I'd just like to voice my opinion about the X-Box. I personally see the X-Box as a threat to the video game industry. Let's face it, if Microsoft gets their way with the X-Box, just imagine what they could do. They have enough capital under their belts to do everything neccesary to stay in the video game scene and take control of it. They could easily drive any video game company into financial trouble with the same takeover tactics they've used in the past; by offering things like free games with their system and extremely low game prices. They are going to put a big crater into the next console race. Let's hope Sony and Nintendo can somehow keep the pressure on them like a tight lid. It's going to be a very rough ride for them both if they don't.

What's wrong with having one company having the majority of the market? Simply a lack of innovation. Just look at the Windows platform. If there's no one breathing down their necks, what's going to make them come out with a new system every few years? I certainly don't want to be stuck with an X-Box for the next 10 - 15 years, do you? :)

What's your opinion?

Jigsaw

First off I must say that yesterday's satire April Fool's column was just genius in HTML. Biting things like that are what keeps me and will keep me coming back to thegia. But I digress, moving on.

I was just thinking today about how everyone was saying last year that the next console war would be the "Multiplatform" generation and how it would be completely different than all the others. But, now a quick surveying of the field makes things look a little different.

XBox seems to be in a little bit of trouble with Konami taking a "wait and see" approach and Namco flat out not making any games for it yet, they've not signed some of the bigger (read:required) players out there (although Tecmo is a good step, they're no Square or Enix). A quick look over the game list offers up a lot of "PC like games" which wont go over well in Japan, and not so good in the Americas either, this of course would give Japanese developers even more pause. And the fact is for the Xbox to become a true force in the industry they must hit the ground running, any pause could prove fatal as it's just more time for the PS2 to become more entrenched or the GC to build up more steam. If a lot of Japanese developers just "wait and see", they might make up their minds too late for the Xbox.

Nintendo has yet to make any big 3rd party announcements for the GC. I realize that they might be "holding their cards close" but still the GC is only a few months away, and now's the time to start building hype. With Silent Hill 2, FFX, GT3 and MGS2 plus some surprises no doubt all for the PS2 Sony should make one killer showing at E3, and Nintendo would have to do something astounding to go toe to toe with it. Fact is if the big N can't make a strong 3rd party showing they'll be branded in the same fashion they were with the N64, of being a "kiddie console". And many developers are no longer headed in that direction. If the N64 taught us anything it's that, although helpful, a great 1st and 2nd party development team does not a console make.

In the end, I fear the next generation console war might end up much like the last. Sony's got developers to boot and the killer apps are starting to make their appreances, Nintendo's keeping there mouth shut about 3rd parties, which says more bad things than good. And although the Xbox had some major momentum earlier, disappointing showings lately have seem to have knocked the much needed japanese wind out them for the time being. Truth be told things might turn out, we might see a multiplatform console generation, I certainly hope so, but right now the 8-ball says "Outlook not so good".

Mr. Cruz
Am I the only one who thinks that Dailyradar must be on Microsoft's payroll?

Now I realize that it wasn't you putting up the weekend column, and I realize that it was April 1st as well. But something about yesterday's column really bothered me, bothered me enough, in fact, to write this letter.

Since I found the GIA a couple years ago, I've always considered it the single most well-maintained, well-informed, and professional site on the net. Not only does it scoop most other sites, but even when it's not first, I can count on the GIA eventually reporting on every happening in the RPG world. Others can claim it, but the GIA really is my one-stop information site for RPGs.

I've also visited RPGamer, and anyone else who has knows the difference immediately. Where the GIA is professional and informative, RPGamer often feels young, inexperienced, and as if even the maintainers don't really take the site seriously.

All that being said, the April 1st Double Agent column really disappointed me. The obvious bash of an RPGamer letters column struck me as childish and unnecessary. Not only that, I lost out on what is usually an engaging letters column for the sake of petty spite, and that isn't a trade I'd willingly make.

In the end, while the April 1st column was meant to poke fun at the immaturity present at RPGamer, it did more to highlight the GIA's own childishness. This disturbs me not only because I lost out on a good column, but because I think that it costs the GIA some of the reputation for professional journalism that it's worked so hard to earn. RPGamer can afford to be juvenile because that's how most people see the site anyway, but the GIA has managed to become something more than that, and if it's going to hold on to that image, a column such as yesterday's, even in a part of the site "not representing the opinions of the GIA as a whole," is inappropriate.

Does this mean I'm going to stop reading the GIA? Of course not. It's still the best site for RPG fandom there has ever been. But in the future, I hope that the GIA staff will reconsider before printing similar material.

Lord Pendragon

Okay, now before you wonder why I'd want to dance-dance to pop versions of FF tracks, or where I came up with that despicable metaphor: Super Galdelic Hour. Perhaps Decoy Octopus, pretending to be the DARPA chief, put it best when he said the immortal words, "sweet JESUS!" I went to the site and watched the little promo movie and, dear God, I don't even want to remember.

Now I love all that Japanese quirkiness, and I do the anime thing and avidly listen to J-pop and whatnot, but Enix has crossed the line. Seeing that video was like dropping acid before periodically flipping back and forth between episodes of the Teletubbies, and Baywatch. (Not that I would ever do such a thing.) Those jiggling, for want of a better term, "girls" made me feel more than a little nauseous. What if I had lost my lunch all over my autographed Ah! My Goddess T-shirt?!

El Cactuar!
(wishing that he really HAD an autographed Ah! My Goddess T-shirt--or had even eaten lunch, for that matter...)

It would seem that Xenosaga would be a copyright violation if it were part of the Xenogears universe. Why would Square let one of its competitors make a prequel to one of its copyrighted games? Even if many staff members from Xenogears now work at Monolith Soft, Square still owns the game.

This looks to me like an almost exact paralell to Hoshigami: Ruining Blue Earth. Staff members from FFT leave Square and make a very similar game to FFT.

Monolith may be taking it a slight step farther, re-using old references from Xenogears, trying to make the Xenosaga universe very similar to Xenogears. About the Zohar reference in the Xenosaga trailer - Zohar is just taken from mythology, like Shiva and Ifrit. Xenosaga will retain certain minor names from Xenogears just like the FF series retains minor names from its previous games. Hell, Xenogears contained lots of re-used names from Chrono Trigger, and those games aren't set in the same universe.

This is just a classic case of re-using mythological references from other games. Xenosaga is very likely going to be its own universe and have similarities to Xenogears, but it is not part of the Xenogears universe. Perhaps the team is starting with Episode 1 so they can keep making sequels. A prequel to Xenogears is completely pointless, and would be very hard to make a captivating story for.

Well, Drew's little stunt at least showed one thing. Those dark brown floating headers above the individual letters looked better than the red type we (well, ok, you) have now. The red completely clashes with the color scheme, and anyone who boldfaces the Times font (especially at that size) should be strangled. I realize these design choices were chosen by Allan, the otherwise God of Q&A, so this isn't meant to be a slander against you (nor was my praise of Allan, you're just super too, Chris), but please consider changing the tops of the letters, if not to that RPGamer rip off format than to something more pleasant. At least ditch the red. But if you adopt that toolbar on the right I'll choke your chicken... wait, that's not right.

War and Strife,

-Sickpigman

P.S. Oh, and if you ever have that reader suggest-a-topic feature at the bottom again, nix that god-ugly purple scheme. I realize that it was meant to differentiate the letter, but go for something that keeps in key with the site, like the blue you use at the upper right of every page, or something. I guess this is a criticism, but remember, otherwise you're SUPER!!! You just need more experience operating your ocular sight vision color on color comprehensive page palate selection choice gauge. Try to exercise more taste. Didn't that Quixote character from FFIX teach you anything about making things with exceptional taste... and ABUNDANCE. P.P.S. For more naming fun, change VIVI to VOIVOD. If you catch that reference you're a God... with wheels.