The Shrine

<div style='font: 12pt Modern; text-align: left; '>Well, to fit the PSO requirement, I'll talk a bit about it first...

PSO is just a cheap Diablo 2 clone. They copied all the essential town functions except making it take 5 times as long. Not enough hotkeys means mages suck. I know all of you are Hunewearl and you only need like Resta, Deban, fluids, and your attack stuff, but I'm a Fonewearl and I've more than 6 spells I've like to use since level 5. I can't use Resta as a hotkey because I will DIE in the time it takes me to cast a Resta when I need one. I play this game online but so far the only difference I can imagine online is that instead of having run out of room every 5 seconds I can stay still and cast spells. Woohoo! Unless the Force class ends up like Diablo 1's Sorcerer that can kill stuff by glaring at them, I don't see why I've to put up with this ridiculous handicap. My spells don't do nearly enough damage to justify my lack of HP/defense, and even if they did, I still have to run out of a room every five seconds to get the enemy to return to their spawning spot.

Okay, done with that rant, I asked my professor about the hardware thing and whether it's profitable. He said clearly hardware themselves aren't profitable. And I think that make sense. Technology does NOT improve that fast. The specs on most of the next gen machines is competitive with top of the line PCs, and yes your PSX2 may not be able to word-process for you, but that's still a lot of firepower for something that's really inexpensive. He explains the reason why people make hardware is not that hardware is profitable, but that if you can make enough hardware (or at least the belief. In DC's case, it didn't work that way) you can sell enough games to cover it. Also the cost of the new hardware is really shared by your 3rd party developers. It's true that they're not paying for the console, but they'd definitely be putting their own money in to help their games sell. When you have enough systems and enough games on the market, the system takes care of itself. This is the case of PSX. With such a huge installed base and a huge selection of games, almost any random thing you pump out as a developer, there'll be someone out there that wants it. Conversely, no matter how strange your tastes are as a gamer, chances are some company out there will make a game that you want.

I asked Professor Prag about whether it's good when you've, say, 7 out of top 10 best seller on N64 is from Nintendo and 8 out of 10 best seller on DC from Sega, and he says this is really a bad sign. If one company is consistently selling all the software, it gives less incentive for 3rd party developer to work for you. Both DC and N64 shows signs of weak 3rd party support since their 1st party is so dominant, and PSX is pretty much the exact opposite.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt arial, Modern; text-align: left; '>Great, Don. "Cheap Diablo 2 clone" or not, it's still damned fun...shame you aren't enjoying it (but are you playing online? eh)</div>

<div style='font: 12pt "Times New Roman", Modern; text-align: left; '>I do find the lack of spell space annoying, but the game is fun :) So I can dig it...I just got the 3rd type of lightning..woo baby :)</div>

<div style='font: 14pt "Times New Roman", Modern; text-align: left; '>Yeah, sometimes the simplicity is what makes it great. It *is* a console game, after all.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt Modern; text-align: left; '>I'd like to hear some evidence that your Profesor has for making the claims he does. I've known teachers no matter how smart in certain areas can make assumptions and be wrong just as much as anyone espeically when it's not their area of experteise and it's cleary not his. I don't trust generalized facts or opinions. Anyway, just think about the dominant piece of hardware in the PC market 5 years ago....Pentium 233, Voodoo. This was slightly more powerful as a PSX (of course it was crippled by having a bulky OS running on top of it and companies not being able to take advantage of the power as to alienate lower-end machines and not being able to optomize completly for a specific configuration totally as in console). Now flashfoward to now. We have hardware that is several orders of magnitude more powerful than then and costs roughly the same, you can buy a Pentium 233 for about $30 now when then it proably cost $500 - $1000 back then. But of course when you compare hardware that is made to sell at all costs vs. hardware that is purely for profit it's hard to make comparisons but I think it does tell us something. But your Professor very well may be right, I just like to have some hard evidence to believe in something. Or maybe it varies from console to console. DC was clearly made for price over power (had a damn good balance though...shame) while PSX2 was cleary power over price so it may be true in that case. Who knows.

As for your last paragraph, I think that is pretty true but there was other factors. N64 was crippled by the cartridges and DC was crippled by Sega's past failures and the massive hype the PSX2 was receiving. On N64 from the very beginning Nintendo did not have much 3rd party support (outside of Acclaim and Lucasarts but those 2 had massive sales for their big games) so it's pretty obvious why most top 10 games would be Nintendo. DC did have most top sellers even during launch when lots of 3rd party support was there so I think that it's right that is a bad sign for a hardware manafacturer but defintly a good sign for 3rd party development. Also, Nintendo's previous consoles received the vast majority of 3rd party support. Of course there was no real competition until PSX. Actually, except the Genesis but back then most games were of Japanese origin and we know how that system turned out there. It's really hard to know as we've never had a circumstance of Nintendo and certainly not Sega having healthy competition where the bulk of games come from. Could just be Sony gave companies offers they couldn't refuse, or they just liked the PSX hardware itself, or Nintendo alientated them by the carts and/or policies, or maybe the 3rd parties really were iniimidated. Or most likely it's a little of all those. Price of royalities, hardware difficulty, etc. also play a big key. BTW, Sony didn't exactly have a terrible 1st party support. We can argue over quality or whatever, but their big games sold very well. Of course, it's nothing on par with Nintendo or EA but it wasn't that bad and they probably sold nearly as much if not more software themselves than Sega(of course you have to take into account userbases). Their sports games certainly competed well with EA's at least initially.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt Modern; text-align: left; '>He seems to know more about the hardware situation then either of us and agrees with me. Got any more info on that Crono, like how you know? I've heard something to the effect you said, but can't rememember where. It does seem logical though.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt Modern; text-align: left; '>Instead of running out of the room every five seconds to cast spells, I get to stand still and cast spells while someone else is tanking. Sounds fun...</div>

<div style='font: 9pt arial, Modern; text-align: justify; '>Wuss. Stop playing it, wussy. Do something about it other than bitch and whine. It's time to shit or get off the pot, rock star.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt Modern; text-align: left; '>Since I actually care about the gaming industry evolving, I actually think pretty hard about how to make a game better, and the best way to start is by looking at what didn't work. I love Skies of Arcadia but I still think the combat system can be vastly reworked. I'd write to Sega or whoever made these games except I don't know if anyone important actually reads fan suggestions, or whether they even read English.

I guess people just take criticism on the game they like.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt Arial, Modern; text-align: left; '>It is true what Don said, that software contributes towards most all of the profit on a console system. The games start out as selling for fifty dollars, even though their production cost is much lower (especially in bulk, and with the shitty instruction books and packaging that America stands for most of the time). It's a thankful bonus of being in the compact disc age, especially with a few innovations in that industry since 1994. So in thus, basically what drives a system is powerful and large software sales. And yeah, having multiple third parties with strong software sales is always better than just the first party titles selling well. So there's no denying that this is part of the downfall of Dreamcast and even Nintendo64 to some degree. A million other factors are important as well, obviously.

Cause heck, hardware for a system is almost always gonna lose money for the company. Nowadays, people whine and complain if systems don't start out in the $200 range. If PS2 had done that, it woulda made no sense. But either way, any newer console is gonna hafta offer superb technology at a ridiculously low price. That is where the money loss comes in. The way that the companies make up for this loss, is by selling millions of copies of games for very high prices. However, it's also true what Corak had started in that last thread. By this point in Playstation's life, especially, they are definitely making a small profit from their hardware sales. The Playstation hardware is outdated as hell, and they have found less expensive ways to build every component in there. Along with cheap labor and cheap/mass production houses, they are finally able to make big enough profits from hardware sales (after five years).

Basically, it goes like this. Early system life depends moreso on software pushing. Later life depends on hardware pushing, and bulk sales of cheaper games. And throughout, of course, those millions of gaming executives have to try and maintain a proper balance between the two sides. Software sales can help sustain hardware life, and vice-versa.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt "times new roman", Modern; text-align: left; '>I mean, if you think about it, it's not really that much different from Diablo. And I could point out some critizisms for PSO just like you have. However, I realized while thinking that, I was over analysing the game. You've already analysed the game, before actually getting into it. It's hard to like a game when you're saying to yourself "This game SHOULD suck".

Oh yeah, I just got a charge glaive yesterday, it's awesome. It cost 200 meseta to do it's special attack, but it's special attack is sooo strong!</div>

<div style='font: 10pt Verdana, Tahoma, Modern; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>I thought that stuff about companies not making money off of hardware was common knowledge.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt arial, Modern; text-align: justify; '>You have a penchant for bitching about a game's inadequacies and then playing the shit out of it. I was going with the tried-and-true. So you're NOT still playing it? That surprises me.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt arial, Modern; text-align: left; '>Try finding some decent teammates...or picking a different class. Jesus, you make it sound like you're getting a root canal by playing...</div>

<div style='font: 9pt arial, Modern; text-align: left; '>To be honest, I was thinking the same thing.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt Modern; text-align: left; '>Games don't get better by fans saying how awesome it is. There are very few games that I enjoy that I can't think of anything wrong with it. In fact, most games I enjoy, I can think of a lot of things that's wrong with it.

Of the recent stuff I complained about that I play a lot, I can only think of Diablo 2 and Skies of Arcadia, consider that's the only thing I've played extensively over the past 3 months or so (well, Skies took as long as any typical RPG). Diablo 2, anyone who understands how this game will know how the skill tree balance breaks down completely breaks down at after Normal and if you're not one of the few variants that work, you're pretty much screwed. Add to that due to the AR X 4 bug most people focused a strategy around defense, since that's what worked in Diablo 1, and ended up with basically an unplayable character. One of my friend took a Paladin to level 60 with Defiance only to find that it doesn't work because the high AC gear he got and 20 points in Defiance doesn't even match a Sigon's Guard for defense. There was a huge initial backlash when the balance broke down after normal leaving lots of people with completely useless characters. Eventually, people settled into the known variants of today. Bars WW, Zons Multi, Paladin Hammer or Convert, Necro do whatever (they suck anyway), and Sorc is Ice. I've reason to believe I'm not the only person who thought a Lightning or Fire Sorc should've been every bit as viable as an Ice Sorc, or that Amazons should use Javelins and Spears without simply being an inferior class. Paladins should be able to actually melee, and Barbarians should use something else besides WW.

For Skies, the items you can buy at store is clearly overpowered when they do the same effect as the best spells but uses 0 SP. Still a fun game, but it could've been so much better if you have to plan how much SP to go around so that you can't just SP pump Vyse every turn. It seems to me that the original intent of the game was for you to gauge your SP so you divide them between attacking and recovering, rather than just use crystals forever.

Why don't I start another class? Well, for one, I'm not playing the game at the moment, but even if I am, I don't feel like nuking my 6 hour character to start another one since you can only save one per VMU, and even if I enjoyed the game I'd be hesistant about buying a VMU just to get another character space.

PSO is just a Diablo clone with a dash of EQ, and it is just that, a clone. Sure it'd sell a few copies. Diablo 2 and EQ are kings of online RPG-esque and MMORPGs, so being second-rate compare to them isn't that bad, and probably even profitable, but why settle for an inferior game when you can just play Diablo 2 or EverQuest? I'm interested in hearing how exciting the being a Hunter can be consider there is one attack button with 3 different names on it. Consider the speed you move at in PSO I don't see anything fancy manuever-wise you can do.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt Modern; text-align: left; '>The top selling games on the NES were also games by Nintendo, and the same thing for games on the SNES.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt arial, Modern; text-align: left; '>I'd continue to argue over this, but I'd find my time spent much more enjoyably killing the last boss on Normal difficulty again. Have fun pointing out flaws in your games, Don!</div>

<div style='font: 12pt Modern; text-align: left; '>Have fun with your Diablo 2 clone. I think I'll just play the real thing.

"People who are busy are never too busy to tell you how busy they are."</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "Arial bold", Modern; text-align: left; '>Not to degrade your professor, but this is VERY basic information on the industry. Did he say more that you haven't mentioned yet?</div>

<div style='font: 9pt arial, Modern; text-align: left; '>I've grown tired of Diablo 2. I haven't grown tired of PSO. Just because you think it's a "clone" doesn't mean it's not a fun game, Don.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt "comic sans MS", Modern; text-align: left; '>He asked the question, so his professor answered it. What kind of answer were you expecting?</div>

<div style='font: 12pt Modern; text-align: left; '>That as long as some number of people, perhaps greater than 1, finds something 'fun' that it you can't say why the design sucks?

Whether you find this game fun or not doesn't take away from the fact that this game has some very bad fundamental flaws.

EverQuest and Diablo 2 is still leading their respective flaws despite some fundamental flaws, so just because something is flawed doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable, but the flaws of PSO are clearly greater than the two games it was trying to emulate.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt arial, Modern; text-align: left; '>And are you saying that just because a game has design flaws, it cannot be fun?</div>

<div style='font: 12pt Modern; text-align: left; '>I don't care if you find this game enjoyable. I'm just saying what I feel about the game and what I see as glaring flaws in the game design, which ultimately hinders the playing experience. You're the one unwilling to listen to anything that is contrary to what you believe about this game.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt arial, Modern; text-align: left; '>I'm aware of everything you're saying, Don. I just don't agree with the vast majority of it. Anyway, discussion over.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "Arial bold", Modern; text-align: left; '>Just a little more insight into the business side of gaming, from an economics point of view. This wasn't it</div>

<div style='font: 12pt Modern; text-align: left; '>While the hotkey issue you brought up is definitely legitimate, it really doesn't kill the game. And you act as if Diablo2's hotkey system is so much better. You can store something like 8 hokeys in that game vs 6 in PSO. Yah, those 2 extra hotkeys make all the difference..;)

I'm a Force Newman character and the hotkey restrictions don't really bother me at all. And my mage most definitely does not suck, punk boy. You obviously have never seen me clean out a room damn near by myself with Gibarta and Gifoie. :)

Hotkeys aside, the presentation of this game is better than Diablo2 in every other possible way - better gameplay, better storyline, better graphics, better character interaction, more choices in character types, etc. But that's all my opinion, just as your rant is your opinion. You were pretty negative towards the game before even playing it, so I guess I'm not too suprise -- different strokes for different folks...</div>

<div style='font: 12pt Modern; text-align: left; '>If you have to run outta the room to cast spells, then that only means one thing -- you suck. ;)</div>

<div style='font: 14pt "Times New Roman", Modern; text-align: left; '>Better storyline? Hmm....we must've been playing different games. I certaintly don't consider what I saw at the end an ending.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt arial, Modern; text-align: left; '>I've heard it gets better on Hard and V/hard.</div>

<div style='font: 14pt "Times New Roman", Modern; text-align: left; '><b>Link:</b> <a href="http://dreamcast.ign.com/reviews/13022.html">bleh..</a>

IGN seems to say the opposite.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt arial, Modern; text-align: left; '>Not much better, but better.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt Modern; text-align: left; '>bwah! I didn't say the story was great...merely better than Diablo's...which isn't saying much when you think about it...</div>

<div style='font: italic bold 14pt Modern; text-align: left; '>I had fun with the game...yes....but it was one of those games I had no urge to play again once I beat it once. I finished it a few days ago and I havn't touched it since. I just have no interest to play it again. The online spect was good and I think it was pulled off really well for bheing a console game. but you are right. It is a diablo/everquest clone. Not that tat's a bad thing. but it just wasn't that interesting. When I first picked it up I said wow but after a couple hours I gotbored. But I always finish a game so I finished it and put it a way and I don't think I'll pick it up again anytime soon.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt Modern; text-align: left; '>Their last gambit for a big hit, Legend of Dragoon, didn't do well enough to cover the cost of development, if memory seves me correctly.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt Modern; text-align: left; '>Probably not enoughy to cover the cost, but I was surprised it even sold that many.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt Modern; text-align: left; '>It needed to sell well into the millions to break even though.</div>