Lost Planet has ideas that can be translated to film, but they're generic ideas. I don't have any faith that they'll suddenly get some ideas about how to frame the action. I also think action films benefit from well-written personalities and great villains without being reliant on tired cliches of the genre. I certainly don't see them spending so much money on a relatively obscure franchise.
The 360 model probably works better for the larger populace. Only a small corner of the market is going to pay for all of that, and Microsoft should charge the people who are willing to pay if it means that the people who are not willing to pay can come on board. It's bad for business alienating so many people without a just cause.
That's only a little surprising. It didn't break 100k in Japan, and sales fell off sharply in the US (though they could have picked up in December). It's doing pretty well in the UK, however, and perhaps most of Europe. There wasn't a huge buzz, but it appears to have done just enough in all places in order to reach one million units sold.
Sony picked a horrible time to bring out the most expensive mainstream console ever though. While Nintendo lost their position by playing it too conservatively, they at least were able to turn a profit. Sony overshot everybody and is paying the price.
1Up was perhaps the best of the major videogame sites. I hope that the quality doesn't get eviscerated as they restructure.
With the exception of things like hats, the avatars are almost exactly like Miis. I don't even use the Miis except to churn out celebrities and historical figures, so I might end up creating James Bond and putting a tuxedo on him so that I can use that.
I like the Netflix functionality, but the selection is kind of lacking. There aren't a lot of top tier movies that can be watched. Then again, I like to rent the physical copy so that I can watch the extra content.
It looks like the PS3 is stagnating quite a bit this holiday. It's difficult to tell your consumers to get two jobs in order to afford your product when many people can't even find one. I don't know how much money Microsoft is losing (they're really trying hard to sell the 360 to families), but it's a much more attractive offer. When many companies are trying to trim down, Sony set themselves up bad with this recession.
I'm getting kind of tired of zombie games, but I'm interested in how open ended this game will be. For instance, it will have to be structured so that you can't end your game by destroying something that's imperative. There will have to be a careful balance between what you can and can't destroy. I don't know if it's a valuable concept to follow (not everything about a game has to be realistic), but I'd like to see someone try.
The PS3 launch would have been a better time frame in which to release Haze. Software stands a better chance of being noticed, so it's like putting your products near the window. They took all that time and it ended up being mediocre. Not that a development schedule can magically change, so I'm speaking hypothetically. A greater sin is that it didn't do anything unique. There are enough shooters on the market, and that just means that every new shooter has to stand even taller above the rest. Red Steel might not have been a great game, but it was noticed because it did something unique, and it had the opportunity to receive free press because everybody's treating these launch games like runway models and examining every facet of them. That at least gets people talking. Mostly, however, it just should have been a good game.
So I can understand that Haze hurt a lot and they're trying to regroup. TS4 here is more interesting. I don't know what happens to the IP if Free Radical dissolves. It looks like it's been largely autonomous, as they've gotten different publishers each time. But they may just take time to retool and set off in a different direction. They may figure that they missed TS4's window of opportunity. Whatever they do, I wish them well.
It's incredibly easy with games to take the very same structure and transpose it upon the sequel. I mean you're essentially playing the same formula for twenty or thirty hours, so it's not something that the mind gets tired of easily. I think that there is only so much a developer can do in order to improve upon a formula, however, and so people do get tired of it eventually and want something different. Sales will fall down to earth, and a franchise can be so beaten that the developer has to move on to something else.
Sequels can be better than the original if done correctly. Sonic 2 is one example. But if a game is truly unique, then it's going to be hard to find a sequel in there. I think a sequel can work based on two conditions. 1. It's a continuation and features ideas that didn't make it in the original. 2. It's different in tone and gameplay. If a developer is going to make a strict continuation of a game that felt completely satisfying on its own, then I'd question why they're doing it.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Thingamajig