General Gaming News

[Winters_Sorrow]

Yes, but that's after making billions from it.
And Nintendo make billions from their DS titles like Pippa's Pony Ride or what have you. Critical acclaim is great for the ego and reputation but it's dragged bigger companies than Activision down when a turkey comes along.

Maybe it's just a sign of gaming "growing up" and making cash cow games to pay for the riskier projects. Or maybe that's just me being naive. Generally speaking, there has been some fantastic games produced and hopefully that wealth will be spent on making better & better games down the road.

[Cayal]

Gaming is getting dumber IMO.

Natal will suck
PS3 arc or whatever it is called is going to suck.
Wii sucks.

There is no way these things can be used in traditional gaming (especially Natal). If this is the future, I am done.

Give me a controller anyday.

[Culhwch]

I had to look up Natal - total gimmick. My sis bought a Wii last year and I got to play it at Christmas. It seems to me something purely for kids and families. Not for actual gaming. I'll keep my PC and 360, thanks.

[CyBeR]

I object on the Wii not being for gaming. While I may not have had much time to enjoy that particular console, what I've played was fun and quite worthy to be up there with the big boys. The problem with the Wii is that 3rd party support is weak and most games are shovelware...it takes a long time to actually find something good and most of that time, that game tanks in sales because people won't give it a chance.

[Winters_Sorrow]

Originally Posted by Cayal

Gaming is getting dumber IMO.

Natal will suck
PS3 arc or whatever it is called is going to suck.
Wii sucks.

There is no way these things can be used in traditional gaming (especially Natal). If this is the future, I am done.

Give me a controller anyday.

Everything starts somewhere. If you want "traditional" controllers then try the 1 button Atari one

I think the Wii Remote was revolutionary, the arc is merely an extension of the existing Sixaxis mixed with Wiimote tech (good old Sony stealing other people's ideas and painting it black to look kewl) and Natal hasn't even appeared in a game yet so why not see what it looks like when it does?

Without innovation in gaming we'll just get FIFA xx and Call of Duty 10,000 forever...

How we play games will continue to change and as long as it adds to the experience that's a good thing. After all, DS uses touchscreen which isn't a true controller either. If it works, it works. I don't want to have to press "X, Y, X, B, A, Right shoulder button, Left stick" to execute my attack on Street Fighter as an example of a ball-ache when it comes to controllers.

[Shadow Trooper]

I agree WS and CyBeR. I started off on a VIC 20 (3k of memory!). Technology will continue to move forward and introduce new ways of doing things. Sure most of it will probably fall by the wayside, but those few groundbreakers that deliver the WOW factor are surely worth the failed attempts along the way(?)

I am a PC player (mainly because I like the RTS, RPG and Strategy games that seem to suit this format best), but we have a Wii as well and I can't fault it for what it does, which is brings my family together for hours of entertainment and fun (whether it be Super Mario Strikers, Mario Kart or Lego Rock Band etc!)


I'm looking forward to Dawn of War 2 Chaos, Starcraft 2, Supreme Commander 2 and Dragon Age Expansions.

Interested in Total War Napoleon and C&C4 (Although I hear they have changed the tiberium harvesting method, so may wait to get some reviews before purchasing).

[Cayal]

Natal is completely unfeasible for most games. If you've seen the demo of the driving game (aside from being compltely laggy), hold your arms up for 5 - 10 minutes and you don't be playing anymore. It will be way to tiring.
FPS can't happen.

While the PS3 arc is just an improved wii-mote that looks like an object of pleasure.

I was a bit harsh on the Wii, it's fun, no doubt, but it is a gimmick (as Natal and Arc are).

[CyBeR]

I can't honestly imagine someone using that big ball thing for anything other that its intent. But that's just me.

The Wii, for being a gimmick, is still in front of its competitors. I believe the Wii's staying power on the market is indicative that motion controls are here to stay. Though you must admit that Sony's coming at this from a whole different angle than Microsoft, who have said that they'd like to replace conventional means altogether. Sony treats the Arc as an add-on and nothing else much...there will be some interesting games to come of it, and there will be crap (just like the Wii). But at least it's there with the normal DualShock 3 and you'll probably be able to use whichever control scheme you prefer.
As such, I really don't see what not to like about Sony's approach (or Nintendo's for that matter). It's not completely replacing the conventional and it's not being showed down anyone's throat. All's well with the world.

[Shadow Trooper]

Originally Posted by Cayal

I was a bit harsh on the Wii, it's fun, no doubt, but it is a gimmick (as Natal and Arc are).

Ouch! I'd say ()

3 million PS3 units have sold in the UK since it's debut back in 2007 (Quote: Sony Computer Entertainment)

6 million Wii units have been sold since it's debut back in December 2006 (Gfk-Chart track)

Not bad for a gimmick.

I guess it really does come down to what individuals look for in a console (as a comparison, try telling an avid darts fan that it's not a proper sport and shouldn't be refered to as one; I did and nearly got a dart in me 'ead! LOL)

[Cayal]

The wii sold because it is cheap. If the Wii started off at PS3 price, it wouldn't sell. Natal won't sell because a) most have a wii and b) it will be expensive and c) it probably isn't going to work well.

Microsoft are trying to get into the casual gamer arena, which Nintendo already have covered.

[CyBeR]

This is really not news for any of us...but heh.

Source: Gamespot yet again

Game Informer's rumor column claims the long-awaited final installment of Valve's iconic series won't arrive until next year--if it arrives at all.

What we heard: Last fall, Half-Life series hero Gordon Freeman was voted Greatest Game Hero by GameSpot's users, despite having not been in a new game in two years. The last title to feature the crowbar-wielding physicist was 2007's The Orange Box, which featured Half-Life 2: Episode Two and its two immediate forbearers: 2006's Half-Life 2: Episode One and 2004's Half-Life 2. (The package also included Team Fortress 2 and the award-wining Portal.)

Initially, Half-Life 2's episodes were supposed to allow the developer to release new expansion every several months. It began in June 2006 with Episode One (initially subtitled "Aftermath") and was to end "by Christmas 2007" with Episode Three. However, that scheme was derailed when Valve struck a deal with Electronic Arts to distribute the Orange Box. That compilation arrived in October 2007, and since then, Valve has remained mum on the subject of Episode Three, instead focusing on its wildly popular Left 4 Dead series.

With nary a peep about Episode Three in 2008 or 2009, many were hoping at least some new information about its release--or fate--would arrive this year. Don't count on it, says Game Informer, which claims to have knowledge that the game won't arrive until 2011--at the earliest. "There won't be any game from the franchise in 2010," the GameStop-owned magazine declared, before raising the possibility of the Half-Life 2 series skipping directly to Half-Life 3 in "a few years."
The official story: As of press time, Valve's notoriously recalcitrant PR department had not responded to requests for an update on Episode Three's status.
Bogus or not bogus?: Not bogus that Episode Three isn't coming out in 2010. With Half-Life 2: Episode Two already showing its age in 2007, it's likely that Valve wants to take the time to ensure the next Half-Life title to be graphically competitive. Given the visual caliber of today's first-person shooters, that may require a true sequel with all-new technology.

]

[Cayal]

What is so good about Gordon Freeman? I played Half Life 2 and it was ok, but he has no personality. He doesn't even talk.

[Shadow Trooper]

Originally Posted by Cayal

The wii sold because it is cheap. If the Wii started off at PS3 price, it wouldn't sell. Natal won't sell because a) most have a wii and b) it will be expensive and c) it probably isn't going to work well.

Microsoft are trying to get into the casual gamer arena, which Nintendo already have covered.

Just because an item is cheap, doesn't guarantee successful sales. It has to be worth the price being asked of it.

Even though the PS3 is more expensive, look at the higher quality hardware you get plus the blu-ray. Yet some people obviously don't feel it is worth the price.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not out to bash the PS3; if I were a FPS player I'd buy it in a shot (unfortunately FPS games make me sick, literally!). I'm just saying that the Wii is no more a gimmick than the PS3. Both are great gaming machines to their respective fans.

[Cayal]

You're an (oblivious to technology) parent. Your 10 year old kid wants a console. Wii is $299 PS3 is $499. What are you going to get?

Obesity is the thing the media is throwing down our throat. Wii has Wii Fit. Sold!

It's more smart marketing IMO.

[Winters_Sorrow]

You seem to have a real downer on the Wii, Cayal. Don't know why.

As for gaming getting 'dumber' I think you need to revisit some of those nostalgic memories because there was plenty of awful games for the Commodore and Atari too.

I for one am very happy at the invention of the game save (started off as a code you'd have to write down, then a special save point within a game and now most allow save anytime) and the reduction in "instant death" moments in gaming. I would argue that rather than dumbing down, gaming is growing up!

There is much more diversity in games than there's ever been before and you can sniff at the Wii all you like but it's a great kids/family console. Not every parent wants their 8 year old playing Resident Evil or GTA no matter how much they get pestered to do so and the Wii offers fun games without people's spinal cords being ripped out with chainsaws. How is that a bad thing?

You then go on to bash Microsoft for being stupid enough to try and get more of the casual game market with Natal (and I disagree that Natal = Eyetoy by the way) but I go again to diversity in gaming. There are people who only play "hardcore" games like Gears of War, Call of Duty or FIFA. Fine, there are those games out there. But there's no reason not to make Viva Pinata, Singstar or Wii Fit for people who don't like or want to play those games.

Oh and the Wii was much cheaper because it made a conscious choice not to get into a "our console is more powerful than yours" arguement and instead concentrated on getting some good innovative games (like Mario Galaxy) made instead. And made billions in profit rather than billions in costs as a result.

Which I think means that just because you don't like something doesn't make it rubbish