wakusei

I'd hate to go up against a Spartan. Fists only? You'd get your ace handed to you.

As a big vs. fighting game fan and an avid online gamer the news that VF5 isn't including online play (which we've known for a long time now) is disappointing on some levels, but ultimately th right decision when it comes to gameplay.

Ask any fan of the VF series how much they'd enjoy playing the game with poor latency. On the technical level the moves in the VF series literally require split second timing that the developers did not feel could be matched by current broadband standards. Hell, a round of SFII on Live is a nightmare when the connection is bad and that game is 16 years old.

Obviously we'll get broadband adequate enough to play these sort of games online someday, but for now give me some imported Hori sticks and have the friends over.

22

Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling it the greatest game ever made. The "bullet" that I am biting is the ideas behind the theory. If you read the creator's webpage he's trying to make something that non-gamers can pick up and experience some level of immersion with. The whole point is that you are engrossed in it...so if you don't like the game or any other activity it isn't flow. And you're absolutely right, technically "EVERY FUCKING VIDEO GAME EVER MADE" benefits from flow theory, but not "EVERY FUCKING VIDEO GAME EVER MADE" is designed with it in mind.

It's interesting to see someone put that kind of thought into their game design. You call it over-analyzation but you can't deny that you have some interest, some hobby or whatever that you lose yourself in. But someone criticizing elitism and then declaring that 95% of art, theory, and design grad programs are utter horse-shit is probably reliable for some quality hyperbole in the first place.

Okay...I know this is easy fodder to jump on in terms of delays and PS3 criticisms, but I'd like to chime in on what this game is and why it's not just a "relaxing" Snake clone. To call it as such means either you haven't played the Flash game, or as you'll see in a second, you weren't experiencing "flow".

Here's a fun name. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (sounds like cheek-sent-me-high) developed the theory of flow to explain the behaviors and characteristics of someone engrossed in an activity. Read the next eight qualities of a flow experience and you'll see why this game was used as a THESIS for designing flow and dynamic difficulty adjustment into a video game.

1. A challenge activity that requires skills
2. The merging of action and awareness
3. Clear goals
4. Direct feedback
5. Concentration on the task at hand
6. The sense of control
7. The loss of self-consciousness
8. The transformation of time

Want to play slow? Go for it if it's the challenge that's right for you. Too easy? Play faster and fight the more difficult enemies. Simple concept, and done correctly, a lot of fun. The whole point of the flow theory (and the flOw game) is trying to find the sweet spot, literally the "Flow Zone" where you are not too stressed by the game and not too bored by the activity. The important distinction is that you lose yourself in the activity, ignoring time, external thought, etc.

The guy's website is actually interesting reading: http://www.jenovachen.com/flowingames/

Flow Theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihaly_Csikszentmihalyi

@ 256

There is also the factor of Blu Ray licensing fees. If Sony DOES sell 10,000,000 PS3s then they're likely to sell a substantial number of Blu Ray movies. Not only will they be receiving licensing fees from the games they sell (makes you wonder about the proposed higher cost of games...) they'll also be rolling in the money from sales of other Blu Ray products.

That is, of course, assuming that the market can support the Blu Ray format. Only time's going to tell on that one.

As a sidenote Sony will also see a cut of profits from online transactions, though I don't think that would put much of a dent in $3 billion.

I imagine this will get buried in the midst of other posts but there is more logic to Vlad's info than most people are giving it credit for. Not that I necessarily agree with its application in this case, but here goes...

Generally, consoles are sold at a loss (i.e. subsidized) to get the physical product into the hands of the consumers. Hardware manufacturers make the choice to lose money on the console that plays the games so they can make their profit off the games that get you to buy the system in the first place. These losses decrease over time as the manufacturing costs decrease for the console, leading to 1) increased profits from the sale of their console if the sale price is not lowered or 2) an eventual drop in price of the console. The manufacturers instead make their profit off the licensing fees associated with publishing games on their consoles. They are far more interested in the consumer purchasing the highly profitable software, i.e. the "attach rate" of software. I believe the average for the PS2 is in the realm of 5 games per console. This is generally referred to in the marketing world as the "Razor and Blade"...give the consumer the razor (metaphorically speaking take the loss) and make your money off the blades.

Approaching the situation from a purely economic view it makes the most sense for a consumer motivated by acquiring the most advanced technology to purchase the more highly subsidized console, assuming of course that a more expensive console is inherently more technologically advanced (this was not the case with the Atari 5200 vs. the competition back in the day). If this is the only consideration and the technology across all consoles is comparable then Vlad's proposition is indeed correct. Ceteris paribus...all things remaining equal. However, the situation is obviously more complex.

Technologically the Wii does not match up to the graphics and processing power of the 360 and the PS3. Really none of the three are or will be considered equal in this right. But considering the standard model of console sales (sell at a loss, make money off the software) Nintendo's approach makes far more business sense than everyone lets on. Nintendo, especially of late, is a company driven by its first-party sales of games. They're not paying licensing fees to themselves, though in some cases they have passed series on to second-party developers. There was an initial scepticism of the DS and its ability to sell software and we're seeing the same thing with the Wii now. If Nintendo doesn't have third-party publishers beating the doors down to make games there is a large chunk of profit that isn't being made come release day and beyond. What is Nintendo's solution? Sell their console at a profit, ride the popular interest in their system, and woo the hesitant developers into making more games.

In the earlier days of press releases and leaks and news about the Revolution we heard from Nintendo staff anticipating a lack of third party support. While I personally expect the system to be a success Nintendo realises that there is an inherent risk in their "new-gen" approach at gaming. Will it work? I absolutely hope so and am looking forward to buying one along with a PS3 to sit next to the 360 at home. Who needs money anyway?

Essentially the argument comes down to one of value. Where do you place it? It can be in the gameplay, the graphics, the sound, the online capabilities...that list goes on ad nauseam. We're all going to buy the consoles we want based on the factors that motivate us as individual consumers. I think Vlad was taking a step back and presenting the economic side of things in a way that we usually don't consider. If a company wants to "give" me $400 worth of tech for free I'll take it, provided there's an inherent value in owning it.

running to 360...

Dead Rising + Katana + Wii = :D

As a side note this game begs for multiplayer. Has anyone here played the "Zombies!!!" board game? You start at the town square and try to:

1) Kill a certain number of zombies before the other players. Or...
2) Make it to the helicopter to escape.

Not that they need to rip off someone's board game, but that just sounds like a good time on Live. The expansions to the board game even introduce zombie dogs...which can't be beat.

This is great news! Battlestar is an incredible show. I imagine we'll be hearing about that bigger HDD any day now...I'm assuming these are coming in HD. 12 episodes in the new season + the old eps and miniseries as well?

One can only hope. Regardless, I'm in.

#5 I agree! Capcom is giving us something a little different in their next-gen games. It's refreshing to see a developer like Capcom revive an older game like SF2 while at the same time breathing some new life into some pretty standard genres.

Sure, Lost Planet is a third person shooter, but it has an interesting spin on gameplay that keeps you moving and fighting. Dead Rising? Beat em' up / hack n' slash...with zombies! Nothing new there, but I was sold the second I fried a zombie's face. Can't wait to get home, make some zombie bait and find that katana...

If the demo is this good I can't wait to see what else they have up their sleeves.