PS3 Stuff at GDC.. Opinions?

[Howard_Casto]

I know that the ps3 isn't exactly newsworthy right now (seeing as nobody wants one) but I was curious as to how you guys felt about the announcments made at the GDC.

Personally here's how I feel:

PS3 Home= crap! 

I don't think that comparison is harsh at all.  The flaw in the logic of the ps3 home interface is that most people do NOT enjoy second life.  See second life, much like the ps3 home seems like a fantastic idea... on paper.  You get your own place, you can make your own avatar, you can talk to people and play games right inside the interface.  The problem is that most people arent' very creative, so their place looks like crap, their avatar looks like crap and they don't have anything interesting to say.  Oh and you can buy and sell stuff, including games!  The problem with that is any game that'll work in such a generic 3d space is generally lame and not very fun.  Second life is the prime example.... tons of games in there, but they all suck.  They showed some of the games in ps3 home in the video too and they look VERY similar to second life games (read stiff and boring). 

Also there is a flaw in the logic in that people enjoy walking around in a virtual environment rather than simply selecting what they want to do via a simple list.  If I want to play the latest xbox live arcade game or the latest wii vc release, I sure don't want to have to walk in a 3d world for 5 minutes to find the game.  Long story short, linking "real apps" in a virtual world is a novelty, it's fun at first but it wears off real fast. 

So sony's network is still crap, but what else is new?  Moving on...

That new "create a platformer" tile=awesome!

I don't care for sony at all, so understand the gravity of a statment like that coming from me.  The game looks like something nintendo would make, and that's definately a good thing.  The characters have a lot of personality, and the concept of building and trading levels seems like a great idea.  With that being said, I would bet anyone 100 bucks that nintendo and possibly m$ are already working on something similar.  Mind you it won't look as nice, but that isn't exactly the appeal of that sort of game.

[Loki]

I've seen some video of this... it looked nice but I guess it gets boring after a while.
It's like they made an MMORPG and stripped all of the fun parts from it. An MMORPG nice because you meet people by joining some party, play together and join a guild.

[AtomSmasher]

That new "create a platformer" tile=awesome!

Could you post a link about the game, I haven't heard anything about it, but it sounds interesting.

Also, it seems some developers think as badly about the Wii as you do the PS3
http://wii.ign.com/articles/771/771051p1.html

I'm not a fan of the ps3 yet, but I'll wait a year before I make any final decisions on it.  Although theres recently been a couple 360 games released that I want to play, so Sony may not have a year before I make my decision between the two.

[SirPoonga]

The flaw in the logic of the ps3 home interface is that most people do NOT enjoy second life.

Really?  I hear about Second Life all the time.
Look at Wikipedia's history section on Second Life

    * October 18, 2006 — 1 million registered accounts.[10]
    * December 14, 2006 — 2 million registered accounts.[11]
    * December 29, 2006 — First occurrence of 20,000 concurrent Residents.[12]
    * January 28, 2007 — 3 million registered accounts.[13]
    * February 1, 2007 — First occurrence of 30,000 concurrent Residents.
    * February 24, 2007 — 4 million registered accounts.[14]

That's a rather rapid rise in usage in just in 4 months.  Almost as fast as the Wii.

Personally I don't like it but the numbers don't lie.

[ChadTower]

Odd things just flashed through my head related this concept.

Rather rapid ~= "rape the id"

How appropriate is that for describing the rise in Second Life users?

[johnperkins21]

The flaw in the logic of the ps3 home interface is that most people do NOT enjoy second life.

Really?  I hear about Second Life all the time.
Look at Wikipedia's history section on Second Life

    * October 18, 2006 — 1 million registered accounts.[10]
    * December 14, 2006 — 2 million registered accounts.[11]
    * December 29, 2006 — First occurrence of 20,000 concurrent Residents.[12]
    * January 28, 2007 — 3 million registered accounts.[13]
    * February 1, 2007 — First occurrence of 30,000 concurrent Residents.
    * February 24, 2007 — 4 million registered accounts.[14]

That's a rather rapid rise in usage in just in 4 months.  Almost as fast as the Wii.

Personally I don't like it but the numbers don't lie.

Numbers do lie. They're counting the free trial period registrations in there. That's still a lot of people, but the number of people signed up and still paying for access is more like 200,000 or so, at most. Here's a link to information about their inflated numbers that references a CNN Money article linked within:
http://many.corante.com/archives/2007/01/04/real_second_life_numbers_thanks_to_david_kirkpatrick.php

[ChadTower]

I took a look at Second Life once... not nearly enough Good Ship Hooterpop to be worth staying.

[Howard_Casto]

Also, it seems some developers think as badly about the Wii as you do the PS3
http://wii.ign.com/articles/771/771051p1.html

Yeah, you've gotta remember though, this guy is working on spore.... you know the quirky "artform" game that's going to be so lame that nobody will buy it.  Yeah spore will change the world... that line seemed a lot more convincing 10 years ago when it was called seaman. 

Nintendo takes games more seriously than any other developer.  Need I remind everyone that they are the ONLY game developer that makes a console.  Sony makes tvs, m$ makes computers (mind you they made a ton of pc games in the day, but that's a different animal). 

The reason people buy nintendo stuff other more "artistic" games is because "artistic" is often a code-word for sub-standard.  Look at art films.... sure you have a few good ones, but usually it's poor camera work, a shoddy plot line and tons of uninteresting, philosophical drivel.  People who make art films generally don't have the money and/or talent to make real films.  The same could be said for people that make art games. 

With that being said, nintendo is probably the most creative company in the history of video games....  The pop-art stylings of the wario games is amazing and well thought out, it's just nobody notices because they are so damn fun to play.  That's the sign of a truely successful artistic game, when nobody notices how artsy it is. 

Also about the under-powered knocks he gave out...  See that would be  a valid point if develeopers actually used extra horsepower for better ai.  The problem is they don't.  Making the wii rather puny has actually forced developers to code better, which results in better ai and more creative gameplay.  The only improvments I've seen on the 360 or ps3 so far are higher-res textures and better lense flair effects.  Those are nice, but I'd rather have a game worth playing. 

p.s.  I'll look for some info to that game later.

[AtomSmasher]

Also, it seems some developers think as badly about the Wii as you do the PS3
http://wii.ign.com/articles/771/771051p1.html

Yeah, you've gotta remember though, this guy is working on spore.... you know the quirky "artform" game that's going to be so lame that nobody will buy it.  Yeah spore will change the world... that line seemed a lot more convincing 10 years ago when it was called seaman. 

Nintendo takes games more seriously than any other developer.  Need I remind everyone that they are the ONLY game developer that makes a console.  Sony makes tvs, m$ makes computers (mind you they made a ton of pc games in the day, but that's a different animal). 

The reason people buy nintendo stuff other more "artistic" games is because "artistic" is often a code-word for sub-standard.  Look at art films.... sure you have a few good ones, but usually it's poor camera work, a shoddy plot line and tons of uninteresting, philosophical drivel.  People who make art films generally don't have the money and/or talent to make real films.  The same could be said for people that make art games. 

With that being said, nintendo is probably the most creative company in the history of video games....  The pop-art stylings of the wario games is amazing and well thought out, it's just nobody notices because they are so damn fun to play.  That's the sign of a truely successful artistic game, when nobody notices how artsy it is. 

Also about the under-powered knocks he gave out...  See that would be  a valid point if develeopers actually used extra horsepower for better ai.  The problem is they don't.  Making the wii rather puny has actually forced developers to code better, which results in better ai and more creative gameplay.  The only improvments I've seen on the 360 or ps3 so far are higher-res textures and better lense flair effects.  Those are nice, but I'd rather have a game worth playing. 

p.s.  I'll look for some info to that game later.

Heh, I knew posting that link would fuel the fanboy fire     To say that spore is going to be lame is a pretty uneducated comment.  All play tests magazines or web sites have done so far have said it is a great game, and Will Wright is making the game which is always a good sign.  You may know some of Will Wright's other games, the Sim City series and the Sims series.  Both of which are best selling games (actually the Sims is the best selling PC game of all time) and considered revolutionary in their day, spore will likely be the same.

[hypernova]

He then shared quotes from executives at Sony and Microsoft talking about games as a serious artistic medium, and then a quote from a Nintendo executive saying the company only wanted to make "fun" games.

DAMN YOU NINTENDO!  DAMN YOU TO HELL!  I DON'T WANT FUN GAMES!  I WANT THE FEELING LIKE I'M IN A ---smurfing--- MUSEUM STARING AT SOME DUMB ---fudgesicle---'S "ART", WHERE HE TOOK TWO BUCKETS OF DIFFERENT COLORS AND THREW THEM AT A WALL.

---gosh-darn--- YOU NINTENDO!

I think it's high time we have an avatar where a smiley has a pile of ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- on his head, because that's what Hecker is.

[johnperkins21]

Ummm, back on topic...

LittleBigPlanet looks friggin' awesome! I'm not really in to the whole co-op or online thing, but if they can make that an engaging single player experience, I will buy a PS3. That is exactly what I expect a next gen game to be.

And as far as Nintendo goes, I have not been interested in playing any of their games since they completely screwed up Mario back with Super Mario 64. Not every game needs to be fully 3D. Give me back my 2D platformers you ---daisies---. I mean C:SotN was the last game I truly loved, and it wasn't 3D. Media Molecule is bringing back the 2D platformer with LittleBigPlanet and I couldn't be more excited.

[Loki]

 

[Howard_Casto]

Ummm, back on topic...

LittleBigPlanet looks friggin' awesome! I'm not really in to the whole co-op or online thing, but if they can make that an engaging single player experience, I will buy a PS3. That is exactly what I expect a next gen game to be.

And as far as Nintendo goes, I have not been interested in playing any of their games since they completely screwed up Mario back with Super Mario 64. Not every game needs to be fully 3D. Give me back my 2D platformers you ---daisies---. I mean C:SotN was the last game I truly loved, and it wasn't 3D. Media Molecule is bringing back the 2D platformer with LittleBigPlanet and I couldn't be more excited.

You are in the extreme minority my friend.  Mario 64 is heralded by nearly everyone to be a classic and one of the greatest marios of all time.  Oh and you are right, not everything has to be 3d, which is why paper mario comes out for the wii in april.  This is nintendo we are talking about, they have all bases covered.  Nintendo isn't allowed to talk too much about next quarter due to a stock split, but lets just say many, many 2d style games are on the horizion for the wii, including a rumored castlevania game. 

[johnperkins21]

You are in the extreme minority my friend.  Mario 64 is heralded by nearly everyone to be a classic and one of the greatest marios of all time.

And I don't know why. The controls and camera were quite bad. It lacked even a small resemblance to fun. Far and away the worst Mario game ever. Extremely disappointing after the genius that was SMB3. The N64 remains my most regrettable purchase ever. That's saying a lot for a guy who bought the PSP and the Power Glove. Although I did have a Mitsubishi Eclipse that I very much regretted purchasing. Nope, still the N64 as worst. Haven't bought a Nintendo home console since, although Wii Sports does interest me almost enough to give them another chance.

[Howard_Casto]

No it was very fun, because the jumping mechanic was spot on....  let's not skirt around what makes mario game great and get right to the point.... the reason mario is so popular is because he jumps well and it's fun just to move around the world.  Mario 64 was a masterpiece because it was the first (and arguably the only) 3d platformer to have jumping mechanics so spot on that people enjoyed just exploring the 3d environmets. 

The only exceptions I've ever found to this rule are older gamers that couldn't adapt to 3d controls, and naturally moving around wasn't effortless to them.  Any gamer over the age of 35 could fall into this category... people who can't master the analog stick will never enjoy a 3d mario, because, well those are the controls you use.

I submit to you that the controls were nearly perfect (with a few glaring camera issues) and your inability to master them is what made them seem bad. 

I don't mean for that to be offensive in anyway, it's just that mario64 is pretty much a smash hit in everyone's eyes BECAUSE of the controls, so the only explaination I can give you is you just suck at mario 64. 

[johnperkins21]

No it was very fun, because the jumping mechanic was spot on....  let's not skirt around what makes mario game great and get right to the point.... the reason mario is so popular is because he jumps well and it's fun just to move around the world.  Mario 64 was a masterpiece because it was the first (and arguably the only) 3d platformer to have jumping mechanics so spot on that people enjoyed just exploring the 3d environmets. 

The only exceptions I've ever found to this rule are older gamers that couldn't adapt to 3d controls, and naturally moving around wasn't effortless to them.  Any gamer over the age of 35 could fall into this category... people who can't master the analog stick will never enjoy a 3d mario, because, well those are the controls you use.

I submit to you that the controls were nearly perfect (with a few glaring camera issues) and your inability to master them is what made them seem bad. 

I don't mean for that to be offensive in anyway, it's just that mario64 is pretty much a smash hit in everyone's eyes BECAUSE of the controls, so the only explaination I can give you is you just suck at mario 64. 

I had issue with the controls largely due to the bad camera. I found myself constantly fighting with the camera, which made the game less fun. I enjoyed running around the first level, but after that it became tedious. Now, I did play this game after Jumping Flash, which had a much better jumping mechanic than Mario 64. If you've never played it, and you enjoy Mario 64, you should give it a try. That game had some insanely fun jumping mechanics.

I'll give you that many, many, many people enjoyed Mario 64, but I just couldn't dig it. I'm weird in that way on some things though. I never really liked Sonic either, and that was hugely popular. Same thing goes with Geometry Wars. I can't stand that game, it gives me a headache. It's been so long since I've played Mario 64, that I can't describe specific examples of why I didn't like it, but I think you touched on part of it. I do remember a lot of times running around doing nothing. I've never been a fan of that. I want to feel like I'm working towards a goal, and simply exploring a level usually isn't fun for me (unless I get to stare at Lara Croft's butt while I do it  ).

I think I was still mainly a d-pad kind of guy back then as well, and the controller design wasn't helping any. I may have sucked, but it wasn't enough fun for any length of time, so I gave up. I've played other games where the controls sucked just because I enjoyed playing the game, Resident Evil comes to mind. While not exactly, those controls were not the greatest, yet I couldn't pull myself away regardless of how many times I would die because I just couldn't line up the shotgun with a zombie's face.