Chris

Not really. I haven't used my DS as much as I did a few years ago.

I'm not saying what you're "supposed" to do, I'm saying that a big part of the enjoyment of Rock Band is, quite simply, in a very similar space to the enjoyment of listening to music. That may not be the case for you, but I'm not explaining why you should like it, I'm explaining why other people like it, because that's the thing that, unless I'm misreading you, you yourself say you are incapable of understanding. Jesus Christ. Singing along, even badly, can be fun for a lot of people. When it comes to guitar, you're apparently enormously disdainful of the exacting nature of the input, but when it comes to singing, you're irritated by the lack of stringent judgment? What difficulty singing were you playing on? Perhaps you wish there were a more comfortable medium between the two extremes (and, in fact, I think there is if you adjust the singing levels), but I also suspect you would not be swayed either way. Well in the first half of this quote you seem to see some merit to the drums beyond the exercise, and now you don't, so I have a suspicion you're trying to extrapolate an argument out from a reaction, rather than build an argument empirically. It's fine to just not like the game, but if you're going to knock it on specific points, I'll respond to them; if you're just going to be roundly dismissive, it's not worth it. By this, are you implying you don't understand what somebody would like about karaoke? Because that's the only context in which souls are mentioned in my post.

Based on your post, you presumably then find the entire rhythm game genre to be pointless, I would imagine. Do you also find simply listening to music, which involves no interaction, to be meaningless and empty? Playing rhythm games is, largely, an activity centering around listening to and enjoying music, while also engaging in a relatively accessible suite of interactions, often in a group setting in which all of the players are working towards a shared goal in concert with one another. On the guitar, much of the enjoyment for me is picking out the rhythmic patters of the underlying accompaniment, when usually with pop music people are accustomed to mainly listening to the primary vocal melody. On the drums, the enjoyment is that you are actually playing the drums in pretty much every way, particularly on the highest difficulty levels, and that is obviously an activity that a great number of people find entertaining and rewarding. On the mic, the enjoyment is that you are singing, and if you don't understand what somebody might enjoy about singing, then you might in fact lack a soul. As far as the Beatles game in particular, I don't know what there is to be cynical about for someone who already enjoys the Rock Band formula. Beatles music is fun to listen to, and there's a lot to it from a harmonic standpoint, and Rock Band is already fun, so there you go.

I kind of wish there were more of that stuff in MGS4, and less of the neverending mediocre melodrama. I think Kojima is capable of really cool, interesting design work, but sometimes he seems to just completely fall on his ass. MGS4 was very disappointing to me in that respect--it became such a long, drudging, tedious exercise. I wish he wouldn't let himself get so bogged down in this ridiculous and overbearing twist-filled plot that has built up over the last two decades of Metal Gear games, because wading through all that stuff is getting harder and harder. MGS3 on the other hand I thought was an incredibly fun and clever game--it actually felt fresh and inventive rather than ponderous. Kojima made a few self-deprecating jokes during his keynote, but I hope he actually understands the substance of the criticism for real, and takes it into consideration during his next project.

I think you could make a pretty clear determination that isn't open to a lot of waffling that the "indie spirit" noted in the rules disallows games funded by a major publisher, like Haze. That still leaves the potential for high-budget independently-funded stuff, but it's at least one line.

Very soon! We keep forgetting to end it on the show. Next episode (after the one that's going up in a few minutes).

I played it last week, it works pretty well. Here's my piece on it: http://gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=22875

So that's just the problem? Because if so, that doesn't terrify me, and I don't mind.

The splash screen of a remarkably blatant Tetris ripoff from a casual portal, currently being sued by The Tetris Company.

The final boss is Martin Lawrence from Big Momma's House

Haha, SyFy is already cringe-inducing beyond belief, then "Imagine Greater" just drives home the retarded post-Apple marketing bullshit.

Considering how many games they released, it probably would have been impossible for him to take an active creative role in all of them. Actually running a studio is a pretty full-time job.

Surely, however, the person who wrote and directed a given episode of Afred Hitchcock Presents should be given primary creative credit over its creation. I am pretty confident there were a number of Bullfrog projects over which Molyneux could not be considered the main creative influence. I do think the distinction is pertinent, because I strongly suspect Wright's direct creative influence over the cited games is probably more meaningful than Molyneux's direct creative influence over at least several of the cited games developed by his studio.

What's confusing? Obviously the first Big Daddy wasn't killed by the protagonist in BioShock. He killed a lot of Big Daddies, but clearly not all of them, and he certainly didn't come close to traversing the entirety of Rapture.

My guess is there probably won't be individual full albums' worth of material, although I hope I'm wrong!

I don't know what this means

I'm not sure what you're asking exactly; it's a standalone game.

I disagree!

Probably my single most anticipated game this year. I can't wait.

That was terrible, I had to turn it off 30 seconds in.

Yes, I mean that also--I'm just saying, that if I'm going to feel like I'm "done" with the game after a certain amount of time anyway, I'd like to be done for real, instead of only halfway through it.

To be fair, industry revenues are still rising. But the industry is definitely not poor management-proof.

No, I DO like to complete all the levels. That's why if it's actually a level-based game, I prefer it to be shorter. Some games can't be described as having "levels" in the same sense, though.

However, it may also acclimate you to thinking regularly at all. Frequently during an RTS, I simply forget to actually think strategically, because it's so frantic. I imagine if I paused a lot during a non-versus setting, it would make me accustomed to recognizing various situations and applying some quick tactical thought, instead of just acting in a completely kneejerk, reactionary way to pretty much everything, which is how I currently play most strategy games and how I operate in life.

Well said. This is a more concise version of what I was trying to convey on the podcast in response to the reader comment about me seeming to simultaneously want shorter games and more open games. It's not so much that I can't decide if I want shorter games or more open, simulational games--it's that I like both of those. What I don't like, are huge games that reveal all they meaningfully have to offer long before they actually end, as Jake describes. If a game is going to be a relatively linear, single-player experience that is more about the progression and the pacing and the arc, I very much prefer it to be shorter, even if it's still priced at $50. The reality is I'm only going to play a game like that for a limited number of hours anyway, so I'd rather pay $50 and spend 10 hours completing it than pay $50 and spend 10 hours not completing it. However if a game is actually about mastery of mechanics and exploration and immersion into a world, and if I enjoy those things, I am a lot more likely to spend more time in it -- not deliberately so, it will just work out that way because I enjoy being inside the game. Neither of those is particularly more preferable than the other, I like both. What I don't like is games that are simply long. I like dense, focused games, and I also like open, player-driven games (broad, rather than long); I don't so much like games that are really long.