moderate success but mostly demoes.
Also just "whacking stuff" is only a small part of the camera's abilities -
a very small part in fact.
The Eyetoy middleware suite offers object, motion and sound tracking (the
new "Harry Potter" minigames are the first to use the sound tracking) - it's
nothing brand new, but definitely stuff that hasn't been seen in games to
dates beyond simple tech demos. The new "Dance Dance" game has an Eyetoy
mode that definitely adds to the experience and several games (like THUG)
leverage it usefully.
"Innovation" doesn't mean "Invention" - the best innovations are taking
something that already exists and showing it's potential.
Live is great - but it's a service, not a game. Once you get into the games
then its same-old-same-old. I think there's a lot of potential for
network-based games that's just not being taken advantage (by anybody). MS
is in a perfect position (due to the quality and licensing model of Live) to
push the online paradigm, but isn't.
In essence except for general "class" distinctions (magic user, medic,
healer, etc) online games tend to throw all the characters into the same
soup. If you like that kind of game then you'll play it.
I was thinking about this when I was playing "Lifeline" for the PS2 - it's
the speech-recognition-based game that recently came out. (Another example
of innovation only this time it wasn't particularly successful).
This game had a great idea: two survivors of a tragedy, one free to roam but
without any resources and the other trapped in a control room free to access
all sorts of camera feeds and equipment but unable to leave. The execution
was flawed in this single player game but the same idea as a multiplayer
online game would be so very sweet.
In this case you have two very distinct gameplay styles cooperating. You
absolutely need each other to survive but each person is effectively playing
a different game. One is doing stealth action while the other is doing
multi-tasking resource management.
The possibilities for this theme are endless: in that game (which featured
an alien invasion of a space-based hotel) you could also have a space combat
game going on outside, straight up FPS-gameplay in the heavily populated
areas, etc. There's some movement in this direction by some games ("Star
Wars Galaxies" is promising some of this) but in general online games offer
the same basic experience for everbody.
I also think there's a lot of untapped market potential. For example the
most popular online game of all time is probably "Hearts" (but maybe
"Checkers" or "Yachtzee") - why not represent them on Xbox? Hell, then my
mom would buy one to play "Yachtzee" with her sister while they gossiped.
Where is the Xbox online Casino or horse track (with betting)? What about
college-style Xbox party games allowing dorm-room parties to "link up"
across the country with mini games and video chat?
Of course the real innovation comes from people smarter than me - I shudder
to think what kind of cool gameplay would come forth if some really smart
people get there big brains around the issue with some money to see things
through.
I think there's a huge untapped potential in online games both in game play
styles/genres and in market penetration - an Xbox is definitely in the
position to lead the way if MS wants to.
The best place to get market information on games is gamemarketwatch.com -
tons of useful information (even if it is difficult to find older articles
when you want to!)
Jim Davis
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
