I've been playing a fair bit of the recent Windows remake of Pirates, it's actually quite nifty. However, the relative quickness with which it hit the discount bin makes it seem like it didn't do too well in stores. Anyone have any hard data?
Well, I'm unsure that that much control needs to be exerted over the achievement process. We know that Microsoft mandates that each game give out at least a certain number of points, and since there are many different kinds of games, it stands to reason that too strict a control over what kinds of achievements can be granted can be harmful.
What I'm saying is, in the long run there are probably more than a few companies who would be willing to use the feature as a means of promotion more than an aspect of the game.
This is the first crack in the uniform murmur of approval for the Xbox Live Achievements feature. Word is that Microsoft actually demands that all games include some Achievements, implying that some kind of editorial process is in place. That these kinds of achievements made it by seems to indicate that it's either not a very good process, or the guidelines in place are not well thought out, or that they merely confirm the existance of Achievements without looking at what they are.
I'm surprised no one's mentioned this before. Set it on autohandicap for the first couple dozen games and before long everyone will be winning 50% of the time. Then make each player's average handicap the level they play at in normal mode, and adjust as players get better until everyone's at 5.
Smash Bros. games are great for uneven skill because taking damage doesn't cause you to lose, only ring-outs. If your handicap's low enough then any smash will basically be instant death. But beyond that, the characters are generally exquisitely balanced. It's also got an exceptional variety of characters, from Jigglypuff (with one of the strongest attacks in the game) to Peach (queen of juggling) to Zelda (two characters in one) to the Ice Climbers (one character who is actually two).
We've also recently discovered a little-known Gamecube and PS2 game called Ribbit King, about playing golf with frogs instead of golfballs, which is extremely cute (seriously, it makes Mario look like Silent Hill), but turns out to be quite well-written and have ingenious gameplay.
Don't bother having it mine for crystite in the river valley, remember to have it make enough energy to power itself and the rest of your empire, and make sure to take care when installing it so it doesn't run off....
Penny Arcade had a rather interesting blog post about this a couple of weeks ago. I'm starting to look suspeciously upon any uncritical announcement of a gigantic, mass-market piece of media culture as potential astroturfing. They tend to be easy to mock, at least.
Unfortunately, that also makes it difficult to get past people's internal turf-filters in order to express honest appreciation for stuff. There are certainly people here who look askance at the prevalence of Nintendo support here, but I consider that fairly unlikely, for the main reason that I don't think they're web-savvy enough to consider it.
I've already responded to this point, twice, in this conversation. Clambake was restored, but other pages were removed due to the notice that were not, and remain absent from Google search results to this day.
I found Google's response somewhat acceptable. It is true that they do notify the user that pages have been removed, which for some Chinese search users may be their first indication that the Chinese government mandates censorship (although I don't know the exact phrasing of the notification). I'm not *completely* satisfied with their move, but it is true that Google has a Chinese language version of their primary search site that they don't censor.
And need I remind you guys, Google does censor U.S. searches, although I'm sure they aren't happy about it....
There is an interesting statement in Google's reaction that makes me feel better about them, but first let's ask, what is censorship in this context?
UNCENSORED results are those that Google's algorithm returns and are directed to the user without modification other than the usual, accepted methods. (For example, if you have a Google account, or maybe even just a cookie, then over time some results are biases over others in the rankings according to what Google's machines think it's more likely you're looking for. That is beside the point to my argument however.)
CENSORED results are those from which, for whatever reason but so far just those that come as a result of legal interference, have some results removed.
Of course, the U.S. has had censored results for some time: the results of a DMCA-based lawsuit has required that Google remove some page results from Scientology-related results. Although it is possible to make an argument there, I choose not to pursue it, since Google is obviously just as upset about that situation as anyone who isn't the Church of Scientology. (Note that you don't hear anyone in Congress complaining about the DMCA!)
Now, let's think about results. Not providing any results is essentially complete and total censorship. Providing partial results is also censorship, but there is a key difference there: Google informs the user when search results have been blocked. Indeed, I believe that the notification from a Chinese government-sponsored censoring is very similar to the DMCA takedown notice, that is, it pointedly lets the user know that something has been removed from the search results, that they are not getting the whole picture.
That is a powerful statement, that the censoring is not done silently. It is still censorship, and I'm not sure that I can let Google completely off the hook, but considering the ignorance of most Chinese concerning their government's attempts to keep information out of their hands, I think it's a potent decision, and I'm kind of surprised the Chinese government accepted it. I think Google's position is that the only censorship that can succeed entirely is total censorship: the "information silhouette" of the removed material remains, and further I have no doubt that as people discover the exactly shape of that silhouette (that is to say, they discover exactly what is being removed from search results) that activists will find ways to get around it, which would be impossible were Google banned outright.
So I'm okay with it, in general. At the moment, that is... I reserve the right to change my opinion if something else comes up, or if someone comes up with a good counter-argument. As we all should.
We don't know exactly how it works, but we have some pretty good hints:
1. The controller is supposed to contain a gyroscopic sensor, like the one found in WarioWare Twisted. It may control more than one, since it's supposed to be able to detect pitch and yaw as well.
2. The console is supposed to come with sensors to place on the TV, so those can be used to not only figure out how large the screen is (useful in figuring out where on the screen the controller is pointed) but also distance through triangulation. That may be done with infrared or RF.
"I've met tons of people who think BloodRayne is way better than Underworld 2, but they're not going on the Internet and writing that...
Oh, I'll write it, I'll write it! I may even believe it.
But if you're aiming to be better than Underworld 2, the sequel to a movie about ass-kicking vampires fighting ass-kicking werewolves in which at the end there's an ass-kicking half-vampire half-werewolf, then it's like figuring you're damned already but you can at least try to get sent to the fourth level of hell instead of the sixth or seventh.
It remains to be seen if Google's AJAX interface will run well on a DS, which its chat interface relies on, even with Opera powering it. Even if it doesn't, you should still be able to use Gmail with their plain HTML interface -- just no chat.
The DS has a touchscreen, unlike many other devices with soft keyboards. Not a perfect solution, to be sure, but more useable than the PSP's keyboard.
It remains to be seen how well the DS can handle loading websites with its 4MB of RAM + 656KB video RAM, especially those with large amounts of graphics.
The videos actually show some rather ingenious gameplay. It seems that whoever designed these modes took the lessons of New Tetris (N64) to heart, that is, it's important to not mess it up too much.
Tetris 2 and Tetria Attack, the other games with a Tetris name Nintendo made, were okay, but no one these days would mistake them for Tetris. The same goes for many of the other recent updates.
Google is starting to creep me out. I've been in love with them and their "Don't be evil" thing, and have adopted many of their tools, including GMail. But, they are starting to do things that make me wonder if we are the frog that is destined to be boiled.
The China thing is worthy of concern. We should be creeped out by that... and by all the other companies that are also rolling over for the Chinese government.
Everything else Google has done could be (in my view, should be) seen from the perspective of trying to provide services in the least privacy-harming, yet still practical, way possible. This particular instance isn't even very worrying: they do promise the data will be deleted after 30 days, and the data has to reside on their servers at SOME point or the service is useless. ("Google announced a new service today allowing users to transfar data between two computers without it even touching their servers. It involves a complicated piece of technology known as an "Ethernet cable." More info shortly.)
Er, to give the user the chance to wait a while before transferring the files?
Because even when deleted, the file information may not be wiped from the free clusters on disk?
Because Google backs up their data like any good company should, and your data may persist on those backups for a limited period of time?
Because Google's farm is a gigantic networked cluster of servers, and information may be held redundantly across the network, for rapid access to that data?
Slashdot Mirror
I've been playing a fair bit of the recent Windows remake of Pirates, it's actually quite nifty. However, the relative quickness with which it hit the discount bin makes it seem like it didn't do too well in stores. Anyone have any hard data?
Well, I'm unsure that that much control needs to be exerted over the achievement process. We know that Microsoft mandates that each game give out at least a certain number of points, and since there are many different kinds of games, it stands to reason that too strict a control over what kinds of achievements can be granted can be harmful.
What I'm saying is, in the long run there are probably more than a few companies who would be willing to use the feature as a means of promotion more than an aspect of the game.
Ah, interesting. Worth investigating....
This is the first crack in the uniform murmur of approval for the Xbox Live Achievements feature. Word is that Microsoft actually demands that all games include some Achievements, implying that some kind of editorial process is in place. That these kinds of achievements made it by seems to indicate that it's either not a very good process, or the guidelines in place are not well thought out, or that they merely confirm the existance of Achievements without looking at what they are.
I'm surprised no one's mentioned this before. Set it on autohandicap for the first couple dozen games and before long everyone will be winning 50% of the time. Then make each player's average handicap the level they play at in normal mode, and adjust as players get better until everyone's at 5.
Smash Bros. games are great for uneven skill because taking damage doesn't cause you to lose, only ring-outs. If your handicap's low enough then any smash will basically be instant death. But beyond that, the characters are generally exquisitely balanced. It's also got an exceptional variety of characters, from Jigglypuff (with one of the strongest attacks in the game) to Peach (queen of juggling) to Zelda (two characters in one) to the Ice Climbers (one character who is actually two).
We've also recently discovered a little-known Gamecube and PS2 game called Ribbit King, about playing golf with frogs instead of golfballs, which is extremely cute (seriously, it makes Mario look like Silent Hill), but turns out to be quite well-written and have ingenious gameplay.
Really it was more Ozark Softscape than Electronic Arts.
Don't bother having it mine for crystite in the river valley, remember to have it make enough energy to power itself and the rest of your empire, and make sure to take care when installing it so it doesn't run off....
Penny Arcade had a rather interesting blog post about this a couple of weeks ago. I'm starting to look suspeciously upon any uncritical announcement of a gigantic, mass-market piece of media culture as potential astroturfing. They tend to be easy to mock, at least.
Unfortunately, that also makes it difficult to get past people's internal turf-filters in order to express honest appreciation for stuff. There are certainly people here who look askance at the prevalence of Nintendo support here, but I consider that fairly unlikely, for the main reason that I don't think they're web-savvy enough to consider it.
I know I'm not.
Er, or maybe I am? Stupid double negatives!
I've already responded to this point, twice, in this conversation. Clambake was restored, but other pages were removed due to the notice that were not, and remain absent from Google search results to this day.
Ah, this is new information to me, thanks.
What is the attitude of the average Chinese citizen towards that censorship?
From the old Slashdot story on this:
i entology&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Axenu.net+sc
And I didn't say it was Clambake that was removed -- they were, but then were restored. But not ALL pages were returned to the database.
Alright then, Mr. Hasn't Read Slashdot Long Enough, here.
The Slashdot story had a set of search terms that would trigger the filter message:
site:xenu.net scientology
Trying it now reveals that it still works.
I found Google's response somewhat acceptable. It is true that they do notify the user that pages have been removed, which for some Chinese search users may be their first indication that the Chinese government mandates censorship (although I don't know the exact phrasing of the notification). I'm not *completely* satisfied with their move, but it is true that Google has a Chinese language version of their primary search site that they don't censor.
And need I remind you guys, Google does censor U.S. searches, although I'm sure they aren't happy about it....
I spoke too soon: it looks like Opera'll come with an Option Pack with extra memory!
There is an interesting statement in Google's reaction that makes me feel better about them, but first let's ask, what is censorship in this context?
UNCENSORED results are those that Google's algorithm returns and are directed to the user without modification other than the usual, accepted methods. (For example, if you have a Google account, or maybe even just a cookie, then over time some results are biases over others in the rankings according to what Google's machines think it's more likely you're looking for. That is beside the point to my argument however.)
CENSORED results are those from which, for whatever reason but so far just those that come as a result of legal interference, have some results removed.
Of course, the U.S. has had censored results for some time: the results of a DMCA-based lawsuit has required that Google remove some page results from Scientology-related results. Although it is possible to make an argument there, I choose not to pursue it, since Google is obviously just as upset about that situation as anyone who isn't the Church of Scientology. (Note that you don't hear anyone in Congress complaining about the DMCA!)
Now, let's think about results. Not providing any results is essentially complete and total censorship. Providing partial results is also censorship, but there is a key difference there: Google informs the user when search results have been blocked. Indeed, I believe that the notification from a Chinese government-sponsored censoring is very similar to the DMCA takedown notice, that is, it pointedly lets the user know that something has been removed from the search results, that they are not getting the whole picture.
That is a powerful statement, that the censoring is not done silently. It is still censorship, and I'm not sure that I can let Google completely off the hook, but considering the ignorance of most Chinese concerning their government's attempts to keep information out of their hands, I think it's a potent decision, and I'm kind of surprised the Chinese government accepted it. I think Google's position is that the only censorship that can succeed entirely is total censorship: the "information silhouette" of the removed material remains, and further I have no doubt that as people discover the exactly shape of that silhouette (that is to say, they discover exactly what is being removed from search results) that activists will find ways to get around it, which would be impossible were Google banned outright.
So I'm okay with it, in general. At the moment, that is... I reserve the right to change my opinion if something else comes up, or if someone comes up with a good counter-argument. As we all should.
We don't know exactly how it works, but we have some pretty good hints:
1. The controller is supposed to contain a gyroscopic sensor, like the one found in WarioWare Twisted. It may control more than one, since it's supposed to be able to detect pitch and yaw as well.
2. The console is supposed to come with sensors to place on the TV, so those can be used to not only figure out how large the screen is (useful in figuring out where on the screen the controller is pointed) but also distance through triangulation. That may be done with infrared or RF.
"I've met tons of people who think BloodRayne is way better than Underworld 2, but they're not going on the Internet and writing that...
Oh, I'll write it, I'll write it! I may even believe it.
But if you're aiming to be better than Underworld 2, the sequel to a movie about ass-kicking vampires fighting ass-kicking werewolves in which at the end there's an ass-kicking half-vampire half-werewolf, then it's like figuring you're damned already but you can at least try to get sent to the fourth level of hell instead of the sixth or seventh.
But would that work for images that can't be progressively rendered? And the DS doesn't have any virtual memory, making things tricky.
Hmm... is it possible to put extra memory into a DS option pack?
*** STOP: 0x0000000A (0x00000000, 0x0000001a, 0x00000000, 0x00000000)
....
IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL
p4-0300 irql:lf SYSVER:0xf000030e
Dll Base DateStmp - Name
80100000 2e53fe55 - ntoskrl.exe
80010000 2e41884b - Aha154x.sys
8001b000 2e4e7b6b - Scsidisk.sys
fe420000 2e406607 - Floppy.SYS
It remains to be seen if Google's AJAX interface will run well on a DS, which its chat interface relies on, even with Opera powering it. Even if it doesn't, you should still be able to use Gmail with their plain HTML interface -- just no chat.
The DS has a touchscreen, unlike many other devices with soft keyboards. Not a perfect solution, to be sure, but more useable than the PSP's keyboard.
It remains to be seen how well the DS can handle loading websites with its 4MB of RAM + 656KB video RAM, especially those with large amounts of graphics.
The videos actually show some rather ingenious gameplay. It seems that whoever designed these modes took the lessons of New Tetris (N64) to heart, that is, it's important to not mess it up too much.
Tetris 2 and Tetria Attack, the other games with a Tetris name Nintendo made, were okay, but no one these days would mistake them for Tetris. The same goes for many of the other recent updates.
Google is starting to creep me out. I've been in love with them and their "Don't be evil" thing, and have adopted many of their tools, including GMail. But, they are starting to do things that make me wonder if we are the frog that is destined to be boiled.
The China thing is worthy of concern. We should be creeped out by that... and by all the other companies that are also rolling over for the Chinese government.
Everything else Google has done could be (in my view, should be) seen from the perspective of trying to provide services in the least privacy-harming, yet still practical, way possible. This particular instance isn't even very worrying: they do promise the data will be deleted after 30 days, and the data has to reside on their servers at SOME point or the service is useless. ("Google announced a new service today allowing users to transfar data between two computers without it even touching their servers. It involves a complicated piece of technology known as an "Ethernet cable." More info shortly.)
Er, to give the user the chance to wait a while before transferring the files?
Because even when deleted, the file information may not be wiped from the free clusters on disk?
Because Google backs up their data like any good company should, and your data may persist on those backups for a limited period of time?
Because Google's farm is a gigantic networked cluster of servers, and information may be held redundantly across the network, for rapid access to that data?
Because they being careful?