FMW

I just watched "The Seventh Seal". It's very literary, but not very fun. Unfortunately I was in the mood for fun when I watched it. I think I'll appreciate it much more after reading some analysis of it.

Hey there, could anyone here explain the season finale to me? I just caught up on the series and couldn't make sense of it at all. My questions are hidden below.

Ok, it's past time a thread for this title went up. It's a new Zelda game. Normally I try to aim my threads at a particular topic or train of thought, but this one is gonna be left wide open. What follows are things that I've found worthy of thought so far. 1. Art. The game looks pretty. I've heard that it's a mix between Twilight Princess and Wind Waker, but I disagree. It is neither as exaggerated as Windwaker nor as gritty as Twilight Princess, but I don't see it as even falling on a continuum between the two. The watercolor-esque shaders used help create an entirely new look I feel. 2. Motion Controls. We can't really comment on this one until the game is in our hands, but it WILL be a point of contention (because it's change, and ALL change (good or bad) is contentious). Feelings regarding the control scheme belong here. 3. Music. Zelda music ranges from adequate to outstanding. This soundtrack was orchestrated. Which is exciting. Again, there's little to say about this until release but there will be MUCH to be said post release. 4. Expectations. Do you plan to buy this? If so, why? If not, why? What might convince you otherwise? 5. Narrative. This story will be different. There's no Ganon and Zelda isn't a princess. There seems to be no Kingdom of Hyrule (first in continuity and all that). There's no Triforce. And... is this a romance? Did they finally go there? NOT in this thread: Console Wars or this game's impact thereupon.

@GunFlame - I think you have a really smart way of framing this, but your example is a bit iffy. Metroid actually isn't linear, it's possible to find alternate passages through the worlds that let you skip massive chunks of the game (and the corresponding upgrades!). Metroid Zero mission probably had the best "sequence breaking", but it's also in Metroids I, II, and III. If we change your example to post SotN Castlevania then I'm totally with you. @RockyRan - Instant gratification is where the money's at dude, and level ups provide that. Think about achievements, isn't this type of progression built into the very video game hardware of this generation? I don't even think that it's necessarily bad to have this kind of progression in a non-RPG, you can get into a very fun progression spiral even in driving games. Blur did this well, and Jerry wrote a very relevant post about it: http://penny-arcade.com/2010/03/12

I lol'ed at your TL;DR. Yeah, that's a really good point you made. There's a trade off only for players who want to go online. For players who aim to keep to single player then it's just an inconvenience. I would be curious to know the numbers of how many people played StarCraft II online as opposed to Starcraft II single player only. Also, I think you're right about Blizzard using this to help generate revenue. If they make money off of auction house transactions and/or set up any sort of paid DLC model then the online only requirement guarantees that players will be exposed to the content and be given incentive to buy it. Actually, I think it's pretty clever. It'll help move expansions too. So now with Blizzard it's interesting because they are choosing to narrow their potential player base in return for being able to extract larger profits out of those who are still able to play. I guess that makes sense. It's an interesting change in how a video game is marketed and distributed. Once upon a time it was ALL about getting as many copies out as possible. Now companies hope to get more than the initial $60 out of consumers and are willing to sell fewer discs to do so. Times are a changing I guess. I'll be terribly interested to watch this trend through the next few years.

I'd like to toss another point out there for deliberation. This was in my original post in one form, but it's been largely overlooked I think. 3. There are indeed reasons for always on internet connections, and they should be considered fairly. For Ubisoft, it's about piracy. People were pirating their games, and that's a problem for them. Now let's NOT get into the morality of piracy debate but let's all accept that publishers don't like it when people play their games without paying them. Ubisoft made it harder for pirates to do their thing. It's still not impossible, but they added an additional barrier. Ubisoft recently reported that they feel the DRM scheme has been a success. From their perspective, they have prevented enough piracy to make whatever drop off in consumer demand they've seen for their PC games worthwhile. So there's a reason. It's a totally legitimate reason. We know it is because it's been put to the test and the results after several years has been a net positive for the company. You can ignore Luke's commentary in the article below, I trust Ubisoft to understand their bottom line better than some video game enthusiast. Article I've been referencing: http://kotaku.com/58...ess-it-is-wrong Ok, now Diablo III is a totally different reason. Blizzard wants to prevent cheating. In a game with as extensive a multiplayer suite as Diablo, it's of utmost importance to the overall game experience that players are all on an even footing. Considering some of the work that has been done on Diablo II over the years, I think it's totally reasonable for Blizzard to try and keep an eye on such matters. Indeed, I'd feel much more comfortable if they did. There is an easy solution to this that makes the connection unnecessary, make it that characters in single player can't be used in multiplayer. You're always connected during multiplayer anyway, so it wouldn't be intrusive for Blizzard to do their thing and make sure you aren't inventing +10000 gear for yourself. So for Blizzard it's a trade off. Either always on internet, or separate characters for single and multi player. It's totally up to you which you would prefer. However, they are NOT simply removing functionality from the game. There is a clear benefit to the consumer as well. Conclusion: I don't want to read anyone else talking about how these limitations are added for no reason at all. There are reasons. If you feel these reasons are ill considered, lay out a counter argument. I'm sure there are some good ones out there. I'll check back later this weekend and hopefully learn something!

I'm impressed and slightly honored by the breadth and depth of the various responses this thread has elicited. I'm not going to try to counter-argue every point that was made against my original thesis because that would be kinda childish. There were some really good points made in here, and most of them made in opposition to my view. However, that is not to say that I'm letting everything slide: 1. I think some people need to get some perspective on this issue. We all care about games a lot (otherwise we wouldn't be here) but not having access to a game is not a great burden. Nobody is getting fucked over here. Absolute worst case scenario is that people without constant broadband need to play some of the hundreds of other great games on the market. Not having access to just a few select titles is not, and should not be considered, a big deal. 2. @Brain: You bring up a kind of interesting point. There are people in other countries who do not have internet access reliably. How then, is this any different from a publisher simply not releasing a game in a certain region? Because that happens all the time. You complain about a game being released but not being playable by all of the populace. How many games have never been released in Africa at all? Should publishers be punished for that as well? After all, it seems like Egyptian gamers are getting "screwed over" even more so by a non-release. 3: @Dean: I'm pleased that I made you .

I think it's really interesting how Nintendo is picking and choosing elements from the different facets of the Mario franchise for this game. We've got 3D graphics and movement, but we've got a timer and flagpole stages. It's games like this that really bring the innovation argument to a head. This game is a unique combination of game elements, so it's going to be a new experience. But all these elements are well explored in other games. Does that leave this game as derivative microwaved franchise leftovers or a new blending of familiar ingredients to create a new dish? Honestly I think I could make a solid argument either way. The base question though is "will people have fun with this?". In that respect we can only wait to find out upon release.

AC, I watched Trinity Soul. I thought it felt like two different shows pasted together honestly. The first half of the show was really slowly paced, focusing on character interactions and honestly only a very few action scenes. I really liked the first half of the show, it did all the things right that anime usually get wrong. I also appreciate the emphasis on family, that's something that gets left behind in shows like this way too often. The second half had a lot more action, was confusing and difficult to follow, and failed to actually play upon all that careful character development. The second half felt like a poor man's Evangelion (minus the creepy sexual fixation). I didn't like the second half of the show at all. Also, regarding the fighting game: Come on now Ark System Works, this is stupid. I normally don't like to act like I can do a developer's job better than they, but this is just a ridiculously obvious mistake. You don't put "Ultimate" in the title of your new fighting game! You save that for the rebalanced update 10 months later! Come on people, get with the program!

This has come up in chat twice now, and chat is not an ideal place for such a discussion. Video games are luxury products. Video game distributors are, by and large, corporations. Corporations exist only to earn dividends for their investors. Not all video games are made available to all audiences. Many games are only released in select regions of the world, or are only released in a few languages. Some games are released with a requirement that the player be connected to the internet during 100% of playtime (impossible in many places). Video game distributors are under no obligation to provide their goods or services to anyone. Corporations that distribute luxury goods are free from all government distribution regulations excepting that they can't discriminate based on race, sex, etc. Ok. That's just the background. Legally, video game distributors are in the clear. When a video game requires constant internet connection, it shrinks the audience that can enjoy it. There are different reasons for adding an always online requirement to a game. For some (Diablo III) it's to prevent cheating. For some (Assassin's Creed II) it's to prevent illegal acquisition and use of the software. We gamers may complain about these requirements, but we must keep in mind that it is completely legal for the corporations to add them. The corporations have made cost/benefit calculations and have decided that it is worth it for them to require connection. So now we get to the meat of the issue. How do we feel about boycotting a game because it requires always on internet? My thesis is that it's a silly notion. In economic terms, companies are already punished for the always on internet connection requirement. People who cannot be constantly jacked in do not purchase these games. This is the market speaking against the limitations imposed. These lost sales are lost revenue for the companies. This is fair and equitable representation for those who cannot play these games. Now we get to the morals, which are much much stickier. If we accept the base assumption that a person is morally obligated to make life more pleasant for other people (and I know this is a big fish to swallow, just roll with it) then is he not morally obligated to boycott these games? After all, by not buying one of these games he is increasing the opportunity cost to the distributor for the internet requirement. This has a chance of making the cost of adding the internet requirement greater than the reward. If the cost becomes too great, the company will cease to add the requirement. I have the following problems with this moral outlook: 1. Inefficiency. It is possible to do much greater good for other people by withholding $50 from other expenditures. Money spent on anything from Exxon-Mobile is an excellent example. Within the luxury goods space, not buying any single electronic device made using minerals (usually Columbite-tantalite) mined in Africa under inhuman conditions is working towards a far greater good than helping some people get their Dragon Quest on. But that's the perfect solution fallacy, no? "The Better is the enemy of The Good", as Voltaire put it. And he's right. Just as well this isn't my only point of rebuttal... 2. Element of chance. When Ubisoft looks at the sales of a game, they look at many variables. When was it released, what was it released for? How did critics like it? What else released at around the same time, and how did it do? How was the overall economic climate at the time of release? There is no guarantee that a video game distributor will interpret lower than anticipated sales as a function of this single decision. Unless the boycotter is willing to communicate with the company directly (send a letter) then odds are the lost sales will be attributed to another factor. If the company percieves lost sales at all, which is another big big if. After all, Assassin's Creed II did just fine for the publisher. Anyone who boycotted the game denied themselves for nothing, as Ubisoft sold more than anticipated anyway. (Disclaimer, I got that from the Ubisoft financial reports from that year. The report didn't differentiate between console and PC sales. Maybe PC sales bombed. Somehow I doubt it.) 3. Small target audience. The societies that are stable enough to support any significant demand for video games are also generally societies that have managed to offer internet access to their citizens in one form or another. The overlap between those who cannot get access to the internet and those who have enough disposable income and the inclination to buy video game software and hardware is slight. Conclusion: If you accept the basic moral premise that making life better for other people is good, then boycotting video games that require always on internet connections has a slight chance of doing a very small amount of good for a small number of people. So I think it's silly. Edit: I just reviewed this and recognized a value judgement I didn't address. I accept without question the premise that the harm caused in the mines of Rwanda where prisoners of war are worked to death as slaves is greater than the harm caused by Blizzard making the new Diablo available to some people. If you disagree with that then my first point of argument is bunk. Sorry.

I'm bummed that Persona 4: The Golden won't have a female MC. That was a really cool concept for P3 Portable and I wish they would have kept it. A new female NPC is cool, but not AS cool. There's still more to show about this game though, so hopefully they'll blow my socks off with an epilogue like FES or something. I'm bummed that the Persona 4 fighter will have a storyline within canon. I liked it when each Persona was being left as it's own unique entity. Yes, there are callbacks to 3 in 4, and 1 and 2 share some characters, but there was never really a continuity to be worried about. That looks to be changing now.

Hey, fellows, there's something I fear may have passed a few of you by. Starfox 64 3D does not feature online multiplayer. This is when they told us: http://kotaku.com/5801187/starfox-64-3d-supports-up-to-four-players-no-online And yes, this is dumb. Then again, I always got DESTROYED in Starfox Command online so maybe this will do my ego a touch of good...

If you own a Wii, snag it on the Virtual Console. I just did that, and I'm enjoying it (mostly) so far. It's a standard $8 SNES download listed as "Final Fantasy III".

Huh, I forgot that I'd made this thread. It's kind of interesting the direction it's gone. @people hating on Capcom: I never played the original Mega Man Legends games, and I own a 3DS. What I saw of Legends 3 did not look particularly fun. I wasn't planning on buying it. For the game to succeed, they needed to appeal to more people than fans of the original. If I'm anything of a market sample, they made a good decision in cancelling that. @people hating on Capcom: Marvel vs. Capcom 3 has plenty of content. Capcom decided to produce more. Capcom did not "rip off" anybody. They have clearly stated that UMvC3 was only greenlit after the first one sold well. I think buildings would be a good analogy here. MvC3 is a house. It's a finished, lived in house. It's a really popular house, so Capcom is renovating it and adding a porch. If one were to look at the two houses next to one another, neither would be "incomplete". That isn't how it works. The two buildings are both completed products, one just has additional features. The games work the same way. Just because there's a newer model doesn't mean the old one is "incomplete". My iPod Nano from a few years ago isn't incomplete just because there's a newer, shinier version on the market. Sure, Apple could have held it back and added all the features of the version that came out next, but where does that cycle stop? At some point, a product needs to release to a market. I just bought Zelda Ocarina of Time 3D. Why didn't Nintendo include fancy graphics and portability in the original design! How dare they rip me off by releasing that shitty N64 version! @Slagathorian - Final Fantasy constantly reinventing itself does indeed mean that features you may have liked in the past aren't included any longer. But it also means that new features that you didn't even think to ask for ARE included. It's a trade off. You need to be an optimist to choose to innovate. You need to believe that you can create something new and superior to what has come before. Square Enix apparently believes that they have it in them to create something even better than what has come before. Now each person will agree or disagree with whether they've succeeded or not, but I find it inspiring that they're willing to plunge into the great unknown over and over again. Who knows what they'll find out there? I sure can't wait to find out!