Last Seen Blogs
brabrabrakio
未設定
ijobcom
Ijob.com
adgros
Art and Research
werewolfica
i dont know what to put here, but i'm jay
liyacreate
Bleps4Leo
Text
The DS and Wii will never be fully understood because of the ‘casual gamer’ kindergarten explanations written by those who do not understand Blue Ocean strategy or Christenson’s disruption.
0 notes
Text
Multiple solutions puzzles
Garriott explaining part of what inspired Ultima VI's world design stemmed from his frustration with the way puzzle solving in games worked.
His anecdote is lost to me, but it involved a game in the classic adventure style, where players have to pore over a scene, then figure out what the designers expect them do. Let's make one up that's close enough: Imagine you had to get through a locked castle door near which lay a rusted metal box and a sword half-hidden in some bushes. Once you've noticed the sword, you might pick it up, then discover it can pry open the box. And presto, there's the key. Problem solved.
Try anything else, of course, and problem not solved, as in never ever. The box couldn't be kicked or dropped. The sword might as well have been a screwdriver or crowbar. You couldn't knock on the door, or just quit the scene altogether. These things were fixed points along a chain of deductions. You either saw them or you didn't. (And if you didn't, since this was pre-Google, your only recourse was to dial the company's paid tips hotline). Garriott's punchline went something like this: "Why wouldn't you just pick up the sword and hack down the door?"
0 notes
Text
The Wii’s business success is the most misunderstood story in gaming history primarily because no one wants to understand it correctly.
The Wii was designed by Nintendo to ‘grow’ the market because of Japan’s declining population trends. Nintendo had to grow the market because Japan wasn’t making babies.
Japan was also in a recession type environment (now a depression). But the market environment in the US in 2006 was very different. The US population is growing, not shrinking. The US also had a very hot economy going. A ‘growth expanding console’ did good to OK in macro-economic negative or neutral places like Japan, but in a macro-economic positive place like the US it was sold out for three years. The Wii sales slowed down in 2008, right in line with the shift of the macro-economic current.
Will the Switch sell like the Wii? Unless the economy changes, this is unlikely even if the Switch does everything right.
Most likely, I believe Generation Nine will be one of wartime (as wartime tends to follow periods of economic depression). Will the Switch sell during wartime? With its mobility, I’d imagine it should. The issue is that there is no data.
Shigeru Miyamoto has the most experience out of anyone alive in launching game consoles, but none of that experience includes selling game consoles during wartime. In a similar way, Generation 8 is a period of economic depression. The game industry has been spoiled by good macro-economic trends. They are struggling to figure out how to survive in this current climate.
0 notes
Text
I am having problems thinking of a game ported that dramatically sells more than on the system it was originally designed.
I like the Wii U ports because I do not have a Wii U. Nintendo likes the Wii U ports because they are already made games.
But can you imagine if NES games were ported to the SNES when it launched? Man! It would never have worked out!
Imagine if Genesis games were ported to the Saturn when it launched? Knowing Sega who did everything wrong in the business book, they may have already done that.
Did you know that before the Wii came out, people would argue that people bought hardware and not the games? Such lunacy! “PS3 will sell because of Blu-Ray.” So the games don’t matter? “Yeah, Malstrom. The best selling game console will have nothing to do with the games released.” It sounds so laughable today because we are wiser.
People talk about Nintendo’s gimmicks, but what about Sony’s hardware gimmicks? Do we want the game console hardware to do all these non-gaming things? You talk about the cow people had with the Wii’s ‘casual games’ getting non-gamers. At least they were games. Sony and Microsoft were trying to sell their consoles on the basis of their ‘non-gaming’ functions. “HD-DVD!” “Blu-Ray!” That’s non-gaming right there. But the magnificent hardcore do not seem to notice that.
0 notes
Text
VR’s problem is not the software or that the ‘technology isn’t right’. VR’s problem is that it is contrary to Human nature. Human beings are social creatures. VR removing Humans from the world is a terminal flaw. I am not saying Virtual Reality has flaws that will be remedied over time, I am saying the entire thing is doomed and will always be doomed.
0 notes
Text
Making a Video Game as a Team
Radical individualism is making everyone be unable to act as a team.
(...)
You have to be a TEAM, not a collection of individuals. Nintendo knows this. Miyamoto knows this. The purpose is not the developer to have fun, the purpose is for the GAMER to have fun. Developing games is actually very hard, technical work that isn’t fun. As Iwata said, it is the customer who sits on the throne. It is the customer who decides what is quality and what is not quality. The customer can be quite a tyrant too. But if they want the money of the customer, then the customer must sit on that throne.
0 notes
Text
Do you know what hardcore gamers are? They are geeks. They are only given the label of hardcore by marketing departments who want these fools to keep buying their crappy games. Most ‘hardcore’ gamers hate their jobs, hate their existence, and wish to live in ‘Geek Land’ which is what the video games represent to them.
0 notes
Text
We started work on the Wii around the time the GameCube went on sale in 2001. [Internally, the Wii had the codename “Revolution.”] We started with the idea that we wanted to come up with a unique game interface. The consensus was that power isn’t everything for a console. Too many powerful consoles can’t coexist. It’s like having only ferocious dinosaurs. They might fight and hasten their own extinction.
0 notes
Text
The Xbox being a defensive strategy against Sony is also revealed in that Microsoft never created a handheld game console. Why should they? Sony was no threat to Microsoft in that space. Nintendo’s Gameboys were never a threat to Microsoft.
0 notes
Text
Microsoft didn’t make a game console because “Oh gosh, darn, the technology has arrived!” They did it because they needed to prevent Sony from taking game developers off of the PC and using Sony’s software architecture. Xbox is, and has been, always a defensive strategy. With Xbox 360, remember how that was going to do HD-DVD and everything else the PlayStation 3 was in regards of ‘taking over the living room’?
0 notes
Text
VR bubble
VR is an overrated bubble. Most companies parade it around because they have nothing more groundbreaking to put forward.
0 notes
Text
"These younger game creators, they want to be recognised," he believes. "They want to tell stories that will touch people's hearts. And while I understand that desire, the trend worries me. It should be the experience, that is touching. What I strive for is to make the person playing the game the director. All I do is help them feel that, by playing, they're creating something that only they could create.
"When you play a game, one moment you're just controlling it and then suddenly you feel you're in its world. And that's something you cannot experience through film or literature. It's a completely unique experience."
0 notes
Text
I find that hardcore gamers are those who do not have much money or real world status. It is why they are trying to get status in a virtual environment.
I respect the guy in the basement playing Pac-Man forever to get the super-duper high score, but let’s not kid ourselves. These are video games, not status vehicles.
The hardcore gamer is the equivalent of the female attention whore on Social Media. It is the desire of status, of celebrity, of trying to find value in non-value.
0 notes
Text
Fallacies Through The Generations
Within every generation of gaming, a business myth is created, catches hold, and becomes insanely believed by gamers and even some publishers. Let us go through the list:
Generation One (Pong Era)
MYTH: The beginning of the business of personal computers and video-games are entirely separate.
(History on computing has whitewashed gaming out. Steve Wozniak admitted that the Apple II was designed mostly as a gaming machine. And how many young people did “Space War” and other games inspire to start programming in their youth?)
Generation Two (Atari Era)
MYTH: Video-games are a fad and would always crash. The future of gaming will forever be on the PC. Soon, the PC will take over every digital function in the household.
(The NES of the third generation would shatter this myth completely. Using a processor from the 70s, the NES showed that not only does the console market lives, the NES destroyed the dream that PCs would be the nexus of everything digital.)
Generation Three (8-bit Era)
MYTH: Nintendo persecuted and kept third parties down under an iron boot of draconian licensing, manufactured shortages, and uncanny censorship of brilliant tortured artists and their masterpiece games.
(Nintendo's approach to third parties was to insure that the Atari Crash would not happen again as their business model became copied with every other console maker onward. Keep in mind, at the time, every analyst and journalist kept predicting doom and crash for Nintendo up to 1992. The simple sprite changes for religious symbols or anything that could be interpreted as racist was self-regulation in a hostile political environment. There was no ratings system at that time.)
Generation Four (16-bit Era)
MYTH: The "Console War" between Sega and Nintendo was the best thing since sliced bread. Such competition created the best games! Oh, why can't we have more console wars! They are so good for gamers and the business!
(The "Console War" was the worst thing ever for the industry and gamers. Instead of focusing on growing the market, as Nintendo was determined to in the 8-bit generation, the company began to lose its way inside the Red Ocean. The 'competition' resulted in crass advertising campaigns and games that mimicked one another. It was horrible for gamers as Sega threw silly hardware onto the market from Sega CD to 32x. The "Console War" mentality would, in time, destroy Sega and cripple Nintendo allowing an opening for newcomer Sony to take the market.
Luckily, the "16-bit Console War is awesome" myth appears to be dying this generation due to Nintendo's 'non-competitive' approach.)
Generation Five (3d Era)
MYTH: Nintendo lost to Sony because the N64 used cartridges and not CDs.
(Obviously, licensing issues and third party relations went way beyond the nature of the Saturn had CDs so why didn't they prosper? It is because third parties were looking to escape Nintendo's heavy licensing and thought Sega was the salvation with its Genesis. But Sega wanted to BE Nintendo and had similar licensing. Sony carefully watched the third party companies jump back and forth and Nintendo and Sega go at each other.
The N64 failing had more to do with Nintendo's change of direction during the '16-bit war' everyone so mistakenly loves and failure to update their business practices after the crash-solutions from the 8-bit era.
The DS surpassed the PSP in both sales and third party support with DS using cartridges and PSP using discs. The point is that the problem was deeper than the surface nature of the format.
Generation Six (Cinematic Era)
MYTH: PS2 sold so much because it was also a DVD player!
(Early adopters and some poor gamers might have bought the PS2 also for its DVD capacity, but PS2 succeeded because of its game library. It was also at a mass market price.
Ironically, Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo bought into the myth that PS2 did well because it was a DVD player. Nintendo made a DVD playing Gamecube (that went nowhere). Xbox playing DVDs did not skyrocket the system. Sony so believed in this myth that it made the PSP play UMDs (which died on the market) and PS3 to play Blu-Ray discs (which are going nowhere in the market).
Happily, this myth appears to be dying this generation.
Generation Seven (Disruption Era)
MYTH: Nintendo's rise to heaven is because of casual gamers instead of focusing on the hardcore.
(Like previous myths, this one is spreading like wildfire and becoming cemented in the minds of gamers, the media, and some third party companies. So how did this myth get started?
With Nintendo saying they are not 'competing' with the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 this generation but are focused on 'growing the market', everyone interpreted this to mean Nintendo to ignore the hardcore and focus on 'casual gamers' (under the impression the game market has been casual-less and hardcore centric). This myth comes from people being enchanted with the metaphor of the "Blue Ocean Strategy" of avoiding blood-soaked red oceans for blue-oceans where there is no competition.
As Iwata has said repeatedly, Nintendo is competing againstdisinterest. Who has disinterest? Disinterest can be found in those who have never played a game, former gamers, and even hardcore gamers. Iwata then says hardcore gamers are the main priority because if they become disinterested, their best customers are gone.
0 notes
Text
I think gaming has a crisis in that so many game developers today have grown up with video games. Instead of having novel experiences with life to share and color their game making, their lives are nothing but earlier game playing. It might explain why everything feels so samey.
0 notes
Text
Vestibulo-ocular reflex is the mechanism that allows a person’s gaze to remain fixed on an object even as the person’s head moves or changes orientation. This reflex is controlled by only three neurons; as such, it’s extremely fast, smooth, and efficient.
Saccades are small, jerk-like movements of the eye, categorized into several sub-types:
- Visually Guided Saccades, where the eye follows a visual object, either reflexively because a new object enters peripheral vision, predictively because the brain is anticipating where to look next, or via scanning when the brain is examining an environment visually.
- Antisaccades, where the eye avoids a visual object.
- Microsaccades, where the eye flitters about in a seemingly random fashion, usually during prolonged, focused gazes, to allow the brain to “refresh” it’s image of the peripheral environment.
Smooth Pursuit, where the eye tracks a fast-moving visual object more smoothly and quickly (90 – 150 ms) than via visually guided saccades (200 – 250 ms). Can occur as a result of: spatial attention, following stimuli from peripheral gaze; and in absence of a visual target.
0 notes
Link
0 notes