component. If your girlfriend's brother bought the game for the single-player mode, whether the game is long enough or not is his judgment to make. It would be too short for me. The fact that Halo 3 has a short single-player mode in no way helps your argument that HS was long enough.
One, it's not silly. Two, you're right. That's what I said all along: I wanted an innovative platformer. Instead, I got a boring old shooter with PS2 gameplay mechanics.
And R&C isn't a platformer to begin with. It's a shooter.
Have you even played Mario 64? The game is entirely open. You enter a level, and you're free to go wherever you want. The whole level is open to you. There's no comparison to something like R&C, where you follow a narrow path. None at all.
I'm not sure if you're lying or if you're not remembering this correctly. Here's a link to an article about the study. [raphkoster.com] To quote:
"Heavy gamers make up only 3% of the gaming population"
Obviously each "heavy gamer" buys way more games than the other market segments, but even taking this into account, heavy gamers are a small part of the market in terms of total money spent.
Too bad for your sister, but the Wii's attach rate suggests that most casual gamers will buy quite a bunch of games.
Re: (Score:2)
What part of "The lacking playtime was mentioned in pretty much all reviews." did you not understand? Maybe it took you 7 hours to finish the game. Maybe it took you 10 hours. It doesn't really matter; it's still too short a game.
15h two shy of how long it took me and my Gf's brother to finish Halo 3.
Have you even played Mario 64? The game is entirely open. You enter a level, and you're free to go wherever you want. The whole level is open to you. There's no comparison to something like R&C, where you follow a narrow path. None at all.
Yes indeed i have. The levels are 1 way to a first goal and multiple ways to extra goals. Ratchet and blank is similar. However it doesn't seem you've played much of R&T or at all. Exploration is a large part of the game. The number of levels in mario 64 is greater, the size of the levels in R&T f is generally greater.
I'm not sure if you're lying or if you're not remembering this correctly. Here's a link to an article about the study. To quote:
"Heavy gamers make up only 3% of the gaming population"
Obviously each "heavy gamer" buys way more games than the other market segments, but even taking this into account, heavy gamers are a small part of the market in terms of total money spent.
here [npd.com] is the press release for the actual report. That ~2% out spends other market segments. 7:1 to "avid gam
Re: (Score:2)
Have you even played Mario 64? The game is entirely open. You enter a level, and you're free to go wherever you want. The whole level is open to you. There's no comparison to something like R&C, where you follow a narrow path. None at all.
Yes indeed i have. The levels are 1 way to a first goal and multiple ways to extra goals.
That is actually not true. You can get to the first star however you want, too. There's no path in any of the levels (apart from very few, like the sledding levels). For some obstacles, there's only one way to negotiate them, but most of the time, you can find your own path to the star.
I'm not sure if you're lying or if you're not remembering this correctly. Here's a link to an article about the study. To quote: "Heavy gamers make up only 3% of the gaming population" Obviously each "heavy gamer" buys way more games than the other market segments, but even taking this into account, heavy gamers are a small part of the market in terms of total money spent.
here [npd.com] is the press release for the actual report. That ~2% out spends other market segments. 7:1 to "avid gamers". they did not list a stat in the free release about "casual" gamers. It's safe to assume it is less then avid gamers.
That evaluates to 14% of the actual money spent. As I've said, heavy gamers are a small part of the market in terms of total money spent. Comparing the "Mass Market Gamers" (which I guess is NPD's term for casual gamers)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a quantitative difference between gaming hobbyists. Gamers. and Casual gamers. NDP did a study, found "Gamers" still represent more money even though there are more casual gamers.
That evaluates to 14% of the actual money spent. As I've said, heavy gamers are a small part of the market in terms of total money spent. Comparing the "Mass Market Gamers" (which I guess is NPD's term for casual gamers) to the heavies gives the following picture: 2%x13 games = 26 for the heavies (I'm not going to normalize this); 15%x2 games = 30 for the casuals. So the casuals buy more games than the heavies according to this study; and that doesn't even include "casual kids."
Actually heavy gamers, avid gamers and "mass market gamers" would be the gaming hobbyists I was refering to. The casual ones are the secondary gamers and casual kids. which are abotu 30% numerically but far lower economically. If you was you who singled out "heavy gamers" to represent hobbyists, not I nor NDP.
Secondary gamers make up 22% and casual kids 8%. Anyone who spends ~10 hours a week on something can be reasonably be called a hobbyist in that something. But we're diving into meaning sema