I had one of those Castlevania games ("Harmony of Dissonance", I think?), and while it was kinda fun to play through once, it didn't have any lasting appeal. I think it was too easy, really. In addition, the subscreen interfaces, while adequate, were a little rough. It could have used a tad more polish.
For me, beating it was mostly a question of time, not skill. I put in my time, beat it, then put it away. After a few months I sold it, knowing that I'd never want to go back to it.
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand their overcomplex game system, and the NGage bet was a mark of stupidity. I'm not defending them in any way. But a fact is a fact, and your headline isn't. They might be swirling the drain, but they aren't down it. All your headline needs is "might be".
SMB64 was the first 3D platformer (or at least the first one recognized as worth playing). The analog control of the N64's controller was the perfect way of interfacing with a character in a virtual 3D world.
He pretty much said it. It wasn't perfect; there were some camera isues, and after playing Ocarina of Time it's definitely hard to go back to Mario 64. But at the time there was no 3D platformer that even came close to Mario 64, and it took awhile for it to be significantly surpassed. I'm not sure if it's inaccurate to say that Mario 64 created the genre by showing us what kind of things we could do!
I don't quite know how to respond. I'm not sure what point you were making, or how your response follows mine.
My point was that your initial comment didn't follow from the story. The story is about games being artful enough to survive the test of time. It posts a question that explicitly excludes technological concerns, and your answer consists of nothing but technological concerns.
Are you arguing that you are intentionally off-topic?
No one will give a shit about GTA in 10 years let alone 400. This is due to the fact that GTA really isn't anything special at all - although it is still art.
I disagree. In retrospect, I don't think Super Mario Bros is that great either. It's definitely been surpassed. But it will be played. Why? Because it was the ground-breaking. The colorful worlds, the side-scrolling non-repetitive play... It will be remembered and played.
Same with GTA. Super Mario 64 was arguably the first big step in the 3D game age, and GTA was the second. Future games will do it better and have better stories, but they won't break ground better.
I personally think Shakespeare is overrated. But he's influenced a lot of stuff that I like better, and for that, I give him credit and try to familiarize myself with his works.
What part of "assuming technology wasn't an issue" didn't you understand?
Man, the first two posts I see make the same basic only-skimmed-the-article error. You guys are so anxious to throw your voice in... Well, I have no problem posting basically the same comment twice.
I had a similar experience. I thought it would suck because I think Buffy is terrible. I figured that if Whedon created crap like Buffy, then Firefly couldn't be all that his rabid fanbase made it out to be.
But I borrowed the box set from a friend, and it was great! Just utterly fantastic. (Ok, the second disc was a little weak.) Haven't seen Serenity, but I'll get around to it.
By the way, I suggest avoiding the Dark Horse comic based on the franchise. It's supposed to bridge the gap between the last episode and the film, but it really doesn't provide anything of interest. Except an unsettling pinup of Inara (how could someone funk up her face so bad?). The pinup of Kaylee's not right either.
"Disclaimer: I work for Motorola, but I'm not involved with any of the above-mentioned products." I HATE Motorola. They don't give a flying $hit about their customers. I will NEVER knowingly use/buy anything associated with Motorola. I wish Motorola would hire Carly Fiorina as the next CEO. I hear she is available.
Yes sir, your rock solid analysis and eloquent criticism have convinced me that I work for a disreputable company. I shall march into my boss' office tomorrow and announce that I cannot further associate myself with such dastardly dobadders.
Seriously, I don't know what your bad experiences were, but it must've sucked. All I can tell you is, as a Moto software engineer for mobile phones, we do try to make products that don't suck. We try to make them good, even. I don't know what tech support person or product pissed you off so, but doesn't crap like that happen with all companies?
If you want to badmouth Moto (or any company), go ahead, I can't stop you. Just know that Moto is not the same as it was five years ago (or three, even). I'm surprised at how quickly the new CEO (Ed Zander, formerly of Sun) has made changes that look like they'll have a lasting impact on quality.
Motorola's motivation is that they are as usual complete dickheads when it comes to consumer marketing.
Regarding being dickheads, I'm gonna need examples. I've only paid attention to the industry since I started working in it, and that's only been two years. (Before I started working, I didn't even want a phone. Wouldn't have one if they didn't give me one for work.)
Regarding the RAZR, your prediction has merit. Me and my coworkers joke about wondering how long we're gonna ride the RAZR-train. "But it's in a different color now!"
On the other hand, we have made great strides in the past few years in quality and call performance with GSM (don't know other protocols because I don't work in them). I won't go deeply into it (because I don't want to say anything that I shouldn't because I like my job), but our call-drop stats with providers have improved greatly and our return rates are dropping. Even if the momentum is lost, our general repuation for quality should be much better in the long run.
I completely agree. Without the contracts, phones would be better and providers would have to improve themselves. Consumers would win and phone makers would be much more free to do neat shit. Providers don't want that, though.
Do you think Motorola wanted that 100 song limit on the first ROKR? Hell no. Apple required it so the phone couldn't compete with iPod. Moto had to comply if they wanted iTunes.
If they drop iTunes, they can remove the 100-song limitation.
Disclaimer: I work for Motorola, but not on any products mentioned in this post or in the story. Nothing I say is based on insider info.
What the hell are the people at Motorola thinking?
Motorola developed this feature because then providers will push their phones. Providers will cream their shorts at the thought of the new revenue stream, and then push Moto phones at a subsidized cost (or free!). Once the phone gets into your hand, Moto couldn't care if you pay for iRadio or not.
You'd think at this point, with Google's success, some of these other companies would have figured out that treating employees very well, paying them very well, and not outsourcing everything to third world countries, might, just might result in some innovative and marketable ideas... I guess it's going to make more time, and more King Kong movies before these companies get a clue.
Wha...? I think your train of thought just jumped the tracks.
Motorola, after delivering a poor iPod bundled in an unimpressive phone, now thinks they can turn the system upside down and shake money from their (potential) userbase by charging them per use... charges accrue whether you use it or not + they go up as you use it more.
Back it up a sec. Motorola couldn't give a rat's ass about whether you subscribe or not. Why did they make this feature? Because they know that the providers want it. If the providers like it, then they'll push Moto phones. And cell phone makers need providers to push their phones, because most phone purchases are cost-subsidized via provider's service contract.
What you need to remember is, the providers are greedy as shit. If they can charge you, they will. Cell phone makers get money from one source: phone purchase price. Providers do not share service fees or anything with them. If a cool phone feature will jeopardize a provider's ability to gouge you, phones won't have it. Conversely, if a phone feature gives a provider another thing to sell you, they'll piss their pants over it.
Do you think Moto wanted to gimp the Bluetooth on Verizon phones so you have to pay to transfer photos off them (which only benefits Verizon)? Do you think Moto wanted to limit the ROKR to 100 songs (which ensures ROKR can't compete with iPod)? Hell no. Use your brain.
Disclaimer: I work for Motorola, but I'm not involved with any of the above-mentioned products. (And I think ROKR was a dumb move also. The silver lining is that it shows providers and Apple that what they conceded wasn't enough for customers. Music phones will only get better now, though slowly.)
Gameboy (5 stars) : Launched with Tetris, singlehandedly sealing the Gameboy in the realm of gaming history and handheld dominance. The sheer number of Tetris clones will attest to that. On top of that, this was back when black and white TVs was still the norm for the average citizen having a monochrome screen in a HANDHELD was frikin amazing.
(Emphasis added.)
B&W TVs being in the norm for the average citizen? Uh, no. Game Boy was released around 1990, not 1975. How old are you?
"Are they going to sell used copies of Microsoft Office and if not why not?," asked Rein. "Why is that Microsoft (Research) has no objections to you reselling a copy of 'Halo,' but if you try it with Office, they'll come down on you like a ton on bricks?"
That is one of the coolest things I've ever heard. And not really novel; why haven't I heard or thought of this argument before?
Though I'm not sure if it applies to this case. Is Best Buy selling used PC games also? The article is not clear.
"It is also possible that the sperm packages had come from other males that they had 'bumped' into, in the dark depths of the ocean. However, the sperm packages ended up in the squid - it is just another part of the mysterious lives of these creatures of the deep sea."
That's what I was telling my coworkers when they said they weren't interested in seeing it, because the last couple Batman movies sucked (they're all Indians, so they're a little US-pop-culture deficient).
I told them that the first two movies were not Batman movies, they were Tim Burton movies, and that the ones that followed it are universally regarded as crap. I really had to explain that this was a reboot.
In the summer or fall, yeah, it seems like there's too many movies and not enough time. Until January or February, when there's nothing to see but shit.
I always wonder why studios don't save more good flicks for these months. It's not like there's any other movies to compete with.
Yeah, they say these are not good moviegoing months. But I'm wondering if that's a self-fulfilling prophecy: of course it's a bad time for theatres when all they're showing is shit!
Slashdot Mirror
Will Spielberg's game soundtrack have plenty of french horn at the parts where I'm supposed to feel emotional?
I had one of those Castlevania games ("Harmony of Dissonance", I think?), and while it was kinda fun to play through once, it didn't have any lasting appeal. I think it was too easy, really. In addition, the subscreen interfaces, while adequate, were a little rough. It could have used a tad more polish.
For me, beating it was mostly a question of time, not skill. I put in my time, beat it, then put it away. After a few months I sold it, knowing that I'd never want to go back to it.
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand their overcomplex game system, and the NGage bet was a mark of stupidity. I'm not defending them in any way. But a fact is a fact, and your headline isn't. They might be swirling the drain, but they aren't down it. All your headline needs is "might be".
They are NOT going out of business. RTFA, submitter! (You too, Zonk!)
Yet. Kevin is asking for help to keep them afloat. Signed & numbered prints. Your name in a book.
Read the article.
SMB64 was the first 3D platformer (or at least the first one recognized as worth playing). The analog control of the N64's controller was the perfect way of interfacing with a character in a virtual 3D world.
He pretty much said it. It wasn't perfect; there were some camera isues, and after playing Ocarina of Time it's definitely hard to go back to Mario 64. But at the time there was no 3D platformer that even came close to Mario 64, and it took awhile for it to be significantly surpassed. I'm not sure if it's inaccurate to say that Mario 64 created the genre by showing us what kind of things we could do!
I don't quite know how to respond. I'm not sure what point you were making, or how your response follows mine.
My point was that your initial comment didn't follow from the story. The story is about games being artful enough to survive the test of time. It posts a question that explicitly excludes technological concerns, and your answer consists of nothing but technological concerns.
Are you arguing that you are intentionally off-topic?
No one will give a shit about GTA in 10 years let alone 400. This is due to the fact that GTA really isn't anything special at all - although it is still art.
I disagree. In retrospect, I don't think Super Mario Bros is that great either. It's definitely been surpassed. But it will be played. Why? Because it was the ground-breaking. The colorful worlds, the side-scrolling non-repetitive play... It will be remembered and played.
Same with GTA. Super Mario 64 was arguably the first big step in the 3D game age, and GTA was the second. Future games will do it better and have better stories, but they won't break ground better.
I personally think Shakespeare is overrated. But he's influenced a lot of stuff that I like better, and for that, I give him credit and try to familiarize myself with his works.
What part of "assuming technology wasn't an issue" didn't you understand?
Man, the first two posts I see make the same basic only-skimmed-the-article error. You guys are so anxious to throw your voice in... Well, I have no problem posting basically the same comment twice.
What part of "assuming technology wasn't an issue" didn't you understand?
I had a similar experience. I thought it would suck because I think Buffy is terrible. I figured that if Whedon created crap like Buffy, then Firefly couldn't be all that his rabid fanbase made it out to be.
But I borrowed the box set from a friend, and it was great! Just utterly fantastic. (Ok, the second disc was a little weak.) Haven't seen Serenity, but I'll get around to it.
By the way, I suggest avoiding the Dark Horse comic based on the franchise. It's supposed to bridge the gap between the last episode and the film, but it really doesn't provide anything of interest. Except an unsettling pinup of Inara (how could someone funk up her face so bad?). The pinup of Kaylee's not right either.
How come the characters in Messiah and MDK were far more detailed then the characters in Enter the Matrix, which were modeled from actual people?
Are you suggesting that the video-game Neo wasn't as expressive or lifelike as Keanu Reeves?
You could argue that he isn't really directing any other movies either... (though he tries. He really does.)
"Disclaimer: I work for Motorola, but I'm not involved with any of the above-mentioned products." I HATE Motorola. They don't give a flying $hit about their customers. I will NEVER knowingly use/buy anything associated with Motorola. I wish Motorola would hire Carly Fiorina as the next CEO. I hear she is available.
Yes sir, your rock solid analysis and eloquent criticism have convinced me that I work for a disreputable company. I shall march into my boss' office tomorrow and announce that I cannot further associate myself with such dastardly dobadders.
Seriously, I don't know what your bad experiences were, but it must've sucked. All I can tell you is, as a Moto software engineer for mobile phones, we do try to make products that don't suck. We try to make them good, even. I don't know what tech support person or product pissed you off so, but doesn't crap like that happen with all companies?
If you want to badmouth Moto (or any company), go ahead, I can't stop you. Just know that Moto is not the same as it was five years ago (or three, even). I'm surprised at how quickly the new CEO (Ed Zander, formerly of Sun) has made changes that look like they'll have a lasting impact on quality.
Motorola's motivation is that they are as usual complete dickheads when it comes to consumer marketing.
Regarding being dickheads, I'm gonna need examples. I've only paid attention to the industry since I started working in it, and that's only been two years. (Before I started working, I didn't even want a phone. Wouldn't have one if they didn't give me one for work.)
Regarding the RAZR, your prediction has merit. Me and my coworkers joke about wondering how long we're gonna ride the RAZR-train. "But it's in a different color now!"
On the other hand, we have made great strides in the past few years in quality and call performance with GSM (don't know other protocols because I don't work in them). I won't go deeply into it (because I don't want to say anything that I shouldn't because I like my job), but our call-drop stats with providers have improved greatly and our return rates are dropping. Even if the momentum is lost, our general repuation for quality should be much better in the long run.
I completely agree. Without the contracts, phones would be better and providers would have to improve themselves. Consumers would win and phone makers would be much more free to do neat shit. Providers don't want that, though.
Do you think Motorola wanted that 100 song limit on the first ROKR? Hell no. Apple required it so the phone couldn't compete with iPod. Moto had to comply if they wanted iTunes.
If they drop iTunes, they can remove the 100-song limitation.
Disclaimer: I work for Motorola, but not on any products mentioned in this post or in the story. Nothing I say is based on insider info.
What the hell are the people at Motorola thinking?
Motorola developed this feature because then providers will push their phones. Providers will cream their shorts at the thought of the new revenue stream, and then push Moto phones at a subsidized cost (or free!). Once the phone gets into your hand, Moto couldn't care if you pay for iRadio or not.
See my other post in this story.
You'd think at this point, with Google's success, some of these other companies would have figured out that treating employees very well, paying them very well, and not outsourcing everything to third world countries, might, just might result in some innovative and marketable ideas... I guess it's going to make more time, and more King Kong movies before these companies get a clue.
Wha...? I think your train of thought just jumped the tracks.
Motorola, after delivering a poor iPod bundled in an unimpressive phone, now thinks they can turn the system upside down and shake money from their (potential) userbase by charging them per use... charges accrue whether you use it or not + they go up as you use it more.
Back it up a sec. Motorola couldn't give a rat's ass about whether you subscribe or not. Why did they make this feature? Because they know that the providers want it. If the providers like it, then they'll push Moto phones. And cell phone makers need providers to push their phones, because most phone purchases are cost-subsidized via provider's service contract.
What you need to remember is, the providers are greedy as shit. If they can charge you, they will. Cell phone makers get money from one source: phone purchase price. Providers do not share service fees or anything with them. If a cool phone feature will jeopardize a provider's ability to gouge you, phones won't have it. Conversely, if a phone feature gives a provider another thing to sell you, they'll piss their pants over it.
Do you think Moto wanted to gimp the Bluetooth on Verizon phones so you have to pay to transfer photos off them (which only benefits Verizon)? Do you think Moto wanted to limit the ROKR to 100 songs (which ensures ROKR can't compete with iPod)? Hell no. Use your brain.
Disclaimer: I work for Motorola, but I'm not involved with any of the above-mentioned products. (And I think ROKR was a dumb move also. The silver lining is that it shows providers and Apple that what they conceded wasn't enough for customers. Music phones will only get better now, though slowly.)
I'm sure he's performing well at the expected standard of quality.
Gameboy (5 stars) : Launched with Tetris, singlehandedly sealing the Gameboy in the realm of gaming history and handheld dominance. The sheer number of Tetris clones will attest to that. On top of that, this was back when black and white TVs was still the norm for the average citizen having a monochrome screen in a HANDHELD was frikin amazing.
(Emphasis added.)
B&W TVs being in the norm for the average citizen? Uh, no. Game Boy was released around 1990, not 1975. How old are you?
It's where Slashdot started, I believe. The guys went to Hope College, I think it was.
"Are they going to sell used copies of Microsoft Office and if not why not?," asked Rein. "Why is that Microsoft (Research) has no objections to you reselling a copy of 'Halo,' but if you try it with Office, they'll come down on you like a ton on bricks?"
That is one of the coolest things I've ever heard. And not really novel; why haven't I heard or thought of this argument before?
Though I'm not sure if it applies to this case. Is Best Buy selling used PC games also? The article is not clear.
"It is also possible that the sperm packages had come from other males that they had 'bumped' into, in the dark depths of the ocean. However, the sperm packages ended up in the squid - it is just another part of the mysterious lives of these creatures of the deep sea."
Ooops, sorry! Didn't realize you were a dude!
That's what I was telling my coworkers when they said they weren't interested in seeing it, because the last couple Batman movies sucked (they're all Indians, so they're a little US-pop-culture deficient).
I told them that the first two movies were not Batman movies, they were Tim Burton movies, and that the ones that followed it are universally regarded as crap. I really had to explain that this was a reboot.
In the summer or fall, yeah, it seems like there's too many movies and not enough time. Until January or February, when there's nothing to see but shit.
I always wonder why studios don't save more good flicks for these months. It's not like there's any other movies to compete with.
Yeah, they say these are not good moviegoing months. But I'm wondering if that's a self-fulfilling prophecy: of course it's a bad time for theatres when all they're showing is shit!