If you're doing well-known covers (and not just to get around the fact that Van Halen won't license you an original track) from the 80s I'd think Joan Jett's "Crimson and Clover" cover would have been on the list.
I actually was originally going to mention how XII was very similar to the MMORPG gameplay of XI, but I didn't like the way it was reading so I went back and changed it omitting all mention of XI.
Part of the reason I quote from VII on is because that was really the moment when they moved to a new paradigm. VII was the first to use extensive cinematics that were not just in-engine sprites moving around with text boxes. It was the first to use a 3d isometric world. It honestly changed everything.
On a more personal note, Final Fantasy III on the SNES was, excepting Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, the last one in the series that I played fully. I played snippets of VII, played a demo of the PC version of VIII, watched friends play IX, and about a month ago went back and bought a copy of X used, but for me VII was the point where I dropped out of the series after playing through the original, II, and III as each was released. Ok, in all honesty it's mainly because I skipped the entire PSX generation returning to PC gaming more heavily and only bought a Gamecube in '04 and a PS2 last August, but it's still a personal mark of when the games changed from "classic" to "recent" format.
Exactly what I was thinking and with much the same problems.
The more recent Final Fantasy games (I'd say from VII on) have been increasingly driven by technology while not expanding significantly on gameplay. Sure, XII had a number of changes, but by making the game more or less play itself (or, if you prefer, drastically changing the player's role in battle to being more of a coach) it had gone too far in the other direction. The possibility exists that motion-sensitive control would also be too radical of a change, but the Wii would allow them to refocus on game design as opposed to making some very pretty cinematics.
As an American male I never understood this in even the slightest. The main reason being that I always close the damn toilet when I'm done using it. I mean, isn't that the very reason why there's a lid on it in the first place?
If I want to use the toilet, for whatever reason, I have to lift up the lid. If desired the seat goes up at the same time. When I'm done they both go down. I've never been in such a hurry (either before or after) that I couldn't be bothered to not leave an open toilet in my house.
Likewise I never understood how someone could use a toilet without actually looking at it. Are we to believe that people out there are so stupid that they're just blindly sitting down on toilets without even glancing at them?
Oddly enough this has sparked, though never an argument, a slightly altered problem in my household. My girlfriend sometimes, but her friends almost infallibly, leave the lid up.
It's not just my fear that something will fall in the toilet unless the lid is closed, but also the fact that it's unsightly, ignores the basic design of the device, and seems vaguely unsanitary.
Seriously, end this argument (real or imagined) for all time (not to mention the idea that dogs will apparently drink from it) by simply closing your toilet after you're done using it.
Personally I've never been much of a fan of in-wall speakers. But I realize that everyone has their own preferences and to some looking unobtrusive is considered desirable (I'm lucky enough to have a girlfriend who has no problem with my desire to make my speaker set look like Stonehenge as long as it sounds good). I'm also told, though I haven't investigated them seriously (I live in the city and rent), that there are some decent-sounding in-walls finally on the market. Anyhow, if you don't demand that they be completely hidden allow me to suggest against going with in-wall speakers in favor of traditional speakers which tend to be of higher quality. Due to sonic reasons I'll admit I don't fully understand (dammit, I'm a biologist, not an acoustician!) in-wall speakers tend not to sound as good.
Instead my suggestion would be to pre-wire for sound. Like everything (though you should run conduits) run more cable than you think you'll need. Especially consider that future speaker systems may very well contain more speakers than you expect at the moment as well as the possibility of redecorating and needing to move things around. Wall plates terminated with high-quality banana plugs should make wiring and re-wiring a snap. Just label both ends of each connection (e.g. 1A/1B, 2A/2B) and you'll be set to put your receiver/pre-pro and speakers wherever you want. Don't assume in advance you know where anything will sit and you'll be rewarded with greatly increased flexibility.
While 7.1 is the upper standard for today, consider that the future will change. Future-proof things by over-wiring and as trends and technology change you'll be able to easily take advantage of it without a lot of re-wiring. For secondary rooms I'd consider running at least two outlets to your equipment closet as you never know when you'll want to put in a whole-house system. Outdoor speakers should probably be decided on in advance though as they are the one area where you'll want to avoid an exposed terminating panel and you'll need to do additional installation for the speakers making major configuration changes unlikely.
Do be certain that your cabling is rated for in-wall use. I'd suggest using either 12 or 14 gauge.
"Yes, put network and TV in your kitchen... the wife or girlfriend will thank you..."
Sexist much? I'm male and not only am I the one who does the majority of the cooking, I'm also the one who stays home. After getting remarried even my father does all of the cooking in his household.
It's not just network drops though. Who knows when you'll want to adopt a whole house audio system and need to run speaker wire or when you need to install a new gadget that wants to have a wired network connection and isn't close enough to the existing drop. Not to mention the new and exciting possible changes in wiring of sorts that we haven't even considered yet.
Put a reasonably sized conduit down in every wall if possible. You never know when you're going to want to use it and if you don't need it it'll be a lot less irritating than if you realize too late that you want more than you have.
Personally, I didn't like the Boxing episode. It felt tacked-on and weak.
The greater problem with many of these character episodes (and Lost's third season had much the same problem, but even worse, even including dragging the cast off to a secondary location for most of the first half of the season) is that they don't actually do a good job of developing characters.
In my mind a character is best developed naturally by letting us see how the character acts and reacts to events that move the plot forward. Don't drag things down by setting aside time for a special episode to show how a past event made the character into the person they are today. Show us a present event that informs us of their past, show us a present event that obviously changes the character and will affect them into the future.
I watch a show for the plot. The characters need to be interesting and well-developed, but not at the expense of moving the plot foward. A show that increasingly becomes just about characters and developing them is like a role-playing game where you just create characters and devise elaborate backstories for them without ever having them actually go on adventures. A pointless form of dramatic masturbation.
The first season seemed to get this better than the third season did. For an off-the-top-of-my-head example take "33". When Adama has to give the order to destroy the civilian ship it reveals a lot about his character. It gives us a chance to have a brief interlude into events that occurred in the past as well. At the same time though it's also a tense, dramatic event that deals with the plot and establishes and embellishes the tone and setting of the show. A show composed largely of flashbacks to Adama having to make a similar decision in the past while he agonizes over what to do in the present wouldn't have had the same impact and would have taken us out of the plot.
I have the feeling that the latter has become increasingly common as the way to deal with these character developments. Hopefully we can move back to the former.
I'm in the same boat actually and it often does take that much longer to watch shows than it probably would for me to just watch them if I was living alone.
Dude...its BSG, not sex.
I know, she's always in the mood for BSG. Typically three or four episodes in a row.
Meh. I live in the city. I almost never drive anywhere inside the city limits if I can possibly avoid it. It's not worth the hassle of traffic and (especially) parking. If I don't know for certain that I can get easy, free parking then it's walking, BART, or Muni.
Actually, this was one of the first really interesting uses I had thought of for it. Albeit, not for stalking.
Combined with the already excellent HousingMaps (google maps + Craigslist apartment listings) hack this would be a great way to get a view of potential apartments... well, from the outside at least. If photos are available (and for a good chunk of San Francisco they thankfully are) you can even get a quick, vague overview of the neighborhood without having to go all the way out there first.
How about the one where they arrive in 2007 and due to an amusing mix-up believe that Starbuck is a goddess on our planet: loved and praised by some with many, many temples devoted to her worship, yet loathed and hated by others who decry the vast growth of her temples into their neighborhoods.
That's the thing and I really hate being that guy, but this is a discussion about the continued future of the show, not a general discussion of it, that is taking place not terribly long after it has aired.
In the current climate I would say that spoiler warnings for major events are generally appropriate until after the DVDs have been released as there are many people watching various shows entirely via DVD.
I hate to be the person to say this, but please avoid giving away spoilers from the series finale. It's on my TiVo right now, but due to scheduling with my girlfriend we just haven't had a chance to watch either part yet. Yes, I know it was a month ago, but dammit... sometimes in this day and age you have to expect that due to TiVo even dedicated fans might not have seen something until months later.
Frankly the upgrading and tech trees have always been my favorite parts of most strategy games. Actually building armies and *ugh* fighting someone with them often seemed like a tedious exercise necessary to get to the next level where I'll get to play more SimBase. I don't know what it is, I like the idea of having powerful, interesting, varied, badass troops, I just don't like the idea of ever having any reason to have them.
Needless to say I'm a big, big Civilization fan where I can just tech tree my way to victory.
Perhaps. It'll remain to be seen how well it works for this game, especially since the vocals will likely be notated horizontally while guitar and bass will probably continue to be notated vertically.
The greater issue is that if it only really works for a 16:9 this will be rather unpleasant for the vast majority of gamers who do not own a 16:9 display.
While this sounds great (for everyone except us Wii owners) I'm wondering exactly how multiplayer will work when you're playing live with three other people. Simply put there doesn't appear to be enough space on the screen to put up notation for four. Even putting up bars for two players was a little tight in previous games, but now you'll have to deal with guitar and bass tracks (vertical if they stick with the past), a vocal track (probably horizontal) and a completely unknown style of drumming track to display notes.
While I love that they're implementing online features it might turn out to be the only effective way to play the game.
Nothing, so far as I know, has been announced yet, but I would assume it's much like Guitar Hero/Karaoke Revolution career modes have already been: you play solo with a computer-controlled band and the co-op stuff is kept separate. Basically like how Guitar Hero II had co-op guitar/bass (or rhythm guitar), but instead they'll likely make it into a proper career mode (you have a band name, have to beat songs to advance, etc.).
While I would definitely agree that GTA is the only series of note from Rockstar, I wouldn't claim that just because their PSP versions (and the PS2 ports of them) of GTA didn't do very well there's any problem with them in the future.
I'll also gladly acknowledge that being tied to one single franchise isn't a good idea for a company. Even among other companies who have blockbuster success with a limited number of titles in a contiguous franchise iD kinda has two or three franchises and Blizzard has three (and have been expanding their market away from just the RTS market with amazing success).
Still, the point I was trying to make is that Rockstar is a company that lives and dies by the success of Grand Theft Auto. If Bully doesn't do so well... eh, no huge deal. The Warriors!?!? Did anyone really expect it to do so well before release that they even bothered with it that much? GTA IV though... well, when the trailer was released the other day sites hosting it were quickly swamped and a number of sites posted their thoughts on the trailer and what it meant for the future of the series.
If GTA IV is a flop then there's a reason to say that Rockstar isn't doing so well, but until then it'll just be business as usual.
Personally I agree that a small user base is going to be the biggest problem with GTA IV selling huge numbers. The difference is that I think the ungodly high price of the PS3 is what's going to keep it down. Even with a killer app the system is priced too high to be sold by a single piece of software. You're going to need a couple of really highly-anticipated AAA titles coming out in a short period of time (and people with a lot of spare cash, of course) in order to drive the sale of the PS3 at it's current price point. If GTA IV, MGS 4, and uh... Devil May Cry 4 all come out in short order then yeah... PS3s will start selling heavily, but I still doubt that they'll ever sell as quickly as the PS2 did.
I think this is well before the time that anyone can say Rockstar has failed. Since the Hot Coffee controversy they haven't released any really high-end games. Sure there have been a few titles, but mainly just portable GTA3 spin-offs and other properties that aren't nearly as hot. Bully, their last controversial title, didn't make much of a splash when it finally arrived. It received generally above-average reviews (and is on my personal wishlist still), but the brewing complaints from the usual groups seem to have backed off.
If GTA4 comes out and does poorly then there will be the argument that Rockstar is losing it, but otherwise... well, it's pretty heavily anticipated.
This is merely because all of the photos are being pulled from Yelp where Google already gets a large degree of their reviews. As such it's less a criticism of Google than one of Yelp (which, honestly, has plenty of problems).
Frankly I'm amazed that they've waited so long. I mean, Magneto took, what, three months? The only reason to keep Jean away is because of the Cyclops/Emma plotline, but considering the horribly slow, consistently late way the book is going they've more or less dropped that even.
Joss is a great writer, but he's kinda dropped the ball recently.
Also, maybe I just wasn't paying attention, but how did Wolverine manage to get back from, y'know, the sun? I'm amazed that he could even live through that.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're doing well-known covers (and not just to get around the fact that Van Halen won't license you an original track) from the 80s I'd think Joan Jett's "Crimson and Clover" cover would have been on the list.
I actually was originally going to mention how XII was very similar to the MMORPG gameplay of XI, but I didn't like the way it was reading so I went back and changed it omitting all mention of XI.
Part of the reason I quote from VII on is because that was really the moment when they moved to a new paradigm. VII was the first to use extensive cinematics that were not just in-engine sprites moving around with text boxes. It was the first to use a 3d isometric world. It honestly changed everything.
On a more personal note, Final Fantasy III on the SNES was, excepting Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, the last one in the series that I played fully. I played snippets of VII, played a demo of the PC version of VIII, watched friends play IX, and about a month ago went back and bought a copy of X used, but for me VII was the point where I dropped out of the series after playing through the original, II, and III as each was released. Ok, in all honesty it's mainly because I skipped the entire PSX generation returning to PC gaming more heavily and only bought a Gamecube in '04 and a PS2 last August, but it's still a personal mark of when the games changed from "classic" to "recent" format.
Exactly what I was thinking and with much the same problems.
The more recent Final Fantasy games (I'd say from VII on) have been increasingly driven by technology while not expanding significantly on gameplay. Sure, XII had a number of changes, but by making the game more or less play itself (or, if you prefer, drastically changing the player's role in battle to being more of a coach) it had gone too far in the other direction. The possibility exists that motion-sensitive control would also be too radical of a change, but the Wii would allow them to refocus on game design as opposed to making some very pretty cinematics.
As an American male I never understood this in even the slightest. The main reason being that I always close the damn toilet when I'm done using it. I mean, isn't that the very reason why there's a lid on it in the first place?
If I want to use the toilet, for whatever reason, I have to lift up the lid. If desired the seat goes up at the same time. When I'm done they both go down. I've never been in such a hurry (either before or after) that I couldn't be bothered to not leave an open toilet in my house.
Likewise I never understood how someone could use a toilet without actually looking at it. Are we to believe that people out there are so stupid that they're just blindly sitting down on toilets without even glancing at them?
Oddly enough this has sparked, though never an argument, a slightly altered problem in my household. My girlfriend sometimes, but her friends almost infallibly, leave the lid up.
It's not just my fear that something will fall in the toilet unless the lid is closed, but also the fact that it's unsightly, ignores the basic design of the device, and seems vaguely unsanitary.
Seriously, end this argument (real or imagined) for all time (not to mention the idea that dogs will apparently drink from it) by simply closing your toilet after you're done using it.
Personally I've never been much of a fan of in-wall speakers. But I realize that everyone has their own preferences and to some looking unobtrusive is considered desirable (I'm lucky enough to have a girlfriend who has no problem with my desire to make my speaker set look like Stonehenge as long as it sounds good). I'm also told, though I haven't investigated them seriously (I live in the city and rent), that there are some decent-sounding in-walls finally on the market. Anyhow, if you don't demand that they be completely hidden allow me to suggest against going with in-wall speakers in favor of traditional speakers which tend to be of higher quality. Due to sonic reasons I'll admit I don't fully understand (dammit, I'm a biologist, not an acoustician!) in-wall speakers tend not to sound as good.
Instead my suggestion would be to pre-wire for sound. Like everything (though you should run conduits) run more cable than you think you'll need. Especially consider that future speaker systems may very well contain more speakers than you expect at the moment as well as the possibility of redecorating and needing to move things around. Wall plates terminated with high-quality banana plugs should make wiring and re-wiring a snap. Just label both ends of each connection (e.g. 1A/1B, 2A/2B) and you'll be set to put your receiver/pre-pro and speakers wherever you want. Don't assume in advance you know where anything will sit and you'll be rewarded with greatly increased flexibility.
While 7.1 is the upper standard for today, consider that the future will change. Future-proof things by over-wiring and as trends and technology change you'll be able to easily take advantage of it without a lot of re-wiring. For secondary rooms I'd consider running at least two outlets to your equipment closet as you never know when you'll want to put in a whole-house system. Outdoor speakers should probably be decided on in advance though as they are the one area where you'll want to avoid an exposed terminating panel and you'll need to do additional installation for the speakers making major configuration changes unlikely.
Do be certain that your cabling is rated for in-wall use. I'd suggest using either 12 or 14 gauge.
"Yes, put network and TV in your kitchen... the wife or girlfriend will thank you..."
Sexist much? I'm male and not only am I the one who does the majority of the cooking, I'm also the one who stays home. After getting remarried even my father does all of the cooking in his household.
It's not just network drops though. Who knows when you'll want to adopt a whole house audio system and need to run speaker wire or when you need to install a new gadget that wants to have a wired network connection and isn't close enough to the existing drop. Not to mention the new and exciting possible changes in wiring of sorts that we haven't even considered yet.
Put a reasonably sized conduit down in every wall if possible. You never know when you're going to want to use it and if you don't need it it'll be a lot less irritating than if you realize too late that you want more than you have.
Personally, I didn't like the Boxing episode. It felt tacked-on and weak.
The greater problem with many of these character episodes (and Lost's third season had much the same problem, but even worse, even including dragging the cast off to a secondary location for most of the first half of the season) is that they don't actually do a good job of developing characters.
In my mind a character is best developed naturally by letting us see how the character acts and reacts to events that move the plot forward. Don't drag things down by setting aside time for a special episode to show how a past event made the character into the person they are today. Show us a present event that informs us of their past, show us a present event that obviously changes the character and will affect them into the future.
I watch a show for the plot. The characters need to be interesting and well-developed, but not at the expense of moving the plot foward. A show that increasingly becomes just about characters and developing them is like a role-playing game where you just create characters and devise elaborate backstories for them without ever having them actually go on adventures. A pointless form of dramatic masturbation.
The first season seemed to get this better than the third season did. For an off-the-top-of-my-head example take "33". When Adama has to give the order to destroy the civilian ship it reveals a lot about his character. It gives us a chance to have a brief interlude into events that occurred in the past as well. At the same time though it's also a tense, dramatic event that deals with the plot and establishes and embellishes the tone and setting of the show. A show composed largely of flashbacks to Adama having to make a similar decision in the past while he agonizes over what to do in the present wouldn't have had the same impact and would have taken us out of the plot.
I have the feeling that the latter has become increasingly common as the way to deal with these character developments. Hopefully we can move back to the former.
I'm in the same boat actually and it often does take that much longer to watch shows than it probably would for me to just watch them if I was living alone.
Dude...its BSG, not sex.
I know, she's always in the mood for BSG. Typically three or four episodes in a row.
Meh. I live in the city. I almost never drive anywhere inside the city limits if I can possibly avoid it. It's not worth the hassle of traffic and (especially) parking. If I don't know for certain that I can get easy, free parking then it's walking, BART, or Muni.
I only drive when I'm going to be in the suburbs.
Actually, this was one of the first really interesting uses I had thought of for it. Albeit, not for stalking.
Combined with the already excellent HousingMaps (google maps + Craigslist apartment listings) hack this would be a great way to get a view of potential apartments... well, from the outside at least. If photos are available (and for a good chunk of San Francisco they thankfully are) you can even get a quick, vague overview of the neighborhood without having to go all the way out there first.
How about the one where they arrive in 2007 and due to an amusing mix-up believe that Starbuck is a goddess on our planet: loved and praised by some with many, many temples devoted to her worship, yet loathed and hated by others who decry the vast growth of her temples into their neighborhoods.
That's the thing and I really hate being that guy, but this is a discussion about the continued future of the show, not a general discussion of it, that is taking place not terribly long after it has aired.
In the current climate I would say that spoiler warnings for major events are generally appropriate until after the DVDs have been released as there are many people watching various shows entirely via DVD.
So, um... are they still going to do that lame Caprica spin-off they announced like two years ago?
I hate to be the person to say this, but please avoid giving away spoilers from the series finale. It's on my TiVo right now, but due to scheduling with my girlfriend we just haven't had a chance to watch either part yet. Yes, I know it was a month ago, but dammit... sometimes in this day and age you have to expect that due to TiVo even dedicated fans might not have seen something until months later.
I never even knew there was a game. I am, however, now subjected to unpleasant flashbacks to seventh grade science class.
Frankly the upgrading and tech trees have always been my favorite parts of most strategy games. Actually building armies and *ugh* fighting someone with them often seemed like a tedious exercise necessary to get to the next level where I'll get to play more SimBase. I don't know what it is, I like the idea of having powerful, interesting, varied, badass troops, I just don't like the idea of ever having any reason to have them.
Needless to say I'm a big, big Civilization fan where I can just tech tree my way to victory.
Perhaps. It'll remain to be seen how well it works for this game, especially since the vocals will likely be notated horizontally while guitar and bass will probably continue to be notated vertically.
The greater issue is that if it only really works for a 16:9 this will be rather unpleasant for the vast majority of gamers who do not own a 16:9 display.
While this sounds great (for everyone except us Wii owners) I'm wondering exactly how multiplayer will work when you're playing live with three other people. Simply put there doesn't appear to be enough space on the screen to put up notation for four. Even putting up bars for two players was a little tight in previous games, but now you'll have to deal with guitar and bass tracks (vertical if they stick with the past), a vocal track (probably horizontal) and a completely unknown style of drumming track to display notes.
While I love that they're implementing online features it might turn out to be the only effective way to play the game.
Nothing, so far as I know, has been announced yet, but I would assume it's much like Guitar Hero/Karaoke Revolution career modes have already been: you play solo with a computer-controlled band and the co-op stuff is kept separate. Basically like how Guitar Hero II had co-op guitar/bass (or rhythm guitar), but instead they'll likely make it into a proper career mode (you have a band name, have to beat songs to advance, etc.).
While I would definitely agree that GTA is the only series of note from Rockstar, I wouldn't claim that just because their PSP versions (and the PS2 ports of them) of GTA didn't do very well there's any problem with them in the future.
I'll also gladly acknowledge that being tied to one single franchise isn't a good idea for a company. Even among other companies who have blockbuster success with a limited number of titles in a contiguous franchise iD kinda has two or three franchises and Blizzard has three (and have been expanding their market away from just the RTS market with amazing success).
Still, the point I was trying to make is that Rockstar is a company that lives and dies by the success of Grand Theft Auto. If Bully doesn't do so well... eh, no huge deal. The Warriors!?!? Did anyone really expect it to do so well before release that they even bothered with it that much? GTA IV though... well, when the trailer was released the other day sites hosting it were quickly swamped and a number of sites posted their thoughts on the trailer and what it meant for the future of the series.
If GTA IV is a flop then there's a reason to say that Rockstar isn't doing so well, but until then it'll just be business as usual.
Personally I agree that a small user base is going to be the biggest problem with GTA IV selling huge numbers. The difference is that I think the ungodly high price of the PS3 is what's going to keep it down. Even with a killer app the system is priced too high to be sold by a single piece of software. You're going to need a couple of really highly-anticipated AAA titles coming out in a short period of time (and people with a lot of spare cash, of course) in order to drive the sale of the PS3 at it's current price point. If GTA IV, MGS 4, and uh... Devil May Cry 4 all come out in short order then yeah... PS3s will start selling heavily, but I still doubt that they'll ever sell as quickly as the PS2 did.
I think this is well before the time that anyone can say Rockstar has failed. Since the Hot Coffee controversy they haven't released any really high-end games. Sure there have been a few titles, but mainly just portable GTA3 spin-offs and other properties that aren't nearly as hot. Bully, their last controversial title, didn't make much of a splash when it finally arrived. It received generally above-average reviews (and is on my personal wishlist still), but the brewing complaints from the usual groups seem to have backed off.
If GTA4 comes out and does poorly then there will be the argument that Rockstar is losing it, but otherwise... well, it's pretty heavily anticipated.
Why on Earth would I want a gas-powered pogo stick? ... when I can have gas-powered stilts! Now that's a great idea!
This is merely because all of the photos are being pulled from Yelp where Google already gets a large degree of their reviews. As such it's less a criticism of Google than one of Yelp (which, honestly, has plenty of problems).
Frankly I'm amazed that they've waited so long. I mean, Magneto took, what, three months? The only reason to keep Jean away is because of the Cyclops/Emma plotline, but considering the horribly slow, consistently late way the book is going they've more or less dropped that even.
Joss is a great writer, but he's kinda dropped the ball recently.
Also, maybe I just wasn't paying attention, but how did Wolverine manage to get back from, y'know, the sun? I'm amazed that he could even live through that.