I'm not a big console person, but I enjoy following the soap opera that is the console wars. Reminds me of the home computer wars when consumers actually had choices. But, anyway. Rumor has it that Microsoft's next incarnation of the Xbox will not be backwards compatible with the current generation because it wouldn't be a selling factor. Also, with radically different hardware, it'd be too difficult--although that's the part that they aren't saying.
I don't have an Xbox, but I always thought the hard drive was a superb idea, and I'll be really sorry to see it go. And as for backwards compatibility, when I got my PS2 that was a selling point to me even though I didn't have a PS1. I realized, hey, look, if there's a game I want in the PS1's huge library, I can still play it. Excellent!
Certainly, historically there is much more justification for MS's decision. The only consoles I recall being compatible were Atari 7800 with the 2600, certainly nothing from the Nintendo/Sega wars.
Monday, June 21, 2004
Sunday, June 20, 2004
Now that summer's here, I've been playing lots of the games I didn't have a chance to during the school year. It's been interesting.
I keep reading that NCAA Football is Electronic Arts' second string game behind Madden. That is so grossly unfair. NCAA rocks. It is reason enough to own a PS2. Heck, if it were out on the PC, I wouldn't even own a PS2 probably. Madden does have the aesthetic edge, but the 2004 version feels sluggish to me in terms of navigating menus and waiting on the field. I used to be OK with the commentary, but it is now just getting on my nerves. Too often, what is said has nothing to do with what's going on the field.
Even though Madden is EA's premiere title, NCAA is where the heart is. You can tell that for the people on that team, it's a labor of love. Ironically, I'm not even a big NCAA football fan, but, for me, it's the best version to play.
I hope, though, that in future versions the same attention will be paid to audio that is paid to the graphics. There has to be a way to get better, more accurate commentary. If Earl Weaver Baseball could handle player names in the '80s, you would think someone would be able to program it now. Speaking of that classic, I learned so much about baseball strategy from playing that game--and it was seamlessly integrated into the gameplay. I still struggle with football strategy after years of playing the various pro and college incarnations from EA. Why is that?
I keep reading that NCAA Football is Electronic Arts' second string game behind Madden. That is so grossly unfair. NCAA rocks. It is reason enough to own a PS2. Heck, if it were out on the PC, I wouldn't even own a PS2 probably. Madden does have the aesthetic edge, but the 2004 version feels sluggish to me in terms of navigating menus and waiting on the field. I used to be OK with the commentary, but it is now just getting on my nerves. Too often, what is said has nothing to do with what's going on the field.
Even though Madden is EA's premiere title, NCAA is where the heart is. You can tell that for the people on that team, it's a labor of love. Ironically, I'm not even a big NCAA football fan, but, for me, it's the best version to play.
I hope, though, that in future versions the same attention will be paid to audio that is paid to the graphics. There has to be a way to get better, more accurate commentary. If Earl Weaver Baseball could handle player names in the '80s, you would think someone would be able to program it now. Speaking of that classic, I learned so much about baseball strategy from playing that game--and it was seamlessly integrated into the gameplay. I still struggle with football strategy after years of playing the various pro and college incarnations from EA. Why is that?
Saturday, April 13, 2002
Rambling is fun. I'm going to try to see how this goes, and if I can keep up my interest. Since I like to see myself type, perhaps it will.
Let's start with the two best games of 2001. In Computer Gaming World Russell Sipe once opined that the original Railroad Tycoon was the game that he always wished he could have made if his talents lie in that direction. Such are my feelings toward Europa Universalis and EU2. I hate both games' instability on my system, but that doesn't undercut the underlying genius of their designs. Fluid boundaries, provinces, strong diplomacy--this is the sort of that I have dreamt of for years. It's not unlike Colonial Conquest updated for the new millennium.
Europa Universalis
Upon my first playing, I was immensely disappointed in Sid Meier's Civilization III; it felt like such a step back from the brilliance of SMAC, and, in many ways, that is precisely what it is. Strategy fans deserve a "Civ 3.5" that combines the two. Despite this, some of the new features are so good, they have sucked me in. The best is the new idea of culture. Other civ's cities occasionally joined your empire in the earlier games, but it was a very very rare occurrence. In Civ 3, it's much more possible. Cultural victories--for me--are much more easily obtainable than others, especially military. I've played the game since it came out, and have yet to have a leader emerge, and I have found the military aspect to be much more difficult than previously. I've waged perhaps one truly successful war in hundreds of hours of playtime. Still, I keep playing.
Civilization III
Finally, a game that was updated in 2001, but has a legacy stretching back to the mid-1990s: the independent Hollywood Mogul. The very epitome of "one more turn" gaming, HM, now up to version 2.5c, places you in the role of upstart movie studio head. Navigating the vagaries of tinseltown to release blockbusters while maintaining your artistic integrity is incredibly addictive.
Hollywood Mogul
Hmm, those aren't bad initial ramblings. Perhaps my creative juices are flowing enough to start typing my master's paper...with any luck.
Let's start with the two best games of 2001. In Computer Gaming World Russell Sipe once opined that the original Railroad Tycoon was the game that he always wished he could have made if his talents lie in that direction. Such are my feelings toward Europa Universalis and EU2. I hate both games' instability on my system, but that doesn't undercut the underlying genius of their designs. Fluid boundaries, provinces, strong diplomacy--this is the sort of that I have dreamt of for years. It's not unlike Colonial Conquest updated for the new millennium.
Europa Universalis
Upon my first playing, I was immensely disappointed in Sid Meier's Civilization III; it felt like such a step back from the brilliance of SMAC, and, in many ways, that is precisely what it is. Strategy fans deserve a "Civ 3.5" that combines the two. Despite this, some of the new features are so good, they have sucked me in. The best is the new idea of culture. Other civ's cities occasionally joined your empire in the earlier games, but it was a very very rare occurrence. In Civ 3, it's much more possible. Cultural victories--for me--are much more easily obtainable than others, especially military. I've played the game since it came out, and have yet to have a leader emerge, and I have found the military aspect to be much more difficult than previously. I've waged perhaps one truly successful war in hundreds of hours of playtime. Still, I keep playing.
Civilization III
Finally, a game that was updated in 2001, but has a legacy stretching back to the mid-1990s: the independent Hollywood Mogul. The very epitome of "one more turn" gaming, HM, now up to version 2.5c, places you in the role of upstart movie studio head. Navigating the vagaries of tinseltown to release blockbusters while maintaining your artistic integrity is incredibly addictive.
Hollywood Mogul
Hmm, those aren't bad initial ramblings. Perhaps my creative juices are flowing enough to start typing my master's paper...with any luck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)