Board Logo
« The Video Games Thread »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Nov 23rd, 2017, 5:13pm



« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24  ...  26 Notify Send Topic Print
 veryhotthread  Author  Topic: The Video Games Thread  (Read 32799 times)
Clerk

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Beside Clerk In Time


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 526
xx Re: The Video Games Thread
« Reply #315 on: Feb 11th, 2014, 5:31pm »

on Jan 22nd, 2007, 10:10pm, Clerk wrote:
Poor Playstation 3.... I have yet to hear of anyone who wants one to have one..... If Metal Gear Solid 4 actually goes to 360, Sony is FUCKED. cool


Hahaha, the early posts in this thread are the best. My, how foolish Clerk was in 2006. Little did he know that he would abandon the Xbox train for Sony.
User IP Logged

Will

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 706
xx Re: The Video Games Thread
« Reply #316 on: Feb 13th, 2014, 07:34am »

on Feb 10th, 2014, 09:31am, Clerk wrote:
Well isn't that kind of why the Xbox One reveal screwed them in the global marketplace? DRM fiasco aside, they really only showed off American appeal- TV functionality based off America cable companies, a tie in with the NFL, etc.


Sure.

At the same time, the American market is the biggest in the world, and largely responsible for Microsoft's success in the last generation. (also of note, is that while people appear to be offended by the American-focused reveal, they fail to notice that Microsoft's international marketing focused on British watching soccer/football, even in the US; you could certainly argue that they're Anglo-focused [however Soccer/Football is The World's Game], yet the market is huge and they have been dominating it)

Japan has been shrinking for more than a generation now.

Yet Nintendo's response is to double down, focusing completely on the home market while ignoring the West -- Europe, America, Australia or, just, the Anglosphere -- whether it be through content or hardware. They refuse to listen to Western third parties so far as online infrastructure, and they most certainly have no interest in deals similar to what they've done with Capcom over the years.

On top of that, they do nothing to open up the market for more mature content. The demographics they exclusively focus on -- Nintendorks, Japanophiles, children and pedophiles (did I already mention them?) -- is not where the big third parties are at. Why does this company, today, have far fewer Western studios in-house than they did in the early 00s?

They need third parties to fill holes for them in release schedules, as is the case with Sony and Microsoft. The difference is, they refuse to work with the West, where most third party support now takes place, or notice any trends in it.

Microsoft's play is to continue leveraging the XBox brand as iterative and integrative argument for their ecosystem. Always Online is far closer to a reality in the States than many other countries, and the fact that the it is so big and relatively homogenous makes it the ideal market to drive the brand. The problem with other markets is that mix: either lack of infrastructure or media, cultural and language differences that make, say, a continental-European launch much more difficult.

Nonetheless, Microsoft is pushing for the future moreso than Sony with their box. If it wins the US market it will have a healthy future, and can help the company push Metro through to more hands/heads as well as create a more integrated overall media setup. If it takes off here, the world is likely to follow -- from a branding standpoint, Microsoft's biggest concern should be whether it becomes synonymous with these gains.

My biggest issue with how they launched the system would be in regards to England. The issues with PAL output is a major oversight in an important market. Their best bet, at least early, is continued dominance of the Anglosphere.

on Feb 11th, 2014, 5:31pm, Clerk wrote:
Hahaha, the early posts in this thread are the best. My, how foolish Clerk was in 2006. Little did he know that he would abandon the Xbox train for Sony.


Things change.
« Last Edit: Feb 13th, 2014, 07:39am by Will » User IP Logged

Will

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 706
xx Re: The Video Games Thread
« Reply #317 on: Feb 14th, 2014, 07:45am »

Microsoft's next Big Issue is likely whether they're integrated enough. While Playstation 4 is not shifting the goal posts as a hardware/UI/Media Hub argument, Playstation Now could leapfrog the entire hardware/branding issue, or at least be an important part of where both video games medium and content delivery+interaction are heading.

Next Gen TVs could be the real answer. Could. If a Samsung or even Apple cared to bother, they could create middling graphic performance with an integrated GPU -- something like iPad and/or, the typical, awful integrated graphics of the average PC/laptop.

Further out, PS Now as a content service would seem to undercut what Microsoft is trying; the question remains on delivery. But by doing this, Sony outmodes its own hardware; what's the real shelf life of a PS4 with this technology, assuming it works?

But what's to stop Apple or Amazon from doing it as well?

XBox One as a hardware argument is technically more impressive and forward-looking as an overall package. The problem for Microsoft is that it appears to be the fulfillment of a dream that was more relevant in 2001 -- blue oceans (no more) and lateral gains by Apple and Google in the tech sector have undone a large part of the idea of a digital hub.

It may fail. If it does, I think it's a portent for the entire dedicated hardware industry. The problem for both Sony and Microsoft is that their gaming divisions easily could become just two more Streaming Apps.

For Microsoft, I don't know what the point would be, unless they could sell Surface and Windows Phones through it. To become a subservient, relatively minor piece of Android or iOS doesn't currently fit the Devices and Services vision out of Redmond.
« Last Edit: Feb 14th, 2014, 07:47am by Will » User IP Logged

Clerk

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Beside Clerk In Time


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 526
xx Re: The Video Games Thread
« Reply #318 on: Feb 16th, 2014, 2:07pm »

on Feb 13th, 2014, 07:34am, Will wrote:
Yet Nintendo's response is to double down, focusing completely on the home market while ignoring the West -- Europe, America, Australia or, just, the Anglosphere -- whether it be through content or hardware. They refuse to listen to Western third parties so far as online infrastructure, and they most certainly have no interest in deals similar to what they've done with Capcom over the years.

On top of that, they do nothing to open up the market for more mature content. The demographics they exclusively focus on -- Nintendorks, Japanophiles, children and pedophiles (did I already mention them?) -- is not where the big third parties are at. Why does this company, today, have far fewer Western studios in-house than they did in the early 00s?

They need third parties to fill holes for them in release schedules, as is the case with Sony and Microsoft. The difference is, they refuse to work with the West, where most third party support now takes place, or notice any trends in it.


Shifting gears into this part- I am a big time Nintendo guy, I will buy whatever they put out just to play Nintendo games, because they are magic in digital form. I love Zelda, Mario, Wonderful 101, etc- theyre like the Pixar of gaming.

However, you are 1000000% correct about their issues. Nintendo is still operating like it's 1999, when you needed Nintendo to play the family targeted titles in order to baby sit your kids. Those days are dead. At least Nintendo in the 90s was able to put out a wide variety of content, and Rare really helped with that a ton. While waiting for the next Zelda, you could count on Rare to put out a Blast Corp or something. They had their own sports titles, shooters, fighting games, etc. Now, they seem to think that Mario Sports 5 will still sell consoles. (It's funny to me that they practically had the Goldeneye/Pefect Dark audience that would later move to CoD, and Nintendo went "WE DONT WANT THAT). It feels like how Disney was in the 1980s, where it just became the Mickey museum..

The Wii was a brilliant move, but their attempt to woo the casuals back with the Wii U was just silly. If you're going to do the tablet thing, at least open it up to everyone in terms of development- instead Ninty is releasing NES roms on a monthly basis. Ugh.

I feel like Nintendo is legitimately angry that they are back in the "gamer" market again, especially after how they acted when the Wii was successful with all the "we're better than the basement dweller" talk they made.
User IP Logged

Clerk

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Beside Clerk In Time


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 526
xx Re: The Video Games Thread
« Reply #319 on: Feb 16th, 2014, 2:14pm »

With regards to your talk of services, I feel that Microsofts big mistake was catering the television stuff to an audience that is now fractured apart due to cell phones and tablets. From what Ive seen (keep in mind, I dont have Microsofts billion dollar research powers, so armchair economics time), families dont really sit together on the couch and watch TV together nightly anymore- a daughter will be on her tablet watching she wants to watch, the son will be playing Angry Birds on his phone, etc.

I think Sony's Playstation Now is forward thinking in terms of how its recognizing the splintering of audiences and the need to access content anywhere on everything, but I dont think playing a PS3 game on a Vita matters to very many people. This is why I think Amazon coming into the living room would throw a big wrench into Sony and Microsoft wanting to sell services- they have a better grasp at selling media to individual accounts that can be accessed across the board on all kinds of devices.
« Last Edit: Feb 16th, 2014, 2:15pm by Clerk » User IP Logged

Will

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 706
xx Re: The Video Games Thread
« Reply #320 on: Feb 19th, 2014, 07:36am »

on Feb 16th, 2014, 2:07pm, Clerk wrote:
Shifting gears into this part- I am a big time Nintendo guy, I will buy whatever they put out just to play Nintendo games, because they are magic in digital form. I love Zelda, Mario, Wonderful 101, etc- theyre like the Pixar of gaming.


It's facile, but I loved Nintendo probably as much as anyone. I bought every console they released through the GameCube. Everyone's probably played Wii at a boring party, and I thought it was a genius marketing sleight the minute I first saw it. But what is the Wii U? What the hell is this machine?

Another cliche, but only because I think it's true: Nintendo wants to be the Eastern Pixar, but they should be aiming to be the video game Disney. They need to expand and diversify. not as far as the Quality of Life/Nike stuff -- I know so little about what they're doing in that sector that I really have nothing to add -- but as far as their mainline portfolio.

Where they get in trouble is in the gimmickry -- of course, 'gimmick' is just a synonym for 'idea', but the problem is when they have ideas that aren't fleshed out, at all -- and zeitgeist. What is the 3DS? It's an attempt to cash-in on what Nintendo thought was going to be the next big fad. It exists because of the hype from Avatar and 3D TVs.

Same thing with Wii U. It's, yeah, a TV version of the DS. It's also a tablet response. A marketing bullet point and attempt at an exciting reveal. It's Nintendo at their worst (well, forget Virtual Boy, then): Apple acolytes making cheap knockoffs and selling them for premium prices. The trash toy company version of Apple.

Worse, the Big Idea is never, ever justified by the software. There may be great games for the Wii U, but there isn't one game that is a killer app; there's not one game that makes great, innovative use of the controller to a wide audience. The machine was built because they needed a gimmick, but only in marketing terms; they didn't need that gimmick for games, and can't seem to develop any software for it after the fact. Which, then, undermines any market(ing) they have for it.

The Wii U appeals to basically no one. No "hardcore" gamer is going to seek it out over what Microsoft and Sony have. And just looking at it would make a casual consumer run away faster than a guy who just saw Lena Dunham naked. That controller!

Likewise, their theories on software needs to change. I'm not arguing quality, mind you. But the company that used to aim for AAA experiences that truly graduated the entire medium, and grew the industry, appears to be gone.

3D World is utterly charming. Much like The Wind Waker. But one is a sequel to a 3DS game, the other a remake of a poorly received Zelda entry from 2003. Where are the Mario 64 levels of software? One can certainly argue that creating a game as revolutionary is impossible as things stand. Maybe. But Nintendo doesn't make games with the same amount of scope. Further, they don't even attempt to make software as visionary; this is another reason why their importance in the market is waning.

If a piece of software as big as Mario 64 were to hit, Nintendo would not have trouble moving the Wii U. But how can that happen when they refuse to attempt it?

There's something intrinsically wrong with the company. I think it's the Iwata(Myamoto) ethos of Superiority and Willful Ignorance. A company more suicidal than a kamikaze pilot and Sylvia Plath.

The Wii was an amazing product as market argument. It's brilliant. But you start to understand that it's the result of dumb luck rather than shrewd skill, when looking at Nintendo's moves after its release. They didn't protect the market, they didn't expand it and, likewise, they didn't attempt either for the company as a whole. With all the money they took in -- all the pure profit and the huge market value -- why on Earth did they not invest it by growing their Western reach and overall number of studios?

Rhetorical.

Quote:
However, you are 1000000% correct about their issues. Nintendo is still operating like it's 1999, when you needed Nintendo to play the family targeted titles in order to baby sit your kids. Those days are dead. At least Nintendo in the 90s was able to put out a wide variety of content, and Rare really helped with that a ton.


I can kind of understand Nintendo being outbid for Rare by Microsoft -- they poisoned the well with a huge offer, over market value -- but I can't understand why Nintendo did nothing to make up for the gaps that Rare left. Instead they compounded them: most of their Western studios were shut down during the GameCube era, or set adrift.

I've seen people attack Microsoft for destroying Rare. But that's kind of the point: I'm not happy that it happened, but no matter what they did or didn't do with the company and its assets after the buy, that buy was the whole point. They managed to drastically take away Nintendo's software diversity with the deal; it was a great strategic cost-sink for Microsoft.

Whatever the company was worth to Microsoft, it was probably worth more to Nintendo.

Quote:
While waiting for the next Zelda, you could count on Rare to put out a Blast Corp or something. They had their own sports titles, shooters, fighting games, etc. Now, they seem to think that Mario Sports 5 will still sell consoles. (It's funny to me that they practically had the Goldeneye/Pefect Dark audience that would later move to CoD, and Nintendo went "WE DONT WANT THAT). It feels like how Disney was in the 1980s, where it just became the Mickey museum..


I saw about 5 minutes of an old E3 video with Iwata, just before he took over. It's 2001, GameCube is a powerful piece of kit -- stronger than PS2 in most ways -- but you can still see the Nintendo of today in that video.

It's hard to know exactly where to place it: is it, looking back, a prescient moment or just redundant? The company was behind the times, and proud of it, then: the inability to really attack and understand online infrastructure, even as Microsoft was pushing it as hard as they could in their box (no Live for another year, but the hardware was ready from the start).

Sega was pushing online with Dreamcast -- even if it was dialup, online matches with NBA2K were pretty cool back then -- having started with Saturn. Even today, Nintendo's online offerings are archaic as a whole. And specific to their own software, almost nonexistent.

In the past, I'm pretty sure someone like Howard Lincoln would have handled E3. You can see how things are changing at Nintendo in the video: consolidation, and the destruction of NoA's autonomy. Now Iwata is on-stage, speaking broken English and telling the Western game industry that they have it all wrong.

Some of what he said about out of control budgets was absolutely true. It was obvious where this was going to end up. But it's also the first explanation of what Nintendo will become: a Japanese-focused (first, last) company that makes smaller games on low-tech home consoles. Consoles that ignore the industry's core demographic in almost every way.

With Iwata in charge, it's hard to say how much worth Rare would have had. At that point, any real Western presence was unwanted in the company, as it is today.

Even if Rare was pumping out incredible FPS's to appeal to the West, what worth would the games have when Nintendo would not invest in online infrastructure?

The argument could be made that Rare's output would influence the company. In that case, I think it was inevitable that they would have gone with or without Microsoft; Western studios making influential, Western-targeted software is not something that Iwata appears to want for the company.

You can sense the hubris, and the disdain in Nintendo's top men for the Western way of making software, and for the target audience. But the problem is that it's not really logical -- as successful as Wii was, it would not have hurt Nintendo to have top Western studios from within putting out software -- and it may not be sustainable.

Quote:
The Wii was a brilliant move, but their attempt to woo the casuals back with the Wii U was just silly. If you're going to do the tablet thing, at least open it up to everyone in terms of development- instead Ninty is releasing NES roms on a monthly basis. Ugh.


Succinct.

Quote:
I feel like Nintendo is legitimately angry that they are back in the "gamer" market again, especially after how they acted when the Wii was successful with all the "we're better than the basement dweller" talk they made.


As far as relevance, I don't know if they have a market.

The fact that they utterly abandoned the Wii is what I find most bizarre. The only thing that seems to remain is the name. Sure, smartphones and tablets have taken away a great deal of the demographics Nintendo drew in, but a real sequel to the Wii would still make more market sense than whatever the hell the Wii U is.
« Last Edit: Feb 19th, 2014, 07:41am by Will » User IP Logged

Will

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 706
xx Re: The Video Games Thread
« Reply #321 on: Feb 19th, 2014, 07:55am »

on Feb 16th, 2014, 2:14pm, Clerk wrote:
With regards to your talk of services, I feel that Microsofts big mistake was catering the television stuff to an audience that is now fractured apart due to cell phones and tablets. From what Ive seen (keep in mind, I dont have Microsofts billion dollar research powers, so armchair economics time), families dont really sit together on the couch and watch TV together nightly anymore- a daughter will be on her tablet watching she wants to watch, the son will be playing Angry Birds on his phone, etc.


Both Microsoft and Sony are kind of archaic in the space. The market hasn't clearly been taken from them yet, but I feel like it's a matter of time.

The X-1 is a 2001 dream that became a reality in 2013.

Sony obsessed over using the PS3 as a Trojan Horse for BluRay last gen, only to have digital downloads tear away the market for proprietary domination.

Microsoft, perhaps more than Sony, dreams of the Set Top Box; if it were to work, then the machine becomes a gateway to nearly any app or service, with Microsoft as the gate keeper.

But with Apple and Google in charge, this is becoming an anachronistic nightmare: Xbox and Playstation become profitable apps within a larger eco system, when at least one of them was meant to exist in the opposite stricture. It's the world turned upside down for Microsoft.

Entertainment centers aren't completely done for, but the value proposition isn't what it was. $600 for an iPhone makes more sense than $500 for an Xbox to far too many people.

More than anything, they have got to get it subsidized. If the X-1 was $200 on-contract with a cable or satellite company -- basically the box -- Microsoft could still do real damage, not only in the video game space but as far as their larger aspirations.

You can see it's designed for it. Now they have to make the deals.

Quote:
I think Sony's Playstation Now is forward thinking in terms of how its recognizing the splintering of audiences and the need to access content anywhere on everything, but I dont think playing a PS3 game on a Vita matters to very many people.


Vita is niche as hell. A great device, but there isn't any saving it from smartphones.

Quote:
This is why I think Amazon coming into the living room would throw a big wrench into Sony and Microsoft wanting to sell services- they have a better grasp at selling media to individual accounts that can be accessed across the board on all kinds of devices.


That returns to at least one point: Amazon moves hardware through subsidization.

Neither Sony or Microsoft are willing to do that at this point without outside partners.
User IP Logged

Clerk

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Beside Clerk In Time


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 526
xx Re: The Video Games Thread
« Reply #322 on: Feb 25th, 2014, 12:17am »

Lots of games coming out this month, thank God I have a disposable income.

Here's what Ill get: South Park, Infamous, Metal Gear Solid V, Titanfall.

Anyone else biting on the other releases like Diablo III Expansion, Dark Souls 2, etc.
User IP Logged

TheMidnighter

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1227
xx Re: The Video Games Thread
« Reply #323 on: Mar 1st, 2014, 4:11pm »

I am getting Dark Souls II, Lightning Returns Final Fantasy XIII and final Fantasy X | X-2 HD (both this month because they both ship together. I don't mind as I am too busy to play lots anyway).

I am worried about Metal Gear Solid V It sounds like it has all the makings of a cheap, unfulfilling filler entry. Two hours of gameplay? A new entry on the horizon? Cheaper price than you'd expect of a AAA-title? Yeah, count me skeptic.
User IP Logged

"One among you will shortly perish."

My free music
dudelovebaby

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

expendable


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 811
xx Re: The Video Games Thread
« Reply #324 on: Mar 5th, 2014, 05:34am »



cheesy
User IP Logged

Clerk

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Beside Clerk In Time


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 526
xx Re: The Video Games Thread
« Reply #325 on: Mar 5th, 2014, 1:48pm »

on Mar 1st, 2014, 4:11pm, TheMidnighter wrote:
I am getting Dark Souls II, Lightning Returns Final Fantasy XIII and final Fantasy X | X-2 HD (both this month because they both ship together. I don't mind as I am too busy to play lots anyway).

I am worried about Metal Gear Solid V It sounds like it has all the makings of a cheap, unfulfilling filler entry. Two hours of gameplay? A new entry on the horizon? Cheaper price than you'd expect of a AAA-title? Yeah, count me skeptic.


From what I understand, it takes about 2 hours for the main story, but that only accounts for a small portion of the game. There's a ton of side missions to do as well. For $20, Ill bite. I'll drop $20 at the movies all the time for a 2 hour ordeal, so a game that could be 10 hour long is fine with me, especially Metal Gear.

Anyways, I got Thief & South Park. Thief on its own is an okay game, has very a convoluted design. You could tell they were going to originally make a Call of Duty: Thieving Edition type game, but fan backlash caused them to implement some of the older Thief features. As a result, you have a game that feels like a jack of all trades, master of none. For example, you have the small hallways from their original CoD mentality, but with enemy damage straight out of Thief 2. It doesn't quite work, part of me wouldve liked to have seen the developer's original title before the fan backlash (and I say that as a massive Thief fan).

Or... they couldve just... seen what made Thief so great and done that too....

South Park is legitimately great. The RPG mechanics and epic soundtrack would fit well in a fucking Final Fantasy game. Thats how great its designed. I've been laughing my ass off non-stop at the humor as well. Makes me wish there were more funny games out there, which is probably why Saints Row is now my favorite franchise.

Get South Park, skip Thief.
User IP Logged

TheMidnighter

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1227
xx Re: The Video Games Thread
« Reply #326 on: Mar 16th, 2014, 7:56pm »

With quite a few extensive games on the horizon, I can't justify paying full price for South Park: The Stick of Truth. I hear from all over the internet that the game is legitimately awesome--it's like experiencing a season of the show where you are the main character. That sounds sweet.

Unfortunately, my Dark Souls II pre-order is delayed. I get it on March 18 (release date: March 11). I get both FF X/X-2 HD and Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII on March 17 (February 11 and March 18 release dates, respectively). So that means I get three massive RPGs in two days. Yeah, I'll be busy for a while.
User IP Logged

"One among you will shortly perish."

My free music
Clerk

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Beside Clerk In Time


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 526
xx Re: The Video Games Thread
« Reply #327 on: Mar 18th, 2014, 12:32am »

South Park is great, but I guarantee it'll be half price by summer.

Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes and Infamous this week. cheesy

I got Titanfall on PC, played that most of last week. It's a very fun game, but not the revolution that the media was touting it as. I do love how it's the anti-CoD- no more kill streaks, the inclusion of AI opponents lets everyone have fun, no more run & gun, etc. Sucks that the game has so much baggage due to the anger at Xbox & EA from the past year, as I feel that it's the definition of just a "pure fun" title.
« Last Edit: Mar 18th, 2014, 12:36am by Clerk » User IP Logged

TheMidnighter

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1227
xx Re: The Video Games Thread
« Reply #328 on: Mar 20th, 2014, 05:55am »

I enjoy Dark Souls II at the moment. I play co-op with my brother, we're both exploring this new world and encountering tough bosses. It's fun.
User IP Logged

"One among you will shortly perish."

My free music
Clerk

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Beside Clerk In Time


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 526
xx Re: The Video Games Thread
« Reply #329 on: Mar 22nd, 2014, 1:03pm »

I bought the first Dark Souls for two bucks on Amazon PCD, but I have not got around to it. I have heard good things.
User IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24  ...  26 Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| Conforums Support |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls