I refuse to care about X-Men anything until they can feature in a primary role a mutant whose only ability is that they can change the colour of their eyes at will.
It's nifty and all that they can feature mutants that they can weaponise, but it's just too damned convenient. Boring mutants may not sell books, however don't expect me to give a shit just because somebody ends up with a Deus Ex Machina power.
Going to have to disagree there, Tim. X-Men: First Class had a bunch of mutants(sans the cool guys of course) with boring powers and the whole time I was wondering "Why didn't they cast mutants with better powers?"
It tells you something when Beast of all people was kicking ass.
Beast...the guy whose power is to be hairy and acrobatic.
I'm not even making that up that's actually what happened for reals
Oh comics... you so crazy.
Meanwhile on the DC side they've relaunched Catwoman to introduce her boobs on multiple panels on an entire page before showing her face, and they've turned Starfire into an almost literal fucktoy to be mechanically passed around from one person to another.
I know this is the vidja game industry thread and not the comics industry thread, but gaaaaaaahhhhh.
Back on topic with some stupid lawsuits.
Despite Notch's offer to engage in deathmatch against a team of Bethesda's choosing over the matter, it seems that the battle for use of the "Scrolls" name will take place in court instead. As the Mojang boss tweeted, "The Scrolls case is going to court! Weee! "
If you remember, Bethesda claimed that Mojang's upcoming collectible card game, Scrolls, was too close in (trademarked) title to the publisher's Elder Scrolls series of games. Mojang business developer Daniel Kaplan called the suit "really silly" while speaking with Gamasutra, but said that, in the worst case scenario, Mojang would be forced to change the title.
When is Scrolls coming out, again?
Please excuse my rant. Today my company was served with a summons to appear to in court over a patent lawsuit involving the Nintendo Wii. UltimatePointer claims the Wii violates their patents for a "method for controlling movement of a computer display cursor based on a point-of-aim of a pointing device".
UltimatePointer sued Nintendo, Best Buy, Walmart, Target, GameStop, Kmart, Sears, JJGames (my company), and more retailers for "using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing the accused products" and for "inducing others (including end users) to use, sell, offer for sale" the Nintendo Wii.
It is kind of flattering to be included in the same league as Walmart, Best Buy, and GameStop. Last year they had $422 billion, $50.3 billion, and $9.4 billion in revenue respectively. JJGames had a little over $1 million in sales during 2011.
Walmart is the largest employer in the United States with 1.4 million employees. JJGames has 10 employees.
How many Wii's do you think JJGames has sold in our history........241 and how many have we sold in the state of Texas, where this lawsuit was filed? 12. And every single one of them was used.
We sold twelve used Wii systems and we are being sued for patent infringement. This lawsuit might as well have included everyone in Texas who ever sold their Wii on Craigslist or eBay. Every single one of them is guilty of "offering for sale" the "accused product".
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
But X-Men First Class was the best X-Men movie made. And for your information Banshee is one of the best mutants in the comics. (were he not currently dead )
But X-Men First Class was the best X-Men movie made. And for your information Banshee is one of the best mutants in the comics. (were he not currently dead )
I agree about First Class, it was wayyyy better than I thought it was going to be.
Michael Fassbender's Magneto was sufficiently badass.
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
But X-Men First Class was the best X-Men movie made. And for your information Banshee is one of the best mutants in the comics. (were he not currently dead )
Not saying the movie was bad, I agree it is probably the best X-Men movie really(probably because it isn't the Wolverine show anymore).
Just thought...they needed a better first class.
Hell, they killed of the guy who I thought had an interesting power in the first half of the movie.
I refuse to care about X-Men anything until they can feature in a primary role a mutant whose only ability is that they can change the colour of their eyes at will.
It's nifty and all that they can feature mutants that they can weaponise, but it's just too damned convenient. Boring mutants may not sell books, however don't expect me to give a shit just because somebody ends up with a Deus Ex Machina power.
Going to have to disagree there, Tim. X-Men: First Class had a bunch of mutants(sans the cool guys of course) with boring powers and the whole time I was wondering "Why didn't they cast mutants with better powers?"
It tells you something when Beast of all people was kicking ass.
Beast...the guy whose power is to be hairy and acrobatic.
I sure you got it, but I don't care about X-Men. Like at all. The movies were okay (the first two, anyway), but that was more to do with how it was presented. And the only group I care even less about is the Fantastic Four. (To this day I don't know if I think poorly of those movies because they were bad movies or because they were about the Fantastic Four.)
Your response pretty much shows what is ultimately wrong with the X-Men as a whole. How is it possible that every mutant has a power that can be used in combat (or to conveniently solve a puzzle or tricky situation at just the right time)? Hell, it's a series that is built on the concept of introducing mutant powers that just so happen to be useful at that particular moment.
Your First Class example has major difficulties to overcome. First, they want it to fit within the general canon of the previous X-Men movies. Second, they kind of want to avoid Wolverine Publicity. And third, they also want to feature mutants that hadn't been used before.
Even then, they retconned a bunch of stuff and still managed to spend a lot of time with characters that had already been used extensively. First Class is a 're-boot' film by simply shifting the continuity. It was going to be disappointing no matter what they did.
And again, I object to the X-Men because anybody they'd pick would be specifically written into the plot to solve at least one problem with their unique mutation. If Magneto has a different plan not involving that crazy machine in the first film, is Rogue even necessary? Hell, she has even less purpose in the second one and they still manage to give her a scene where her power resolves a problem.
This new X-Men game is just going to give people the opportunity to create a mutant with a power that is useful (for gameplay purposes) and then let the player pretend that it actually matters. Beyond that, it won't be any more special than the previous X-Men or MUA games. Conveniently 'useful' characters beating the crap out of things.
People are still impressed technologically by linear tunnel shooters? They're a dime a dozen and I can't help but think how it would look if they actually had some memory to work with. This entire generation is outdated now. The most depressing thing about this entire generation is how everything has to look "realistic". Ratchet and Clank looks amazing, but of course that series was started last generation so it had creativity in its art design. Now we get Resistance...yeah. Pixar apparently is outdated and immature now.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
People are still impressed technologically by linear tunnel shooters? They're a dime a dozen and I can't help but think how it would look if they actually had some memory to work with. This entire generation is outdated now. The most depressing thing about this entire generation is how everything has to look "realistic". Ratchet and Clank looks amazing, but of course that series was started last generation so it had creativity in its art design. Now we get Resistance...yeah. Pixar apparently is outdated and immature now.
What are you responding too?
I'm asking because I don't think anyone was even talking about shooting games.
People are still impressed technologically by linear tunnel shooters? They're a dime a dozen and I can't help but think how it would look if they actually had some memory to work with. This entire generation is outdated now. The most depressing thing about this entire generation is how everything has to look "realistic". Ratchet and Clank looks amazing, but of course that series was started last generation so it had creativity in its art design. Now we get Resistance...yeah. Pixar apparently is outdated and immature now.
What are you responding too?
I'm asking because I don't think anyone was even talking about shooting games.
I hate Morgan Webb but I have to admit that I agree with her point. It is really hard to get excited about this new Zelda when it is so technically antiquated. I would hope that in the end most of us would judge a game by the merits if its gameplay and design but the reality is that in this pre-release time frame we tend to get more excited about visual spectical. The motion controls and upgrade system are promising but at face value this is still very much the same old Zelda formula.
The original quote brought up Uncharted 3, a game with the most overused gameplay designs in the industry.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
0
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
Cloud: DC and I are not on speaking terms right now ever since they felt the need to Mephisto the Clark/Lois marriage and make Superman use a jean/tshirt combo for his costume now.
People are still impressed technologically by linear tunnel shooters? They're a dime a dozen and I can't help but think how it would look if they actually had some memory to work with. This entire generation is outdated now. The most depressing thing about this entire generation is how everything has to look "realistic". Ratchet and Clank looks amazing, but of course that series was started last generation so it had creativity in its art design. Now we get Resistance...yeah. Pixar apparently is outdated and immature now.
What are you responding too?
I'm asking because I don't think anyone was even talking about shooting games.
I hate Morgan Webb but I have to admit that I agree with her point. It is really hard to get excited about this new Zelda when it is so technically antiquated. I would hope that in the end most of us would judge a game by the merits if its gameplay and design but the reality is that in this pre-release time frame we tend to get more excited about visual spectical. The motion controls and upgrade system are promising but at face value this is still very much the same old Zelda formula.
The original quote brought up Uncharted 3, a game with the most overused gameplay designs in the industry.
Hmm...I don't know.
I can't say that Uncharted is a shooter in the sense that we use it these days. I mean the combat aspects of the game are shooting based(but it makes sense for the time the game is based in) but I would say it is much more of an action adventure game.
Also, Uncharted is a very pretty looking game and it has really nice setpieces. Pretty well made too.
Well, I guess there's some hope. Activision runs weirdly hot and cold when it comes to pushing games... I seem to remember they did next to nothing for the James Bond game that came out at the same time as the Wii Goldeneye redo, and from what I heard that game wasn't half bad. And it was James Bond, for chrissake.
As I recall, they scheduled it for release at roughly the same time as their latest CoD offering, and there was no way they were devoting any of the hype machine's horsepower away from that. Granted, you could quite reasonably argue that the fact they scheduled it for release then is in and of itself proof they didn't give a shit.
Am I the only one who is excited for Uncharted 3 AND Skyward Sword?
Meanwhile:
Services like Call of Duty Elite will become a necessity for future blockbuster games, says Activision.
The publisher’s VP of digital Jamie Berger posits that, while Elite is currently positioned as an optional extra for consumers, social networks will one day be essential components to the biggest releases.
“We believe that a 24/7, year-round services strategy that broadens the game experience beyond just playing is going to be a necessity,” he told MCV.
“Right now, it’s an option but in three to five years, it won’t be. To support a diverse player base, you will have to have a services and ongoing content strategy. I don’t see how games are going to manage without that.
“Elite is about Call of Duty being bigger than ever five years from now and laying the groundwork for that.”
This shift has already begun, with rival EA readying the EA Sports Football Club for FIFA 12, as well as Autolog and Battlelog for Need for Speed and Battlefield 3 respectively.
Am I the only one who is excited for Uncharted 3 AND Skyward Sword?
No. You either like gritty realism or child-like whimsy.
There is no middle ground.
Heaven or Hell.
FIGHT!
Personally, I'm curious to see how the Elite thing affects the playerbase, especially how screwed non-elite people are.
Meh, I've gone over the "Elite" stuff and I can't say most of it is required to play the game if any of it really. They don't over stuff that alters the gameplay in favor of "Elite" people(yet at least) so I don't care.
At this point just seems like something to get people to waste their money on.
Am I the only one who is excited for Uncharted 3 AND Skyward Sword?
Meanwhile:
Services like Call of Duty Elite will become a necessity for future blockbuster games, says Activision.
The publisher’s VP of digital Jamie Berger posits that, while Elite is currently positioned as an optional extra for consumers, social networks will one day be essential components to the biggest releases.
“We believe that a 24/7, year-round services strategy that broadens the game experience beyond just playing is going to be a necessity,” he told MCV.
“Right now, it’s an option but in three to five years, it won’t be. To support a diverse player base, you will have to have a services and ongoing content strategy. I don’t see how games are going to manage without that.
“Elite is about Call of Duty being bigger than ever five years from now and laying the groundwork for that.”
This shift has already begun, with rival EA readying the EA Sports Football Club for FIFA 12, as well as Autolog and Battlelog for Need for Speed and Battlefield 3 respectively.
Activision sounds really, really happy they've found another way to squeeze money out of people.
Personally, I'm curious to see how the Elite thing affects the playerbase, especially how screwed non-elite people are.
For every blockbuster game? Not likely.
Activision hasn't stumbled on some new money making scheme. They're just taking the MMO pricing system and putting it on their FPS. And Elite will probably work by virtue of being the first one to try it.
But once every big game starts requiring it? People are going to smarten up and realize they're pissing away money. They're not going to pay $10 monthly fees across multiple games. They'll stick to one big game, and the rest will rot.
And all you have to do is look at the genre they're ripping this off from. WoW is the only MMO that people will still pay a monthly fee for. Everything else, it's a year before they end up forced to throw away the fee and go F2P.
So if it's 3 to 5 years that blockbuster games start requiring it, it'll be 6 to 8 before it goes right back to being optional.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
But once every big game starts requiring it? People are going to smarten up and realize they're pissing away money. They're not going to pay $10 monthly fees across multiple games. They'll stick to one big game, and the rest will rot.
Will they? People still pay out the nose for "Collector's Editions" of games for bonuses they never use or look at, and people still pay money hand over first for DLC for multiplayer games they'll put down and forget about a month later the next big multiplayer release hits.
It's not a big stretch to see this becoming commonplace, and millions will still fork over money with nary a grumble.
korodullin on
- The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (2017, colorized)
No. You either like gritty realism or child-like whimsy.
Heaven or Hell.
I think we need more settings of gritty, realistic heaven. We've had whimsical hell a few times before, but the gritty, gray-brown heaven would be interesting...
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
But once every big game starts requiring it? People are going to smarten up and realize they're pissing away money. They're not going to pay $10 monthly fees across multiple games. They'll stick to one big game, and the rest will rot.
Will they? People still pay out the nose for "Collector's Editions" of games for bonuses they never use or look at, and people still pay money hand over first for DLC for multiplayer games they'll put down and forget about a month later the next big multiplayer release hits.
It's not a big stretch to see this becoming commonplace, and millions will still fork over money with nary a grumble.
Mentally there is a difference between playing $100 once and $120 over the course of a year. It really depends on the people who are doing it. Some see the all-at-once as being more cost-effective (technically, yes, but they don't see it quite that way) and some see the low monthly fee as being more cost-effective (for comparison, see the arguments for and against XBL [$60 per year {too much!} versus $5 per month {cheaper, still the same cost}]).
The kinds of people who feel compelled to buy the expensive SEs of games are the kind who think value for their money is paramount. Even if the bonuses aren't critical or even useful. Find arguments about Assassin's Creed 2 and why the SE pre-orders (for the extra levels) were more important versus getting 'ripped off' by paying $60 for just the game minus some levels that ended up not actually mattering at all.
(Any argument about DLC-as-cut-content is a form of this.)
And the kinds of people who think monthly fees are better tie it in to a feeling that they're extending the value of a game. By continuing to pay for a service they think they need, they're getting a longer term value from something they probably otherwise would have finished once and sold or shelved.
(Any argument about how many game hours you get per dollar is a form of this.)
In the end, 'value' is what you put on it. If you pay for it, it's worth it. Everything else is a justification to 'outsiders'.
Cloud: DC and I are not on speaking terms right now ever since they felt the need to Mephisto the Clark/Lois marriage and make Superman use a jean/tshirt combo for his costume now.
Ugh. O_o
To be fair, that's a "Five years ago" flashback story arc. Superman has an actual costume in "present day" DC.
Which looks like armour, and why Superman needs armour i have no idea.
Am I the only one who is excited for Uncharted 3 AND Skyward Sword?
Meanwhile:
Services like Call of Duty Elite will become a necessity for future blockbuster games, says Activision.
The publisher’s VP of digital Jamie Berger posits that, while Elite is currently positioned as an optional extra for consumers, social networks will one day be essential components to the biggest releases.
“We believe that a 24/7, year-round services strategy that broadens the game experience beyond just playing is going to be a necessity,” he told MCV.
“Right now, it’s an option but in three to five years, it won’t be. To support a diverse player base, you will have to have a services and ongoing content strategy. I don’t see how games are going to manage without that.
“Elite is about Call of Duty being bigger than ever five years from now and laying the groundwork for that.”
This shift has already begun, with rival EA readying the EA Sports Football Club for FIFA 12, as well as Autolog and Battlelog for Need for Speed and Battlefield 3 respectively.
Activision sounds really, really happy they've found another way to squeeze money out of people.
Personally, I'm curious to see how the Elite thing affects the playerbase, especially how screwed non-elite people are.
For every blockbuster game? Not likely.
Activision hasn't stumbled on some new money making scheme. They're just taking the MMO pricing system and putting it on their FPS. And Elite will probably work by virtue of being the first one to try it.
But once every big game starts requiring it? People are going to smarten up and realize they're pissing away money. They're not going to pay $10 monthly fees across multiple games. They'll stick to one big game, and the rest will rot.
And all you have to do is look at the genre they're ripping this off from. WoW is the only MMO that people will still pay a monthly fee for. Everything else, it's a year before they end up forced to throw away the fee and go F2P.
So if it's 3 to 5 years that blockbuster games start requiring it, it'll be 6 to 8 before it goes right back to being optional.
Which is what Activision is probably hoping for. Because let's face it, until it has a guitar hero implosion, CoD is the one big game that most people will stick too
People are still impressed technologically by linear tunnel shooters? They're a dime a dozen and I can't help but think how it would look if they actually had some memory to work with. This entire generation is outdated now. The most depressing thing about this entire generation is how everything has to look "realistic". Ratchet and Clank looks amazing, but of course that series was started last generation so it had creativity in its art design. Now we get Resistance...yeah. Pixar apparently is outdated and immature now.
You talking about shooters, or the entire generation of games period? What's the cutoff on that? Retail boxed titles only?
Am I the only one who is excited for Uncharted 3 AND Skyward Sword?
I'll get both. Uncharted because I enjoy Nathan Drake and his supporting cast, Skyward Sword because I like Zelda-style dungeons, and it's been awhile (Darksiders) since I had some.
Cloud: DC and I are not on speaking terms right now ever since they felt the need to Mephisto the Clark/Lois marriage and make Superman use a jean/tshirt combo for his costume now.
Ugh. O_o
To be fair, that's a "Five years ago" flashback story arc. Superman has an actual costume in "present day" DC.
Which looks like armour, and why Superman needs armour i have no idea.
That still doesn't fix the whole Clark/Lois not being married thing. :x
Cloud: DC and I are not on speaking terms right now ever since they felt the need to Mephisto the Clark/Lois marriage and make Superman use a jean/tshirt combo for his costume now.
Ugh. O_o
To be fair, that's a "Five years ago" flashback story arc. Superman has an actual costume in "present day" DC.
Which looks like armour, and why Superman needs armour i have no idea.
While I think replacing the underwear on the outside with a red belt actually works, I'll agree the armor thing (on Supes and a LOT of the redesigned heroes) looks ludicrous.
Back on topic: how boned is Rocksmith?
Ubisoft previewed their Rocksmith game at a press event in San Francisco yesterday to a number of journalists. The game is an unusual product for the game industry because it's aiming to give users real-world benefits. Whenever you have an unusual product, marketing is going to be more challenging, and the results less certain. Rocksmith is designed to teach users how to play the guitar while giving them an enjoyable experience. In order to do this, the game requires that you either have an electric gutar already (or an acoustic guitar with an audio pickup), or buy their bundle that includes the game and an Epiphone guitar for $199.99.
Ubisoft has certainly put forth plenty of effort to make Rocksmith successful. The game is coming out for the Xbox 360, PS3, and PC on October 18th, and is available in two forms, a boxed set and a bundled set. The $79.99 boxed package includes the game and the Rocksmith Real Tone Cable that allows you to hook up a guitar with a 1/4” jack to your console or computer (it has a USB connector and includes the analog-to-digital conversion in the cable). This cable, also available separately for $29.99, allows your console or computer to act as an amplifier for the guitar. The $199.99 bundled package includes an Epiphone Les Paul Junior electric guitar as well as the cable and the game. By comparison, the Les Paul Junior can be found for as low as $129, though often considerably more.
Laurent Detoc, Executive Director North America for Ubisoft, understands the challenges ahead but he believes the product will sell when people see it for themselves. “I'm not worried about the appeal of Rocksmith. Some retailers were uncertain at first, but if we had a chance to really show them the product they liked it.” The key to Rocksmith for Detoc is that it has real-world benefits. “Plastic guitars are for a party, this is self-improvement. We deliver on both fun and real benefits.”
Detoc related this product to Ubisoft's experience with Just Dance, their hit dancing game. “When Just Dance first came out, we didn't get high orders. People didn't know what it was until they went over to someone's house and saw them playing, then they had to have their own copy. Now, with Just Dance 2, the orders have been high from the start.”
While Detoc is enthusiastic about Rocksmith and is willing to give it time to find its audience, Scott Steinberg, CEO and Lead Analyst of TechSavvy Global and author of the new book Music Games Rock: Rhythm Gaming's Greatest Hits of All Time, isn't so sure. “The reality is it's a niche title in a niche market fighting an uphill battle in what has to be one of the most hostile markets we've seen in a while,” Steinberg commented. “The vast majority of players turn to music games not because they expect to be musicians but because they want the instant gratification. Gamifying the experience is a good thing and will improve the experience, but the number of players willing to put in the hours and the money to really get good at it is likely a small market.”
Ubisoft, realizing that Rocksmith is a very different sort of title, is working on some different ways to find the audience. According to Detoc, Ubisoft has a partnership with the music store chain Guitar Center, and they are very excited by the title. “They see that Rocksmith can help them sell other products, too” said Detoc.
The implementation of the game is top notch. Ubsioft had developers Paul Cross and Nao Higo, both non-guitar players, lead a team of 60 in creating a polished way to learn the guitar while having fun. The arcade games, the 3D interface, the technique challenges, and the game's ability to adjust itself to your needs make it an excellent learning tool. You're really in a first-person simulation of being a rock star, as you move from gig to gig at different places and look out over the audience, watching the notes rush towards you. But it's not simple button-mashing in rhythm; you have to learn how to play the guitar in order to rack up good scores. You can even have two players splitscreen (if you have two cables and two guitars, of course) and they can be at different skill levels while playing together.
A lengthy list of famous tunes are included in the game, in a variety of styles. Of course, more songs will be available as downloadable content in the future. Other instruments, particularly bass guitar, are certainly a possibility, but for now Ubisoft will be watching to see how Rocksmith performs before they commit to other titles.
Ubisoft is hoping to turn the large number of gamers now familiar with music games to their advantage, but it's going to be an uphill climb. Gamers who were burned out on Guitar Hero may be skittish at trying another game involving music, and especially one where they have to spend $199 if they don't already have a guitar. Then again, perhaps that's the attraction; you get a real guitar that you can plug into an amp and use on stage, not just a plastic toy. Parents may buy this as a gift for their child to see them spend hours on a game and get something useful out of it, or they may want to pick it up themselves to learn the guitar. People who already own a guitar are a very likely target, but are there really enough of them to make this game a hit?
Steinberg doesn't think Rocksmith will be huge, but it may not need to be. “At the end of the day, video games are still an escape for most, so I'm not sure people will want to really learn something from a game. Perhaps Ubisoft can pioneer a profitable niche category. If it was me, I'd bring the product to market as cost-effectively as possible, but this appears to be a title with the bulk of Ubisoft's resources behind it.” Steinberg admits that marketing budgets may not be the only factor in determining success. “At the end of the day, Guitar Hero wasn't backed by that big a budget originally, and it grew through word of mouth.”
So let's say you're the makers of Burnout Crash. How do you decide to advertise the thing in an understandable, appealing way while effectively communicating the benefits of its Kinect capabilities?
Rocksmith is what happens when people demand that things like Rock Band or Guitar Hero account for real guitars. The number of people for whom this appeals is already minuscule.
What isn't helping is the presumption by anybody that it directly competes with RB or GH.
It was never going to end well, but people aren't really helping anything.
Rocksmith is what happens when people demand that things like Rock Band or Guitar Hero account for real guitars. The number of people for whom this appeals is already minuscule.
As the article said (and I agree), there's nothing inherently wrong with that, as long as you know going in that you're making a niche game and keep your expectations tuned to that. Altus does damn well appealing to the niche.
The problem is that Ubi expects this to be the next Guitar Hero, and is apparently marketing it accordingly. I saw ads for the damn thing in Gamestop three or four months ago.
There's so many things going against this... new IP, high barrier to entry, making a new game in a genre that crashed, and the fact that "oooh, it teaches you to play guitar!" is pretty much nothing new after Rock Band 3 and Power Gig (snicker). Also that most gamers really don't want to learn stuff, they just want to play (based on how niche Rock Band 3 was, even with the non-pro compatibility).
Rocksmith is what happens when people demand that things like Rock Band or Guitar Hero account for real guitars. The number of people for whom this appeals is already minuscule.
As the article said (and I agree), there's nothing inherently wrong with that, as long as you know going in that you're making a niche game and keep your expectations tuned to that. Altus does damn well appealing to the niche.
The problem is that Ubi expects this to be the next Guitar Hero, and is apparently marketing it accordingly. I saw ads for the damn thing in Gamestop three or four months ago.
There's so many things going against this... new IP, high barrier to entry, making a new game in a genre that crashed, and the fact that "oooh, it teaches you to play guitar!" is pretty much nothing new after Rock Band 3 and Power Gig (snicker). Also that most gamers really don't want to learn stuff, they just want to play (based on how niche Rock Band 3 was, even with the non-pro compatibility).
I did say that people are fucking this all up. This means both the companies involved and the fans and 'reviewers' who have to get their bit of snark in before the inevitable collapse (which would only further 'prove' that the music rhythm genre is deaddeaddead).
Rocksmith is probably as ignorable as Wii Music and Rock Revolution were.
I wouldn't say that the music rythm genre is dead.
It kind of just shifted to dancing instead of playing instruments. There's nowhere to go after that I guess, though. So its probably almost dead.
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
0
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
See, I'm pretty sure the whole Rock Band with a real guitar, and Rocksmith thing, came from people deriding guitar games because "you could just learn how to play a real guitar instead!"
But for some reason, publishers and developers never realized that those are absolutely silly complaints, and also on top of that the people making those complaints had no interest in your games to begin with.
I can't imagine the line of thought that led to them believing these would be profitable ventures.
Power Gig: Rise of the SixString has received mostly negative reviews for various reasons. William Abner of GameShark stated that "It's a bad time to release a new music game property -- and an even worse time to release a bad one."
...
Giant Bomb named the game "Worst Game of the Year" for 2010.
And they caused tons of damage to the environment in the process!
I wouldn't say that the music rythm genre is dead.
It kind of just shifted to dancing instead of playing instruments. There's nowhere to go after that I guess, though. So its probably almost dead.
Notice how everybody claims all MMOs that aren't WoW are doomed? Expand that to anything else and change 'WoW' to 'make tonnes and tonnes of money in perpetuity!' and you get the gist of why the music rhythm genre is 'dead'. The dancing games are obviously part of it and are doing pretty well for themselves, but even though DDR pre-dates just about everything in the genre, it's still not a massive, continual success outside of the arcade.
For all intents and purposes, it's dead.
It's just that nobody understands that you can still have success even without chart topping sales. Rocksmith could do well if it was directed at the market that actually wants and can use it. Keep the dev costs low and the general program quality from being shitty and you can make money with it.
If the reviews aren't completely terrible I'll probably pick up Rocksmith. If nothing else, the cable sounds like a relatively cheap and dirty way to screw around with dumping some guitar noise to PC. If I didn't already own a guitar, though, I'd stay the hell away.
Rocksmith is what happens when people demand that things like Rock Band or Guitar Hero account for real guitars. The number of people for whom this appeals is already minuscule.
As the article said (and I agree), there's nothing inherently wrong with that, as long as you know going in that you're making a niche game and keep your expectations tuned to that. Altus does damn well appealing to the niche.
The problem is that Ubi expects this to be the next Guitar Hero, and is apparently marketing it accordingly. I saw ads for the damn thing in Gamestop three or four months ago.
There's so many things going against this... new IP, high barrier to entry, making a new game in a genre that crashed, and the fact that "oooh, it teaches you to play guitar!" is pretty much nothing new after Rock Band 3 and Power Gig (snicker). Also that most gamers really don't want to learn stuff, they just want to play (based on how niche Rock Band 3 was, even with the non-pro compatibility).
I'd love a guitar game that let me learn how to actually play the guitar. $200 up front is a hell of a lot cheaper than $130 for a guitar plus whatever it costs to have some bored college student come by every week for lessons for who knows how long. Presenting it in a game format would be way more exciting than watching a $10 "Learn to play Guitar" DVD starring a 45 year old washed up musician (who was in a band that totally opened for Nazareth once back in the 70s) who walks you through how to play "Smoke on the Water" while he dies on the inside.
I hope they don't expect DLC for it to be a revenue stream, though. I think people are burnt out on paying iTunes prices for songs they can't actually listen to.
Looks like I'm still the only person looking forward to Rocksmith. More so for the technology behind it. If they're able to track playing through a quarter inch plug into a USB cable into my console and PC. Well, I want to know HOW it's doing the tracking. Is there some MIDI conversion going on or is it using pitch detection? Either way, if it works well, that's an outstanding breakthrough in technology.
Posts
To be fair, blue hair isn't very common.
Meanwhile on the DC side they've relaunched Catwoman to introduce her boobs on multiple panels on an entire page before showing her face, and they've turned Starfire into an almost literal fucktoy to be mechanically passed around from one person to another.
I know this is the vidja game industry thread and not the comics industry thread, but gaaaaaaahhhhh.
Back on topic with some stupid lawsuits.
When is Scrolls coming out, again?
http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/ks3gx/i_was_sued_for_selling_12_wiis/
That's nutty even for patent trolls.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
I agree about First Class, it was wayyyy better than I thought it was going to be.
Michael Fassbender's Magneto was sufficiently badass.
Not saying the movie was bad, I agree it is probably the best X-Men movie really(probably because it isn't the Wolverine show anymore).
Just thought...they needed a better first class.
Hell, they killed of the guy who I thought had an interesting power in the first half of the movie.
I sure you got it, but I don't care about X-Men. Like at all. The movies were okay (the first two, anyway), but that was more to do with how it was presented. And the only group I care even less about is the Fantastic Four. (To this day I don't know if I think poorly of those movies because they were bad movies or because they were about the Fantastic Four.)
Your response pretty much shows what is ultimately wrong with the X-Men as a whole. How is it possible that every mutant has a power that can be used in combat (or to conveniently solve a puzzle or tricky situation at just the right time)? Hell, it's a series that is built on the concept of introducing mutant powers that just so happen to be useful at that particular moment.
Your First Class example has major difficulties to overcome. First, they want it to fit within the general canon of the previous X-Men movies. Second, they kind of want to avoid Wolverine Publicity. And third, they also want to feature mutants that hadn't been used before.
Even then, they retconned a bunch of stuff and still managed to spend a lot of time with characters that had already been used extensively. First Class is a 're-boot' film by simply shifting the continuity. It was going to be disappointing no matter what they did.
And again, I object to the X-Men because anybody they'd pick would be specifically written into the plot to solve at least one problem with their unique mutation. If Magneto has a different plan not involving that crazy machine in the first film, is Rogue even necessary? Hell, she has even less purpose in the second one and they still manage to give her a scene where her power resolves a problem.
This new X-Men game is just going to give people the opportunity to create a mutant with a power that is useful (for gameplay purposes) and then let the player pretend that it actually matters. Beyond that, it won't be any more special than the previous X-Men or MUA games. Conveniently 'useful' characters beating the crap out of things.
What are you responding too?
I'm asking because I don't think anyone was even talking about shooting games.
The original quote brought up Uncharted 3, a game with the most overused gameplay designs in the industry.
Ugh. O_o
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
Hmm...I don't know.
I can't say that Uncharted is a shooter in the sense that we use it these days. I mean the combat aspects of the game are shooting based(but it makes sense for the time the game is based in) but I would say it is much more of an action adventure game.
Also, Uncharted is a very pretty looking game and it has really nice setpieces. Pretty well made too.
As I recall, they scheduled it for release at roughly the same time as their latest CoD offering, and there was no way they were devoting any of the hype machine's horsepower away from that. Granted, you could quite reasonably argue that the fact they scheduled it for release then is in and of itself proof they didn't give a shit.
Meanwhile:
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/activision-social-networks-a-necessity-for-gaming/085332
Activision sounds really, really happy they've found another way to squeeze money out of people.
Personally, I'm curious to see how the Elite thing affects the playerbase, especially how screwed non-elite people are.
No. You either like gritty realism or child-like whimsy.
There is no middle ground.
Heaven or Hell.
FIGHT!
Meh, I've gone over the "Elite" stuff and I can't say most of it is required to play the game if any of it really. They don't over stuff that alters the gameplay in favor of "Elite" people(yet at least) so I don't care.
At this point just seems like something to get people to waste their money on.
FTFY.
I'm looking forward to both but I don't get on my high horse about originality. As long as a game controls good and is fun that's all that matters.
For every blockbuster game? Not likely.
Activision hasn't stumbled on some new money making scheme. They're just taking the MMO pricing system and putting it on their FPS. And Elite will probably work by virtue of being the first one to try it.
But once every big game starts requiring it? People are going to smarten up and realize they're pissing away money. They're not going to pay $10 monthly fees across multiple games. They'll stick to one big game, and the rest will rot.
And all you have to do is look at the genre they're ripping this off from. WoW is the only MMO that people will still pay a monthly fee for. Everything else, it's a year before they end up forced to throw away the fee and go F2P.
So if it's 3 to 5 years that blockbuster games start requiring it, it'll be 6 to 8 before it goes right back to being optional.
Will they? People still pay out the nose for "Collector's Editions" of games for bonuses they never use or look at, and people still pay money hand over first for DLC for multiplayer games they'll put down and forget about a month later the next big multiplayer release hits.
It's not a big stretch to see this becoming commonplace, and millions will still fork over money with nary a grumble.
- The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (2017, colorized)
I think we need more settings of gritty, realistic heaven. We've had whimsical hell a few times before, but the gritty, gray-brown heaven would be interesting...
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Mentally there is a difference between playing $100 once and $120 over the course of a year. It really depends on the people who are doing it. Some see the all-at-once as being more cost-effective (technically, yes, but they don't see it quite that way) and some see the low monthly fee as being more cost-effective (for comparison, see the arguments for and against XBL [$60 per year {too much!} versus $5 per month {cheaper, still the same cost}]).
The kinds of people who feel compelled to buy the expensive SEs of games are the kind who think value for their money is paramount. Even if the bonuses aren't critical or even useful. Find arguments about Assassin's Creed 2 and why the SE pre-orders (for the extra levels) were more important versus getting 'ripped off' by paying $60 for just the game minus some levels that ended up not actually mattering at all.
(Any argument about DLC-as-cut-content is a form of this.)
And the kinds of people who think monthly fees are better tie it in to a feeling that they're extending the value of a game. By continuing to pay for a service they think they need, they're getting a longer term value from something they probably otherwise would have finished once and sold or shelved.
(Any argument about how many game hours you get per dollar is a form of this.)
In the end, 'value' is what you put on it. If you pay for it, it's worth it. Everything else is a justification to 'outsiders'.
To be fair, that's a "Five years ago" flashback story arc. Superman has an actual costume in "present day" DC.
Which looks like armour, and why Superman needs armour i have no idea.
Steam: YOU FACE JARAXXUS| Twitch.tv: CainLoveless
You talking about shooters, or the entire generation of games period? What's the cutoff on that? Retail boxed titles only?
Who got on their high horse?
I'll get both. Uncharted because I enjoy Nathan Drake and his supporting cast, Skyward Sword because I like Zelda-style dungeons, and it's been awhile (Darksiders) since I had some.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
I know the answer to this already ($$$) but, why not save yourself the trouble and just build your metagame into Facebook itself?
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
That still doesn't fix the whole Clark/Lois not being married thing. :x
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
While I think replacing the underwear on the outside with a red belt actually works, I'll agree the armor thing (on Supes and a LOT of the redesigned heroes) looks ludicrous.
Back on topic: how boned is Rocksmith?
http://www.industrygamers.com/news/rocksmith-will-it-perform-for-ubisoft/
tl;dr: Fairly boned.
The answer was, of course, obvious.
Rocksmith is what happens when people demand that things like Rock Band or Guitar Hero account for real guitars. The number of people for whom this appeals is already minuscule.
What isn't helping is the presumption by anybody that it directly competes with RB or GH.
It was never going to end well, but people aren't really helping anything.
Also, if you want to learn to play guitar through a computer, there are already several options.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
As the article said (and I agree), there's nothing inherently wrong with that, as long as you know going in that you're making a niche game and keep your expectations tuned to that. Altus does damn well appealing to the niche.
The problem is that Ubi expects this to be the next Guitar Hero, and is apparently marketing it accordingly. I saw ads for the damn thing in Gamestop three or four months ago.
There's so many things going against this... new IP, high barrier to entry, making a new game in a genre that crashed, and the fact that "oooh, it teaches you to play guitar!" is pretty much nothing new after Rock Band 3 and Power Gig (snicker). Also that most gamers really don't want to learn stuff, they just want to play (based on how niche Rock Band 3 was, even with the non-pro compatibility).
I did say that people are fucking this all up. This means both the companies involved and the fans and 'reviewers' who have to get their bit of snark in before the inevitable collapse (which would only further 'prove' that the music rhythm genre is deaddeaddead).
Rocksmith is probably as ignorable as Wii Music and Rock Revolution were.
It kind of just shifted to dancing instead of playing instruments. There's nowhere to go after that I guess, though. So its probably almost dead.
But for some reason, publishers and developers never realized that those are absolutely silly complaints, and also on top of that the people making those complaints had no interest in your games to begin with.
I can't imagine the line of thought that led to them believing these would be profitable ventures.
Yep.
And they caused tons of damage to the environment in the process!
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
Notice how everybody claims all MMOs that aren't WoW are doomed? Expand that to anything else and change 'WoW' to 'make tonnes and tonnes of money in perpetuity!' and you get the gist of why the music rhythm genre is 'dead'. The dancing games are obviously part of it and are doing pretty well for themselves, but even though DDR pre-dates just about everything in the genre, it's still not a massive, continual success outside of the arcade.
For all intents and purposes, it's dead.
It's just that nobody understands that you can still have success even without chart topping sales. Rocksmith could do well if it was directed at the market that actually wants and can use it. Keep the dev costs low and the general program quality from being shitty and you can make money with it.
That's not going to happen, though.
Both of them.
I'd love a guitar game that let me learn how to actually play the guitar. $200 up front is a hell of a lot cheaper than $130 for a guitar plus whatever it costs to have some bored college student come by every week for lessons for who knows how long. Presenting it in a game format would be way more exciting than watching a $10 "Learn to play Guitar" DVD starring a 45 year old washed up musician (who was in a band that totally opened for Nazareth once back in the 70s) who walks you through how to play "Smoke on the Water" while he dies on the inside.
I hope they don't expect DLC for it to be a revenue stream, though. I think people are burnt out on paying iTunes prices for songs they can't actually listen to.
PSN : Bolthorn