Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Goodbye, "Majestic" 183

Posted by timothy from the too-much-like-real-life-perhaps dept.
fonixmunkee writes: "Ack, looks like EA is stopping the very cool, ground-breaking game 'Majestic.' The article is here. I got hooked on this from the very start, and in turn got a bunch of friends into it. It's cool to be out for a fancy dinner and have the game calling you threatening your life. Oh well, I'm sure a new spinoff will rise up."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Goodbye, "Majestic" More

Goodbye, "Majestic"

Comments Filter:
  • In many ways it's too bad that capitalism forces people to market towards the masses rather than just creating quality products. I understand why this is the way that it has to be, but it just seems to suck that the bulk of the gaming population prefers first person shooters over everything else, so that's where the money goes. I've watched this happen to so many other great games, it's just to bad.
    • companies have to make money in order to stay alive. You still stuck in dot com land?
    • The masses want what they want because of aggresive marketing. If companies were owned by the state you wouldn't choose to make a bad product and then brainwash people into craving for it.

      And this doesn't have to be undemocratic. After all, how democratic is it to have a handfull men controlling a company that has a BNP larger than many small countries(ms, aol, disney).
      They are dictators, only they rule companies instead of nations, and have all the powers that mega-coprations have(which is a lot).

      • Re:Too bad about capitalism (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        If companies were owned by the state you wouldn't choose to make a bad product and then brainwash people into craving for it.

        If companies were owned by the state, they would make whatever products they're told to make, typically products that people are unhappy with. And they wouldn't have to brainwash people into liking it, because if people don't like it, it's tough shit, they have no choice.

        Throughout the 20th century, every attempt to create a centrally planned, state owned economy of significant size has resulted in poor efficiency, high pollution, bad working conditions, low standards of living, and a populace that is generally unhappy with the goods and services produced by the economy. A true free market economy beats a state run economy any time. The problem with the current state of western capitalism is that unchecked consolidation has severely reduced competition in a number of industries, so the markets aren't really free anymore.

        Anyway, the majority of money in the game industry goes into a handful of game genres because that's what people like playing. Who are you to decide that first person shooters are bad games that shouldn't be made? I could care less whether critics think Majestic is an original game that should have succeeded. I'd rather play RTCW thank you very much.

      • If companies were owned by the state you wouldn't choose to make a bad product and then brainwash people into craving for it.


        Actualyl, if you had companies owned by the state you'd have state capitalism. This is what the Soviet Union was (not communism, as much as it wanted to be.) I'm sure you remember how well that worked for Russia. I'd rather take the lesser evil of American-style capitalism than state capitalism anytime.

    • It's not capitalism in itself that is a problem.
      I do not know majestic, so I'm going to speak in general terms about all media and cultural activities.

      It just shows that culture cannot ever fully be run by for-profit companies. Countries need at least some sort of government backing for cultural activities that isn't profitable, because culture and media isn't necessarily better, just because it is profitable.

      An example is BBC, which creates some extraordinary stuff that would never have been created in a for-profit company because the income would not justify the costs.
      • Hmm, I don't think the Government is necessarily going to be able to create good computer games. The BBC is about the only example of a successful government arts project, and even there, have you actually watched much of their regular programming? In the US, we get some of their stuff run on our PBS (Public Broadcasting System, which only recieves around 10% of its funding from the gov't). Based on that I thought that the UK was blessed with the best television ever. After spending some time in the UK, actually watching their TV, I realized that they have just as much crap as we do (well actually less, because they've only got 4 channels, so they don't get cable crap) but we only get the best BBC stuff here.

        There is an anecdote , which may or may not be accurate in which my father quotes an australian friend of his as saying that Australia only used to import the best American TV programs. So he'd always thought that the US just had the best TV in the world. Then he came here and watched our standard programming, and said "oh holy cow. this is really bad." I polled my australian coworker, but she just has a low opinion of TV in general, and thus disqualified herself as a source, but did say that Oz now imports Jerry Springer, so now they will understand just how crappy American TV can be. Still, my point is, that we are not getting a representative sample of BBC shows, and most of it, like any other TV broadcaster, is crap.

        But really, I just can't imagine the US Government being able to produce good computer games. Its just so much more difficult than just writing a story or painting a picture.
        • No.. I don't think the government is capable of producing good video-games, but that does not mean that there shouldn't be a support-budget for people wanting to create low-budget video-games.

          BBC is not the only successful government arts project. Not by a long shot. It all depends on the scale.

          For instance, the government run television in Scandinavia (at least Norway and Sweden AFAIK) is widely regarded to produce better quality stuff than their commercial counterparts.
          The commercial channels know that they will make lots of money from just buying american TV-series , while NRK (the state channel) is the only one that actually produces any quality of its own.
          • People with the motivation to create their own games can do that -- budget or no. Maybe not full-time, and maybe not with a big team, unless there's a market -- but that makes sense. If something isn't of enough value that enough individuals are willing to pay for it to cover its development costs, then as kewl as it may be, perhaps it shouldn't exist.

            My major objection is that government funding of game development equates to having a game that I either purchase (ie. help pay for) or guys with guns come and put me in jail for tax evasion. Personally, I find that morally objectionable.

            Look at the Interactive Fiction Archive [wurb.com] to see how games which are truly works of art really do get created without either corporate or governmental support. Sure, you may not like them -- sure, they're not flashy -- but that's the point; if they were flashy, and had wide appeal, then they'd be developed corporately, right? :)
    • The game was not a commercial success. Your alternative? Hmm???

      Really, I'm interested Petree. You don't like to see something of quality go away just because the authors don't want to support it any more. Do you have an alternative to offer, or are you just complaining?

      Have you offered to take over the operation of the game due to your support of it?

      Have you communicated to EA urging them to open the source now that they're abandoning the game, and you take over as maintainer?

      Do you have some alternative to "capitalism", or anything what so ever to offer in a positive direction to change the situation to something you would prefer?

      And last, do you actually know what
      "capitalism" [mises.org] is?

      Bob-

  • Well, they're gonna take a bath (Score:3, Funny)

    by parliboy ( 233658 ) <[parliboy] [at] [gmail.com]> on Saturday January 05, 2002 @11:43AM (#2790729) Homepage
    I mean, Jim Carrey's cut alone has to be worth more than what the thing brought in. Really though, how much suspense and paranoid can you get from an old movie theatre?

  • i'm not too crushed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by b1nd0x ( 206244 ) on Saturday January 05, 2002 @11:49AM (#2790751)
    The concept of a game that regulates how fast you can play it and then has a pricing system based on time periods rather than episodes struck me as an odd combination to start.

    While the beginning plot was done rather well, describing a world where Majestic had started off as a game until things went horribly awry, it tried to do to much. To have a plot centered on a conspiracy is one thing; to include every alleged conspiracy of the twentieth century, from JFK to the Illuminati, from black helicopters to mind control, was a bit much.

    By far the biggest problem was the bots. They spent a great deal of time and Real Video (emails web sites etc.) creating believable characters with distinct personalities to whom you could relate. Then you talked to them, and they have the IQ of slime mold. It was a little too free form for its own good.

    • Re:i'm not too crushed (Score:3, Interesting)

      by b0r0din ( 304712 )
      What would really be cool to do with a game is allow players to interact with each other, to have two players in the same area be called upon to meet at a designated location to share their information.

      Now that would be groundbreaking, but it would be a little scary. Still, you could have the option of receiving your info through emails; this would just make it more immersive.

      • Why not make your own Majestic? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Robotech_Master ( 14247 ) on Saturday January 05, 2002 @01:52PM (#2791078) Homepage Journal
        Check out the Hogshead "new wave" roleplaying game De Profundis [demon.co.uk]. It's an epistolary RPG of the Cthulhu mythos, focusing on playing in the horror milieu (either in the 20s and 30s, or the present-day) by writing letters, journals, diaries, and so on. I've got some friends who are running a game via a Livejournal group; it's not too hard to imagine something sort of like Majestic growing out of several groups getting in contact with each other.

        And hey, it's only $7, how can you go wrong?

    • Re:i'm not too crushed (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "To have a plot centered on a conspiracy is one thing; to include every alleged conspiracy of the twentieth century, from JFK to the Illuminati, from black helicopters to mind control, was a bit much."

      Too much? That was the plot of Deus Ex, which was a superb game. ;')

      -AC

  • The gameplay was too slow (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Therlin ( 126989 ) on Saturday January 05, 2002 @11:51AM (#2790756)
    I was hooked to Majestic and played a couple of the chapters but ended up cancelling. Why? Because the gameplay was too slow.

    You would work through certain tasks and then you'd be put on "Standby mode" for about 24 hours and you couldn't do anything else.

    I realize that this made it look as if the other characters in the game were working on their tasks but it was frustrating because I felt I wasn't always getting my money's worth of gameplay and at the same time, it would break the mood. You got into the game and were forced to stop.
    • I fell into the same boat. I was a little upset at how the pacing went, but on the other hand it did leave you a little "unsure" about what was supposed to happen next, etc. In the end, for me, the pacing was definitely too much for me to commit to, so I cancelled after chapter 2 or so as well.

      That being said, I do remember a quote or something about Majestic...something along the lines of "You don't play Majestic, Majestic plays you!" Perhaps that's a different game, though.
    • Unfortunately, you missed out on the later chapers, #'s 3 and 4 then. They took the feedback from the first two chapters, and improved on it. There's a noticable difference in the game by the end of Chapter 4. I was getting calls about once or twice a day for most of a chapter, was on Act more than Standby, and some of the points were around twelve to thirteen posts on the Progress screen. It really did pick up near the end, unfortunately, most people didn't stick on to see what would happen.

  • Trust (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 05, 2002 @11:52AM (#2790761)
    How do we know that the "announcement" isn't just part of the game?
    • :) That's what I was thinking... This created a lot of publicity...
    • because we haven't paid 9.95 to EA. or at least I haven't.

      or have I?

    • Re:Trust (Score:3, Interesting)

      by HamNRye ( 20218 )
      Oddly enough, I remember that after the Sept. 11 attacks I read a story about Majestic shutting down. Basic point being "Government Conspiracies and terrorism are not appropriate subject matter in light of the attacks."

      I was actually considering playing the game, and with that announcement gave up on it. From reading the other posts, I'm glad I didn't.

      ~Hammy
      Nothing4sale.org

  • Darn... (Score:3, Funny)

    by friendofish ( 520548 ) on Saturday January 05, 2002 @11:53AM (#2790764)
    Now I'm never going to get to put in my bosses pager number, Cell Number, Fax and email addresses.
    • Ooh..

      If you saw the page where you set up the phone numbers, you would know that they warn against doing that exact thing. First, they could suspend your account if they discover you did that. Second, they could take legal action against you. It's a real no-no.

  • Receiving Threatening Phone Calls Is Cool?! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BRock97 ( 17460 ) on Saturday January 05, 2002 @11:54AM (#2790770) Homepage
    I dunno, sounds pretty uncool to me. The list of reasons is pretty long. First off, going on a first date to dinner and having to tell your girlfriend that you need to take a call from a video game would be pretty dorky. Second, I would have to guess somewhere in the message, it would let you know that it was the game calling, otherwise you might have a serious threat on your life. Case in point: "I am going to kill you, I am going to gut you like a stuck pig. Thanks for playing Majestic." I don't know, the whole idea just sounds really, REALLY cheesy.
    • Well the way it worked was you told it when you would accept calls. So you could set it for hours you knew you wouldn't be doing stuff important, and could change it at anytime. You also could set it for "any time" which included like 2 in the morning which is great because your mind isn't totally functioned. As for your second complaint, you had the option of turning on or off the "Majestic Greeting" to make it more real. The voice acting was very good in my opinion and sometimes I would get real calls tat I mistook for in-game (this only happened once, cause they asked for the wrong person...). But generally you could tell that it was in-game because there was no room to respond, they were just long monologues (sometimes threatening, but nothing too bad). The game is meant for 18+ so I had no problem with the swearing and such.

      Cheers,
      jw
    • First off, going on a first date to dinner and having to tell your girlfriend that you need to take a call from a video game would be pretty dorky.

      *looks around* Ummm...did you by any chance realize where you were when you said that? Forget playing it - just knowing what Majestic is (the game, or otherwise) pretty much puts you firmly in the "dork" category right off. Even if you're not being paged by a computer during dinner, you know that you're going to eventually let something about your Quake clan or your Everquest guild (or whatever they are) accidentally slip in conversation, and that's it. Your scam is up. Best to face the truth head on, and count on your date being cool enough to be interested... in you, at least, if not the game.

      Like the kids at Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com] say, "You play videogames? Welcome to Dorksville. You want to know how cool your videogames are? Ask your fucking girlfriend how cool. And if you don't have a girlfriend? That's part of the test."

      • It's one thing to be a dork in the privacy of your own home, and quite another to wear your dorkiness on your sleeve for everyone to see. Me, I prefer to not broadcast to the general public the fact that I play a video game in which swasktikas and other objectionable material (RTCW) is displayed.
  • it sounded cool when we all heard about it before they started, but as soon as it got going... NOTHING.

    very weird.

    next time, don't blow all of the PR budget before the release, save like 30% for the first few weeks following. TV is good too (for the non-savy).
    • This isn't entirely true. While there may not have been many news articles, or PR material of the like, they did do some interesting passive promoting in select cities.

      If I remember correctly (and I never saw this first hand, only saw the schedules, etc., on their website), they had planned to have "Agents" roaming the streets interacting with people, asking them if they'd heard of Majestic, and only dropping hints about what it was. Also, they were to place elusive ads about strange happenings and whatnot, then hope you visited the website/started playing just out of sheer curiosity.

      Did anyone actually see one of these "Agents", or any of the flyer material first hand?

  • It's cool?!? (Score:3, Funny)

    by MrWa ( 144753 ) on Saturday January 05, 2002 @11:57AM (#2790776) Homepage
    So not only am I bothered by other people's pagers, cell phones, and PDAs going off during my dinner - or worse, during a movie! - but it turns out to be a stupid game!?

    Maybe you shouldn't worry about a game threatening your life next time that pager goes off; the person behind you is probably a more valid concern.

  • I was really looking forward to playing this when
    I had more time:(. What about the people who just bought it, are they SOL?
    • hmm... if youve read the article you would probably know that they aren't shutting down for 2 more months giving people who just started enough time to finish.
      • Hmmm... if you read my comment you would have noticed that I don't have time to play it right now. It would have been nice if it was still there later.

  • The problem with Majestic.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ndr_Amigo ( 533266 ) on Saturday January 05, 2002 @12:01PM (#2790795)
    Majestic was good (although not unique) in concept, but very poor in execution.

    A lot of people reading slashdot probably had some interaction with "The Beast" - the A.I movie webgame. Besides the stigma associated with the fact it was ran by M$... it was a brilliant game.

    Based in several medium - many many webpages, phonenumbers, e-mails etc it was a well executed version of the Majestic concept. Intrestingly enough it ran at the same time Majestic was being developed and finished just after Majestic was announced.

    The problem with Majestic is that while the idea of an immersive game is good - anything on this kind of scale must EVOLVE. The puzzles in the game were generally very easy. The pace was set badly, and the storyline did not evolve. You could quite easily guess what was going to happen next.

    The people running "The Beast" however (besides the fact it was free) were working full time on constantly adapting the game. They monitored game players communities and if they discovered a plotpoint had been guessed at, they would weave that knowledge into the next puzzle.

    Most gamers know that games depend on a community. Majestic was a very stagnent game - for even a traditional adventure game the story was bad, the pace was terrible and it did not emphisize the need to cooperate.

    Majestic was being shut down because people were quitting the game at an alarming rate. It's not suprising, because for a subscription-based adventure game it didn't promote any interaction outside of the strict game encounters. It was too linear - something that just doesn't work with game players these days. Besides a highly predictable storyline there was no point to playing the game. Other subscription-based games (like Ultima Online, Everquest, etc) all really relied on a sense of community... you would play not only for the game, but to interact with your online friends.

    Technologically and concept-wise, Majestic was close to perfect. But as a game, it missed the point totally.

    • Re:The problem with Majestic.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by adrian_hon ( 145751 ) <adrian@@@vavatch...co...uk> on Saturday January 05, 2002 @12:26PM (#2790844) Homepage
      There are many reasons why Majestic didn't succeed, and most of them aren't those that are listed above. I wrote an in-depth analysis of Majestic here [vavatch.co.uk], contained within a report examining all of the aspects concerning the Microsoft A.I. game. I correctly predicted that EA would have a hard if not impossible time of attracting and retaining the 100,000+ subscribers required to recoup their $10 million investment.

      Briefly, Majestic attempted far too much with far too little. It didn't have an engrossing storyline, unlike that of the universally acclaimed Microsoft A.I. game, it didn't have enough content and it overly restricted the activities of players via its cumbersome 'episodes'.

      There was little to no direct interaction with real human people and interaction with AI bots was painfully obvious and crude. Due to a focus on a more individual-based game, teamwork and thus the online community was kept rather small, as opposed to the fanatic-like community of the Microsoft game.

      But I'm being far too harsh here. As I said in my analysis, most players actually enjoyed the game. Unfortunately, the game wasn't known to that many people, it cost $10/month and it was restricted to North America. Additionally, its demographic was sorely restricted to the 18-35 male player range.

      The A.I. game had, supposedly, around two million players. While I loved the A.I. game and was one of the most active players (just check out my Guide [vavatch.co.uk] if you don't believe me) I honestly don't think it had two million players. That number really means two million unique page views on the game sites. Not that this really matters - the game produced an ungodly amount of publicity, far beyond that of Majestic, and received awards from Entertainment Weekly and the New York Times, among others.

      I believe a central problem of any game of this type is that for $10/month, you really expect to get constant interaction and stimulation from your game. In games such as Everquest and so on, you can easily play constantly and not get too bored. In these developer-content driven games such as Majestic, there is only so much you can read and only so many puzzles you can solve. You can't play them all the time.

      So you have to have a substitute. In the Microsoft A.I. game, that substitute was the Cloudmakers community that formed around the game and spent 24 hours a day speculating about the storyline and hard-as-nails puzzles. I suspect that in future games, user-created content will serve as a substitute, along with more diverse content and puzzles (e.g. real life treasure hunts, role playing, etc etc).

    • Re:The problem with Majestic.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by adrian_hon ( 145751 ) <adrian@@@vavatch...co...uk> on Saturday January 05, 2002 @12:41PM (#2790872) Homepage
      I forgot to mention this in my previous reply. Essentially, the fact that Majestic was linear had absolutely bugger all to do with its demise.

      Why? Two reasons.

      1. How are you going to make it fully interactive, exactly? The game is several months long, has FMV, phone calls, AI bots, intricately made puzzles and hundreds of pages of content. Even three or four branch points would increase the workload intolerably, and if you call that interactivity, I'll eat my hat. Most of the A.I. game content was created before the start of the game, and I suspect this was the same for Majestic.

      In any case, would the game be interactive for each player, or for the entire community? For full, convincing interactivity (not that cheapo Dragon's Lair type stuff), doing it per-player is impossible, again due to workload. Doing it for the community is slightly easier but then you run into the problem of trying to get the community to make a single decision.

      2. In the case of Majestic and the A.I. game, linearity is to be desired. Basically, it's far easier to write a decent story (and that is the *central* requirement of all these games) if you don't have to keep on changing it all the time according to someone else's whims. The A.I. game, contrary to popular opinion, did not allow its players to affect the storyline in any significant manner and it came out perfectly fine.
      • I'm hardly going to argue with Adrian here - although I think he is thinking more of the financial aspect when I'm looking more at the reason why it lost appeal to the subscribers it already had.

        But firstly, although both Elan and Sean have mentioned that the storyline was adapted to fit new evolutions in the community. However I agree there was probably no major effect on the storyline, considering how much had to be rewritten due to time constraints anyway.

        I think linear was the wrong word to use in hindsight. My intention wasn't really to highlight Majestics problem with getting players involved - the real problem Majestic had was in keeping them. The A.I game had maybe 5000-6000 constant players.. However I do not know of anyone who started seriously playing, leaving because of dissatisfaction of the game itself.

        And besides those who left Majestic for personal or financial reasons, those who left disatisifed with the fundemental game (I believe) were mostly affected by the problems above.

        But then again, there is no way to totally satisfy a mass-market audience, with this kind of interactive storytelling. It can't really be self-paced without removing the invasiveness, nor can it be sped up without inserting an element of uncertainty most have already expressed (getting phonecalls in the middle of meetings or other awkward moments).

        Maybe the key was to tone down the interactivity and increase the pace. Playing more of a 'detective' in a murder mystery than a bystander. Most of A.Is interactive events were insigated by the players (calling numbers instead of being called), and this was just as immersive for some.

  • Could have been a great game (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Quay42 ( 444528 ) <slashdotNO@SPAM40two.org> on Saturday January 05, 2002 @12:01PM (#2790796) Homepage
    I got in on this game when it was in its 2nd episode I think. The pilot was of course quite good but after that each part of an episode got too easy. The cycle became:
    1) Watch video
    2) Look for clue in video
    3) Go to website (or do something else) related to that clue
    4) Wait a day in "standby" mode

    And so on. At first it was really cool to go through all the conspiracy websites (which I was into anyways before I got into the game) but it got so that you realized these weren't at all central to the game itself.

    As the poster themself mentioned, it was pretty damn cool/spooky at times to get calls and voicemails at odd hours. One of them even mentioned coming to my house! I almost looked forward to that...but I suppose that would hvae been too much.

    The game was positioned as being for people with normal jobs and outside lives, which explained the relatively short play time increments, but they shouldn't have been so easy. It really could have been such an incredible game, consdiering it used email, video, AIM, phones, and fax machines as elements of play to get you into it...oh well. I think the boxed version would be pretty cool for people without high bandwidth connections like me who mised clues because so many frames were dropped in videos.

    Cheers,
    jw

  • Why geeks will never be accepted (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mahtar ( 324436 ) <aborell@gmail.com> on Saturday January 05, 2002 @12:11PM (#2790815)
    It's cool to be out for a fancy dinner and have the game calling you threatening your life. You don't have a girlfriend, do you?
  • Spielberg's movie AI had a game, also covered on /. [slashdot.org], to promote it that in my opinion, and that of the majority of the other players I know [cloudmakers.org], was much better than Majestic (and free). This paradigm of online interaction and collaberation is very hot, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see more and more (free or not) of these things springing up. Roll on, I say.
  • My thoughts are that this is the kind of game that people will want to be playing. It was a little poor in the implementation, but the concept was strong. If people didn't want to get the phone calls, maybe that's not the game for them.
  • I heard that Majestic was being shut down a couple weeks ago, but I saw the box at EB this past weekend. I can't help but wonder what happens to the poor sods who buy it now. . .

  • This is a sign of some sort of cultural deficiency (Score:5, Interesting)

    by aussersterne ( 212916 ) on Saturday January 05, 2002 @12:40PM (#2790871) Homepage
    I didn't play Majestic, but...

    Am I the only one here who thinks there is something desperately wrong if you wish to turn your entire real life -- as in your walking, talking self and your working days and nights -- into one large video game -- a fiction?

    Even more to the point, getting death threats is cool? How do you know they aren't real? Are you about to say that you relish the day when reality and fantasy blur to the point that you can't tell which is which?

    When this type of product becomes ubiquitous, we will be watching the news wondering whether we are really at war or whether it is a part of the latest game. When you hear that so-and-so that you know was shot and can you please come to the funeral, you will go with your game face on, taking notes and playing detective, not sure whether your friend is really dead or whether it's all a part of the game, and you won't care because you're so engrossed and because you're paying good money.

    And when the general populace becomes very, very involved in the same games, might it not become a part of the game if you get murdered in cold blood by another, rival player? And since you're a participating character in that game -- might everyone not be thrilled at such a "plot development" and attend your funeral not to eulogize, but to play or make some kind of breakthrough?

    I'm sure you had to sign some sort of user agreement to play Majestic. It isn't hard to imagine a user agreement in which you agree that the "designers" can use any event in any player's life as a part of the developing plot, and that you as a player agree not to hold them liable for the actions of other players, including actions taken against you or your family...

    Games should stay on a board, on a screen, on a field. Americans are too rich, safe and complacent for their own good if they are so bored that they must turn their real lives and identities into gamepieces for entertainment purposes.

    I suppose I'll get flamed and called a luddite, but I liked it when smart people used to get degrees and go do research for the greater good, rather than just signing up to receive death threats for entertainment purposes.
    • I know this wasn't meant to be a funny post, but when comments like:

      "And when the general populace becomes very, very involved in the same games, might it not become a part of the game if you get murdered in cold blood by another, rival player?"

      are made, it just merits my laughter and a mod point.

    • Re:This is a sign of some sort of cultural deficie (Score:5, Funny)

      by GigsVT ( 208848 ) on Saturday January 05, 2002 @01:24PM (#2790999) Journal
      Yeah darn that new technology.

      What will they think of next, a fake newscast about aliens invading earth, and no one will know whether it is real or not?
    • I would have to agree with you. We, North Americans spend too much of our resources on impractical things. Our biggest complaints are lack of freedom to do this or that or whatever. Don't get me wrong, freedom is good.

      We should try to find something useful to do with our time.

    • No, it's just a game (Score:3, Informative)

      by ColGraff ( 454761 )
      You didn't play Majestic. That's a shame, because if you had you'd know that there's this nice little checkbox you can click on the user configuration page. I forget the exact text, but it basically says "Click this if you want us to put 'This message is from Majestic the game' on the end of every phone call/IM/email/fax."

      The game was immersive and cool, but there was always a very clear border between the game world and reality for those who wanted it.

      You're entitled to post your opinion, of course - and thank you for admitting you never player, too many people on /. never admit they're uninformed - but it would be better still if you'd actually look at their web page before condemning the game as yet another sign of the Collapse of Western Civilization and Our Moral Decay. (Note: "Collapse of Western Civilization" and "Our Moral Decay" are registered trademarks of the Christian Coalition, RIAA, and Republican Party. You are free to use these phrases for non-commercial, private use, but public viewings require written permission from these parties.)
      • Ummm, I'm a fairly "radical" liberal by most standards, so while I don't argue with the bulk of your post, I do resent being called Republican. I'm not. Republicans would love this stuff -- if they can get everybody hooked, just look at the profit potential involved.

        My point is not that God will nail you for participating in games, nor that blacks or Arabs should be restricted from playing.

        My point is that people are playing "reality" games and watching "reality" TV while in Afghanistan and Palestine and Argentina people are "really" struggling to live, rather than paying to be threatened to die.

        I'm saying -- how hedonistic and selfish is it to spend your money and your time entertaining yourself with fake death threats instead of using those same resources to do some good in the world? Is it really that entertaining to devalue your own life and those of your playing friends? And isn't it an insult to do so while others around the world are trying to save their own lives?

        • Re:No, it's just a game (Score:4, Insightful)

          by aardvarkjoe ( 156801 ) on Saturday January 05, 2002 @05:44PM (#2791718)
          And I'd say:



          "How hedonistic and selfish is it to spend your money and your time entertaining yourself by reading and posting to slashdot instead of using those same resources to do some good in the world?"



          Why are there so many people that think it should be illegal to enjoy themselves? They bitch all the time about how the Republicans / the Government / Micro$oft / the RIAA / etc. are attempting to control their lives, and then you claim that everyone should devote all their time and money towards the causes that you deem of most importance.



          Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should be selfish pigs thinking only of ourselves. But your own quality of life is important as well, and no one ought to begrudge someone the opportunity to enjoy themself.

          • Sorry, but I can't agree with you.

            It is definitely wrong to enjoy a six course meal while the guy next to you is starving. Better to give him three courses and share.

            But the bigger crime is to throw the food out or (say) blow it up for entertainment purposes while the guy next to you is starving.

            Not all that different (to me) from paying to have death threats phoned to you as light entertainment, while at the same time we are bombing civilians in several countries.

            It just seems obscene to me. If not to you, I suppose that's your flaw, not mine.

            • It just seems obscene to me. If not to you, I suppose that's your flaw, not mine.

              Umm, reread that sentence. Doesn't that seem a mite arrogant? We disagree, therefore you're flawed? Not just in error, but flawed?

              You have a very high opinion of your own morality, don't you?

            • Then I ask you again: if using your wealth/time for your benefit is unethical, how do you justify spending any of your time reading slashdot rather than raising money for starving people, or doing something else "productive?" If spending money to recieve a phone call is morally the same as making somebody starve to death, it seems that the time you've wasted writing these notes (or spent doing any other activity -- I do hope that you don't play games / watch TV / go out to dinner / build model rockets / play a musical instrument or do any of those other things which perpetuates the killing of innocent civilians) is just the same.


              I know. YHBT. I suppose you don't have to say it.

    • Is this jon katz material or what?

      In case you haven't noticed, American's are the largest consumers of entertainment in the world.

      This is a game like anyother and while a few psychotic indviduals with real problems may take it seriously, this will never be the norm.

      Oddly, this sounds very similar to many speeches given in regards to a game I used to play when I was younger. That game was Dungeons and Dragons...
      • Is this jon katz material or what?

        You read my mind. Especially considering the guy didn't even play the damn game and picked up on the INCREDIBLY minor part of the game about getting threats. Somehow to him its just a game where you get death threats everyday. Jeezus.

        Why does everything have to get turned into a "What's bad about Americans today?" rant? Of course we've got our problems, but what country doesn't. People take one class on Government or read a Howard Zinn/Noam Chomsky article and they're suddenly political philosophers. Crmininy. Now that I've veered way off topic to the game... ;)

        It actually is a relatively enjoyable game available in a boxed version now for $40 (I think..which would be the price of 4 episodes/months). Just don't expect to have your brain fried in challenging puzzles. There are some interesting things in there though.


        Cheers,
        jw
    • Sorry for the OT post, but your post reminded me a lot of a recent movie called Series 7: The Contenders [imdb.com]. This is a great dark satire, making fun of reality TV shows. It's about a reality show where the players are all given guns and the object is for them to be the last one alive. They're allowed to kill each other without getting in trouble, just cause they're part of the game. Definitely worth the cost of a rental.
      • I'll second that. Series 7: The Contenders is a VERY GOOD rent. It is very much a brilliant 'dystopian future' sort of thing with reality television shows.

        They've even edited down their footage so you get the exciting bits and miss out on the boring bits, which is good.

        If you are a bit disturbed by reality TV, then this show will definitely have you ranting at the end.

    • I think that the responses to this post that are making light of it, do not understand that what aussersterne is writing is in fact a natural evolution of where we stand now. Look at history, every step that humankind has taken, especially with respect to entertainment, invariably evolves to something bigger, better, more realistic and most recently, more immersive. Is this healthy?

      I am sure that most peoples opinion on this will vary, but let me caution those that would utter "but, its only a game". Maybe, from the outsider looking in, this is the case. However, for those that are constantly pushing for more realism, more immersion, more intelligent AI - they are asking for these things to make the game more real . And now for a mathematical analogy, what happens when the limit of the game with respect to increasing realism approaches some point that we'll label infinity? That's right, the game becomes real. When will this happen? When is enough, enough? What happens when VR immersion rivals reality? When you can no longer discern if you are in VR or 'unplugged'?

      I recall reading a 'young adult' book by Tom Clancy in his Net Force series (co-authored with someone else) that dealt with a VR world that is highly immersive, and people started getting killed (in real life). Obviously this is still fiction, but the story-line tells of the evolution of this game ... single player RPG run on a person's PC. Take a highly realistic game, good AI, network gaming, and immersive VR and what does that give you? A recipe for trouble or for way cool gaming, I'm afraid.

      Before people start flaming me, I myself love immersive fantasy, usually I only read fantasy books (older D&D ones like Forgotten Realms, etc.) where the immersive reality is in my mind. Thankfully, putting the book down 'unplugs' me for now :). I am also eagerly awaiting amazingly realistic AI and highly immersive VR, but when this all arrives, I hope that as a society we'll have learned where the boundaries are and we (for once) will know not to push those boundaries.

    • When this type of product becomes ubiquitous, we will be watching the news wondering whether we are really at war or whether it is a part of the latest game.

      We've already been wondering this.
    • > might it not become a part of the game if you get murdered in cold blood by another, rival player?
      > a user agreement in which you agree that the "designers" can use any event in any player's life as a part of the developing plot, and that you as a player agree not to hold them liable for the actions of other players, including actions taken against you or your family.

      Jeez. You got me worried so I checked my Majestic Agreement and sure enough it says it right here:
      "The undersigned understands that Majestic can be a dangerous sport and agrees to his own murder if such murder advances the plotline."

      Thanks for alerting me!

      (If your post is a troll, then you are brilliant.)
    • Even more to the point, getting death threats is cool? How do you know they aren't real? Are you about to say that you relish the day when reality and fantasy blur to the point that you can't tell which is which?

      Um, if you can't tell if deaththreats against you are part of some game or not, then you've got bigger problems than some stupid game.

      Wasn't there a movie about this back in the '80's about some college kids that played "assisination" or something against other students using paintball guns until one of the students gets mistaken as an actual spy. . .

      -"Zow"

  • Send me your phone number... (Score:5, Funny)

    by aclarke ( 307017 ) <spam AT clarke DOT ca> on Saturday January 05, 2002 @12:46PM (#2790889) Homepage
    and I'LL call you and threaten your life, if that's what you're into...

  • Revisionist Press Release (Score:3, Insightful)

    by corby ( 56462 ) on Saturday January 05, 2002 @12:54PM (#2790906)
    I find it very bizarre that the Majestic team attempts to vindicate their efforts by repeatedly referring to their game as "critically acclaimed."

    Majestic got a lot of buzz and ink for being a novel concept, but in terms of actual critical reviews it was universally slammed by the gaming press. Since the Majestic team has such a short memory, they can find some reviews here [gamespot.com] and here [ign.com].

    Like the gaming press, I really wanted to like this game, but I could not be dragged into paying $120 a year for an elaborate "click here to continue the poorly acted movie" setup that lasts a few hours each month.
    • Well, its kinda like the movie trailer for "Black Hawk Down" saying that the efforts in Somalia back in 1993 were a "Triumph".

      Media/PR etc are full of shit 24 hours a day.
      • Well, its kinda like the movie trailer for "Black Hawk Down" saying that the efforts in Somalia back in 1993 were a "Triumph".

        Well, it was one of the most successful infantry actions in human history.

        A few dozen american soldiers were dropped into an area that turned out to be a trap -- they were pinned down, surrounded by several thousand hostile, armed forces. The americans suffered only a hundred casualties and 18 deaths. They inflicted over a thousand casualties and 500 deaths on the enemy.

        Politically it was a failure, but those soldiers did their job with lethal effectiveness that should be a warning to anyone who imagines the US military is a paper tiger.
  • I never actually shelled out the cash to play the game, so I may be off-base, but I did read all the articles in the gaming magazines hailing it as the second coming. So here goes.

    I never expected Majestic to "work" just because I wouldn't have thought anybody would really be able to suspend disbelief enough to enjoy the hassle.

    If I had somebody calling me in a panic, I would be less concerned about whether or not, you know, they were going to die or something, than I would be about how many of my cellphone minutes it was using up.

    It's like playing the "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" PC game. It's not real, you're not winning any money, and so you're subjecting yourself to Regis for nothing.

    I always got the impression that EA got the idea for Majestic from "The Game," the Fincher movie with Micheal Douglas from '97 or so. The difference, though, was that Douglas had no idea what was a part of the game or not, and there was the distinct feeling that he could lose anything at any time, including his life and his fortune.

    I didn't have frightened phone calls in the middle of the night before, so I think it'd be pretty obvious where they were coming from as soon as I signed up for the game. There would be too many logistic, liability, and cost issues for EA to do anything physical whatsoever with Majestic, and the only fortune I could legally lose is the $240 a year it would cost to play in what is essentially an underwhelming RPG.

    It's nice to see that not all games out there these days are fragfests, but Majestic was pretty much a misguided novelty from the start. A footnote or interesting sidebar in the history books at best.
    • If I had somebody calling me in a panic, I would be less concerned about whether or not, you know, they were going to die or something, than I would be about how many of my cellphone minutes it was using up.

      you pay for RECEIVING calls?.....
      You need to get a new provider!

  • I thought it was a neat concept, so I signed up... To sign up for Majestic, you sign up for EA's online game service for $10/month. The only thing that was any good on it is Majestic; the rest of the games were pretty lame.

    So I made it through the first teaser "episode" and then episode 1 in a total of about a week and a half. Then it turns out they hadn't finished any other episodes yet. So I was paying $10 for a week and a half of play, and then nothing until they finished the next episode.

    It was a halfway decent game, if a bit linear, and a really neat idea, but there's no way in hell I'm paying essentially $10 a week...

  • I think one of the problems with majestic was after Sept. 11 people became paranoid - and I quite honestly people don't want to be harassed by phone calls when threats of Anthrax and who knows what is on CNN. The idea was good and creative, the timing was bad.
  • Someone tell me if you see Steve Gula in the credits for this game. I was a tester for it for 3 months at EA-VA (EA Charlottesville, VA) before going back to school, they axed everyone but like 20 people (was about 150-200) a month later.

    Anyways, the game was a definite change from all other games, and although EA anticipated that, they didn't anticipate the raw manpower that would be needed to make sure it worked and to keep the episodes going. I remember from work, that in the 3 months that it was out, it was already a month behind schedule. And they were just grabbing for air when they brought in Cypher from the Matrix. We also ran into trouble when the lead test head guy left to go to Florida, because the people on the west coast were complete assholes about everything it seemed. Heard him yell so many times over a conference call that he wasn't going to let them push (release) something that he hasn't even seen, and they were all 'it works, don't worry blah blah'.

    Oh well, looks damn good on a resume :
    Worked as tester for Electronic Arts, tested/broke/hacked/cheated Majestic, BattleTech:3025, Motor City Online, and a dozen other ea.com games.

    Oh well, fond memories of taking the prescripted AIM bot conversations out of context and sending it to the testbay fun stuff email list.
  • that they (who? them!) can't listen in on your phone conversations if there are pretend treatening phone calls all the time. _They_ stoped the game! Blame _them_.
  • This is really, really old news. 'Bout a month old now. Saw it on www.avault.com a long time ago.

  • "Very cool"? "Groundbreaking"? Not EA. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SilentChris ( 452960 ) on Saturday January 05, 2002 @02:25PM (#2791193) Homepage
    I tried the Majestic pilot, then read numerous reviews trashing it and the whole concept. I agree. Majestic is a "game" in the same way Metal Gear Solid 2 is an "interactive movie" -- a misnomer. Much of Majestic involved reading a few web pages, listening to prerecorded messages, and engaging conversations with pathetic chatbots. In the process, I had to install a variety of commercialware (AIM, RealPlayer) and wait days between contacts.

    Their right in one respect: the game definitely does "play you", not the other way around. Actually EA is playing you. Charging money and then forcing you to sit through ads on the game's main homepage -- kind of takes the suspense out of things, huh?

    Ever since EA started partnerning with companies like AOL their quality has shot to hell. Yes, "let's make a game identical to a previous one, provide even more unrealistic action, beef up the graphics (because that's the only thing we do anyway) and advertise a song by calling it SSX Tricky. People will love it!"

    • Ever since EA started partnerning with companies like AOL their quality has shot to hell. Yes, "let's make a game identical to a previous
      one, provide even more unrealistic action, beef up the graphics (because that's the only thing we do anyway) and advertise a song by
      calling it SSX Tricky. People will love it!"

      HEY! WAIT A DAMN MINUTE!

      Slightly off-topic here, but I'm willing to risk the mod-down.

      You can't have played it, 'cause SSX Tricky for PS2 is a complete kick-ass improvement on SSX for PS2. The next level of "ubertricks" that you can accumulate to get a continual turbo-boost for your whole downhill run, the great soundtrack that yes, includes RunDMC's "Tricky" as well as a bucketful of other great songs, as well as the nicely beefed-up graphics make for a great game worthy of the PS2 platform. Sure, there are only 2 "completely new" tracks, but they also went back and modified all the old tracks almost beyond recognition. And BTW, people DO love it. This game still sells like hotcakes (still in the top 5-10 for PS2 games), so the proof is in the pudding.

      And am I reading this correctly or did you just call this game "unrealistic"? OF COURSE it's unrealistic! It's a GAME for godsakes. If my sports videogames were all true-to-life they'd suck ass because I simply don't have the fucking talent that the pros do and though I can snowboard, if I ever tried even the most rudimentary air trick I'm certain I'd break my neck. Does anyone complain about Alice in Wonderland being unrealistic? Of course not, because that's the point. Same goes with all video games.

      I've had SSX Tricky for about 3 weeks now and every single one of the 6 people whom I've played it with were as blown away as I was. Some people just love to bitch, I guess.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • It got horrible reviews, guys.
  • This exemplifies the primary problem with subscription-based software, that being that now you have all these people who paid money for a game THEY'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO PLAY AGAIN. EA might not think it was successful enough to continue, but for those who enjoyed the game this is almost as good as simply writing a check to EA to say "thanks for being EA!".

    Additionally, any software retailers who carry this just got screwed, since the software which might normally be available to be sold later (albeit at a discount price) just lost 100% of its value.

  • While reading about this game (the first I've heard of it..) I was struck by the similarities to that movie "The Game" with Micheal Douglas in which his brother (Sean Penn) buys him a "game". The game company essentially spins a fantastic fantasy world and tosses him up to his eyeballs in it. It comes just short of ruining his life before he "wins".... An interesting concept.

    While the $$$$$$$ price tag of smashed cars, coke strewn hotel rooms, fake hospitals and the actors required would put the price of such a thing beyond the range of your casual gamer, the premise is certainly interesting. Imagine having a fantasy life and being thrown (kicking and screaming) into the middle of it. Would be a thrill to say the least.

    I don't suppose that such a thing actually exists. Does anyone know anything that comes close to this "real world immersive" game?

    The only thing I know of that comes close is something called Dustrunners [dustrunners.com], but the immersive game is highly fantastic futuristic and is contained entirely within the website (and is somehow tied in with an animated cartoon). It didn't grab me soon enough after I signed up, but I admit it held promise.

  • Goodbye Majestic (Score:4, Interesting)

    by JPawloski ( 546146 ) <jpawloski@gmail.com> on Saturday January 05, 2002 @06:47PM (#2791940)
    I actually knew someone who worked at EA (not anymore, unfortunately) who helped develop the AI for the game. Needless to say, EA created a unique AI scripting language from scratch, which is pretty much a requirement for a game of this scale and a goal this ambitious.

    I was talking to him on AIM once when he was scripting, telling me that he was working on an AIMbot that would give information. I was already familar with some AIMbots (add "SmarterChild" to your AOL list and say "hello" to him -- he is hellacool!) so I enquired as to how they were implementing the system at a time. I was a little disappointed when he told me it was keyword based (the bot would scan for certain words) - this is archaic technology that has been around since the late 70s and early 80s.

    Even though it did make *some* attempt to parse the language, such as searching for negative words and helping verbs ("not the gun" would invoke a different response than "that gun") and it did take into account misspellings, the bots were too "mechanical" for the average non-programmer to use.

    And that's the problem with trying to develop a game like this - our AI technology is not advanced yet. Not until we make significant gains on a Turing machine (on home computers, no less) will games like this become successful.

    On the other hand, I was surprised to see how little attention this game received compared to other "ground breaking" games such as UO and EverQuest. We've all seen sci-fi movies where games become reality, and I thought it was an interesting twist for reality to become the game. I thought it was a really good idea, and when I explained the concept to friends they thought it was a good idea too. I don't know what went wrong with the project, but I suppose this can be blamed on marketing or something.
  • If I was sitting in an expensive restaurant and I had to put up with your cell phone ringing all the time, I'd threaten your life too :P
  • I only played through EP1 and 2 before I gave up, but it wasn't because of the chatbots (which were pretty pathetic) or the puzzles (which were incredibly easy, requiring EA to 'suggest' you check out fansites containing MUCH better puzzles than the real game) but because of the WAITING. It was maddening to wait around for as long as 3 days for something new to happen in the game, only to spend 20 minutes solving a puzzle. I spent 1/10 of my time in 'Acquire' or 'Act' modes, and the entire rest of the two months waiting for something to happen.

    Also, they tried to foster comminuty amongst the gamers, but since different people were at different points in the game, and the puzzles were pathetic, there was nothing to talk about except spoilers and what the fansites were doing. It was tragic to see the implementation of what might have been a good idea go all to hell.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

Close