The Extra Credits thread!! EC is amazing!

[Cyril the Wolf]

Man, am I really one of the only ones who likes Samus' character development on Other M?

Sorry, but Yes.

[BardicKnowledge]

Poor character development in Other M yes, but the over-arching Federation plot development regarding certain events in Fusion was actually very well done.

Show us what happens post-Fusion, Nintendo!

[Koriantor]

Yes...

I'm happy to see that EA actually pays some attention to the VG media. We need more companies to do that in this industry *cough* Activision *cough*.

Note: "Some" attention

Stupid publishers...

[Thalzon]

Man, am I really one of the only ones who likes Samus' character development on Other M?

I certainly wasn't disgusted with it like everyone else seems to be. It was fine, but it's hard to argue that it didn't fly in the face of what we thought Samus's character was.

[The Author]

I certainly wasn't disgusted with it like everyone else seems to be. It was fine, but it's hard to argue that it didn't fly in the face of what we thought Samus's character was.

I stand on my position that the problem with Other M is not as much the game, but WHEN it happened. Put it anywhere between Zero Mission and Super, and ignore the Prime games like the creator does, and you have a solid game. A Tale of a Samus that fought her demons but sees that she can never get free. (But it makes it make more sense if the game is before 2, so that there is the "ok, cloning Metroids was a bad idea, so lets kill them all" type of deal.)

But then again, it throws a curve ball in character development even as it stands. And I think the issue people have is not with the character development, but how the character was developed. Maybe Other M is really the moment Samus realized there would be no victory against Ridley. I mean, she just blew up the god damned planet he was on, after sending him to melt in a pit of Lava, and destroying everyone that would be reviving him, and he's back to life.

I mean, maybe after Super, Samus had decided to retire, put a down payment on a nice cottage in the Retired Bounty Hunter Nebula, was was on her way to finally rest after years of dealing with her childhood fears and facing the Pirates. And damned if Ridley isn't back. And not only that but she had him at her mercy before and did not shoot him. There's a lot more to Other M that isn't outright stated in the game but that makes a whole lot of sense. Hell, people have been dying left and right around Samus, and these people were her friends in the federation. In other games, Samus was pretty much alone, and she never had that rapport with other characters around. So you're telling me that having your friends die on you, and a monster you killed twice (again, Primes are not cannon), come back to kill you, and not only that, you failed to kill him when you had a chance.

Tell me that isn't the least bit traumatizing.

(Also, I find that when people mention they hate the character development, they mean Samus freezing against Ridley. And as for humoring Adam and his directives, it wasn't a serious mission at first, also Adam knew that giving Samus free range would make her quite pissed at the federation, and also there was an assassin on board, and Adam had no way of knowing if it was Samus or not, so granting her with the full use of her weapons would have been making her unstoppable.)

[Malaki-LEGEND.sys]

Let's not revisit the shit storm that was the Metroid Other M thread.

Anyway, what can we sum up from this episode? That yet again, in the mind of the western gamer, if she doesn't look or act JUST like Alyx Vance or some other such character, she's a terribly designed character.

Furthermore, I remain astonished at the "third eye" clairvoyance that the gaming public seems to possess at large in discerning a character out of a robotic husk(Gordan Freeman/Samus Aran).

Maybe Jane Mcgonigal is right and gamers CAN actually save the world.

[JCvgluvr]

I love how supremely and succinctly Extra Credits took down Samus's current, bogus character development, yet exemplified her past, proper character development.

Malaki, the character development is there, you've just go to look for it. (Except for Gordon Freeman. I love the guy, but I think he truly is just a frame of a person that allows for the player to place themselves into the situation.)

[Overflow]

Newest episode it out.

Gonna have to say I disagree. Sure, maybe in the states streaming video games sounds like a good idea, but here in Canada, we're struggling on a law that will cap internet usage and charge extra if you go over. The average limit is around 60GB, but that would surely be lowered. Consider how big the average PS3 game is.

Also, Canada pays nearly twice as much for internet as the states does:

http://thenextweb.com/files/2009/11/2n69no5.jpg(this is probably outdated but it gets my point across.)

I'm sure other members here who also live in the 'great white north' can agree with me on this. Really, claiming that streaming video games is the way of the future is extremely selfish and inconsiderate to people who can't afford high speed internet, or who don't want it.

Personally, we pay about $25 per month for 7.6 mbps with a 70GB cap. What are the prices in the states?

[The Coop]

Personally, I think the idea of streaming a game is unimaginably bad.

It's bad enough that digital downloads don't give you a physical copy of the game. Yes, you can usually burn a file to a disk (though the EA store doesn't appear to let you, going by my free ME2 copy). But they also often require their own special patches to be made for updates, or have some downloading program always installed to be able to play, and other such niggling little things. It's not all bad, but it's not as nice as having the physical disc, manual and all that, installing it, and playing without the need for those downloaders. I mean hell, you pay $50-$60 either way, and you'll be saving it to disk too, so why not get an actual physical object with some niceties, right? But streaming games? You don't even get... well, anything.

With OnLive, you pay anywhere from about $7 to $50 for a "Full PlayPass" for a game. You don't get a game, you just get access to it for as long as they have it available on their service. Let me say that again... for as long as they have it available. That's right, they guarantee they'll keep it for a minimum of three years. After that, at any time, you'll have pissed $50 into the wind and have nothing to show for it. Even the EA Store's better than that, and it's a piss-poor substitute for something like Steam or Impulse.

So what happens when streaming servers go down, or services end? The game's gone, the money you forked out's gone, and so's the game. Then to play it, you then have to hope it was also made available elsewhere via DD or a brick and mortar store (i.e. buy it again). Also, don't streaming games require you to be online to play them? And uh, isn't Ubisoft and others getting a load of shit for their "always online to play" stunt? So no online, no game to play? That's not a good thing. And really, what are ISPs going to think about you burning through GBs of data every time you play for a couple of hours? Anyone else think they'll start creating bandwidth caps like some ISPs in the U.S. are already playing with?

Now don't get me wrong. I like Steam. It's a good set up. Impulse is... all right, but they don't give you the ability to break up a big file into DVD-sized parts like Steam, or offer parallel downloads to get games quicker (though you can delete the downloader and still play legally, unlike Steam). But to me, there is no upside, at all, to streaming video games. It's bad enough that the physical discs are slowly being phased out, yet prices aren't dropping. I like getting something tangible when I pay out cash, but I can at least accept it being just a file to save and download as many times as I want so I can play on or offline whenever I choose. Not even getting that with streaming is just ridiculous to me.

Call me old fashioned, but I like the idea of being able to play the game I paid for 20 years down the road... without having to buy it again.

[Overflow]

In an age of 2 or more Terabites as standard harddrive space, there's no worry of running out of space for downloaded games. Just yesterday morning, my ISP went down for several hours. There's a few hours of no streaming games, and if there's a larger problem with the internet there goes your gaming.

I like downloadable games, because they're cheap and small. I would never pay $50 for a downloadable game when I could get a physical disk that won't be gone in 3 years, a nice box to display, and a manual full of pretty artwork. I'm rarely more offended than when I buy a game and it comes with a Black and White text-only manual. I think The Coop and I are on the same page here.

There's absolutely no insurance with a streaming game. What if the company has to shut down for whatever reason? What if you have to move to or visit some backwater town with no internet? Downloadable games are better, but you still risk losing it all if your hard-drive gets wiped(It could be even worse if your online account is linked to your system ID, like with the Wii and I assume the PS3 and 360.). But I still have all my NES, GameCube, SNES, etc. games and they'll keep working for as long as I maintain them and their systems.

[The Coop]

That's part of what irks me about the downloadable games. They're really not much cheaper. The $20 new games (Torchlight, Serious Sam HD, etc.) are $20 in the stores. Hell, Serious Sam HD was cheaper in stores that carried it when it was still new. The really cheap ones ($9.99 and under) are the only ones where you might be saving, and really, who can say considering a lot of those don't get a physical copy release? They could be $9.99 in the stores as well as just a DVD case with cover art, no manual, and the disc.

[Liontamer]

If you do one for Sony's PSN debacle, I nominate Flexstyle's "Before Everything Happened" to close it.

http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR01996/

Sony-published game for the PS2, and the title is where Sony wish they could be.

[Benjamin Briggs]

Personally, I think the idea of streaming a game is unimaginably bad.

this is why you love the coop.

[Arek the Absolute]

Personally, I think the idea of streaming a game is unimaginably bad.

It's bad enough that digital downloads don't give you a physical copy of the game. Yes, you can usually burn a file to a disk (though the EA store doesn't appear to let you, going by my free ME2 copy). But they also often require their own special patches to be made for updates, or have some downloading program always installed to be able to play, and other such niggling little things. It's not all bad, but it's not as nice as having the physical disc, manual and all that, installing it, and playing without the need for those downloaders. I mean hell, you pay $50-$60 either way, and you'll be saving it to disk too, so why not get an actual physical object with some niceties, right? But streaming games? You don't even get... well, anything.

With OnLive, you pay anywhere from about $7 to $50 for a "Full PlayPass" for a game. You don't get a game, you just get access to it for as long as they have it available on their service. Let me say that again... for as long as they have it available. That's right, they guarantee they'll keep it for a minimum of three years. After that, at any time, you'll have pissed $50 into the wind and have nothing to show for it. Even the EA Store's better than that, and it's a piss-poor substitute for something like Steam or Impulse.

So what happens when streaming servers go down, or services end? The game's gone, the money you forked out's gone, and so's the game. Then to play it, you then have to hope it was also made available elsewhere via DD or a brick and mortar store (i.e. buy it again). Also, don't streaming games require you to be online to play them? And uh, isn't Ubisoft and others getting a load of shit for their "always online to play" stunt? So no online, no game to play? That's not a good thing. And really, what are ISPs going to think about you burning through GBs of data every time you play for a couple of hours? Anyone else think they'll start creating bandwidth caps like some ISPs in the U.S. are already playing with?

Now don't get me wrong. I like Steam. It's a good set up. Impulse is... all right, but they don't give you the ability to break up a big file into DVD-sized parts like Steam, or offer parallel downloads to get games quicker (though you can delete the downloader and still play legally, unlike Steam). But to me, there is no upside, at all, to streaming video games. It's bad enough that the physical discs are slowly being phased out, yet prices aren't dropping. I like getting something tangible when I pay out cash, but I can at least accept it being just a file to save and download as many times as I want so I can play on or offline whenever I choose. Not even getting that with streaming is just ridiculous to me.

Call me old fashioned, but I like the idea of being able to play the game I paid for 20 years down the road... without having to buy it again.

A little late, but I have to say that this post is absolutely right. I agree with everything The Coop says here.

I have always been a fan of physical media. I have always felt uncomfortable purchasing digital media, ever since I started with Xbox Live Arcade.

You hit the nail on the head with this.

[RDX]

You guys are just scared of change. Arcade goers said the same thing about consoles.

(Though I agree with all of you, I like having proof that I own something. I always enjoyed coming home triumphantly with what I knew was going to bring me hours of good times. It just felt nice).

[Top Gun]

That whole thing with streaming uncertainty is why I've never purchased any Virtual Console titles for the family Wii, even though there are a few (like Super Metroid) that I'd really like to. I plan on finally moving out sometime in the next year or so, but when I do, I'm obviously not going to be able to take the family system with me. And because Nintendo made the stupid decision to tie VC/WiiWare games exclusively to the console they're purchased on, I'd have no way of taking them with me. I've thought about buying my own Wii, but at this point, I'll probably just wait until whatever this new HD console is comes out and buy that.

On the other side of the debate, I generally love Steam, and I've bought a number of games through it. And GOG.com is pretty much gaming nirvana. However, I've never purchased any music or movies via digital downloads, and I don't plan on doing so any time soon. I love my massive DVD collection, thank you very much.

[PROTO·DOME]

A little late, but I have to say that this post is absolutely right. I agree with everything The Coop says here.

I have always been a fan of physical media. I have always felt uncomfortable purchasing digital media, ever since I started with Xbox Live Arcade.

You hit the nail on the head with this.

Agreed. It makes cracks and other pirated software more favourable, even if you had every intent on purchasing the product. At least then you outright own the game and can make your own CDs.

[EC2151]

Nice to finally see some love for Knights in the Nightmare. One of the best DS games I've played- lots of fun.

As well, Might and Magic does have a horrendous difficulty curve, but hey at least it's fun.

[sephfire]

So about thirty seconds of our Gamification episode was shown on Al Jazeera today. We weren't credited and it was just their web stream, but still. Cool.

[Brushfire]

So about thirty seconds of our Gamification episode was shown on Al Jazeera today. We weren't credited and it was just their web stream, but still. Cool.

d00d, do you know what time it aired? I can actually watch Al Jazeera at work, and I'd like to see what the story was.

[sephfire]

Here be a link.

[Modus]

The fear of non-physical media issue has always confused the heck out of me. I'm paying for an experience, not a box. I bought a PSPgo because I saw the digital format as a feature. No more switching those stupid discs in and out, and the loudness from the mechanical parts was gone. Even games that have data install spin up every 2 minutes to make sure the disc is still in there.

I guess I have a New Age attitude. I mean, I'm 21 years old, but whatever...

[The Damned]

The fear of non-physical media issue has always confused the heck out of me. I'm paying for an experience, not a box.

That's because until recently, you did pay for a box. Said box had the game physically stored inside it.

Even with the transition to CDs, DVDs and other optical disc formats, you still have a physical medium with the content on it.

The idea of having no physical medium for your game is still new, even with the success of Steam and other services like it. Anyone that was around from the old Atari days to this day will think of a video game as being some sort of object you can hold in your hand. Even younger people that have grown up with streamed or downloaded gaming know that sometimes, games come on discs or little cards or something.

So yeah, it's totally understandable.

[Modus]

Alright, I'm just confused because I'm from the generation that's supposed to be upset. I owned 70-ish N64 cartridges, cherished them, but I'm still inviting this change.

I hope you guys survive this transition. stay strong!

[The Coop]

The fear of non-physical media issue has always confused the heck out of me. I'm paying for an experience, not a box. I bought a PSPgo because I saw the digital format as a feature. No more switching those stupid discs in and out, and the loudness from the mechanical parts was gone. Even games that have data install spin up every 2 minutes to make sure the disc is still in there.

That last part's easily fixed with a "No CD/DVD" patch, which are usually available about a week after a release... sooner for big titles

And it's not fear at all. It's knowing that at some point, the services will be gone or reduced, and the games you paid for will go with them unless you can back them up (ala Steam, Impulse, etc.). Streaming doesn't offer backups of your games, and things like the Wii that tie your downloaded games to a console that can die and take them with it, simply makes no sense to me as a consumer. Something that used to last for decades, now only lasts as long as the company stays in business (OnLive), doesn't drop your game from its list (OnLive), or as long as your system still works (Wii). I don't see an upside to that.

I too pay for an experience. And flipping through a manual, opening up a world map, knowing that the discs I paid for are professional quality (usually), artwork abound on the disc(s), manual and insert... that's all part of the experience for me. And when all those physical goodies go away, yet I'm still paying the same price... that irks me. You save no money realistically with digital downloads, and in ways, you get less for that money, as you have to expend your own resources to make backups and ensure those backups never go bad as the years roll on.

As I said, it's not fear, and I do enjoy Steam. But in truth, it's getting less, while paying the same. $60 for a downloadable game for you to save on your own, or $60 for a hard copy with box, art, discs, manuals, etc. I'll go with the latter every time.