James

[color=#332E1D][font=franklin gothic medium]I just saw the trailer for this, which was pretty cool. I have to admit, I feel sorry for poor Raiden...lol The thing that intrigues me most about the new game is the setting and the theme. I have no idea about setting, but the theme is interesting. "Nowhere to hide"? Maybe it means that, unlike MGS3, you won't be able to take constant cover anymore. Perhaps you'll have to blend in with enemies, or perhaps you'll only be able to seek temporary cover. So it would be about constantly evading/running away from enemies rather than sitting in a hidden spot for a while, as you plan what to do. Maybe that also implies more frequent action...who knows. It's very interesting though, especially given the gameplay advances in MGS3 (which I only started playing yesterday - brilliant game, by the way). I'm definitely looking forward to this one, it'll be one of the biggest reasons for me to own a PS3.[/color][/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#332E1D]I've sent out Guild invitations to both Mitch and Pumpkin - you guys will receive them when you next log in. Great pics there, Alex. There are so many great snapshot locations in this game. ^_^ Drixxy, you have to give us some more coverage/details on the other Guild Halls! I'd like all the members to vote. ~_^[/color][/font]

[color=#332E1D][font=franklin gothic medium]All you have to do is know your history. None of this stuff is unusual. Massive earthquakes and other natural phenomenon hit the Earth at regular intervals - sometimes almost back-to-back, sometimes with gaps in between. None of that is anything new - it's been going on for several billion years now. It reminds me of when people thought a comet was headed toward Earth in the late 1990's. People started to say that the world was coming to an end and all of that rubbish. No, I don't think any of this is "a sign of things to come". These things happen and there are geological/natural reasons for it. Of course, a huge disaster could strike at any moment - but this this some sort of sign or whatever? I don't believe so. Human beings have always tried to interpret natural events in their own way, from aboriginal cave paintings to Genesis. But these are always just interpretations from civilizations that aren't sophisticated enough to know better. So even today, people still make these interpretations. The most important thing is not to worry about such events and to just focus on living your life. Yeah, I might get hit by a bus tomorrow, or I might die in a terrorist attack, or I might get killed by a massive earthquake. But what does any of that matter? There's nothing I can do to avoid it, really. Short of predicting the future, I really can't do anything about it (and if you could predict the future that would mean that all future events were pre-decided, therefore nobody would have the opportunity to change anything anyway). All I can do is just live my life the best way I know how and enjoy myself and my friends/family. At least that way, if something [i]does[/i] happen to me, I can be satisfied that I lived the life I wanted to.[/color][/font]

[color=#332E1D][font=franklin gothic medium]It's only not that bad if you don't have to live with 'em/care for 'em. My auntie has to factor her daughter into every aspect of her life, including daily activities. This is because she doesn't want to put her in a home. There is a constant danger though. Due to her state of mental illness, she could hurt herself or she could walk away and get lost or something. It does present a constant problem and a constant burden on her mother. It sounds to me like your grandmother is simply senile. My great grandmother is like that too - her symptoms are very similar to what you're relating there. But that's obviously different from full-blown schitzophrenia.[/color][/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#332E1D]Nice stuff, Annie-chan. I'll comment on each one seperately I think. [b]Kill the Moment:[/b] I'm not really sure what to say about this one. It seems like a very bleak image to me. It [i]almost[/i] seems to be referring to someone who had their innocence stolen...or who has been forced into a situation where they've lost their dignity. It comes across like a wounded animal, or something along those lines. Something innocent that's been harmed. [b]Your Christ (in my heart):[/b] This one has some nice editing and I like the fusion of the heart and the cross. The fact that the cross is backwards is perhaps telling...maybe suggesting that you could only love that symbol if its meanings are reversed. Alternatively, it looks as though the cross might be piercing the heart and causing it to bleed. Christianity causing heartbreak? I can relate. [b]Mr. Superstar:[/b] This one seems more simple than the others, in terms of message. But I like it - I like the colouring and the silhouette-type effect that you've generated here. It's simple but bold and well-emphasized. [b]Target: Engaged:[/b] This one's great. I assume that this refers to Marilyn Manson as a target, particularly of the religious right (funny how the targeting reticule is a cross, hm?) That particular image of Manson is from The Beautiful People, I believe. And that song obviously relates to a rejection of religious dogma, among other things. At the same time, he looks somewhat innocent in that picture. There is almost a sad inevitability about this image. It reminds me of the line "nothing's gonna change the world". That thought is a little depressing. [b]See me?:[/b] The editing on this image is great - good use of colour here. It looks as though this character's wrist is pierced and they are sitting in front of a cross...which has obvious connotations. The fact that they're holding a camera is also interesting. To me, it suggests a kind of commercialization of religion, for lack of a better word. Or perhaps the way religion can commercialize/trivialize people. I'm really not sure, but there does seem to be some kind of indication there - a meaning beyond what is obvious. Perhaps you can clarify your intentions about that for me. ~_^ Anyway, these are all great. I'd love to see more work like this in this forum - stuff other than banners, anyway. I mean, it would be nice to see more experimental work in general. Very good stuff[/color][/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#332E1D]I've sent out some more Guild invitations today. If you log in and you haven't received one, please leave your character's name here in this thread. If you have multiple characters don't worry - just add your first one's name. Then all others will be added automatically. I've got a healer and a warrior, but I'd like some more warriors and healers. It really doesn't matter though, as you can make multiple characters anyway. But those are the two professions that we are lower on at the moment. I'm sure it'll all even out in the end anyway. ^_^[/color][/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#332E1D]Hm, I'm a bit late, but I'll post my thoughts. Graphics battles are fun. ~_^ [b]Retribution:[/b] It's hard to know where to start when discussing your banner. With an abstract piece, I think colour probably comes into the fray a bit more, because we aren't really talking about defined shapes. Not to say that shape should be ignored, because your banner could be broken down into groups of shapes, but I think the colour is most prevalent. I think the colour is what works the best here. The combination of blues, reds and whites works well. I'm not sure whether you used brushes to achieve that effect, or whether you layered stock images, but either way, I think it works quite nicely. Although it's seemingly random, it gives the effect of defined plumes of colour. Red in the center, blue on either side and white toward the bottom. So there's an apparent order to the chaos, which makes it an "easy" image to view (ie: it doesn't confuse the eye despite being complex). Your use of typography is interesting. In this case you haven't really used it to deliver a particular message, in my view. Because of the way it's been put together, it's difficult to actually follow/read. [i]However[/i], it seems to be used more as a graphic/visual element than a piece of informative information. In that sense, I think it works. The fact that it's been placed on the bottom right is interesting - I'm not sure if you were deliberately thinking about line of sight or heirarchy, but your placement of the text tends to keep the eye centered in that area. It works well though, because the eye generally moves from top left to bottom right, so you have emphasized the "end" of a viewer's eye movements, if that makes sense. My only negative comment would be that the sheer brightness of the text perhaps takes emphasis away from the meticulously layered background. However, you have white radiating out from the text itself, which leads the eye into the other colours. So I don't view that as a huge concern. [b]Rising Sun:[/b] Aha, well, you know that reading the instructions is always so important. ~_^ But anyway, there are a few things about this banner that strike me immediately. First of all, you were creative with the shape - big bonus points there. Rather than sticking to a rectangular shape, you've created your own unique boundaries. Therefore, you've emphasized the overall shape and you've created a very unique image. I always applaud people who break those "rules", if you know what I mean. I think it's successfully done here. Your use of Michaelangelo is really good as well. You've chosen an appropriate stance/expression and the cropping looks to be quite fine/precise, which is always a positive sign (sloppy cropping is always jarring). You seem to have softened the edges a bit, which is mostly okay, but I think a crisper/cleaner edging would be more suitable. Still, it works, particularly on the weapon. I like the use of type, it's very simple but it works. It's clean and the colours are appropriate. Then there's the background, which I also like. The layering is very nice and the colouring is again very suitable. Simple, but stylish. There's a lot to be said for such an approach. Anyway, I'd have to give my vote to Retribution, if only because his banner "followed the rules". Had Rising Sun followed the specifications, it'd have been tougher to make a choice. Both are very good and both are also very different. You can tell that each artist has a distinctly different style and approach. Both work very well, but in this case I personally think that Retribution's banner is a nose in front. ^_^[/color][/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#332E1D]I think all of these are pretty good banners. The latest one is nice, particularly the brush effects. The fact that you've obscured the character around the edges gives the whole thing a nicely-textured feel, which works to its advantage. Borders are great, but I think it's important to experiment with them as well. The borders on my current avatar/banner are very simple, but people who know my graphics know that I've done a lot of unique border styles in the past. I think it's really good fun to experiment with that kind of stuff - to experiment with how the image interacts with the page it's sitting on. If you print screen and work out what the colour code OB's background is, you can use that in your image. So you can make it look like a character is tearing a hole in OB itself, or you can fade your image into OB's background colour, so that you don't actually need a regular border. That sort of experimentation is really interesting and I really recommend trying it out in your own way. ^_^[/color][/font]

[color=#332E1D][font=franklin gothic medium]At the moment I really want people to use the picture feature in their profiles for this sort of thing. We had removed the picture forum because, although it was an easy way for people to show photos, it wasn't organized and led to a lot of spammy threads. It also led to people creating ten posts in a row just to upload a million files. The key thing to remember is that OtakuBoards is about discussion first and foremost. File hosting and other capabilities are really designed to support that. I think that if we do something with photos again, it won't be like a forum. A sticky thread is possible, but only if it can be administered well. At the moment I am trying to keep moderation going smoothly across the rest of the site itself, so it's unlikely that I'll be putting up something like that soon. However, if there is sufficient demand for it, I'll strongly consider doing something in this area - again, it probably won't have its own forum, but there are other possibilities.[/font][/color]

[color=#737373][font=franklin gothic medium]My cousin has this disorder. The worst part about it is that I vividly remember her when she was healthy. We all witnessed her decline with the illness. When she first became sick her behaviors changed wildly. For a few days she weas entirely catatonic and it came very suddenly. After a while she actually improved and was getting better. But then she started to become more sick and now it's basically getting worse all the time. It's sad because as I said, I remember her when she was healthy. She was a high achiever and very talented. Now she can take care of herself and she can understand certain things - for instance, she can still make a tea or coffee and she can wash dishes and stuff. She can do basic things. But she can't hold conversations and she tends to do scatter-brained, inappropriate things (ie: putting things in the wrong places or developing totally illogical perspectives about things). It's a terrible disease though - I would hate to have such a thing. The worst part is that she seems to be aware that she is mentally ill, which must be terrible for her, because she is unable to really express herself accurately. The best she can do is draw together a few unrelated subjects and put them into a disjointed sentence. We do occasionally see coherent comments from her, but unfortunately it's rare.[/font][/color]

[color=#737373][font=franklin gothic medium]I really had no idea whether or not Jackson would be found guilty. There's a lot of mud out there and there are a lot of other things that seem to suggest innocence. I will say one thing though. I get the impression that Michael Jackson is simply a man who never grew up. Because he's an adult, this is possibly misinterpreted as being pedophile-like behavior or something. But people should consider that this isn't necessarily the case. I mean, a lot of people say that because he was in bed with kids that this automatically made him a pedophile. This same mentality is the kind that gasps in horror when a teacher pats a student on the back, or when a father hugs his son/daughter. I think it would be a shame if parents couldn't read stories to their kids in bed, because of overzealous political correctness or whatever. I think it's true that Jackson brought a lot of things on himself (with the whole baby dangling thing and such), but still, I could also understand if he were simply a child in a man's body. Afterall, he really doesn't seem to know what's going on most of the time.[/font][/color]

[color=#737373][font=franklin gothic medium]I think that this is an interesting concept for discussion, but realistically (or not realistically), it holds no real weight. Yes, we experience the world via our bodies and from behind our eye sockets. We experience the world in first-person, in a sense. But does this mean that everything we perceive isn't actually there? I don't think so. I do agree that perception is very important though. But I think that this type of perception mostly relates to intangibles - things such as morality, laws, ethics, principles, spirituality and so on. I would say then that the perception being discussed in the article above relates to human constructions in particular - not physical, but psychological. How do I know that the road in front of me is ten miles long? Well, I could always drive a car and measure the distance that way. How do I know that the wall there is real? I could throw things at it and observe the results. There is a consistency to such things, which goes beyond one's perception. More importantly still, the physical existence of such things is what provides the basis for science and many human endeavours - it would be impossible to develop a rocket if people didn't understand the nature of chemicals in the atmosphere and the concept of breaking away from the pull of gravity. There are those who argue that we are basically just brains in vats, much like what you see in The Matrix. These philosophical arguments are interesting - all of our experiences in the world ultimately are a result of chemicals and internal biological functions. But if our world was only perceived, it would presumably be possible for us to change it at will...or there would be the possibility that everyone would perceive it differently. That's true to a degree (for example, colour blind people perceive the world differently). However, these perceptions usually deal with the aesthetic qualities of the world (including things that go beyond colour). Such perceptions don't eliminate the fundamentals behind human inventions, which themselves require an understanding of our surroundings. The concept of perception mentioned above, if it were true, would definitely raise some very serious questions about the human theoretical constructions that I mentioned earlier.[/font][/color]

[color=#737373][font=franklin gothic medium]No, there isn't. We don't allow people to simply use OB as a file hosting service - that's an unnecessary use of space. Plus, people would be making threads all over the place just to host files without any discussion. So, hosting files in unrelated threads is directly against our site's rules.[/font][/color]

[color=#737373]Egutsu, please watch the post quality. I recommend taking a bit more time with your posts, to make them a little clearer and neater. Usually movie-licensed games suck, but there are a few obvious exceptions (Goldeneye 007 for instance). From what I've read, Batman Begins is actually coming along pretty darn nicely. It's being developed by Eurocom (responsible for the apparently-underrated Sphinx game). Everything I've read about it has so far been positive. Visually it's looking pretty good, especially for a multi-platform title. And in terms of gameplay, it seems to pretty authentically recreate the action in the movie, while actually being easy enough to pick up and play. Of course, good early impressions might dissolve once the game comes out. But given the developer and given the comments so far, I think it will probably be a little better than most licensed games.[/color]

[color=#737373]Yeah, I believe Guild Wars works reasonably well on dial-up. The major issue would be loading new areas, I'd think (as opposed to lag during battles and whatnot). Just be aware though...if you have multiple people on one account, they will all be part of the same Guild and everything. It might get a bit confusing. I should gather some sort of list or something, where people can put down the names of their characters so that we will always know who is who.[/color]

[color=#737373]The thing is, Nintendo can't win in that situation. If Nintendo totally avoided its old characters, many fans (including me) would be disappointed. These characters are successful for a reason; it's like asking Disney to stop making anything to do with Mickey Mouse. In regard to something like Luigi's Mansion, what you say is true. But Nintendo incorporates existing characters into these new franchises for a reason: familiarity. It is possible to introduce a new concept to gamers with a familiar face. That's largely what Nintendo tries to do. I think the benefits of that could be argued forever. Sometimes I agree with it, sometimes I don't. But I don't really think that Nintendo sells its characters short - Luigi's Mansion, for what it was, was a pretty good game. It could have been a bit more expansive, but it was an experience that was made all the better by including Luigi and the various Mario-mythology, for lack of a better term. Your whole argument seems to be a bit contradictory though. I mean, you brought up the example of Final Fantasy...a game which I think you mentioned you like earlier. So Square is doing just what Nintendo are doing, in that instance. These companies use existing names and characters because yes, they do sell. But also, the Final Fantasy games aren't totally unrelated - you'll definitely find common threads throughout all of them. They're all designed to appeal to a particular audience. There's a reason that Final Fantasy isn't Star Ocean, for instance. You basically implied that Nintendo had plugged Samus into an unrelated game, with Metroid Prime. But as has been pointed out, Metroid Prime is a pure Metroid game, any way you look at it. So I don't think that example is the same as, say, Luigi's Mansion. As for GBA...I think you just need to play more games. There were and are plenty of great looking games on that system. But nevertheless, it is a 2D system. If you're looking for flashy 3D graphics, you obviously won't find 'em there.[/color]

[color=#737373]I think it's possible for you to be in a different Guild, I mean...you can still join us for quests and so forth. But you wouldn't be able to join us for PvP. Once we've all completed the main game, I imagine that PvP will be the next big thing we'll tackle together. So being in the same Guild allows us to do that as a big team. Other than that, I can't think of any other issues...except that eventually we may have a site for our Guild, which would obviously bring all the team members together into one location. Not that a site is important, it's just a side addition really, if it ever happens. Mostly it's the PvP stuff that would be the issue.[/color]

[color=#737373]Yeah, there are already a lot of facts in this thread and stuff that's been cited, by myself and others. Interested members can browse through that if they like, but it might not be best to bring back an extremely old thread.[/color]

[color=#737373]Ah yes, I've seen this Guild Hall before. This is the one we played in during the beta (it was the only one available at the time, for all beta players). How many types of Guild Halls are there in total?[/color]

[quote]As for Metroid Prime, I agree with you that it's a good game, the only problem I've had with it is repeating half an area from a save room 15 minutes away from a considerably hard boss. [/quote] [color=#737373]Okay, the saves are too sparse and that increases the difficulty. I agree. I'm just pointing out that Metroid Prime is regarded as a masterpiece, for valid reasons.[/color] [quote]Basically, Nintendo seems to make a game concept, then go into the vault to see what character they haven't used in a while, and try to fit them in.[/quote] [color=#737373]That is somewhat true, but it implies that Metroid Prime is somehow not a Metroid game at heart. I disagree. I think it's a very logical (and highly successful) move into 3D for the franchise. It maintains the core gameplay and builds on that in clever and innovative ways. I wouldn't take the save point thing and use that to cast doubt on the entire game. You've kind of backed off from that a bit, but yeah, I think it's important to have the distinction there.[/color] [quote]I mentioned graphics in refrence to change from the GBC to GBA, there was barely a difference, however, I should expect that after saying that they're just portable games. There should still be some sort of difference. [/quote] [color=#737373]You couldn't tell the difference? C'mon. Compare The Minish Cap to Link's Awakening DX. The two systems are both 2D, but the difference in graphics is pretty darn noticeable. We just aren't going to agree on that point though. I think that for what it was, GBA was darn impressive. It managed to boost graphics without radically draining battery power or becoming too physically large. GBA is a good product, even if you prefer 3D graphics.[/color] [quote]I've never called of the games bad, that would mean that they're games like "The Bombing Islands," where you stop islands from blowing up by... blowing them up. I have been saying that I personally don't like some of these games.[/quote] [color=#737373]Bingo! That hits the nail on the head. That's what I've been trying to point out for this entire discussion. Many of these games you speak of are actually good - but they don't appeal to you because you are looking for something else. That's totally cool.[/color] [quote]Oh, and here's my analogy on why I don't like sales figures, they can be as inaccurate as an oopinion. Britney Spears is a popular artist, but she's not necessarily a good artist. Have fun with it.[/quote] [color=#737373]Ah, but do music magazines and web sites across the world frequently give her very high scores for her albums? Probably not. Sales do not indicate good games necessarily, but sales [i]do[/i] indicate success. You had earlier said that Nintendo was going the way of Sega. I was pointing out that it isn't and part of that involves pointing out sales successes. Sure, bad games can sell well. But these bad games often don't receive wide critical acclaim, unlike many of Nintendo's better products. Again, distinctions.[/color]

[quote]Morpheus is right, I'm talking about the HDD... If Nintendo can pull the DS together (I'm not talking about sales, I'm talking about bringing their game quality back to their own standards), I will believe in Nintendo again. I already see it happening with what I've been reading recently with some upcoming games. [/quote] [color=#737373]But you just finished telling me that you didn't like Metroid Prime and that you haven't liked Nintendo's games since SNES. So what do you mean by "back to their own standards"? Metroid Prime is a brilliant game and an example of one of Nintendo's better products in recent years. There are a ton of amazing Nintendo titles on GameCube and N64; these games exemplify the highest levels of quality in the industry. It's not that the games themselves are bad, or lacking. It's just that you don't like them. As I said earlier, that's fine. I know a few people who don't like Mario even though the Mario games are often the big trailblazers. But these are still great games and the sales reflect that. When you say you aren't talking about sales...yeah, we are talking about two different things here. These games are up to Nintendo's high standards, which the sales reflect. The sales wouldn't be high if the games were no good. That's what I'm trying to get across. The games might be good, but that doesn't mean you like them. It's important to make the distinction.[/color] [quote]It's just that Nintendo sinks lower on the list when they don't show anything at E3 [/quote] [color=#737373]Who cares? You are a gamer. Enjoy the games. The DS had a very strong showing at E3. Nintendo's E3 presence - or lack thereof - isn't going to change your enjoyment of great games.[/color] [quote]I miss the old days of gaming where games were made for the audience's fun, not for an experience. Nintendo reminds me of this the most, of course. At the same time, I could easily write another "rant" about Sony saying similar things. I couldn't write about Microsoft, because I don't own an XBOX, and I'm fairly satisfied with my computer.[/quote] [color=#737373]I had my problems with Wind Waker too, but I assure you, Nintendo makes games for the audience's fun. Maybe you didn't have fun with some of those games. But many people did - they are good games.[/color] [quote]Nintendo's philosphy has never been "Let's wow them with amazing graphics and games that take a decade to make." It's this reason why I respect them, it's also the reason I'm a little disappointed in them. Not as much so, after debating this with you. Truce? lol. [/quote] [color=#737373]I don't understand though. You respect them for not pushing graphics without focusing on gameplay, but that also disappoints you? I think basically, you simply haven't enjoyed some of Nintendo's games in recent times. That's cool. But they are [i]great[/i] games, objectively speaking. I only mention sales to demonstrate the success that many of these games have had and that Nintendo isn't going the way of Sega or something. Personally, I think Nintendo has made some of its most brilliant games in the last ten years. Sometimes they do well, sometimes they don't. But even games that I personally don't always like...I'd be hard-pressed to say that they're "bad" games. I just acknowledge that my taste isn't always the same as everyone else's. Mostly, I've just been trying to clarify that distinction. Your (or my) personal taste isn't necessarily reflecting an objective truth when it comes to the success of a business. Some of the stuff I've read about Revolution here just totally misunderstands the strategy behind it. So, mostly just for the purpose of putting the information out there, I've tried to clarify a little. It's all good. ~_^[/color]

[quote]Sure, Nintendo wins major points for sheer inventiveness every time they do something, I just haven't seen enough from the Nintendo DS to call it better than the PSP. People bought the DS for two reasons, it came out first, and it was a sure bid to succeed, as they've been pretty good since the Gameboy. To tell you the truth, I hated the Advance too, its power was barely a jump. It'd be better to just skip the Advance and compare the jump from black and white to color, to color to backlighing. I didn't see anything new with the Advance, and the SP costs more than my $50 GameCube. [/quote] [color=#737373]Nobody is calling the DS "better" than the PSP though. Try not to think of it as "better" or "worse". Try to think of it as "different". PSP and DS are two very different machines. Yes, they both play video games. But PSP is offering you a traditional gaming experience - it's offering you the same kind of interaction that you get with PS2 and other platforms. DS is offering you a type of interaction and a style of play that hasn't previously existed. This doesn't mean it's automatically "better" - maybe not for you and maybe not for many people. But it's a successful strategy, nonetheless. If you hated the Advance then you simply aren't the customer that Nintendo is going after. GBA was a pretty big leap over its predecessor (Game Boy Color). For the price, it offered what it could. What would you have been satisfied with? 3D graphics? That would have pushed the price up exponentially and wouldn't be logical for GBA at the time, for a myriad of reasons. I'm not saying that wanting any of these things is wrong. If you love your PSP and you want traditional games with better graphics, that's a valid choice. I'm just saying that it's incorrect to say that Nintendo is doing the "wrong thing" - their strategy is successful, based on GBA and DS sales. Maybe you aren't the kind of person who they are appealing to, but at the same time, it's clear that they are appealing to a large number of people. So, there's room for both strategies. I like Nintendo DS, but I wouldn't say that PSP is "wrong" or "worse". It's a different kind of experience. If I want to play PS2-like games on the road, I'll get a PSP. And there are definitely a few games I want to get PSP for, so I'm sure I'll be buying the thing at some stage.[/color] [quote]Speaking of which, the GameCube sold the most becasue it's less than half the price (to at least buy used). People are either buying them for their little kid, or for nostalgia's sake, if not for the cheapness. I know one person who had a GameCube and no other systems from that generation. It's sitting in his room while he goes to my house and spoons off my PS2. [/quote] [color=#737373]GameCube didn't sell the most. It sold the least, but it made the most profit. But again, using examples of people you know...that isn't representative of an entire market. A lot of people say "I don't like this" or "my friends hate that" and they think that this somehow automatically means that the entire nation feels the same way. Obviously, it doesn't.[/color] [quote]I'm not a big Sony person though, I hate them as much as Microsoft, they disappointed me big time with my $100 memory card that makes my PS2 boot up slower and otherwise makes a decent doorstop. Luckily, I managed to sell that to one of my friends for $75 and then he heard the news and sold it to one of his friends for $60... I hate Microsoft simply because they're a big corporation that buys out everyone who stands up to them, needless to say, I hate Wal-Mart too.[/quote] [color=#737373]What memory card are you talking about? PS2 cards are as small as any other, pretty much. Unless you're talking about a third party card, I don't know what you are referring to. As for the other stuff...I really think that's all pretty irrational. I don't "hate" Microsoft; I don't really hate any company. Microsoft is a business and they're trying to make money, just like the rest of them. There's nothing wrong with that. Sure, I disagree with their strategy sometimes, but I don't outright hate 'em.[/color] [quote]Yes, that was a comedy break. Seriously though, everyone I knew who had a DS recently sold it to buy a PSP. Andrew just sold his last week, he bought about 30 games for the DS, as he was going on a big trip, he came back without the DS or any games, saying he sold the system and games to pay for the PSP. Instead of Asphalt, he got Ridge Racer, which he said made Asphalt feel like an Atari game. I liked Asphalt, I haven't played Ridge Racer yet, but I'll take his word for it. He used to be very faithful to it, due to the fact that Shin Megami Tensei is coming out for it. Now he just absolutely bashes the DS, I'm not saying that I do just because of him, but I felt that this was worth saying. [/quote] [color=#737373]Oh, good...I thought you were serious in the last bit, haha. ~_^ Your friend isn't representative of the DS's market though, I don't think. Also, I'd be the first to say that Asphalt is a pretty poor game. I'm not arguing otherwise; I think that Nintendo DS has a pretty uninspiring library right now. Of course, that will change during the year, but right now it's a relatively bleak library. My intention isn't to say that DS is the best system ever. My intention is to say that DS has sold twice the amount of PSP, despite having poorer games in general. Think about that for a moment, and then think about the people who say that Nintendo is dying out. That is rubbish. If Nintendo can achieve that kind of success with a platform that hasn't had the best software yet, then I think we can only assume that their market leadership would continue when better software is released later in the year.[/color] [quote]Granted, these are portable games, but where are the quality titles? I looked into ElectroPlankton and it looks pretty good, I can't say much else, not having played it. There are games that are very good on the DS, but I just see less when compared to the PSP. It's just that I've seen some horrid examples of games for it. I probably do have the wrong idea. Nintendo has never failed its true fans, so someone will always stick by them. Microsoft hasn't failed anyone either, hell, it's the Halo system. But they're new. I just feel that the DS started off completely wrong and I think that people will keep that mindset, as I have. If Viewtiful Joe, Mario Kart, and SMT turn out any good, I'll go buy the DS, why? Because I bought the GameCube for Viewtiful Joe... one month before I heard that it was coming for PS2... [/quote] [color=#737373]I think you're just comparing things incorrectly. You're drawing a long bow. Everything you said in this paragraph was totally logical and reasonable. You haven't had much reason to buy DS and that's fine. Right now I only own two DS titles and I won't be buying more until the better games arrive during the latter half of this year. What I'm trying to tell you - the key message I'm trying to get across - is that despite our own experience with DS (positive or negative), the system is soundly thrashing the competition in global sales. This means that Nintendo hasn't become irrelevant, just because you or I may not see a lot of games on DS that we like right now. See what I mean? Maybe you don't find DS very attractive, but all the women and non-gamers in Japan who are buying it for Nintendogs and other titles [i]do[/i]. All too often, people declare that they've stopped buying Nintendo products and that Nintendo is going to go bankrupt, as if somehow their individual purchase affects that. What they fail to understand is that they are one individual with one opinion; they haven't looked at the broader market. I mean, I absolutely can't stand romance novels. Yet those things sell like hot cakes. If I said to you "My friends and I NEVER buy romance novels and I don't know anyone who owns them", that would have nothing to do with the success of romance novels. See what I mean? Just because I have no interest in them doesn't mean that they aren't valid and that they aren't selling very well.[/color] [quote]Right now, the DS is just a minigame tool to developers. PSP is a multimedia masterpiece (give or take a few flaws). Nintendo's motto should be something like, 'You get what you pay for," because that's basically their trend. With GameCube and DS, you spend about half the price, thrown in some innovation, and have games comprable to that of Final Fantasy, MGS, and so forth. I just don't find Zelda as good as FF, or Metroid as good as Halo or MGS. I don't see how the most purchased game (from what I've read), Super Smash Bros. Melee, can compare with Tekken 4. People like Nintendo because of the good feeling they get when they see the character they've grown up with get thrown into a new environment, just look at Donkey Konga, didn't expect that when you were climbing ladders to save a princess, did ya?[/quote] [color=#737373]Well, that's just wrong. Again, you can have opinions on what games you prefer. But saying that DS is just a minigame tool? No. You can't say that if you've actually played a good amount of DS's best offerings, even at this early stage. You can't say that if you know what games are in the pipeline right now. Maybe you don't find Zelda to be as good as Final Fantasy (even though they are different types of games) and maybe you don't find Smash Bros. to be as good as Tekken 4 (even though they are also different kinds of games). Maybe you don't - but nobody can deny that these are masterpieces that have performed incredibly well. Just because you have a differing taste doesn't mean that these games are rubbish. Just look at the average review scores for such games and you'll find that within the industry itself, they are highly respected. I think it's all too easy to take one's opinion and use it to declare that something is awful, or to suggest that something isn't successful just because your friends aren't buying it. But that just doesn't work.[/color] [quote]And when the Revolution comes down to the price of a game, I'll buy it, just like with my GameCube. Until then, I'll keep an open mind. An open, but slightly dissapointed mind. [/quote] [color=#737373]I think that your disappointment is pretty illogical, though. If you don't like Nintendo's games, as I've said, that's fine. But don't then make another leap and suggest that all of these games are essentially pointless exercises and that they are unsuccessful. It's very important to have an objective view, if you're going to talk about Nintendo's failures or successes. The truth is, Nintendo's profits are comparable to the entire profit of all of Sony's business divisions put together - including SCE, Sony's music and movie studios and all of their consumer electronics divisions. I get annoyed when people dismiss Nintendo inaccurately and I get more annoyed when people somehow think that because they haven't bought the games, that nobody else is either. I can see how that perception exists, but I think it only drags down the discussion. In the same way, I tend to defend Microsoft when people attack it for no reason other than it being a giant company with obscene profits. When people make these comments and when they cast things aside, I expect them to do so with some validity - with some knowledge other than their personal taste. Because if we're only going to talk taste, it's an unwinnable discussion...simply because everyone has completely different preferences as it is. Anyway, I think Desbreko's comments are very true. If Nintendo talked about specs for ages and showed some pre-rendered footage, people would still complain. I'm sure that when Nintendo shows the controller, people will also complain, just as they did when they saw the N64 and GameCube controllers. It's an irrational kneejerk reaction that we see all-too-often in this particular industry.[/color]

[color=#737373]I think you're still misunderstanding the point I'm making. Even if the price of a console doesn't go up at all - especially if it doesn't go up at all - companies like Microsoft and Sony will likely be taking bigger losses on hardware sales than the previous generation. If it costs me $500 to make each system and I sell each one for $300, I am therefore making a loss of $200 per system. If I sell millions of systems, consider how big those losses become. How do I overcome that loss and make a profit on top? Well, Microsoft hopes it will do that through software sales, through licensing, through Xbox Live and through the Xbox Live Marketplace system. Will that be enough? I guess time will tell. Price drops are also a factor. Sony has said that its strategy with PS3 might be to avoid price drops altogether, so that eventually, profit on hardware can occur. But that strategy is questionable, because many consumers buy game hardware once the price drops start occurring. Many people are not early-adopters, they won't buy the systems at high prices. So that's another issue to consider as well.[/color]

[color=#737373]People here are not really talking about the price of the consoles though. They are talking about the cost to game developers. Also, the end price of a console does matter - whether it's expensive or not isn't as relevant as how much money the manufacturer is losing. Microsoft may sell Xbox 360 for $300, for argument's sake, but they might lose $150-$250 per unit or something, because the manufacturing cost is higher than the wholesale cost. So, believe me, all of these things - developer cost and manufacturing cost - have massive implications for the industry. And these things can only go up. Manufacturing losses would go up [i]especially[/i] if prices of consoles at retail remain the same.[/color]

[color=#737373]If I were to become famous, I'd rather it be in a specific field, rather than "generally famous". That way you can enjoy it in a more isolated way...you aren't going to have your life turned upside-down by the media or anything. But that's only if I were to become famous. Would I want to? I don't know. I'd be [i]more[/i] happy to actually do something that I really enjoy, whether or not fame is associated with that. If I did achieve fame, I'd rather it was due to something I'd created. In terms of being remembered...I think that I'd want the people close to me to remember me for the type of person I am. And if I were famous, I guess I'd want to be remembered for having made something (a site, a game, a movie, a toy) that brings fun to people in some form. I really have no idea what kind of thing it would be, but I really love the idea of making things that people have fun using. That's why web design is really rewarding sometimes.[/color]