Jake

* Metroid Prime Hunters use of the bottom screen as a map as well as - effectively - a mousepad, and using the top screen to display the game so you arent obscuring your aiming with your thumb or stylus, but can still glance down at the 2nd screen for a realtime map (again without obscuring the main game) is probably the best use I've seen. * new super mario bros again has the main gameplay on the top screen, and uses the touch screen for quick sloppy thumb-based inventory item retrieval while continuing to play. obviously not as extreme as prime, but it was pretty welcome considering how sparse pixel real estate is on the DS screens.

Nobody is paying enough attention to notice that Bush is fucking up. It will be spun so far that it's a non-issue in 2008.

How about "games"

Gotta disagree with you there, Marek. The eyes alone are worth about three hundred.

I'm taking a shot at people who bought an SP? I don't remember doing that. I own an SP, and its one of the best console purchases I've ever made. The micro is pretty clearly aimed at gadget or gameboy nuts or people who don't already own an SP, but pretty much the same audience as the SP I think. I just said the SP doesn't comfortably fit in your pocket, and it doesn't... unless you're wearing cargo pants or something like that. The micro is small enough to just slip in there.

There's always some reason to hate something isn't there?

Of course it's cheaper, and it's a perfectly acceptable size. No really, it's fine.

It's too bad that the PSP is kind of an extended gimmick at this point - "You can take your Platstation with you!" and the DS is the system with a bunch of genuinely fun portable games.... Kind of funny how that turned out though.

The same people who bought a GBA SP. It's a very capable handheld game system that, unlike the DS (and even unlike the SP), can comfortably disappear into the front pocket of a pair of jeans. Also, don't forget that Japan exists. Also, if you saw it in person, you would drop that "(kind of)" from your sentence. It is significantly smaller.

Another Chris article has appeared on Shack, this one a script from a TV pilot starring our favorite wacky industry presidents and vice presidents, Ken Kutaragi, J. Allard, and Satoru Iwata. Thought you might like to know. Also it's pretty good.

It's kind of funny that Christianity has hinged on the fact that the apocalypse/2nd coming will happen "any day now - so get ready!" for nearly 2000 years. Jesus is pretty late. I mean, I imagine when Christianity was newly formed, and maybe you, or your parents, or at worst your Grandparents were alive at the same time Jesus was walking around, the idea of the 2nd coming was pretty fresh, and, you know, kinda plausible when there was a direct connection like that. But holy crap.* * pun unintentional

Is this close enough:

I don't ignore games because they are a license or a kids game. That's a pretty ridiculous stance to take by default. I feel like I miss out on good games because I'm not an informed enough consumer but not because I have a built in bias against looking at licensed or kids games. Back when I was writing for Mixnmojo a lot, people always assumed that the site was by default against Star Wars games, but it wasn't - it was against bad games. The fact that Star Wars games were often bad was enough for most people to just write off the entire license (and enough to make them mindlessly embrace things like the fourth Monkey Island, and things like RTX Red Rock... holy crap... because they weren't the, you know, Star Wars sort of game). It's idiotic.

Fuck off all.

Because it's about thinking? If Walter sees these things as being there - if what's going on in the game reminds him of broader issues, or serves as an analogy in his mind for something more complex than rolling - but that has no bearing on the fact that he really likes that the gameplay is beautifully simple, and that it's hilarious when you run over Grandma, or engulf a city, does that still annoy you? I really don't think that seeing other things in a game makes you like it less (unless like I said earlier, you're going out of your way to do so so that your art student friends think you're deep), and it's weird to me that you're so against it just because it's not something you like to do, or rather it's just not something you do at all.

The guy who made Katamari Damacy gave a talk at GDC about why he made the game. It wasn't a comment on consumerism, but he did have some pretty serious reasons for making the game other than "rolling up things makes me giggle.*" Idealistic artsy-fartsy type reasons that seem to make you get aggrivated for no reason. Yufster you need to calm the fuck down about this. The fact that you're spinning around wildly about this in a way that sounds like you're borderline yelling at Walter about it says more about you than him. There's nothing wrong with seeing things in something like a game or a film that aren't there... I don't even mind taking it where some people might claim is "too far." As long as the interpretation si really something you've genuinely naturally thought up, and isn't something you've forced into your own brain to try and prove to yourself how smart you are, causing you to unconsciously reach down into your pants and start fondling yourself, I think it's perfectly fine. Walter doesn't seem to be arguing this point because he wants to be a pretentious wanker, he seems to actually think about these sorts of things all on his own without worrying how it will reflect on him or who will respect his mind because of it. What the fuck is wrong with that? I don't know why it bothers you so much, but it really shouldn't, because it's got jack shit to do with you or what you think about the game. * Now, "Rolling things up makes me giggle" was of course a part of why he made the game, but that was one piece in a larger reason which was all related back to projects he had made while at art school, his thoughts on the happiness of society, and world peace. Yeah, the happiness of society, and world peace. He was serious too. Are you going to say that he was reading too much into his own game which he made and start yelling at him on a web forum too, or can you just be content with the fact that maybe while he has his own take on the game, he's also perfectly content with people seeing more or less in it than that, and be done with it?

Whoa she's an old lady! Happy birthday!

Man this thread should be titled "are we allowed to think what we want to think about the games we play, or are we supposed to be stupid and just blow everything up: apparently a debate, for some fucking reason."

A sunlamp and at least 3 Atari Lynxes are recommended for proper nurturing of your Remo.

I got a DS and Meteos and it's totally great. I love that it's a puzzle game that basically plays like a huge ballistic assault. Also I played for a while against Chris the other day and it was pretty hardcore (Chris kept blowing it though because after weeks of playing the single player game non-stop he kept concentrating on racking up huge score combos by making his blocks loop up and down, forgetting to send lines over to my side.... anyway that hilarious instinctual response was all that saved me from repeated certain defeat). Yeah, Meteos! Also even though it's not the cool thing to do, I really enjoyed the Myst 5 demo. Yeah, suck it!

Also yes, and what of the graphics plateau that people are whining about. I mean, if that's really the case, isn't that a good thing? Hardware updates are going to be an inevitable factor in keeping up with technology at least for the next like 50 years, I think, so moaning and hand-wringing about that aspect of it will get you nowhere. But I mean, in some ways, I'm sort of glad that this next generation of consoles might basically be the same thing in terms of the visual and atmospheric experiences the hardware is capable of producing. I mean, I dunno. There have been a lot of shitty games and a lot of bullshit marketing and licensed crap this generation but that's inevitable - those have always been there. The thing is, compared to the N64/PS1 generation there were a LOT of really great, fun, well designed games in this last generation, and as has been said a billion times, it's probably because while there was a graphical leap from the PS1 to the PS2, it still wasn't anywhere near as enormous as from the SNES/Genesis to the PS1 - there was a bit of a graphics plateau. You couldn't get away with just saying "Whoa it's in three-dee this time!" with the current generation of consoles because, well, everyone had seen 3D before. Instead, you had two choices: you could either say "Yeah, but mine's got Batman in it this time!" or you could say "Yeah, but this time mine's actually really fun to play!!" I am expecting more development down those two paths more than anything else this time (coupled with more of the mainstream blathering from earlier in this thread, and the possibility of the "It's got Batman in" path forking into "It's got Batman AND it's fun" and "It's got Batman AND, well, it says Batman on the box.") Anyway there are some more undeveloped ramblings you can feel free to rip up if you care enough

I don't think I explained what I meant to say well enough in my first post. What I meant is that though from some points of view not a lot is happening with this generation, whether or not games as a "thing" alter the culture or not, that is very much the aim of console manufacturers this time around - the approach they are taking to building, marketing, and designing games for this generation of systems is different than previous ones. I think MS genuinely expects people to buy music over their Live connection, to pay to add new rims to their car in Midnight Club, to buy multiple faceplates for their system, to treat it like any other piece of consumer electronics even when their girlfriend is around (or possibly especially when she's around?). Whether that is an effect of popular culture directly affecting the games industry like you say or not doesn't necesarilly matter. Peoples goals are different this time around... maybe nothing different will happen, but at least right now console makers don't seem to want more of the same when it comes to who buys games and who does what with their systems. When Rodi says "this generation is irrelevant" he really means "this generation isn't going to go further in the direction I want to see - which is basically a bunch of artists running naked in the field in springtime, with games somehow resulting." It's just a very "me-centric" view of irrelevance. I don't mean to imply that the direction for instance MS is taking with the 360 is one that I want to see either, its just that... stuff is happening. I mean come on. This thread is titled "A generation of irrelevance." Give me a break.

That's possibly true (though it still is a two way street, you're right that it could be very lopsided in one direction), but even then with what you're saying this generation of gaming is going to be relevant at least within the history of gaming (or game console generations) itself.

I don't think this next generation is going to be revolutionary from a game design standpoint (aside from the stifling development costs of huge budget titles yadda yadda), but from a cultural standpoint I think what happens this time around will be very important, or at least kind of interesting. Not irrelevant. I mean with this current generation of consoles things hit in the mainstream pretty hard, but aren't upcoming systems the ones that will allegedly genuinely do that - basically "one in every living room in the country" or whatever? "Everyone plays games." That's kind of huge and hardly irrelevant. I mean it seems like the 360 is 100% built to be "the game console for the mainstream," which is a different attitude than we saw last cycle where there were hints of "mainstream culture" things in the consoles like DVD playback and ripping CD audio, but they were just bonus frills on what was otherwise a generation of consoles still built for existing gamers or people who wanted to get into being a gamer. That's really not going on this time. It's not a complete rehash at all from that point of view. That might not be as much the case with the PS3 and Revolution, (or at least they won't be going about it in the same way as Microsoft...) but who knows really? And the 360 is sort of leading the charge in this generation of consoles. Anyway, I think "irrelevant" is a bit of a ridiculous blanket statement. People like to be brash around here and frown on anything post SNES/Genesis though, which I find pretty hilarious... but anyway, carry on. Games!