Geek S**T Generation 2.0

[quote]Pootie Tang wrote:
My question is this… If all the money in the video game industry is made on the software license i.e. the games it self, isn’t Nintendo actually losing money? It is widely known that the Wii is usually put in the corner to gather dust after a couple weeks of use. Shit, I sold mine after a month and a half. Nintendo gets people the general population to buy their system but a casual gamer is going to get bored very quickly and move on to something else.

So how are they making money? There is a chart that shows how poorly Call of Duty 5 is selling on the Wii, in comparison to the PS3 and 360. The Wii sold about 450k when the PS3 and 360 cracked the million mark in almost two to three weeks. Nintendo only has a handful of franchises that are million sellers. They have to be taking a beating on the cost of selling their hardware at such a low price. That’s why they haven’t thought about a price cut since they have come out. I am not impressed by all their hardware sales figures their software figures pales in comparison. Simply put the Wii is a big hype machine, a huge paper weight that doesnt deliver. /rant[/quote]

Only redeeming thing about Wii is the old school games and Super Smash Bros Brawl.

[quote]Pootie Tang wrote:
My question is this… If all the money in the video game industry is made on the software license i.e. the games it self, isn’t Nintendo actually losing money? It is widely known that the Wii is usually put in the corner to gather dust after a couple weeks of use. Shit, I sold mine after a month and a half. Nintendo gets people the general population to buy their system but a casual gamer is going to get bored very quickly and move on to something else.[/quote]

Apparently, Nintendo never lost money on the Wii console itself. They’re still outselling the PS3 + X360 combined every month; even if their “attach rate” (the industry term for how many games+accessories the average owner buys) is low, as long as they can sustain those sales, they’re deep in the black.

On the portable side, the DS is still king by a wide margin. The sheer number of Wiis and DSs out there pretty much garantees that even if on average the Nintendo owner buys less games than the Xbox or Playstation owner, the final total is still in Nintendo’s favor.

When sales number are released each month for games, it’s not unusual to see Nintendo holding 7 or 8 of the top 10 spots.

Call of Duty is not the right game to look at for the Wii. Check out http://www.vgchartz.com/ for this month’s sales. The top 4 spots “World wide” are all Wii titles: Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Mario Kart Wii and Wii Play. Call of Duty finally makes an appearance at #5.

If you look at the full chart ( http://www.vgchartz.com/weekly.php ), Nintendo occupies the next 4 position with Gears Of War 2 managing to clinch #10. The PS3 doesn’t make an appearance until #12. Who do you think is high-fiving themselves at the corporate HQ?

Their hardware is technically old and cheap to produce. They’re not losing money on it and apparently never have. It’s rumored that Microsoft is also not losing money anymore on the X360, even with the recent price cuts. Only Sony is still selling the PS3 at a loss.

If I remember right, there was a report recently that Nintendo was the most profitable Japanese company, with each employee bringing in 1.61 million in profit.

Ah, found it: Nintendo makes more profit per employee than Goldman

So whatever we may think of the Wii and its lack of good games, Nintendo seems to be laughing all the way to the bank. Hell, they’re probably cackling evilly.

Looks like M. Knight has picked his cast for Avatar The Last Air Bender:

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1602757/20090114/story.jhtml?rsspartner=rssyahoo

Jesse Mcarthy??? Really WTF!! Not one asian kid in the whole mix. For a cartoon that is filled with Asian mythology and Asian characters, this is a really suspect move. Pat Morita most be rolling in his grave right now.

[quote]Pootie Tang wrote:
Not one asian kid in the whole mix. For a cartoon that is filled with Asian mythology and Asian characters, this is a really suspect move. Pat Morita most be rolling in his grave right now.

[/quote]

I hate it when they do that. Ang himself is clearly Asian. You would think at least “Uncle” would be (I hope they aren’t cutting that character out).

[quote]Pootie Tang wrote:
Looks like M. Knight has picked his cast for Avatar The Last Air Bender:

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1602757/20090114/story.jhtml?rsspartner=rssyahoo

Jesse Mcarthy??? Really WTF!! Not one asian kid in the whole mix. For a cartoon that is filled with Asian mythology and Asian characters, this is a really suspect move. Pat Morita most be rolling in his grave right now.

[/quote]

I wonder if it was a studio move or M. Knight’s call. Regardless that is irritating as heck…way worse than Justin Chatwin as Goku in the DB movie.

F’ Hollywood.

“There was a huge kind of negotiation that broke down. I don’t know. Maybe I won’t be Nick Fury. Maybe somebody else will be Nick Fury or maybe Nick Fury won’t be in it. There seems to be an economic crisis in the Marvel Comics world so [they’re saying to me], ‘We’re not making that deal.’”

I called Marvel Comics and they gave me a statement that suggested that they still want to see Jackson wearing the eyepatch. “Marvel does not comment on active negotiations,” was the boilerplate repsonse, but there was that emphasis on the word “active” in the voice of the spokesman who phoned me back.

CRAP! Marvel needs to pull it’s head out of their ass before they make one huge mistake.

[quote]Backlash79 wrote:

“There was a huge kind of negotiation that broke down. I don’t know. Maybe I won’t be Nick Fury. Maybe somebody else will be Nick Fury or maybe Nick Fury won’t be in it. There seems to be an economic crisis in the Marvel Comics world so [they’re saying to me], ‘We’re not making that deal.’”

I called Marvel Comics and they gave me a statement that suggested that they still want to see Jackson wearing the eyepatch. “Marvel does not comment on active negotiations,” was the boilerplate repsonse, but there was that emphasis on the word “active” in the voice of the spokesman who phoned me back.

CRAP! Marvel needs to pull it’s head out of their ass before they make one huge mistake.[/quote]

I hope they don’t get retarded. They just started making good movies, but all of this talk of replacing key characters (or outright getting rid of them) is making me wonder if it was a fluke.

I mean as far as Iron Man, I like Don Cheadle, but picturing him in the suit just seems a little off. His last real sci fi flick was that movie about Mars, right?

Samuel Jackson IS that character. In all of the ultimate line of comics, it is clear they fashioned that character after him.

It seems like Marvel are hell-bent on cutting corners.

They did the same thing to Jon Favreau after the success of Iron Man (he asked for a pay rise and they threatened to replace him). I don’t understand why they are quibbling over paying SLJ. It was their decision to interlink the separate movies and go for heavyweight actors.

Surely it must have occurred to them that the Avengers movie was going to be hugely ambitious and massively expensive (The special effects budget alone is going to be astronomical if they are going to do justice to all of the team member’s abilities).

I agree that SLJ is irreplaceable as Nick Fury. They wouldn’t be able to get away with casting someone else.

The latest rumors suggest that Mickey Rourke is playing either Crimson Dynamo or Whiplash (depending on who you believe) and Sam Rockwell is Justin Hammer.

Maybe the powers that be think that they have enough star power and Fury is an unnecessary addition. If it’s not just greed on Marvel’s part, and money really is an issue, then I don’t think that Fury needs anything more than a cameo in Iron Man 2 (but they can’t leave him out either).

He’ll get his moment in the sun with the Avengers movie, and he’s supposed to be getting his own movie (although maybe that has fallen through now).

A Nick Fury movie would definitely be more bankable than Ant Man, especially with SLJ in the role.

[quote]roybot wrote:
It seems like Marvel are hell-bent on cutting corners.

They did the same thing to Jon Favreau after the success of Iron Man (he asked for a pay rise and they threatened to replace him). I don’t understand why they are quibbling over paying SLJ. It was their decision to interlink the separate movies and go for heavyweight actors.

Surely it must have occurred to them that the Avengers movie was going to be hugely ambitious and massively expensive (The special effects budget alone is going to be astronomical if they are going to do justice to all of the team member’s abilities).

I agree that SLJ is irreplaceable as Nick Fury. They wouldn’t be able to get away with casting someone else.

The latest rumors suggest that Mickey Rourke is playing either Crimson Dynamo or Whiplash (depending on who you believe) and Sam Rockwell is Justin Hammer.

Maybe the powers that be think that they have enough star power and Fury is an unnecessary addition. If it’s not just greed on Marvel’s part, and money really is an issue, then I don’t think that Fury needs anything more than a cameo in Iron Man 2 (but they can’t leave him out either).

He’ll get his moment in the sun with the Avengers movie, and he’s supposed to be getting his own movie (although maybe that has fallen through now).

A Nick Fury movie would definitely be more bankable than Ant Man, especially with SLJ in the role.

[/quote]

Marvel has definitely let a few slip through its fingers. It started with Toby McGuire and Topher Grace. Then, it was Ryan Reynolds to play a guy who has no face. Then, it was replacing Terrence Howard… and now this?

And as much as I like the Crimson Dynamo, I want some fucking Mandarin.

[quote]SSC wrote:

Marvel has definitely let a few slip through its fingers. It started with Toby McGuire and Topher Grace. Then, it was Ryan Reynolds to play a guy who has no face. Then, it was replacing Terrence Howard… and now this?

And as much as I like the Crimson Dynamo, I want some fucking Mandarin.[/quote]

Mandarin would be awesome! With Justin Hammer and Crimson Dynamo as the villains, it just seems like a re-tread of the first movie at the moment.

I’ve heard that the second movie will deal with Stark’s alcoholism (which would make sense given Justin Hammer’s involvement). It also would mean that War Machine would probably have quite a lot of screen time.

Jon Favreau said in an interview that he plans to include Mandarin by hinting at his involvement in the first two movies (we’ve already got the ‘ten rings’ terrorist group, which is supposed to be lead by Mandarin), which will lead to a ‘grand reveal’ in the third.

There is a lot of potential in the industrial espionage angle - I’d hope to see Stane and Hammer turn out to be members of The Ten Rings, working to seize control of Stark Industries (and all of its weapons) on behalf of The Mandarin.

When both fail, Mandarin could personally intervene in the third.

Metal Gear Solid 4 was one of the worst games I’ve ever played.

I don’t understand what game reviewers are smoking.

[quote]roybot wrote:
SSC wrote:

Marvel has definitely let a few slip through its fingers. It started with Toby McGuire and Topher Grace. Then, it was Ryan Reynolds to play a guy who has no face. Then, it was replacing Terrence Howard… and now this?

And as much as I like the Crimson Dynamo, I want some fucking Mandarin.

Mandarin would be awesome! With Justin Hammer and Crimson Dynamo as the villains, it just seems like a re-tread of the first movie at the moment.

I’ve heard that the second movie will deal with Stark’s alcoholism (which would make sense given Justin Hammer’s involvement). It also would mean that War Machine would probably have quite a lot of screen time.

Jon Favreau said in an interview that he plans to include Mandarin by hinting at his involvement in the first two movies (we’ve already got the ‘ten rings’ terrorist group, which is supposed to be lead by Mandarin), which will lead to a ‘grand unveil’ in the third.

There is a lot of potential in the industrial espionage angle - I’d hope to see Stane and Hammer turn out to be members of The Ten Rings, working to seize control of Stark Industries (and all of its weapons) on behalf of The Mandarin.

When both fail, Mandarin could personally intervene in the third.

[/quote]

That’s a good theory, especially with the industrial espionage bit. Having Stark reveal his identity at the end of the first movie definitely made it possible to do some fun things with the story along the way.

I also had the same sentiment about the Crimson Dynamo. Yeah, he’s a classic villain and all, but it’s just too similar to the first one.

Should be a bitchin’ movie either way… just enough to tie me over until the Avengers.

[quote]Travacolypse wrote:
Metal Gear Solid 4 was one of the worst games I’ve ever played.

I don’t understand what game reviewers are smoking.[/quote]

I think some reviewers are afraid of saying anything negative about an overhyped game. Maybe they’re afraid a mob of fanboy will track them down and lynch them.

For example, I find Halo 3 single player to be pretty crappy compared to the first two games. Bungie tried to make these large scale battles filled with other soldiers that fight along you, but the AI is some damn moronic that they hinder more than they assist. I haven’t seen that mentioned in any reviews I’ve read. You also spend about half your time driving around in various vehicles. Shit, if I want a driving game, I’ll play a driving game. The tagline was “Finish the fight,” not “Drive around looking for a fight.”

[quote]SSC wrote:
roybot wrote:
It seems like Marvel are hell-bent on cutting corners.

They did the same thing to Jon Favreau after the success of Iron Man (he asked for a pay rise and they threatened to replace him). I don’t understand why they are quibbling over paying SLJ. It was their decision to interlink the separate movies and go for heavyweight actors.

Surely it must have occurred to them that the Avengers movie was going to be hugely ambitious and massively expensive (The special effects budget alone is going to be astronomical if they are going to do justice to all of the team member’s abilities).

I agree that SLJ is irreplaceable as Nick Fury. They wouldn’t be able to get away with casting someone else.

The latest rumors suggest that Mickey Rourke is playing either Crimson Dynamo or Whiplash (depending on who you believe) and Sam Rockwell is Justin Hammer.

Maybe the powers that be think that they have enough star power and Fury is an unnecessary addition. If it’s not just greed on Marvel’s part, and money really is an issue, then I don’t think that Fury needs anything more than a cameo in Iron Man 2 (but they can’t leave him out either).

He’ll get his moment in the sun with the Avengers movie, and he’s supposed to be getting his own movie (although maybe that has fallen through now).

A Nick Fury movie would definitely be more bankable than Ant Man, especially with SLJ in the role.

Marvel has definitely let a few slip through its fingers. It started with Toby McGuire and Topher Grace. Then, it was Ryan Reynolds to play a guy who has no face. Then, it was replacing Terrence Howard… and now this?

And as much as I like the Crimson Dynamo, I want some fucking Mandarin.[/quote]

Um, are we forgetting the Oscar worthy performance of David Hasselhoff as Nick Fury in the made for tv movie?(pretty sure that’s who it was anyway)

[quote]dennis3k wrote:

Um, are we forgetting the Oscar worthy performance of David Hasselhoff as Nick Fury in the made for tv movie?(pretty sure that’s who it was anyway)
[/quote]

Ah yes, “The Hoff”. I was hoping that stinking cadaver of a movie was going to stay dead and buried in the vast graveyard of comic-book adaptations gone wrong.

I wonder which Hollywood suit decided to cast him? “I know -let’s take Mitch Buchanan from Baywatch, slap an eyepatch and a cigar on him, give him a bad case of laryngitis and nobody’ll know the difference”.

That’s not creative casting: it’s taking creative casting, throwing it off a cliff and giving the job to its deformed idiot relative that has been kept locked away in the attic.

I wish these Hollywood execs would bother to read the comic books they are meant to be “adapting”. They could at least look at the pictures.

[quote]Travacolypse wrote:
Metal Gear Solid 4 was one of the worst games I’ve ever played.

I don’t understand what game reviewers are smoking.[/quote]

Did you play or like the previous 3?

[quote]Applesauce wrote:
Travacolypse wrote:
Metal Gear Solid 4 was one of the worst games I’ve ever played.

I don’t understand what game reviewers are smoking.

Did you play or like the previous 3?[/quote]

I read somewhere that at some point, the game has a 45 minutes (yes, 3/4 of an hour) cutscene. Was the reviewer exaggerating?

[quote]pookie wrote:
Applesauce wrote:
Travacolypse wrote:
Metal Gear Solid 4 was one of the worst games I’ve ever played.

I don’t understand what game reviewers are smoking.

Did you play or like the previous 3?

I read somewhere that at some point, the game has a 45 minutes (yes, 3/4 of an hour) cutscene. Was the reviewer exaggerating?
[/quote]

It sure does, at the very end. What do you expect from MGS? If you havet play the first 3 then I could understand not liking the story and thinking the cutscenes are to long. And if you did play the first 3 and didnt like them then why are you playing this one?

Travacolypse what didnt you like about the game?

Personaly I loved the game. I like the story and the long cutscenes. I thought the game play was great b/c you can play it as a stealth game like the first 3 or you can just go through and shoot every thing you see. The Boss fights are all fun and there are alot of cool weapons to find plus you can customize them however you want. Did I say how great the stroy was? I couldnt put it down till I beat it, it ties up every loose end form the first 3 MGS games and leave you guessing till the end.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Applesauce wrote:
Travacolypse wrote:
Metal Gear Solid 4 was one of the worst games I’ve ever played.

I don’t understand what game reviewers are smoking.

Did you play or like the previous 3?

I read somewhere that at some point, the game has a 45 minutes (yes, 3/4 of an hour) cutscene. Was the reviewer exaggerating?
[/quote]

I didn’t time any, but some are rather long. That’s a moot point anyways because you can skip through them. MGS games do cut scenes so well that it didn’t bother me, in fact I enjoyed watching them.

I only ask that question because if you didn’t like any of the previous MGS games, chances are you won’t like part 4. Or that if you haven’t played any before, give it a rent first rather than buying into all the hype. It isn’t much different than the other 3, only a few tweaks to the controls and the obvious jump in visuals.

I liked mgs1 and mgs2. Never played snake eater.

I hated the obscenely long cutscenes. A lot of times during the cutscenes, there’d be something terrific happening and I’d be thinking “yeah, that’d be a fun sequence to play.” Unfortunately, all I got to do was watch. I’ve seen an anime before. I’ve also seen movies. If I want to watch an anime or movie, I’ll do that. If I buy or rent a game, I expect to do more playing than watching.

It seems like they took the sequences of the game that would’ve been the most fun to play through and turned those into cutscenes instead. To the contrary, it seems like they had the most boring parts of the game in as playable sequences. For example, the endless running through empty corridors right before the microwave chamber on outer haven.

I hated the boss battles. The only really satisfying fight in the game was dueling liquid when we both had a metal gear to control. That was fun. Laughing octopus was the best boss character, but the first to get killed. Every boss battle was the same: see boss, boss hides, find boss after a reasonable (or obscenely long time period, like with crying wolf), do some damage, rinse and repeat. The fight against vamp would’ve been incredible, except I only got to half-watch Raiden fight him in split-screen.

Being forced to use infrared/nightvision on the solid eye during certain portions of the game made waiting for a recharge tedious as hell.

Waiting for the alert, then evasion, THEN caution meters to drain if you trigger an alert was irritating. I remember the alert levels dropping faster in previous games.

The AI was horrible. I expected a much more advanced and challenging AI, but the computer just makes insane mistakes all throughout the game. I managed to roll and stab my way through herds of armed soldiers. The fact that the game let me get away with cheesing like that was disappointing. The view range on the enemies was also disappointingly short. When I was in eastern europe shooting soldiers to protect the resistance member, it was insane that they didn’t notice me standing there openly in the middle of the street. I expect more from a next-gen system.

On top of that, a lot of the weapons were needlessly redundant. I finished the game using only the m4 custom (the first rifle), the sniper rifle they give right before fighting crying wolf, and the railgun. However, I picked up about 30 or 40 different guns (and countless special items, of which I used ZERO… the only item I had to use was rations, because I got tired of waiting for his health to recharge). If the game is going to put in tons of weapons and items, I’d like to see more specialized situations where using them is necessary.

Also, they should reward you for using the extra weapons. During the metal gear fight, a friend and I actually found it More difficult if we tried to use all of the metal gear’s weapons to beat the scene. You could just blast through it with the machine gun and it went a lot quicker.

Finally, the game was just plain easy. I picked the second highest difficulty level (because I didn’t want to deal with auto-death on alert like previous games had on highest difficulty). Nothing was particularly challenging except sneaking into outer haven after landing on the deck (and that was only because triggering an alert was basically auto-death). I dropped every boss on the first attempt, including the final boss. I want to earn my hour and a half of cutscenes, not have them handed to me.

That’s all I got off the top of my head, but I’m sure there’s more. :frowning: