Many storylines just can't be fitted into a G film. This tends to limit the amount of the "adults without children" crowd you're going to get. And they're the richest group.
My point exactly. G-rated movies tend to sell exclusively to the "has children" segment and rarely will anyone else go near them with exceptions (e.g. Pixar, documentaries,... David Lynch). This has a unique effect on the market in that parents will almost inevitably take their kids (and pay for it themselves), but the films don't command enough of a market share otherwise to make them fill out the roster so you'll typically only see one or two playing at any given time. No mainstream multiplex, however, is stupid enough not to be showing those one or two films.
As for PG/PG-13 let me also amend my earlier statement. You also tend to get a great deal of broad-appeal films that they know is going to do well and that they can keep cut down enough to make it into PG/PG-13 (e.g. Bond movies, LOTR, Star Wars, event films). PG-13 seems to be heavily the realm of action-adventure (as opposed in this context to the more R-rated action genre) films, but brings in all sorts of other misfits. Still, while plenty of films would naturally end up with this rating, it's often quite obvious that many large studio productions are purposefully designed/forced into it in an effort to increase the potential market.
As to whether R rated films make up the majority it partly depends on when you look at the releases and it partly depends on where you live (theater size and local chains). I can think of many times I've checked the current releases playing at a representative 12 or 20 screen theater nearby and well over half the films playing were R. There tends to be maybe 1 or 2 G rated films and usually a pretty even mix of PG/PG-13. This time of year and this particular release year tends to favor PG/PG-13 a bit more heavily.
Part of the reason I find this interesting is because a great deal of important, relevant, artistic films are often rated R. Technically this means it should be restricted to those 17+, but in reality this is pretty ludicrous. Not only are most high school students likely to see say... The Matrix, but they would be cultural outcasts if they didn't! Part of this is the reason why the term "hard R" has come into being and part of it is the result of silly age limits. I mean, in the USA you can drive at 16 and in most states you're over the age of consent, but according to the MPAA and theater owners you're not to be allowed to see nudity in film (and if you're lucky enough to make use of being over the age of consent then well, why are you seeing so damn many movies and actually paying attention to what's on-screen?).
I'll admit that in this I come from a biased viewpoint as my parents never screened films based on rating (I recall distinctly going to Black Rain when it was in theaters, at the time I would have been 8) and when I was into my teens and going to movies by myself would often buy me tickets if need be.
Ironically I was carded at A History of Violence (rather good, not fantastic, but reccomended) a few months back and what with the beard, long hair, being in a college town and having an obviously early 20s girlfriend still had to prove that I'm 24.
G tends to sell well because it's a way to shut up small children. Depending on the film it's unlikely that anyone without a small child would go to them.
PG/PG-13 tends to be very dependent on the film. Some parents care intensely if a film is PG-13, others don't care at all. Again it's usually up to the film at this rating where it ends up selling.
R rated films tend to make up the vast majority of films showing. This particular week is a bit of an aberration with Harry Potter and Narnia in theaters and more of a move towards big, family-oriented films to be shown during the holiday season. Many weeks though there's a pretty small limit on what to see. As well, R is such a wide rating anymore that many, many films end up being placed in this category: serious dramas, action movies, teen sex comedies, etc.
In an interesting comparison though, it's the higher rated films that would tend to be thought of more highly. While I have serious, serious issues with many of their choices a quick run-down of the Academy Award Best Picture winners for the past 20 years (as PG-13 was introduced in 1984) shows that 8 were PG-13, 10 were rated R, and only one was rated PG (Driving Miss Daisy). Perhaps this would show that "comtemporary community standards" aren't exactly what many people want to think they are.
Much of the softcore porn that Blockbuster carries is actually rated R. That's typically the hallmark of softcore. Nothing but topless women and simulated sex.
Not much would ever bring me to Blockbuster. They have terrible selection, cater only to recently released ultra-mainstream films, and have a terrible policy on collecting anything that's more than a few years old. For all this they charge an excessive price per rental.
The local store I rent from carries porn (now with a suggestion list!), a disturbingly large anime section, a wide selection of foreign films and a decent selection of obscure horror and martial arts. Hell, they even have The Short Films of David Lynch which is only available from his website. Prices are $2 for regular rentals (5 days) and $3 (3 days) for new releases with films coming down from new release pretty quickly and recently released versions of classic films going directly out to the regular section rather than trying to charge more for it.
The staff is always very friendly and actually knowledgable about film (I've had interesting conversations with them on everything from classic slasher movies to French New Wave), late fees are often waived (and never excessive to begin with at only 50 cents a day or $1 for new releases) under reasonable circumstances and if you're unable to find something they order it (including semi-obscure Criterion titles).
Digital Shelf in Manhattan, KS if you ever happen to be in the area. It's the only thing about the town that I'm going to miss when I move.
Blockbuster has definitely been carrying the "unrated" versions of many mainstream films. The thing is, most of these movies aren't really "unrated". Rather, it's not that they had content that they had to cut in order to get a lower rating, most of them simply throw in a bunch of deleted scenes (some of which, admitedly have more sex and nudity) that they never submitted for rating hence with the unsubmitted scenes added back into the film it is now "unrated".
In many cases these are just the scenes that are normally available under the deleted scenes section on the "rated" DVD.
This is, admittedly, typically only true of the big-budget mainstream teen-focused comedies you routinely see loudly exclaiming how unrated they are (e.g. Eurotrip). The trend pretty much started with American Pie, but as anyone who saw the unrated version found out there was perhaps an extra 2 minutes worth of minor differences, however, they were scenes that were removed to lower the rating and AFAIK, were not present originally as deleted scenes.
The movies that Blockbuster doesn't carry in unrated format typically tend to be those films that were originally released in as unrated or NC-17 (e.g. Requiem for a Dream), but which released edited versions primarily because of Blockbuster and Wal-Mart.
In short, if Blockbuster carries an "unrated" DVD you're probably not getting anything you wouldn't already get on the original, they just slapped on the unrated to try and make it sell. If they don't carry and unrated DVD it's because the makers refused to release an compromised version of their film. Pretty hypocritical of Blockbuster, isn't it?
Exactly what I was going to state. I heard that the recent King Kong game had a similar problem where even if you win... you lose.
These are generally very poor ways to write games and even worse if you're only doing it to advance the story. I recall reading an article by Warren Spector a while back where he stated that "forced failure" scenarios are one of the worst things that you can do in a game. You can make it nearly impossible to win, a 99% chance of failure, but you have to allow the player the possiblity to come up with a strategy, to find a way to win and let them keep that victory. Of course, he also mentions how he himself was guilty of this in Deus Ex (which, I experienced first-hand, yes it's a hard fight, but it's also possible to just barely make it out at which point you lose anyway just so the story can move on).
I'm sure it's possible for you to fail in the end, but this is a tough thing to work. Typically it needs to be set up as a Pyrrhic victory: you win, but you lost so much that it's hardly a victory (e.g. Metal Gear Solid). It's also possible, but again, very challenging to have the character win temporarily, but fail in the long term: Link defeats Gannon, but he's too late... the world has already fallen into ruin and even his best efforts cannot undo what has already been done or possibly having Link win his final battle, but it took too much out of him and in the cut-scene he eventually succumbs to his wounds.
Main character death can work in games, but it's a very, very tricky thing. The player must win and feel that they have indeed won, but the character can fail.
Glad to hear it. Nintendo isn't terribly guilty of resting on their laurels, but at the same time they often have a habit of taking baby steps with occasional revolutionary leaps. Sort of an all or nothing philosophy.
Probably my greatest concern is that they want to focus more on making it simple and "safe" rather than full-featured. Thus the friend system will stick around as some sort of theoretical way to protect children without regard for it being a terrible way to build a friend list for an online game.
I realize that. While being the ancestor of the original Link, it was also the first time that a different Link was ever used: i.e. The Legend of Zelda, The Legend of Zelda: The Adventure of Link (16 year-old original Link), and The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (set some time between the first two games) all contain the same exact person. A Link to the Past is Link's ancestor. Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask are a different Link in what I believe is the oldest time as Gannondorf is still a man and not yet Gannon as in the other games. The Wind Waker clearly takes place after Ocarina of Time, but the relationship to the other games is fuzzy as far as I can tell (it's my personal opinion that it occurs in the future of all the other games).
Thus according to this there have been 4 Links so far: The original, Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, and Wind Waker.
My point though is that the people who say that each game has a different Link except for OoT/MM are wrong. This is a fairly new concept that only showed up during the 4th game (the Zelda of the first and second games are different, however, the manual lists that all the daughters of the royal family were named Zelda as a bit of a ret-con to make sense of how she'd been asleep for ages, but you saved her in the first game). Most likely since it was added recently and shortly followed by the OoT/MM set which had both a very explicit connection and introduced a new Link most people have forgetten the earlier stories a bit and feel that they are the only games with the same hero.
While Mario Kart DS is an excellent game and I'm very, very glad that Nintendo finally entered into the realm of online gaming I hope they don't decide that they've suceeded. Basically they've reached a point where this works, but they don't have a system that works very well. The friend system is clunky and problematic, it's impossible to play a match directly against someone else, etc.
Nintendo has made a good, functional first step tied into an excellent game. I just hope they keep working at it rather than assuming it's good enough now.
Unless I'm completely mistaken The Legend of Zelda II: The Adventure of Link was supposed to be a direct sequel to the original with the exact same Link from the original. The first time they really went with the whole "multiple Link" concept was A Link to the Past.
Though I'm far from a fundamentalist (i.e. a politically active atheist) I view piercings and tatoos as a form of bodily mutilation... even including women with a single ear piercing. It's not quite as disgusting as that might seem, but it's still a huge turn-off (non-sexually as well) to me. Doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to get as many piercings and tattoos as they want, but I'll never be a fan of them.
In fact, that's part of the difference. Most fundamentalists would simply be written off as crazy nut-jobs if they were willing to just keep their opinions personal and not interfere with others, but they feel the intense need to make everyone live the way they want them to... to the detriment of us all.
Part of the reason behind corporate dress codes is to act as a form of control over the employees. Now, while definitely do this as an overt show of force (i.e. you belong to us, you will dress the way we want because *WE* not you, are in control) it's also done for the reason that it typically makes people feel more professional. You're not hanging out at home, you're at work, wearing your work clothes.
Is this always completely sensible though? No, it frequently isn't. I worked doing customer service over the phone and while the dress code was rarely if ever enforced we were still forbidden to wear hats and halfway through the summer they decided to enforce a ban on shorts as well. The only time we would interact with anyone was over the phone. Being tethered to your phone and monitored for every second of the day (e.g. going to the bathroom was something you did on your break) there wasn't even the ability to really interact with other employees face-to-face, let alone management or clients.
Frankly I couldn't find any CDs on their list that I would have purchased (or that I wouldn't have mocked friends for buying). As long as major labels keep releasing plenty of crap it looks like I'm safe.
Still, this is a great step and to be applauded. For once consumers (or a lawyer who sees an easy way to make a buck) are actually doing something about abusive companies rather than just taking it, bitching, and then going back for more.
It depends on the type of music. If you're buying top 40 crap and want to get whatever the current hot single is (imagine that! Back in the day when people actually released songs only as singles and it was a major part of the marketplace) you're probably also dealing with music where the band was only capable of coming up with one or two decent songs which were made into singles.
If you're actually interested in music you're more likely to be buying albums based on the quality of the album and the artist, not because you heard some song on the radio and want to own it. You're buying an artistic work that you'll enjoy for years to come, not something you're going to forget about in a few weeks.
Bottom line: if you're buying an album to get one song you're probably better off buying a good CD by a better band capable of putting out a quality album instead.
A shame. I'd much rather just get the original broadcast (with commercials) available for free on their website and archived for later viewing.
This would, among many other things (like providing vastly more accurate viewer numbers, not some extrapolated bullshit from Neilsen), allow series to pick up more viewers midway through the season without ignoring it because they missed the beginning. Not to mention completely doing away with competition for timeslots (yes, some DVRs have multiple tuners, but TiVo does not). I might have bothered to watch Desperate Housewives, but quite frankly it was in competition with Arrested Development and there's no way in hell I'm going to miss that. I saw one episode of My Name Is Earl and it was enjoyable, but sadly it runs opposite House and I'm going to stick with something I already enjoy rather than jumping to something new.
Online with ads is basically just the same distribution model they have now except more people get to watch it meaning advertisers have more people watching their ads and your shows have the potential to develop much larger audiences. I mean, isn't this the only reason they bitch about pirating shows? It's not like they don't make them available for free over the air to begin with.
Yeah, although the in-game Civilopedia is often a bit more readily accessibly (or at least, would be if they'd use rely on text where appropriate rather than just pictures, a gripe I have with the whole RTS-pandering interface) it's still wonderful to get real, actual documentation for a game. A shame that this only comes as a bonus for pre-ordering.
The box is definitely spiffy. No need for some big, clunky, "cool for a few minutes" tin. It's just a simple, usuable box that I can easily open and close to store all the various docs and discs in.
While I see your point and I'm not completely unsympathetic how does this differ from anything else? If my VCR eats my VHS tapes or accidentally tear a page out of a book or leave my LPs in the sun the only way to get the object in question to work again is to buy a new one. Yes, yes, the CD isn't the real good only the delivery medium, but that's the case with all sorts of intellectual property. Just because you have no problem going out and buying a new book rather than scanning and running OCR on everything you buy just in case you mess it up somehow doesn't change the fact that you broke it.
The best idea is to imagine that we're back in the old days where the media and the message were inextricably linked. If I screw up my NES cartridge my ability to play the game is over, same as if you happen to break your Civ CD. The fact that it's easier to try and get around the fact that you broke it and still use it is just a loophole, try to treat it as such.
Also, while accidents do happen, it might be a good idea to take this as a lesson and try to be a bit more careful in the future. I know I've personally never had a CD/DVD get scratched or broken and unusuable although I do see how if you treat them carelessly this could easily happen.
Indeed, they really should have had the support page up and running before the game shipped, not a day or so later. Admittedly it's not an especially hard thing to solve: there are two discs and even though Disc 2 is labeled "Play" it's Disc 1 that shows a menu with auto-play (as opposed to merely the single data file) and Disc 1 that is typically the one used by most games for this sort of thing.
I'll admit, it took me a few seconds to figure it out, but c'mon... there are only two discs, it's not like you need to try five of them only to figure out it's really Disc 3 that does the job. A very minor bit of trial-and-error can resolve it.
Now, the issue of whether we should have to...
It also helps to show how rushed the release of this game appears to have been: the website wasn't ready even for basic problems, the ship date was pushed back by a day at the last minute, French tech trees accidentally got shipped out (OK, this is really the warehouse's fault, but still... it makes it feel rushed; and yes I'm one of the unlucky people who got one), various errors with getting the game to run, etc. Sure it's often par for the course on PC games these days to install and then immediately check for a patch on the release day, but I usually expect better from Civ.
Something I personally disliked was how they tried to create specific bottlenecks to slow down research and plenty of do-nothing techs (The Corporation/Refining/Steel triumvirate of evil in particular). I don't want to pick a tech seemingly at random based on what other Civs have alone, I want every single tech that I discover to do something interesting and to make it a valid part of my strategy.
Some people also had a problem with the very rigid age structure of the tree feeling that it forced them into making a partiuclar set of choices rather than allowing more natural and individual selection of techs. Personally it was never something that bothered me.
OTOH I've found that the new multiple-path tech tree in Civ4, while interesting does make the tree a bit harder to read with a quick glance. As well, in a suprising twist, it tends to have fewer ignorable advances. Usually you're going to need that advance as a pre-requisite for something else later on. You can hold off much longer on it if you don't really need it at the moment, but you're typically going to need to discover almost everything. The ability to thwart another player by discovering a competing offensive or defensive unit at the expense of being more well-rounded would have been nice, but, well... when you consider that an archer/longbowman fortified in a city is nigh-unbeatable (I had to resort to Navy SEALS, infantry couldn't even cut it) and that due to the new "strength only" system (even with the bonuses upgrading to newer units generally makes very little difference, the strength difference is so small that it's only statistically significant, not significant to gameplay) and a lack of balance (major advances in military technology like gunpowder should devestate earlier units, instead you're lucky to get odds of 2:1) almost all combat is a crap shoot it doesn't really matter much.
Indeed. A spawnable system would definitely help draw in new players while being an excellent showcase for the new multiplayer system. While my girlfriend has played it a bit in the past and quite enjoyed it it's still an irritating process of having to take over my computer for a couple days (preventing me from playing more Civ!) so the chances of getting her addicted are much smaller. But let us play Civ over the LAN together and you'll have the chance to make a new convert who gets into the game and has to go out and buy their own copy. If they don't get into it, no big loss... it's unlikely that you would have sold a second copy to someone who isn't particularly interested and remains uninterested and the spawned copy will go unplayed.
Civ, while a game that has repeatedly tantalized us with the incredible idea of playing it against other humans (something that would seem obvious and natural if not for the long, long wait between turns) is still mainly a single-player affair and anyone who become suitably swayed by it will almost assuredly feel the need to have their own copy for single player.
Damn... and to think I remember the old days where a console came with everything you needed: system, cables, two controllers and at least one game. While R.O.B. never worked when I got my NES Deluxe Set I was getting two games (Gyromite and Duck Hunt), two controllers, a light gun, and a goddamn robot with his own accessories.
The more recent idea where you buy the console itself, with no game, and only one controller is pretty damn crappy. Especially when you consider that most consoles are selling for much more than the previous generations. They just come with far less.
You bring up an intersting point about the logistics of the situation, but it still stands that in a purely virtual space there needs to be some way to identify people. Not necessarily in any sort of formal way, but on a personal level. Sure it's a huge world and someone might have the same name as a good friend, but IRL I can recognize them relatively easily. I can tell who they are even if they're going by a different name. In the virtual world of the Internet, however, we don't have that ability. Your name on a screen is the only way to identify you. Some people don't really care about this, they'll make up a new, random name everywhere they go or come up with some juvenile name whenever the mood strikes them. Others go for something more akin to an actual nickname. An online name and handle that is relatively unique and can be tracked and followed. In this way I can have a reasonable degree of understanding when I encounter people that I might know.
I've been using my current handle since... well, at least 10 years now. It's followed me over from local BBSs to the Internet and it's just about the only name I've ever used. At this point it's something I respond to like a real-life nickname. If someone yelled it on the street I'd turn around and check to see if they were talking to me. I feel normal and comfortable to receive snail mail addressed to me under this name. Most importantly I know that if a friend of mine sees a posting on a message board somewhere online or sees me wandering around IRC or wherever they'll be able to tell that it's me they're talking to. When you take away my name you've taken away who I am. Just like in myth names are power.
For further consideration on the topic of names online I strongly suggest Vernor Vinges' classic short story "True Names". I recall reading it back in '95 and being awestruck by how close he came to really getting it even back in the 70s when it was written.
Odd... I personally find that the free weekly papers tend to have far more interesting information and opinions than the local daily. The local daily charges me to get wire reports and puff pieces while also having to look at ads. If anything is important enough to show up in the paper then I'm going to hear about it in the next few days anyways. If it's something I'm interested in enough I'll just check Google News or a good, reputable paper online for free instead. Free weeklies tend to focus more heavily on local cultural events and when I hear about them later it's usually more along the lines of finding out that I missed out on something cool.
Is this heavily reliant on my demographics? Certainly. On the other hand when I was able to read the New York Times (despite the drop in quality it's still one of the very few daily papers in the country worth reading) daily I never felt significantly more informed about critical and noteworthy events. I mainly just noticed occasional pieces of personal interest.
Oh I understand completely. The one time you forget to wear gloves in the lab because it's a quick, simple little thing you need to do is the time that you're going to end up spilling a mutagenic substance on yourself... never fails.
Any time someone works with something dangerous or potentially dangerous or security related there's always the chance that you're going to get caught with your guard down just enough to make it work. The only way to prevent that is to be rigid and disciplined in the way you do things. Yeah it's a text-only e-mail, but that differs from the set policy of how to deal with these types of things. Same as treating every gun as loaded consistency and routine are the keys.
Well... the most basic security precaution is always the best: go directly to the source. Don't trust any e-mail to ever have the proper URL. Just go to the original web site you originally transacted with and go from there. If I ordered something from Amazon I'm going to go to www.amazon.com and work my way through to check on my order. If there are any problems I'll try to correct them. If things are totally and utterly FUBAR and I've expended a reasonable and sensible effort to resolve the problem I'll start from the main page again, try to track down a customer service number and handle it that way. If it's for my bank and seems serious enough I'll probably just try to go in to the bank and handle it in person.
Slashdot Mirror
Many storylines just can't be fitted into a G film. This tends to limit the amount of the "adults without children" crowd you're going to get. And they're the richest group. My point exactly. G-rated movies tend to sell exclusively to the "has children" segment and rarely will anyone else go near them with exceptions (e.g. Pixar, documentaries, ... David Lynch). This has a unique effect on the market in that parents will almost inevitably take their kids (and pay for it themselves), but the films don't command enough of a market share otherwise to make them fill out the roster so you'll typically only see one or two playing at any given time. No mainstream multiplex, however, is stupid enough not to be showing those one or two films.
As for PG/PG-13 let me also amend my earlier statement. You also tend to get a great deal of broad-appeal films that they know is going to do well and that they can keep cut down enough to make it into PG/PG-13 (e.g. Bond movies, LOTR, Star Wars, event films). PG-13 seems to be heavily the realm of action-adventure (as opposed in this context to the more R-rated action genre) films, but brings in all sorts of other misfits. Still, while plenty of films would naturally end up with this rating, it's often quite obvious that many large studio productions are purposefully designed/forced into it in an effort to increase the potential market.
As to whether R rated films make up the majority it partly depends on when you look at the releases and it partly depends on where you live (theater size and local chains). I can think of many times I've checked the current releases playing at a representative 12 or 20 screen theater nearby and well over half the films playing were R. There tends to be maybe 1 or 2 G rated films and usually a pretty even mix of PG/PG-13. This time of year and this particular release year tends to favor PG/PG-13 a bit more heavily.
Part of the reason I find this interesting is because a great deal of important, relevant, artistic films are often rated R. Technically this means it should be restricted to those 17+, but in reality this is pretty ludicrous. Not only are most high school students likely to see say... The Matrix, but they would be cultural outcasts if they didn't! Part of this is the reason why the term "hard R" has come into being and part of it is the result of silly age limits. I mean, in the USA you can drive at 16 and in most states you're over the age of consent, but according to the MPAA and theater owners you're not to be allowed to see nudity in film (and if you're lucky enough to make use of being over the age of consent then well, why are you seeing so damn many movies and actually paying attention to what's on-screen?).
I'll admit that in this I come from a biased viewpoint as my parents never screened films based on rating (I recall distinctly going to Black Rain when it was in theaters, at the time I would have been 8) and when I was into my teens and going to movies by myself would often buy me tickets if need be.
Ironically I was carded at A History of Violence (rather good, not fantastic, but reccomended) a few months back and what with the beard, long hair, being in a college town and having an obviously early 20s girlfriend still had to prove that I'm 24.
G tends to sell well because it's a way to shut up small children. Depending on the film it's unlikely that anyone without a small child would go to them.
PG/PG-13 tends to be very dependent on the film. Some parents care intensely if a film is PG-13, others don't care at all. Again it's usually up to the film at this rating where it ends up selling.
R rated films tend to make up the vast majority of films showing. This particular week is a bit of an aberration with Harry Potter and Narnia in theaters and more of a move towards big, family-oriented films to be shown during the holiday season. Many weeks though there's a pretty small limit on what to see. As well, R is such a wide rating anymore that many, many films end up being placed in this category: serious dramas, action movies, teen sex comedies, etc.
In an interesting comparison though, it's the higher rated films that would tend to be thought of more highly. While I have serious, serious issues with many of their choices a quick run-down of the Academy Award Best Picture winners for the past 20 years (as PG-13 was introduced in 1984) shows that 8 were PG-13, 10 were rated R, and only one was rated PG (Driving Miss Daisy). Perhaps this would show that "comtemporary community standards" aren't exactly what many people want to think they are.
Much of the softcore porn that Blockbuster carries is actually rated R. That's typically the hallmark of softcore. Nothing but topless women and simulated sex.
Not much would ever bring me to Blockbuster. They have terrible selection, cater only to recently released ultra-mainstream films, and have a terrible policy on collecting anything that's more than a few years old. For all this they charge an excessive price per rental.
The local store I rent from carries porn (now with a suggestion list!), a disturbingly large anime section, a wide selection of foreign films and a decent selection of obscure horror and martial arts. Hell, they even have The Short Films of David Lynch which is only available from his website. Prices are $2 for regular rentals (5 days) and $3 (3 days) for new releases with films coming down from new release pretty quickly and recently released versions of classic films going directly out to the regular section rather than trying to charge more for it.
The staff is always very friendly and actually knowledgable about film (I've had interesting conversations with them on everything from classic slasher movies to French New Wave), late fees are often waived (and never excessive to begin with at only 50 cents a day or $1 for new releases) under reasonable circumstances and if you're unable to find something they order it (including semi-obscure Criterion titles).
Digital Shelf in Manhattan, KS if you ever happen to be in the area. It's the only thing about the town that I'm going to miss when I move.
Blockbuster has definitely been carrying the "unrated" versions of many mainstream films. The thing is, most of these movies aren't really "unrated". Rather, it's not that they had content that they had to cut in order to get a lower rating, most of them simply throw in a bunch of deleted scenes (some of which, admitedly have more sex and nudity) that they never submitted for rating hence with the unsubmitted scenes added back into the film it is now "unrated".
In many cases these are just the scenes that are normally available under the deleted scenes section on the "rated" DVD.
This is, admittedly, typically only true of the big-budget mainstream teen-focused comedies you routinely see loudly exclaiming how unrated they are (e.g. Eurotrip). The trend pretty much started with American Pie, but as anyone who saw the unrated version found out there was perhaps an extra 2 minutes worth of minor differences, however, they were scenes that were removed to lower the rating and AFAIK, were not present originally as deleted scenes.
The movies that Blockbuster doesn't carry in unrated format typically tend to be those films that were originally released in as unrated or NC-17 (e.g. Requiem for a Dream), but which released edited versions primarily because of Blockbuster and Wal-Mart.
In short, if Blockbuster carries an "unrated" DVD you're probably not getting anything you wouldn't already get on the original, they just slapped on the unrated to try and make it sell. If they don't carry and unrated DVD it's because the makers refused to release an compromised version of their film. Pretty hypocritical of Blockbuster, isn't it?
Exactly what I was going to state. I heard that the recent King Kong game had a similar problem where even if you win... you lose.
These are generally very poor ways to write games and even worse if you're only doing it to advance the story. I recall reading an article by Warren Spector a while back where he stated that "forced failure" scenarios are one of the worst things that you can do in a game. You can make it nearly impossible to win, a 99% chance of failure, but you have to allow the player the possiblity to come up with a strategy, to find a way to win and let them keep that victory. Of course, he also mentions how he himself was guilty of this in Deus Ex (which, I experienced first-hand, yes it's a hard fight, but it's also possible to just barely make it out at which point you lose anyway just so the story can move on).
I'm sure it's possible for you to fail in the end, but this is a tough thing to work. Typically it needs to be set up as a Pyrrhic victory: you win, but you lost so much that it's hardly a victory (e.g. Metal Gear Solid). It's also possible, but again, very challenging to have the character win temporarily, but fail in the long term: Link defeats Gannon, but he's too late... the world has already fallen into ruin and even his best efforts cannot undo what has already been done or possibly having Link win his final battle, but it took too much out of him and in the cut-scene he eventually succumbs to his wounds.
Main character death can work in games, but it's a very, very tricky thing. The player must win and feel that they have indeed won, but the character can fail.
Glad to hear it. Nintendo isn't terribly guilty of resting on their laurels, but at the same time they often have a habit of taking baby steps with occasional revolutionary leaps. Sort of an all or nothing philosophy.
Probably my greatest concern is that they want to focus more on making it simple and "safe" rather than full-featured. Thus the friend system will stick around as some sort of theoretical way to protect children without regard for it being a terrible way to build a friend list for an online game.
I realize that. While being the ancestor of the original Link, it was also the first time that a different Link was ever used: i.e. The Legend of Zelda, The Legend of Zelda: The Adventure of Link (16 year-old original Link), and The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (set some time between the first two games) all contain the same exact person. A Link to the Past is Link's ancestor. Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask are a different Link in what I believe is the oldest time as Gannondorf is still a man and not yet Gannon as in the other games. The Wind Waker clearly takes place after Ocarina of Time, but the relationship to the other games is fuzzy as far as I can tell (it's my personal opinion that it occurs in the future of all the other games).
Thus according to this there have been 4 Links so far: The original, Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, and Wind Waker.
My point though is that the people who say that each game has a different Link except for OoT/MM are wrong. This is a fairly new concept that only showed up during the 4th game (the Zelda of the first and second games are different, however, the manual lists that all the daughters of the royal family were named Zelda as a bit of a ret-con to make sense of how she'd been asleep for ages, but you saved her in the first game). Most likely since it was added recently and shortly followed by the OoT/MM set which had both a very explicit connection and introduced a new Link most people have forgetten the earlier stories a bit and feel that they are the only games with the same hero.
While Mario Kart DS is an excellent game and I'm very, very glad that Nintendo finally entered into the realm of online gaming I hope they don't decide that they've suceeded. Basically they've reached a point where this works, but they don't have a system that works very well. The friend system is clunky and problematic, it's impossible to play a match directly against someone else, etc.
Nintendo has made a good, functional first step tied into an excellent game. I just hope they keep working at it rather than assuming it's good enough now.
Unless I'm completely mistaken The Legend of Zelda II: The Adventure of Link was supposed to be a direct sequel to the original with the exact same Link from the original. The first time they really went with the whole "multiple Link" concept was A Link to the Past.
Though I'm far from a fundamentalist (i.e. a politically active atheist) I view piercings and tatoos as a form of bodily mutilation... even including women with a single ear piercing. It's not quite as disgusting as that might seem, but it's still a huge turn-off (non-sexually as well) to me. Doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to get as many piercings and tattoos as they want, but I'll never be a fan of them.
In fact, that's part of the difference. Most fundamentalists would simply be written off as crazy nut-jobs if they were willing to just keep their opinions personal and not interfere with others, but they feel the intense need to make everyone live the way they want them to... to the detriment of us all.
Part of the reason behind corporate dress codes is to act as a form of control over the employees. Now, while definitely do this as an overt show of force (i.e. you belong to us, you will dress the way we want because *WE* not you, are in control) it's also done for the reason that it typically makes people feel more professional. You're not hanging out at home, you're at work, wearing your work clothes.
Is this always completely sensible though? No, it frequently isn't. I worked doing customer service over the phone and while the dress code was rarely if ever enforced we were still forbidden to wear hats and halfway through the summer they decided to enforce a ban on shorts as well. The only time we would interact with anyone was over the phone. Being tethered to your phone and monitored for every second of the day (e.g. going to the bathroom was something you did on your break) there wasn't even the ability to really interact with other employees face-to-face, let alone management or clients.
Frankly I couldn't find any CDs on their list that I would have purchased (or that I wouldn't have mocked friends for buying). As long as major labels keep releasing plenty of crap it looks like I'm safe.
Still, this is a great step and to be applauded. For once consumers (or a lawyer who sees an easy way to make a buck) are actually doing something about abusive companies rather than just taking it, bitching, and then going back for more.
It depends on the type of music. If you're buying top 40 crap and want to get whatever the current hot single is (imagine that! Back in the day when people actually released songs only as singles and it was a major part of the marketplace) you're probably also dealing with music where the band was only capable of coming up with one or two decent songs which were made into singles.
If you're actually interested in music you're more likely to be buying albums based on the quality of the album and the artist, not because you heard some song on the radio and want to own it. You're buying an artistic work that you'll enjoy for years to come, not something you're going to forget about in a few weeks.
Bottom line: if you're buying an album to get one song you're probably better off buying a good CD by a better band capable of putting out a quality album instead.
A shame. I'd much rather just get the original broadcast (with commercials) available for free on their website and archived for later viewing.
This would, among many other things (like providing vastly more accurate viewer numbers, not some extrapolated bullshit from Neilsen), allow series to pick up more viewers midway through the season without ignoring it because they missed the beginning. Not to mention completely doing away with competition for timeslots (yes, some DVRs have multiple tuners, but TiVo does not). I might have bothered to watch Desperate Housewives, but quite frankly it was in competition with Arrested Development and there's no way in hell I'm going to miss that. I saw one episode of My Name Is Earl and it was enjoyable, but sadly it runs opposite House and I'm going to stick with something I already enjoy rather than jumping to something new.
Online with ads is basically just the same distribution model they have now except more people get to watch it meaning advertisers have more people watching their ads and your shows have the potential to develop much larger audiences. I mean, isn't this the only reason they bitch about pirating shows? It's not like they don't make them available for free over the air to begin with.
Yeah, although the in-game Civilopedia is often a bit more readily accessibly (or at least, would be if they'd use rely on text where appropriate rather than just pictures, a gripe I have with the whole RTS-pandering interface) it's still wonderful to get real, actual documentation for a game. A shame that this only comes as a bonus for pre-ordering.
The box is definitely spiffy. No need for some big, clunky, "cool for a few minutes" tin. It's just a simple, usuable box that I can easily open and close to store all the various docs and discs in.
While I see your point and I'm not completely unsympathetic how does this differ from anything else? If my VCR eats my VHS tapes or accidentally tear a page out of a book or leave my LPs in the sun the only way to get the object in question to work again is to buy a new one. Yes, yes, the CD isn't the real good only the delivery medium, but that's the case with all sorts of intellectual property. Just because you have no problem going out and buying a new book rather than scanning and running OCR on everything you buy just in case you mess it up somehow doesn't change the fact that you broke it.
The best idea is to imagine that we're back in the old days where the media and the message were inextricably linked. If I screw up my NES cartridge my ability to play the game is over, same as if you happen to break your Civ CD. The fact that it's easier to try and get around the fact that you broke it and still use it is just a loophole, try to treat it as such.
Also, while accidents do happen, it might be a good idea to take this as a lesson and try to be a bit more careful in the future. I know I've personally never had a CD/DVD get scratched or broken and unusuable although I do see how if you treat them carelessly this could easily happen.
Indeed, they really should have had the support page up and running before the game shipped, not a day or so later. Admittedly it's not an especially hard thing to solve: there are two discs and even though Disc 2 is labeled "Play" it's Disc 1 that shows a menu with auto-play (as opposed to merely the single data file) and Disc 1 that is typically the one used by most games for this sort of thing.
I'll admit, it took me a few seconds to figure it out, but c'mon... there are only two discs, it's not like you need to try five of them only to figure out it's really Disc 3 that does the job. A very minor bit of trial-and-error can resolve it.
Now, the issue of whether we should have to...
It also helps to show how rushed the release of this game appears to have been: the website wasn't ready even for basic problems, the ship date was pushed back by a day at the last minute, French tech trees accidentally got shipped out (OK, this is really the warehouse's fault, but still... it makes it feel rushed; and yes I'm one of the unlucky people who got one), various errors with getting the game to run, etc. Sure it's often par for the course on PC games these days to install and then immediately check for a patch on the release day, but I usually expect better from Civ.
Something I personally disliked was how they tried to create specific bottlenecks to slow down research and plenty of do-nothing techs (The Corporation/Refining/Steel triumvirate of evil in particular). I don't want to pick a tech seemingly at random based on what other Civs have alone, I want every single tech that I discover to do something interesting and to make it a valid part of my strategy.
Some people also had a problem with the very rigid age structure of the tree feeling that it forced them into making a partiuclar set of choices rather than allowing more natural and individual selection of techs. Personally it was never something that bothered me.
OTOH I've found that the new multiple-path tech tree in Civ4, while interesting does make the tree a bit harder to read with a quick glance. As well, in a suprising twist, it tends to have fewer ignorable advances. Usually you're going to need that advance as a pre-requisite for something else later on. You can hold off much longer on it if you don't really need it at the moment, but you're typically going to need to discover almost everything. The ability to thwart another player by discovering a competing offensive or defensive unit at the expense of being more well-rounded would have been nice, but, well... when you consider that an archer/longbowman fortified in a city is nigh-unbeatable (I had to resort to Navy SEALS, infantry couldn't even cut it) and that due to the new "strength only" system (even with the bonuses upgrading to newer units generally makes very little difference, the strength difference is so small that it's only statistically significant, not significant to gameplay) and a lack of balance (major advances in military technology like gunpowder should devestate earlier units, instead you're lucky to get odds of 2:1) almost all combat is a crap shoot it doesn't really matter much.
Indeed. A spawnable system would definitely help draw in new players while being an excellent showcase for the new multiplayer system. While my girlfriend has played it a bit in the past and quite enjoyed it it's still an irritating process of having to take over my computer for a couple days (preventing me from playing more Civ!) so the chances of getting her addicted are much smaller. But let us play Civ over the LAN together and you'll have the chance to make a new convert who gets into the game and has to go out and buy their own copy. If they don't get into it, no big loss... it's unlikely that you would have sold a second copy to someone who isn't particularly interested and remains uninterested and the spawned copy will go unplayed.
Civ, while a game that has repeatedly tantalized us with the incredible idea of playing it against other humans (something that would seem obvious and natural if not for the long, long wait between turns) is still mainly a single-player affair and anyone who become suitably swayed by it will almost assuredly feel the need to have their own copy for single player.
Damn... and to think I remember the old days where a console came with everything you needed: system, cables, two controllers and at least one game. While R.O.B. never worked when I got my NES Deluxe Set I was getting two games (Gyromite and Duck Hunt), two controllers, a light gun, and a goddamn robot with his own accessories.
The more recent idea where you buy the console itself, with no game, and only one controller is pretty damn crappy. Especially when you consider that most consoles are selling for much more than the previous generations. They just come with far less.
You bring up an intersting point about the logistics of the situation, but it still stands that in a purely virtual space there needs to be some way to identify people. Not necessarily in any sort of formal way, but on a personal level. Sure it's a huge world and someone might have the same name as a good friend, but IRL I can recognize them relatively easily. I can tell who they are even if they're going by a different name. In the virtual world of the Internet, however, we don't have that ability. Your name on a screen is the only way to identify you. Some people don't really care about this, they'll make up a new, random name everywhere they go or come up with some juvenile name whenever the mood strikes them. Others go for something more akin to an actual nickname. An online name and handle that is relatively unique and can be tracked and followed. In this way I can have a reasonable degree of understanding when I encounter people that I might know.
I've been using my current handle since... well, at least 10 years now. It's followed me over from local BBSs to the Internet and it's just about the only name I've ever used. At this point it's something I respond to like a real-life nickname. If someone yelled it on the street I'd turn around and check to see if they were talking to me. I feel normal and comfortable to receive snail mail addressed to me under this name. Most importantly I know that if a friend of mine sees a posting on a message board somewhere online or sees me wandering around IRC or wherever they'll be able to tell that it's me they're talking to. When you take away my name you've taken away who I am. Just like in myth names are power.
For further consideration on the topic of names online I strongly suggest Vernor Vinges' classic short story "True Names". I recall reading it back in '95 and being awestruck by how close he came to really getting it even back in the 70s when it was written.
Odd... I personally find that the free weekly papers tend to have far more interesting information and opinions than the local daily. The local daily charges me to get wire reports and puff pieces while also having to look at ads. If anything is important enough to show up in the paper then I'm going to hear about it in the next few days anyways. If it's something I'm interested in enough I'll just check Google News or a good, reputable paper online for free instead. Free weeklies tend to focus more heavily on local cultural events and when I hear about them later it's usually more along the lines of finding out that I missed out on something cool.
Is this heavily reliant on my demographics? Certainly. On the other hand when I was able to read the New York Times (despite the drop in quality it's still one of the very few daily papers in the country worth reading) daily I never felt significantly more informed about critical and noteworthy events. I mainly just noticed occasional pieces of personal interest.
Oh I understand completely. The one time you forget to wear gloves in the lab because it's a quick, simple little thing you need to do is the time that you're going to end up spilling a mutagenic substance on yourself... never fails.
Any time someone works with something dangerous or potentially dangerous or security related there's always the chance that you're going to get caught with your guard down just enough to make it work. The only way to prevent that is to be rigid and disciplined in the way you do things. Yeah it's a text-only e-mail, but that differs from the set policy of how to deal with these types of things. Same as treating every gun as loaded consistency and routine are the keys.
Well... the most basic security precaution is always the best: go directly to the source. Don't trust any e-mail to ever have the proper URL. Just go to the original web site you originally transacted with and go from there. If I ordered something from Amazon I'm going to go to www.amazon.com and work my way through to check on my order. If there are any problems I'll try to correct them. If things are totally and utterly FUBAR and I've expended a reasonable and sensible effort to resolve the problem I'll start from the main page again, try to track down a customer service number and handle it that way. If it's for my bank and seems serious enough I'll probably just try to go in to the bank and handle it in person.