StarDestroyer.Net BBS

To those who like SSB: Do you like playing a game with numerous Pokemon?

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Meh, fuck that, it's more of the same Sonic Adventure jazz.

More looking forward to this, since it's more of a back-to-roots kind of thing.

I just read the Wiki article. It looks like it will kick ass. The Wii-mote is such a great thing.

JLTucker wrote:To those who like SSB: Do you like playing a game with numerous Pokemon?

Who doesn't enjoy beating Pokemon around the face?

Xisiqomelir wrote:I personally have no problem, but there exists a significant minority that seems to think that it is somehow infantile or emasculating to play such a game. These people missed out on Star Fox 64 because it had animals, and missed out on Zelda games because they hate elves.

I almost missed out on Smash Bros. because of that attitude. The playstyle seemed so kiddie and unrealistic (bouncing around? where's the life meter?), and it had Pokemon? And the commercials? "So happy together?" Yeah, the game had "lame" written all over it as far as I was concerned.

So a friend made me play it on the N64 with 4 players. "Well, I can at least be Link. Link rocks." And then I had the most fun playing a fighting game, ever. (Even though I was owned by Pikachu.) So then I was hooked and am eagerly awaiting the Wii version.

And, for the record, I liked Star Fox and the Zelda games well before playing Smash Bros.

JLTucker wrote:To those who like SSB: Do you like playing a game with numerous Pokemon?

Truth be told, I've never understood the Pokémon haters. If they just don't like the gameplay, that's fair enough. There's certainly enough flaws in it that the fans are more than prepared to acknowledge. But those who are so utterly against it because of its "kiddy" image, when they've never even played it? The setting can reduce a person's enjoyment of a game, depending on the genre of game it is, but if you've never even tried the game, how can a person actually know if it's fun or not?

JLTucker wrote:To those who like SSB: Do you like playing a game with numerous Pokemon?

Do not think of them as Pokémon. Think of them as mutated freaks that shit lightning bolts

Archaic` wrote:

JLTucker wrote:To those who like SSB: Do you like playing a game with numerous Pokemon?

Truth be told, I've never understood the Pokémon haters. If they just don't like the gameplay, that's fair enough. There's certainly enough flaws in it that the fans are more than prepared to acknowledge. But those who are so utterly against it because of its "kiddy" image, when they've never even played it? The setting can reduce a person's enjoyment of a game, depending on the genre of game it is, but if you've never even tried the game, how can a person actually know if it's fun or not?

Because they're most likely rabid fanboys that can't be assed to so much as give it a try under the impression that it somehow makes them less hardcore?

That's got to be the worst criticism of a game today, and I've read the 'zomg lamecube 1.5' thread.

I guess it doesn't matter how awesome the 4P action is, it's got Pokemon in it! I mean, you brain people in the face with the ball at they get owned by some crazy animal... but it's Pokemon, so don't ever play the game or you'll catch gay!

You know, it certainly doesn't help when you end up on a fucking huge winning streak at SSB or SSBM, while playing as Jigglypuff. Usually their rabid hatred gets worse when their character gets sent flying out of the arena.

Ironically, I lost interest in Pokemon back in Jr. High, when it was in the mainstream popular culture.

Archaic` wrote:

JLTucker wrote:To those who like SSB: Do you like playing a game with numerous Pokemon?

Truth be told, I've never understood the Pokémon haters. If they just don't like the gameplay, that's fair enough. There's certainly enough flaws in it that the fans are more than prepared to acknowledge. But those who are so utterly against it because of its "kiddy" image, when they've never even played it? The setting can reduce a person's enjoyment of a game, depending on the genre of game it is, but if you've never even tried the game, how can a person actually know if it's fun or not?

They are the same kind of kiddies that buy into the "I have to play games with whores and blood cause they are games for adults" hype the media creates just for them, cause, in their mind, that validates them as mature people. Like children who start smoking because they see grown ups do it and then they try to shun the ones that don't.

Just to drag the thread kicking and screaming back to something resembling the original topic, some details have emerged about just how much this launch must be costing Sony.

Linky

Market research types iSuppli have taken some PS3's to bits, and are estimating that the high spec 60GB unit costs them $840 to put together, and the low end 20GB one $805. This puts their per-unit shortfall at 58% for the high end unit, and over 100% for the low end one.

A truly scary figure, if they can't recoup it through game sales.

The Xbox 360 is currently making some $70 profit per unit for the Premium system, as manufacturing costs have fallen faster than expected. It started out at about 38% shortfall a year ago.

Additionally, of the games so far reviewed, only Resistance has put in a good showing (8.6 from Gamespot, 9.1 from IGN), with Call of Duty 3 and Tony Hawk getting lower scores than their Xbox counterparts, suffering from framerate problems and poorer online services. Genji, the first game reviewed, got an uninspiring 6.8 from Gamespot, 6.5 from IGN. Giant enemy crabs, obviously, not enough to save it from uninspiring level design and repetitive gameplay.

In other less than stellar news, some analysts are predicting that the actual launch allocation for the US could fall well short of the 400,000 prediction, with Lazard Captial Markets expecting only 150,000 to 200,000 units actually making it onto shelves.

Mad wrote:I almost missed out on Smash Bros. because of that attitude. The playstyle seemed so kiddie and unrealistic (bouncing around? where's the life meter?), and it had Pokemon? And the commercials? "So happy together?" Yeah, the game had "lame" written all over it as far as I was concerned.

Smash Bros. is exactly the type of game that Nintendo is hoping for with the Wii--it's incredibly easy to pick up and play, but it also has astonishing depth once you get to be good at it. It's also the best party game of all time, IMO--when I have a group of friends over, if someone wants to play videogames we go straight to SSB.

Bloody oath, and I thought Japan had launch woes. According to Kotaku, Taiwan will apparently have a launch allocation of a mere 500 units total, including both 20gb and 60gb units.

Sony is, apparently, going to lose about $240 on each sale. That's a lot of videogame sales it'll take to make up for it.

Master of Ossus wrote:Sony is, apparently, going to lose about $240 on each sale. That's a lot of videogame sales it'll take to make up for it.

So every customer would have to buy a PS3 as well as the entire launch line-up several times over before they even hit break-even?

Oh dear.

Master of Ossus wrote:Sony is, apparently, going to lose about $240 on each sale. That's a lot of videogame sales it'll take to make up for it.

Holy crap, it says that the 20gb hard drive is $43 and the 60GB is $54. If that's right, what the fuck were they thinking there? They should've just made it all 60gb.

The explanation is it's Sony.

But you know, that would have made some kind of sense. Is it perhaps because Microsoft has two hardware versions Sony thought it had to too? But they realised how useful a hard drive was so made barely different versions and decided to screw the consumer with the price on the higher-spec one (arguably both though).

*Drunken Ken Kutaragi* Damn it, there are two kinds of Xbox 360, won't the PS3 look like it offers less if consumers can't pick between two kinds? You there, peon, yeh reduce the hard drive, we'll save like ten dollars, and get rid of the HDMI port *. I mean although we're whoring this as an HD media centre if we strip it of the capability to show HDCP'd content then they'll have to get another! I am genius!**

* Of course because of Sony's crippling incompetence at organising assembly lines of its most important product launch in years they ended up including the HDMI port anyway. Only cause it was too much effort to have two assembly lines more different than the hard drive.

** Yes this is incoherent, unfunny and dumb but it illustrates the important reality that this man is in fact crazed. (for libel purposes the author asserts no validity to the previous claim)

That's actually my thinking too. They saw two on the table over at Redmond. They wanted to emulate this strategem. They fucked themselves over doing it.

And if the HDD is the only difference between the two, they've really fucked themselves, because there's no longer any need to get the higher priced part. Because it's user upgradeable anyway. And you can put any 2.5" SATA drive in it.

The PS3 can't upscale 720p games, meaning many HDTV owners will be forced to play at 480p wrote: It's suddenly becoming very important what native resolution your HDTV runs at. Some sets run at 720p natively, others at 1080i or 1080p, and some older sets don't support 720p at all. That was never an issue with the 360; Microsoft's system could upscale the image to fit your 1080i set. On the PS3 however, if your television doesn't support 720p as a resolution, you're going to have problems with games like Resistance: Fall of Man that default to 720p. You see, the PS3 can't upscale the image. What does it do? The system actually downscales the picture into 480p. So if you have a television that only does 480p and 1080i, like many older sets, many PS3 games may as well be standard definition.

W.T.F.

Yep. Because if there's an ass-backwards way of doing something, that's the Playstation way!

Why didn't they make it $999 and take advantage of the psychological benefit of the extra 9? If people have $599 to sling around, a grand is not too much to ask. Then they wouldn't be in the hole. Are they really thinking an extra 250 off gets them any more customers? If it's a luxury item and a status symbol like a Rolex or a Ferrari like my manager put it years ago, they should do it in style and make it ten bills. And have it beautifully finished, with a certificate of authenticity and lifetime warranty. If they're pandering to the people who will buy no matter what, why not do that.

Dude, that's AWESOME. What a great anti-feature!