zircon

Well, opinions are opinions I guess. But Allstars to me and everyone who I regularly game with is a clearly better game than Mario Kart Wii, the latest console MK game. The control is amazing with no motion control gimmicks. It's SO fluid. The racing mechanics with drifting and tricks feel really good and emphasize skill. The items are a lot of fun without being dirt cheap like the blue shell or bullet bill, which are literally mindless and take no skill to use. Even the bee swarm (which only affects the lead player) can be dodged if you're good. Also, the graphics are a big step up - very smooth and crisp - and it runs beautifully on PC. Plus there are so many great gameplay modes, battling, unique characters... it's just a lot of fun. Basically I'm hoping they take that same level of improvement and polish to Lost World.

G-Mixer: There's no need to get antagonistic and tell anyone to "shut up". Consider this a warning. At the end of the day, there are a bunch of people in this thread who are just expressing the opinion that games such as 3D Land are OK, but not on the same level (gameplay, graphics, music, innovation, etc.) as titles like Super Mario Galaxy, and we want to see another game like *that*. I don't know why people find this offensive and seem to literally get angry about it. It relates to the WiiU because some people - myself included - would consider such a game to be a major selling point for the system as a whole, and so we're eagerly awaiting news on that front.

Well, Brandon's right that the development times are certainly longer than they were before. The NES, SNES and PS1 Final Fantasy games all had much shorter development cycles... but I think that is just because modern AAA development is really time-consuming across the board, especially when you're rolling your own engine.

Looks amazing. I'm legitimately psyched. It would be funny if this came out and a good 3D Mario didn't... we've already seen Sonic Allstars Racing clobber the more recent Mario Kart games in quality. Imagine if Sonic became the premium franchise.

Again to me it's more that each system has had a Mario game that added new innovations and pushed the system, adding brand new features and gameplay ideas. * Super Mario Bros 3 on the NES had a somewhat non-linear map system, drastically longer gameplay, tons of secrets, many boss fights, and an item system. * Super Mario World added more control and movement types for Mario, an even more expanded map system, savegames... * Mario 64 - first 3D mario, totally new paradigm for all platformers. * Sunshine - Major new gameplay element, enhanced graphics (of course), brand-new world... * Galaxy - Tons of new mechanics and innovation across the board, gorgeous orchestrated music, too many new features to count. NSMB, Mario 3D Land, etc., are more like retro throwbacks. Yes, they're new games and not remakes or ports, but they look and feel very 'familiar' as they are grounded in existing gameplay and don't take any major new risks or change core gameplay much. Whereas SMB3 -> World -> Mario64 -> Sunshine -> Galaxy all brought lots of serious innovation to the table. That's what I think MANY people besides me are expecting and hoping for in a future Mario game.

There are live solo strings from Jeff Ball and AeroZ but most of it is sampled

Well, I think that's why Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2 were more captivating. If you compare the tone of those games to, say, NSMB Wii, the former is certainly still playable by a wide audience, but the gameplay and the presentation is IMO more mature and doesn't quite feel like it's only made for kids. The storybook in SMG1 could make a grown man cry, the music is absolutely stunning (Gusty Garden anyone?!), the levels are enormous and the difficulty is pretty significant. That's why I'm really looking forward to a true successor to those games. IMO - Super Mario Bros 3 was the king and the best Mario title on the NES. Super Mario World was brilliant for the SNES. Mario64 on the N64. Sunshine on the GC, and SMG1/2 for Wii. I don't put this new Mario 3D Land game on the same level as those games.

Yep that has been the plan since the start.

Indeed most of those games are not exciting to me. * Not interested in Pikmin * Not interested in Bayonetta 2 * Not interested in Wonderful 101 * Not a fan of Wind Waker * Skeptical about Mario Kart 8 as I hated the recent iterations and much preferred the recent Sonic Allstars racing games * Excited for Smash Bros but it's a long way away, and so no reason for me to buy the console now * Kind of interested in DKC: Tropical Freeze but 2D platformers don't hold my attention as much anymore * Mixed feelings about Super Mario 3D World. I'd like to see it in action. I was not a fan of NSMB Wii and I don't really want more samey gameplay like that. SM Galaxy was on a whole different level. * Never played Xenoblade 1, not really interested in JRPGs * Not interested in Super Luigi U for the reasons stated above I LOVED Skyward Sword, and I LOVED Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2. Those games were worth the price of admission on the Wii. I also have high hopes for a new Metroid that will return to the older style of gameplay like Zero Mission for example. And I'm sure the new Smash will be cool. But none of these are available or anywhere close so I have 0 reason to even consider a WiiU for awhile.

No new 'true' 3D mario (i.e. Galaxy), no new Zelda, no new Metroid, Smash Bros not coming out for awhile...

I was also disappointed to not see a followup to Galaxy. Even though it sold less than NSMB, Galaxy is IMO a work of art and one of the most brilliantly designed Mario games ever. NSMB to me feels... tired. Within a few hours of getting it, I just felt like I had done it before. Even with Galaxy 2, which I look at as basically DLC for Galaxy1, it felt extremely fresh with the mechanics and level design. I'm definitely holding off on a WiiU until, at the very least, new Zelda + a new Mario game of the scale/scope of Galaxy.

Yes. If someone doesn't want to buy it, it won't be because it's "anti-consumer", or on any kind of principle, it's because it will personally inconvenience them, decrease value, make for a worse experience, etc. Again people are motivated by their own needs.

I'm not a "supposed" business owner. I make 100% of my income from my businesses. Yes, consumers are value-conscious, because it benefits them. My point is that consumers care about what benefits a product has for them. There's a reason why marketing 101 teaches to "sell the sizzle, not the steak", and there's a reason why so many commercials for seemingly-mundane products focus on the 'experience' that you will get from them. People don't care that Xbox One has 8gb of RAM and however many cores, they care about the gaming experience they'll get. They don't care about online connectivity and "the cloud", they care about how that will make it more fun for them. The opposite is of course true as well, if something would make the console LESS fun or a worse experience for them, they will respond by not buying it. If you don't want to believe me, that's fine, but this is how the world works. These are basic immutable business and marketing principles that are understood and accepted by basically anyone selling products. Why do you think boycotts are so very rarely effective? How do you think companies like Electronic Arts can make so much money and be so successful despite the perception among gamers that they're the worst company in America? It's because at the end of the day, they're still offering products that tons of people want to buy, at prices that people can afford, and which provide benefits that people want to enjoy.

If only a tiny percentage of people got to inferno, and those people had fun, then why wouldn't they buy the expansion? And again either way, the point is that the game was very successful despite the fact that it's online-only. That reinforces my point - vocal gamers represent a tiny tiny minority. There are lots of people still playing D3. The latest patches are actually pretty amazing.

It's possible, only time will tell. On a side note, Diablo 3 was reviewed fairly well and again I think only a minority of people were very negative about it. I'm sure the expansion will be a very big success.

I think you misread, SC4 was the one that sold about 200-300k (apparently). The new Sim City sold over a million. I think the gamer outrage was again dwarfed by the general population.

I'm skeptical that SimCity's online requirement was the cause of lower-than-expected sales. I think it's that the SimCity series isn't exactly a hot seller. Though there was no one official source, when I googled "SimCity 4 sales" I found figures ranging from 200k to 300k. Even if we triple or quadruple that it's still not gonna be anywhere near Call of Duty numbers.

Here's the thing about consumers and the products they buy. Take this from a business owner... people only care about something insomuch as it affects them. That is not to say everyone is SELFISH. You might be against "anti-consumer" products because you as a person value that cause, and it makes you feel good to support it. However, most people really don't care about this stuff. People on forums like this, or even larger sites like Reddit, are not at all a good representation of the majority of America. Most people do not buy (or not buy) things 'on principle', but rather because it fulfills a need. The Xbox One is a home entertainment device for the living room, obviously focused on games. People will buy it despite all the other issues if it fulfills that need. It's like how there was so much outrage about Diablo 3 always requiring an internet connection. You would think that it would do terribly based on how many people online said they would never support it, and yet, it was a record seller. Likewise, all the people that rail against DLC are dwarfed by the people that buy DLC because it gives them enjoyment.

I dunno. I really prefer the PS3's MUCH cleaner UI to the 360's bloated, ad-infested UI that is constantly shoving content in your face that you don't want to see. The PS3 is so smooth and minimal, and it feels about twice as responsive to me. Also I think you're way off about PSN. Let's compare. In order to do just about anything with the 360 - play games online, watch Netflix, etc - you need to pay a monthly fee. Right off the bat, PSN has an advantage. It's free (and PS3 has built in wi-fi) and you can do all that stuff without paying. Playstation Plus is leagues ahead in terms of what you get. It's about the same price but you get tons of free games and major discounts. If anything, PSPlus is the perfect example of what a subscription service should do - give you tremendous value in the form of games, games, and more games.

Let's not exaggerate here... Final Fantasy 14 was a failure, yes. But FF13 was quite successful overall. 6.6 million copies sold as of Jan 2013 and Metacritic rankings of 83. The reception was MUCH warmer than some of you are giving it credit for. FF14 was the one that really bombed.

Anything with the words "music" and "business" gets my attention immediately I do think we need to have more courtesy for people coming to the site looking for music. Everyone needs to remember that many people coming here with projects in mind are young, or students, or hobbyists, or some combination of these things. I remember my first gig as a high school student paid $40 for 4 songs. My next one was maybe $80-100 for 2. A year later or so I got paid $150 for a 60 second cue. Just because you start out charging very little doesn't lock you in to that rate, as long as you consider the scope of the projects you're working on. $80-100 for a Newgrounds flash game is fine, but for a major commercial release, maybe not. Here's another personal example. For 6 months I've been working with an awesome dude (Clandesdyne) who first popped into #ocremix looking for some music. I'm honestly not sure anyone really listened to him or took him seriously but I shot him a message, asked about his projects, etc. Turns out he's done some high profile work and now we've collaborated on multiple projects together. I feel well-compensated for my time and I'm having a lot of fun with it. You have to remember that a great connection or work relationship can come from anyone, anywhere. I think the cases where you need to hold your ground are with the bigger commercial projects. If someone is Kickstarting a $50k game and they only want to pay $100, I think that's wrong for anyone to take. Basically, if they HAVE a budget, you want to get your fair share. In cases where they can't pay much upfront, I suggest rather than working for a relatively low amount, ask for royalties. This is a no-brainer for almost all indie game projects.

Right, and isn't that a good reason for modern consoles to incorporate MORE than just games? Since modern AAA games are getting so ridiculously expensive to make, it's not reasonable to base your whole console around them. The idea of having lots of extra features is a great selling point. I think that's a major reason for the continued shift we've been seeing.

It's not censorship to talk about things and use freedom of speech to persuade others. Blackface was never outlawed. Neither were racist depictions of Asians from World War II. But they've gone away thanks to changing cultural attitudes. That's not censorship at all. Do you think entertainment creators should have continued to use one-dimensional racist caricatures and stereotypes in popular media? Do you think we're somehow worse off now that those things have generally gone away? Same situation here. Yep, that's true. I think we could do with less extremely violent games as well. Many of my favorite games are M-rated but I think some games cross the line of good taste.. for example I've found the more recent Mortal Kombat games to be too gruesome. I don't think extreme violence and gore for the sake of it does anything for games as an art form either, though of course some games do have brutality in a context where it makes sense. But anyway, this is a thread about tropes vs. women in games, not tropes vs. violence in games, hence why I'm talking about the former.

Maybe you misunderstood the point of it...? Not sure what's funny about it. I'll explain and rephrase though in case it wasn't clear, since there were two elements to it. Anytime we try to come up with solutions to problems, we have to consider risk vs. reward. Sometimes, the solution is too risky - either because of unintended consequences, or the foreseeable consequences if it does not work - and not worth the payoff. I was saying that in medicine, almost ALL drugs and treatments carry some level of risk, which ranges from minor to fatal. But even despite these sometimes extreme risks, the reward (curing some kind of ailment) is often considered worth it. So just because risk exists doesn't itself mean we shouldn't try a particular solution. The other element is the use of quantifiable, peer-reviewed, scientific data to support a proposed solution to a problem. Dave's point throughout this thread has been that there isn't enough scientific evidence to support some of the assertions that have been thrown around regarding games, sexism, etc etc. My point was that even in medicine, which is driven by scientific data, we often try things that haven't been 100% completely and thoroughly studied, or that we don't even fully understand, because the REWARD is worthwhile. The tie-in with my original point was that I think there is *enough* evidence to support a very low-risk proposition like "developers could try developing games with less senseless sexual violence and brutality against women", or "gamers could try not supporting such games". The risk is very low - at worst, nothing happens, but nobody gets hurt. The reward is potentially great, because if games really have contributed to negative attitudes over the long-term, then perhaps the trend will reverse to some degree.

The reason I posted a handful of studies as an example was to show there is, in fact, hard data showing that the media we consume does have a psychological and physiological effect. Perhaps not a huge effect, perhaps only short term, or perhaps significant & long-term. As with almost anything else, more research needs to be done (and is getting done right now.) The thing is, you don't need perfect and complete data (which rarely exists) to start drawing conclusions from research and even taking action. There's an element of risk vs. reward involved which is what I was alluding to earlier. In the field of medicine, a new drug (with some research behind it, but not a huge amount) might be able to save lives - but side effects could be serious, or fatal. Not uncommon, but nonetheless we usually accept that risk. So, if consumers choose to play fewer games with mindless sexual degradation, brutal violence against women, etc., and game developers choose to make fewer games, the REWARD in a best case scenario (i.e. we ARE influenced by these things significantly) is that over time our average cultural attitude improves and has a meaningful impact on crime and discrimination. What's the worst case scenario? What, or where, is the risk? Again, there's no coercion here - nobody is suggesting anything like that. Furthermore, you keep talking about third-wave feminism and how it is focusing on actionable issues. Great. How is that mutually exclusive to what we're talking about here? Admittedly I was fuzzy on the exact definition of "third-wave feminism" and read on Wikipedia some of the elements. Much of it seemed to be focused on changing cultural attitudes not through legal means but simple persuasion, writing, expression, etc. It sounds an awful lot like we've been discussing - striving to change cultural attitudes, not through new laws and regulations, but through free speech. Regarding second vs. third-wave... I'm not an expert, I've never taken any classes on the subject, and I was only vaguely familiar with the terms until this thread. But I did take history classes, and I seem to remember a lot of the significant victories for women coming out of the 60s, which evidently was when the second-wave movement started. Things like the equal pay act of 1963, more acceptance for women in 'serious' fields (or working at all, vs. being stay-at-home mothers), the civil rights act, Roe v. Wade, etc. All of that, according to Wikipedia, falls under "second-wave feminism".