just wait until 2014 when the 3DSi XL lite hits, with 3 built in circle pads and 30% brighter back, front, and stereo lights. it charges by rubbing it rapidly against your wallet, your friend code is you bank account number
The 3DSXL is confusing in its existence because the DSiXL was marketed as something for the senior folks, what with Nintendo's Touch Generations software.
There's no such analogue on the 3DS, so I'm not quite sure why the 3DSXL exists.
Ha I knew a revision was coming sooner or later. Only I expected it to have an extra nob like that attachment as well.
Oh well, one step closer, shall buy it in black or white when they show up.
Already bought Tetris 3DS considering it was barely over ten bucks.
Bigger is better!
Except for obesity.
Cade on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Holy shit that's a huge increase in size.
0
CokomonOur butts are worth fighting for!Registered Userregular
edited June 2012
That thing looks so much nicer than the 3DS! They ditched the layer cake design and the crappy touchpad buttons for Start and Home! And the cobalt blue is finally coming back here instead of the baby blue! Totally sold, I'm so glad I held off on buying a 3DS.
The pocket thing is a total non-issue, since the only time I ever have my DS with me outside the house is at PAX.
I agree about the portability but I've seen the larger screen in action on the DSi XL and it's pretty nice. But what's this about it not coming with a charger?
Ha, and Square continues to urinate on what fans it has left. Haha...
?
That stuff sounds like something the fans would like...
Except for the fact that it's not a remake.
Don't forget what a goddamn mess the PC version was. I doubt they're fixing it at all.
Well, except making it actually work on something newer than Windows 98.
You know that it has an XP patch, right? Put out by Squaresoft literally years and years ago, right? And that worked (though you could actually play it on XP without said patch with modification).
I guess fuck 'em for not offering us a Vista/7 patch for a 14 year old game. But yeah, that's one thing they actually addressed. That, and laptop support (since the PC version was numpad bound originally).
I don't see how the death (or shrinking) of EA would be a cause to celebrate. They've brought their fair share of new IPs to the table this generation, as well as released plenty of games people want. Then again, they did get branded the worst company in America because of a bad ending...
I'm still wondering why Bioware, the writer in an RPG game, gets the pass for a writing problem whereas EA gets blamed.
The possibility exists that EA's decision making process pressured Bioware into that decision. But in the meantime, every indication I've seen is that Bioware had an idiot ball moment and produced a pretty shitty ending (to join a glitchy, unfinished game). Is there any reason why EA should be held responsible for Bioware's bad writing?
I don't see how the death (or shrinking) of EA would be a cause to celebrate. They've brought their fair share of new IPs to the table this generation, as well as released plenty of games people want. Then again, they did get branded the worst company in America because of a bad ending...
I'm still wondering who gives Bioware, the writer in an RPG game, gets the pass for a writing problem whereas EA gets blamed.
The possibility exists that EA's decision making process pressured Bioware into that decision. But in the meantime, every indication I've seen is that Bioware had an idiot ball moment and produced a pretty shitty ending (to join a glitchy, unfinished game). Is there any reason why EA should be held responsible for Bioware's bad writing?
People like to put Bioware up on a pedestal and hold it up to weird standards that it has never ever lived up to.
And then blame it on EA when they don't meet their lofty, impossible expectations.
"Wah, ME3 didn't have some magical technological marvel of an engine that creates a totally organic narrative based on a million tiny permutations of choices, instead you get to the end of the game and just make a binary choice about how you want the ending to go. Just like every game Bioware has ever made ever."
I mean, I could believe that EA pressured Bioware into finishing on a deadline, and the outcome was (after their initial rewrite, which was done because the original plot direction was total shit) leading the writers to craft a second bad ending. I just haven't seen any particular evidence of that so far.
I mean, if Origin was fucking people over in ME3 (which may be the case for some people), sure, blame EA by all means. But even the multiplayer problems seem to be with the mediocre multiplayer interface that Bioware came up with on their own (though, as people point out, it was their first attempt, and lots of people's first tries suck).
I don't see how the death (or shrinking) of EA would be a cause to celebrate. They've brought their fair share of new IPs to the table this generation, as well as released plenty of games people want. Then again, they did get branded the worst company in America because of a bad ending...
EA earned their reputation in spades. They are a chop shop that regularly abuses their employees, guts successful existing teams/companies, and really doesn't innovate (which pains me to say because wayyyy back, they were incredibly innovative).
Have you read anything by EA_Wife, or was it EA_Spouse? The conditions there are simply terrible. Karma's a helluva thing, and when your creating oppressive conditions for creative types to work in, they have a tendency to do piss-poor work. So, a stat update and a new round of Madden 12 doesn't look like it's going to save them? damn. :whistle:
Do you work for EA? No?
I'd recommend not using stories from years ago as the basis for your argument about how terrible it is to work there - oh, and then talking about how it's just 'karma'. Guess who's going to get fucked if things get really bad at the company? Here's a hint, it's not the guys you probably blame for what you see as this culture of evil!
And the only thing that the stock price suggests is that the investors are pissed. Which has two effects - it makes it more difficult to borrow money, and it makes a takeover somewhat more possible.
I don't see how the death (or shrinking) of EA would be a cause to celebrate. They've brought their fair share of new IPs to the table this generation, as well as released plenty of games people want. Then again, they did get branded the worst company in America because of a bad ending...
I'm still wondering who gives Bioware, the writer in an RPG game, gets the pass for a writing problem whereas EA gets blamed.
The possibility exists that EA's decision making process pressured Bioware into that decision. But in the meantime, every indication I've seen is that Bioware had an idiot ball moment and produced a pretty shitty ending (to join a glitchy, unfinished game). Is there any reason why EA should be held responsible for Bioware's bad writing?
People like to put Bioware up on a pedestal and hold it up to weird standards that it has never ever lived up to.
And then blame it on EA when they don't meet their lofty, impossible expectations.
"Wah, ME3 didn't have some magical technological marvel of an engine that creates a totally organic narrative based on a million tiny permutations of choices, instead you get to the end of the game and just make a binary choice about how you want the ending to go. Just like every game Bioware has ever made ever."
I mean, if we get to criticize AP for not matching up with the standard set by ME2 coming out a few months earlier, surely comparing it to ME3, which came out a year later....
I may not like Cliffy B much, and think his idea of game design is pretty lacking and boring, but I do agree with his assessment of current gaming in general here:
I think’s happened is that the games have become more linear and easier, so it feels like a lot of quick-time-events
I blame GoW for making them popular, but QTE are the bane of gaming right now. Too much of that going on over the last several years. Also, the popularity of corridor shooters has gotten out of hand, what with even RPGs starting to take the corridor gameplay direction.
I think maybe L4D2 had something to do with this as well. That was HORRENDOUSLY difficult. My gf and I +2 AI couldn't even beat Dark Carnival on Easy without multiple tries.
Just took the enjoyment right out of it. I'm all for difficult games that require planning to get through, but on harder difficulties.
alright, one more hardware revision to go before you can actually buy the 3DS!
That revision was here in November. It's called the Zelda LE and it is awesome! Can't see the picture for some reason, is the add on thunbstick thingy in this model?
Also, ea shares. How low is it exactly? I don't like the idea of buying any video game stock, but if it's it's lowest point since the dot com bubble burst, that's tempting. I would think ea would be able to bounce back. Then again, I have no clue what it's high point is etc.... Would have to do some serious research.
The thing about a the video game industry is that, quite a few companies, including publishers, can have an excellent quarter and not have it reflected on their stock. Particularly publishers, I think.
I'd certainly expect EA to bounce back in that area, but it might take a while for it to be reflected in the price.
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited June 2012
These comments are in relation to the article, which I just read, and not at all related to the silly argument about karma or gaming morality, which I stopped reading and do not care about.
After having a read I don't find anything to disagree with. Uncertainty can make a company a risky prospect and lower it's stock, so the argument presented in the linked article about EA's ceo failing to keep to his schedule of transitioning the company from a to b is just as likely to be the main reason as any particular game or company practice. A company in flux means there's no clear picture as to where it is going to end up. Which is always a bad thing if you want to be fairly sure your money will grow rather than potentially disappear, especially if the transition doesn't seem to be about to end even though it was supposed to.
I do agree that SWTOR is a likely trigger for the start of this questioning, but it strikes me as something that was building anyway if the change up has been waffling along for a while. So rather than raising questions there it feels like it was probably a confirmation which resulted in action, ie the more prudent or nervous investors beginning to bug out.
It's not trying to say anything out of left field or anything like that.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
That's kind of the reason i kinda want to look at ea stock. I expect them to bounce back, and it seems part of the reason the stock dropped so low is people were expecting wow type numbers from Their star wars MMO. I'm sure it is/will be profitable, just not as much as people thought.
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited June 2012
I expect a lot of investors are carefully watching them right now waiting for them to start the rise back up, then they'll jump on board. It all depends on how they handle this down period. The CEO needs to show he is getting things under control and they need to show some projects doing well in line with predictions to get back some investor confidence.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
wont they just buy D3 copies in waves so once thier kicked off account A they go to B?
Day 1 but Game A
Day 2 but Game B
Day 3 But Game C
By the time game a is banned, game b will be ready to go. And game c will be ready when game b is banned.
Unless im missing something big....
0
CyrondinI bring the sick beats on you, brotherChicago, ILRegistered Userregular
it reminds me of when wow was in wrath and peeked people started blaming everything on actavision. i think people want a scapegoat. EA is biowares scapegoat. people blamed the DLC and the ending all on EA one way or another.
0
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
Battery life better be a priority in this 3DS XL thing. I absolutely cannot fathom how low that seems to be on the general checklist of 'stuff to put into our handheld'. Every new system dies quicker than the last. :P
IIRC, DSi XL had an increase in battery life from the DSi, but it still didn't compare to the Lite's eternal charge.
Battery life better be a priority in this 3DS XL thing. I absolutely cannot fathom how low that seems to be on the general checklist of 'stuff to put into our handheld'. Every new system dies quicker than the last. :P
IIRC, DSi XL had an increase in battery life from the DSi, but it still didn't compare to the Lite's eternal charge.
Systems grow, requiring more juice while battery power grows alongside disproportionately. Well, without sacraficing things like size, weight, price, and the typical stuff.
3DS in particular, because of the 3D and greater GPU, requires more of that battery to function compared to a DS. That's why running DS games on a 3DS nets you longer battery life. And hence why they made a 3DSXL. Bigger size also means bigger battery (and a bigger price, coming in at $199.99).
Nintendo Network ID: V-Faction | XBL: V Faction | Steam | 3DS: 3136 - 6603 - 1330 PokemonWhite Friend Code: 0046-2121-0723/White2 Friend Code: 0519-5126-2990
"Did ya hear the one about the mussel that wanted to purchase Valve? Seems like the bivalve had a juicy offer on the table but the company flat-out refused and decided to immediately clam up!"
I don't see how the death (or shrinking) of EA would be a cause to celebrate. They've brought their fair share of new IPs to the table this generation, as well as released plenty of games people want. Then again, they did get branded the worst company in America because of a bad ending...
I'm still wondering who gives Bioware, the writer in an RPG game, gets the pass for a writing problem whereas EA gets blamed.
The possibility exists that EA's decision making process pressured Bioware into that decision. But in the meantime, every indication I've seen is that Bioware had an idiot ball moment and produced a pretty shitty ending (to join a glitchy, unfinished game). Is there any reason why EA should be held responsible for Bioware's bad writing?
People like to put Bioware up on a pedestal and hold it up to weird standards that it has never ever lived up to.
And then blame it on EA when they don't meet their lofty, impossible expectations.
"Wah, ME3 didn't have some magical technological marvel of an engine that creates a totally organic narrative based on a million tiny permutations of choices, instead you get to the end of the game and just make a binary choice about how you want the ending to go. Just like every game Bioware has ever made ever."
Completely agree. ME3 was all on Bioware. People could not except that Bioware was making bad games so they passed the blame entirely off on EA.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited June 2012
Dragon Age 2 was a bad game, but Mass Effect 3 was a fantastic game that dropped the ball utterly comprehensively at the last 5 minutes. Both have probably degraded the automatic faith that many fans would have had in Bioware, but for different reasons. I fully expect that Bioware will continue making fantastic games despite one bad misstep and their inability to deliver on their promises with ME3 (a mistake that I don't see them repeating again).
alright, one more hardware revision to go before you can actually buy the 3DS!
Hahaha, I made the jump from original DS to DSi XL. I'm wondering if I really should wait on the 3DS for another iteration. 3DSi ZOMG!
Edit - By the way, why wasn't this announced at E3?
Because E3 doesn't matter to Nintendo anymore. They said as much, and this proved it. From now on, Nintendo will be making their announcements on their terms, and less and less of those will be at E3.
Dragon Age 2 was a bad game, but Mass Effect 3 was a fantastic game that dropped the ball utterly comprehensively at the last 5 minutes. Both have probably degraded the automatic faith that many fans would have had in Bioware, but for different reasons. I fully expect that Bioware will continue making fantastic games despite one bad misstep and their inability to deliver on their promises with ME3 (a mistake that I don't see them repeating again).
I don't see how the death (or shrinking) of EA would be a cause to celebrate. They've brought their fair share of new IPs to the table this generation, as well as released plenty of games people want. Then again, they did get branded the worst company in America because of a bad ending...
I'm still wondering who gives Bioware, the writer in an RPG game, gets the pass for a writing problem whereas EA gets blamed.
The possibility exists that EA's decision making process pressured Bioware into that decision. But in the meantime, every indication I've seen is that Bioware had an idiot ball moment and produced a pretty shitty ending (to join a glitchy, unfinished game). Is there any reason why EA should be held responsible for Bioware's bad writing?
People like to put Bioware up on a pedestal and hold it up to weird standards that it has never ever lived up to.
And then blame it on EA when they don't meet their lofty, impossible expectations.
"Wah, ME3 didn't have some magical technological marvel of an engine that creates a totally organic narrative based on a million tiny permutations of choices, instead you get to the end of the game and just make a binary choice about how you want the ending to go. Just like every game Bioware has ever made ever."
Completely agree. ME3 was all on Bioware. People could not except that Bioware was making bad games so they passed the blame entirely off on EA.
Go on, tell my what metric ME3 was a bad game by. The entire game, that is.
alright, one more hardware revision to go before you can actually buy the 3DS!
Hahaha, I made the jump from original DS to DSi XL. I'm wondering if I really should wait on the 3DS for another iteration. 3DSi ZOMG!
Edit - By the way, why wasn't this announced at E3?
Because E3 doesn't matter to Nintendo anymore. They said as much, and this proved it. From now on, Nintendo will be making their announcements on their terms, and less and less of those will be at E3.
Which is good because it takes away power from the gaming press.
I don't see how the death (or shrinking) of EA would be a cause to celebrate. They've brought their fair share of new IPs to the table this generation, as well as released plenty of games people want. Then again, they did get branded the worst company in America because of a bad ending...
I'm still wondering who gives Bioware, the writer in an RPG game, gets the pass for a writing problem whereas EA gets blamed.
The possibility exists that EA's decision making process pressured Bioware into that decision. But in the meantime, every indication I've seen is that Bioware had an idiot ball moment and produced a pretty shitty ending (to join a glitchy, unfinished game). Is there any reason why EA should be held responsible for Bioware's bad writing?
People like to put Bioware up on a pedestal and hold it up to weird standards that it has never ever lived up to.
And then blame it on EA when they don't meet their lofty, impossible expectations.
"Wah, ME3 didn't have some magical technological marvel of an engine that creates a totally organic narrative based on a million tiny permutations of choices, instead you get to the end of the game and just make a binary choice about how you want the ending to go. Just like every game Bioware has ever made ever."
Completely agree. ME3 was all on Bioware. People could not except that Bioware was making bad games so they passed the blame entirely off on EA.
Go on, tell my what metric ME3 was a bad game by. The entire game, that is.
The ending of something can ruin the rest of it. It's all about the pay off.
Posts
this year
just wait until 2014 when the 3DSi XL lite hits, with 3 built in circle pads and 30% brighter back, front, and stereo lights. it charges by rubbing it rapidly against your wallet, your friend code is you bank account number
There's no such analogue on the 3DS, so I'm not quite sure why the 3DSXL exists.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
Hahaha, I made the jump from original DS to DSi XL. I'm wondering if I really should wait on the 3DS for another iteration. 3DSi ZOMG!
Edit - By the way, why wasn't this announced at E3?
I think maybe they thought their Wii U push was concrete enough to leave the 3DS stuff out completely?
No clue, there's nothing coming soon to spoiler effect, so... *shrug*
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
Probably wanted to finalize the release date/price. In other words, who the fuck knows.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
Oh well, one step closer, shall buy it in black or white when they show up.
Already bought Tetris 3DS considering it was barely over ten bucks.
Bigger is better!
Except for obesity.
The pocket thing is a total non-issue, since the only time I ever have my DS with me outside the house is at PAX.
Twitter: Cokomon | dA: Cokomon | Tumblr: Cokomon-art | XBL / NNID / Steam: Cokomon
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Are you sure the number of pixels are different?
You know that it has an XP patch, right? Put out by Squaresoft literally years and years ago, right? And that worked (though you could actually play it on XP without said patch with modification).
I guess fuck 'em for not offering us a Vista/7 patch for a 14 year old game. But yeah, that's one thing they actually addressed. That, and laptop support (since the PC version was numpad bound originally).
I'm still wondering why Bioware, the writer in an RPG game, gets the pass for a writing problem whereas EA gets blamed.
The possibility exists that EA's decision making process pressured Bioware into that decision. But in the meantime, every indication I've seen is that Bioware had an idiot ball moment and produced a pretty shitty ending (to join a glitchy, unfinished game). Is there any reason why EA should be held responsible for Bioware's bad writing?
Yeah, where is this coming from?
People like to put Bioware up on a pedestal and hold it up to weird standards that it has never ever lived up to.
And then blame it on EA when they don't meet their lofty, impossible expectations.
"Wah, ME3 didn't have some magical technological marvel of an engine that creates a totally organic narrative based on a million tiny permutations of choices, instead you get to the end of the game and just make a binary choice about how you want the ending to go. Just like every game Bioware has ever made ever."
I mean, if Origin was fucking people over in ME3 (which may be the case for some people), sure, blame EA by all means. But even the multiplayer problems seem to be with the mediocre multiplayer interface that Bioware came up with on their own (though, as people point out, it was their first attempt, and lots of people's first tries suck).
Do you work for EA? No?
I'd recommend not using stories from years ago as the basis for your argument about how terrible it is to work there - oh, and then talking about how it's just 'karma'. Guess who's going to get fucked if things get really bad at the company? Here's a hint, it's not the guys you probably blame for what you see as this culture of evil!
And the only thing that the stock price suggests is that the investors are pissed. Which has two effects - it makes it more difficult to borrow money, and it makes a takeover somewhat more possible.
I think maybe L4D2 had something to do with this as well. That was HORRENDOUSLY difficult. My gf and I +2 AI couldn't even beat Dark Carnival on Easy without multiple tries.
Just took the enjoyment right out of it. I'm all for difficult games that require planning to get through, but on harder difficulties.
That revision was here in November. It's called the Zelda LE and it is awesome! Can't see the picture for some reason, is the add on thunbstick thingy in this model?
Also, ea shares. How low is it exactly? I don't like the idea of buying any video game stock, but if it's it's lowest point since the dot com bubble burst, that's tempting. I would think ea would be able to bounce back. Then again, I have no clue what it's high point is etc.... Would have to do some serious research.
I'd certainly expect EA to bounce back in that area, but it might take a while for it to be reflected in the price.
After having a read I don't find anything to disagree with. Uncertainty can make a company a risky prospect and lower it's stock, so the argument presented in the linked article about EA's ceo failing to keep to his schedule of transitioning the company from a to b is just as likely to be the main reason as any particular game or company practice. A company in flux means there's no clear picture as to where it is going to end up. Which is always a bad thing if you want to be fairly sure your money will grow rather than potentially disappear, especially if the transition doesn't seem to be about to end even though it was supposed to.
I do agree that SWTOR is a likely trigger for the start of this questioning, but it strikes me as something that was building anyway if the change up has been waffling along for a while. So rather than raising questions there it feels like it was probably a confirmation which resulted in action, ie the more prudent or nervous investors beginning to bug out.
It's not trying to say anything out of left field or anything like that.
wont they just buy D3 copies in waves so once thier kicked off account A they go to B?
Day 1 but Game A
Day 2 but Game B
Day 3 But Game C
By the time game a is banned, game b will be ready to go. And game c will be ready when game b is banned.
Unless im missing something big....
IIRC, DSi XL had an increase in battery life from the DSi, but it still didn't compare to the Lite's eternal charge.
Systems grow, requiring more juice while battery power grows alongside disproportionately. Well, without sacraficing things like size, weight, price, and the typical stuff.
3DS in particular, because of the 3D and greater GPU, requires more of that battery to function compared to a DS. That's why running DS games on a 3DS nets you longer battery life. And hence why they made a 3DSXL. Bigger size also means bigger battery (and a bigger price, coming in at $199.99).
Pokemon White Friend Code: 0046-2121-0723/White 2 Friend Code: 0519-5126-2990
"Did ya hear the one about the mussel that wanted to purchase Valve? Seems like the bivalve had a juicy offer on the table but the company flat-out refused and decided to immediately clam up!"
Maybe they're testing the waters on weekly sales.
Completely agree. ME3 was all on Bioware. People could not except that Bioware was making bad games so they passed the blame entirely off on EA.
Because E3 doesn't matter to Nintendo anymore. They said as much, and this proved it. From now on, Nintendo will be making their announcements on their terms, and less and less of those will be at E3.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
Everyone has seen Xerxes bleed!
Go on, tell my what metric ME3 was a bad game by. The entire game, that is.
Which is good because it takes away power from the gaming press.
The ending of something can ruin the rest of it. It's all about the pay off.