Saturday, December 10, 2005

Well Mark, I do not own an Xbox 360. I think aside from you I am the poorest of our cadre, so the $400 price tag is a bit beyond me. I think I will have to wait for the "next generation" for a while. Since getting the real benefit requires an HDTV, which is another grand or so, I don't think I can afford it any time soon. Fortunately for me the Revolution is being predicted not at the normal $200 that the last generation of consoles started at, but at . . . $150!!!! It seems that Nintendo has realized that the best way to beat Sony and Microsoft is to change the way the battle is fought.

Which brings me to a thought. As I watched mikex0r beat Shadow of the Colossus I noticed that the experience didn't seem nearly as engrossing for him as it was for me. Perhaps it was because I won the game at 2 in the morning after playing for hours, but it had an emotional response akin to what I felt when (at the end of Disc 1) Aeris died at Sphiroth's hands. I was sad, confused, and in the end happy. I think I have fallen into Nintendo's propaganda that the purpose of a video game isn't necesarily just to look pretty. I think games should be fun above all else, but then I asked Brad if better graphics necessarily meant better games (he's thinking of dropping the 2k to get a new TV and a 360) and he aswered an emphatic YES!

So, we play games . . . lots of games . . . and lots of different types of games. I figure most of us might even have an opinion on games. What is the point of games? What are we trying to get from a game? Is it a diversion? Is it to create a visceral experience? Is it to be "fun?" Should they make you think? More than likely the answer is dependent on the type of game (if not other things). If we strip games down to their basic vectors, what would we have? Your opinions please.

Oh, and Mark you should try to save between 150 and 200 dollars for games when you get back.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home