Story is just one element (though sometimes a very importatn one) of a game's immersiveness, I can't see how it would be the most important element of a game
The way a game plays (control, core gameplay) and is designed (the way specific challenges are tailored) are the most important things in a game. If I want to enjoy a good story, I can read a mediocre novel and appreciate better plot and character development than the better stories found in video games. If I want to be wow'd by cool visual effects, I can watch a big budget action or sci-fi movie.
Don't get me wrong, I love it when a game has a good story, and I'm not totally unfamiliar with MUDs myself (used to play GemStone IV among others, and was an active member of that game's role-playing community when I did play) but if the actual process of playing the game isn't great, the game's story isn't going to work as a saving grace.
Graphics (but really I should say "style", as a game can be very technically advanced graphically, but still lack style, which is what's important), storyline, music, sound effects collectively work together to give the game polish and immersiveness. Games that don't have polish and immersiveness may be fun to play (which is what's most important), but a game that's fun and immersive is a gaming masterpiece.
Games like Deus Ex, the Ocarina of Time, Star Control 2, Grand Theft Auto III, Metroid Prime and Yoshi's Island are a few games that I'd consider masterpieces for their time. Some of them have a greater emphasis on story than others, but the key is, each of them is built first on a solid foundation of fun and compelling gameplay, and thestoryline and/or other elements intergrate with the game near-perfectly and enhances the overall gameplay experience so it starts to feel like something greater than a mere game.
Some of the early arcade games like Asteroids, Ms. Pac-Man, Missle Command, ect. can still be pretty fun to play, despite the fact that the plot and storylines are as primitive as the graphics. Also a lot of games (simulators, sports games) don't have a plot either, they just have a premise. I'd rather play those types of games than an RPG or FPS with a first-rate story but poorly designed gameplay, maps, levels, encounters, ect.
Troll. There hasn't been any children in any GTA game thus far.
I'm sure you're right (about the children thing, not the troll thing, which you're wrong about). I've only played GTA3, myself, but I have talked to someone who mentioned killing a child "accidentally" in one of their anecdotes of playing the game. However, the person I was talking to was inexperienced in playing the game and I expect simply mistaken.
In any event, whether there are children in the games or not, it doesn't change what people have told me about how they supposedly play the game. The fact is most people I know personally who have played a Grand Theft Auto game haven't completed very many of the game's missions. That was my point.
For better or worse, my feeling is Nintendo just doesn't give a damn. Personally I think it's kind of admirable, even if it doesn't make a ton of business sense. They have their own niche of what they are good at, their own vision of what kind of games to create, and they don't seem too keen on compromising that vision to get better sales in the States.
What I find interesting in this article is the way games like Grand Theft Auto III are referred to as "mature titles", because they involve graphic violence. To my thinking (and probably to the thinking of a lot of Japanese people), "immature titles" would be just as apt a description (which isn't to say I think they are necessarily bad games--I love GTA3... it's just that I think violence appeals to a less mature audience).
I can have a lot of fun playing games with cartoonish characters, because I'm not particularly concerned that a game is depicted in that style... I'm an adult, and a more colorful, kid-oriented style may not have huge appeal (though really a lot of it is really charming... Tarutaru in Final Fantasy XI are just obscenely "awww!"-inducingly cute), but nor does it particularly bother me, and I'm secure enough in my masculinity, adulthood, whatever, to enjoy a game that doesn't involve manhood-reaffirming pursuits like tackling people, driving around a fast, powerful car, or blowing people to smithereens with a rocket launcher.
Nintendo, like any corporation, is concerned with making money, but I don't think for them it's as much the driving factor as it is for companies like, say Microsoft. Personally I'm rather glad they've resisted the temptation to "sell out" and focus their development efforts on stuff that falls outside their traditional domain.
They still have third party developers working on other stuff for them (as far as I know, NASCAR and NFL games available on the GameCube too).
Plus I respect the fact that they've managed to produce a decent console that sells for about half the price of the competitors' consoles while keeping the workmanship of the console itself up to fairly high standard of quality (a GameCube is a lot studier and less likely to break down on you than a PlayStation 2.)
I think Nintendo is a little misunderstood and is too often dismissed out of hand by people too concerned with what it will look like if they are caught playing a game that looks like the Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker. They could make some effort to change their image, but at this point I'm not sure it would even be possible... it might be kind of like when Hammer tried to reinvent himself as a "Gangsta" rapper after having cut songs like "You've Got To Pray". They could sacrifice their niche only to not be taken seriously in the end by anybody else anyway.
Most of the people I know who've played Grand Theft Auto III tell me how think it's great that they can jack any car they see, recklessly drive around and perform little tricks, run over whores, then get out and beat children with a baseball bat.
While playing like that can be a fun diversion, it gets old pretty fast.
The real core gameplay for GTA3 for me, though, has been the missions that you're given the course of the main storyline. Right from the beginning of the game it's made very clear where you can get missions to advance the game plot, and it's always pretty obvious where you get your next issue to advance the linear game plot.
GTA3 is about as non-linear as the Final Fantasy games, really. There is a main plot that you are generally ushered towards completing, but there are also a few "sub-quests" and mini-games that you can fool around with, or you can just play around and explore.
A lot of games that are popular in America just aren't quality games. They are successful due to marketing, gratuitous violence, ect. Japan is a different culture so marketing has to be done differently, and gratuitous violence doesn't seem to be as appealing to them. However, a game like Grand Theft Auto III, which is genuinely well crafted can apparently enjoy some measure of success.
Generally I prefer Japanese games myself. I think many American games cater to a younger, less mature audience, while Japanese games cater to a older, more mature, intelligent (but creepier) audience. I love the games that Nintendo produces, and though lately I haven't been a big fan of RPGs in general, I generally prefer Japanese style RPGs to American ones. And though I don't have any particular aversion to graphically depicted violence in video games, I don't really see it as a selling point, nor do I find cute, cartoonish graphics in a game a turn-off, if it's done with style. I also would prefer to see hot a hot girl depicted in a game than blood splattering everywhere. American games do sometimes try to give their games sex appeal, but it's done in a really crude manner... see BMX XXX, or Lara Croft, who is simply frumpy compared to hundreds of virtually anonymous chicks in Japanese fighting games, RPGs, ect, ect.
I wish more American companies would take a hint and focus on producing quality titles rather than producing lame franchised garbage and using violence and crudity (and yeah, I know, at least we aren't obsessed with tentacle sex) as an attention grabber.
A lot of American games are really fun and inventive, and there are going to be good games made here that simply don't hold appeal to most Japanese, but there's a lot American developers can learn from the Japanese, and there's a lot U.S. gamers could learn from the Japanese as well... namely to look past the surface of a game and how it's marketed and pay attention how it actually plays. The Japanese could take a hint from many American games though, and remove a little emphasis on storyline... no, I don't want to read through pages and pages of dialog or wait through hours of cutscenes when I'm playing a game, even an RPG.
I'm not "advocating" dialup, but is adequate for what most people use the Internet for. It's not enough for some specific uses of the Internet, but for web browsing, e-mail checking and downloading the occasional software update, it is plenty.
That doesn't mean that I think that you shouldn't get broadband if it's available in your area. If I could get DSL or cable I'd jump right on it, and I'm in favor of just about any regulation, de-regulation, initiative, technology or enterprise that might bring broadband to more people. I just spent over a thousand dollars building a tower on my property so I could receive an signal to fixed wireless Internet access, so I'm not some sort of luddite who isn't convinced of the greatness of broadband.
Not so weird... a ground-level nuclear explosion is pretty dramatic. A blinding flash, a shockwave, a thunderclap, high velocity winds and a mushroom cloud... produces a pretty big "wow" factor. Much more interesting than a silent, invisible space explosion.
The rare 1-6 hour download of a service pack or other critical software update isn't exactly a huge burden for a dialup user. Sure, it's lousy, but it's also pretty simple to deal with... start the download before you go to bed, go to work, go out shopping, wake up/come back, install everything, and very little time is spent waiting or dealing with it.
I'm on dialup and I've downloaded 600+ mb files before... on P2P networks even, without the benefit of an uninterupted download. So obviously, 50-60 mb files aren't a big deal... again, it just means I have to remember to start the download before I go to bed or go out. And the phone lines running to my house suck... my connection is slow even for dialup, but I manage. It does mean you have to change the way you manage your downloads, and certain uses for the Internet are out of the question on dialup... but for some people, that just isn't a big deal.
And though it's true that a lot of people are ignorant about service packs and the like, and put their system security at risk, I'm not sure your typical broadband user is that much more savvy. By and large it's better for a person ignorant about PC security to be on and off with dialup rather than using an always-on shared network to access the Internet.
I've called them, but the answers I got from them at the time weren't too encouraging. I told them where I lived, and so I was told that I'd have to erect a tower to shoot over the trees. I asked about how much that would cost, and the answer I got back sounded as if the responsibility of erecting a tower would be left to me, and that doing everything "new" would probably cost upwards of $1,000, but that it might be possible doing it with other stuff for less. Well, that had me feeling pretty daunted at the time... I didn't have $1,000 to spend on that at the time (still don't), and I didn't want to call back before educating myself a bit more.
The other thing that turned me off were the speeds quoted by the guy... 128 kbits per second, but that they usually 256 kbits per second is what he says he gives people "if they don't abuse it" (I didn't ask what "abuse" was). I live in a house with three fairly heavy Internet users... 128 kbps split 3 ways just doesn't sound like something worth spending $1,000 up front on (and what I think he said was $40/month). However, he did say they were thinking about dropping the price, so I'll have to ask about what other levels of service they provide.
Some of what I'm willing to spend depends partially on how reliable the service is, however. Right now between our dialup ISP accounts and the extra phone line we're spending about $62/month. So of course we'd be willing to spend at least that much per month on a broadband connection that we could share with the entire house... if it were reliable enough to not need to maintain a "backup" dialup account or extra phone line.
Thanks for the information. One question, what is the difference between the "line of sight path distance" and the "distance from the beginning of the path to the point in question?" They sound the same to me, but I know I'm misunderstanding something.
Right. I suspect there may be similar reasons behind Smashing Pumpkins (correction from my previous post, there's no "the" in their band name). I know Smashing Pumpkins released their last album as a free download apparently to spite to the music industry, but I don't know the whole history behind who they recorded with, who owns their songs and all that.
I don't know for sure, but that sort of thing seems to be the reason a lot of artists reacquire the rights to their music or start their own labels... they don't like the way the mega music industry establishment treated them or their customers. Well, Apple isn't the music industry, so hopefully artists like this will be willing to deal with Apple so everyone can reap the benefits of a system that is largely driven by technology and innovation and at least partially outside the control of the RIAA.
Of course a lot of artists are just as bad as the RIAA as far as far as being "greedy" and wanting "control" goes. If somebody decides that they won't see their songs selling for less than $3 a pop, that's their perogative, even if I might think it sucks... at least it isn't some middleman in a suit pushing that price without any input from the actual artist.
I think it should be pretty sustainable. Maybe not quite at these numbers, but there are always going to be a lot of people who will take a bit longer to hop on the boat.
For me, iTMS is starting to rekindle my interest in music. It's true that I haven't heard any new bands/artsits in the past few years that I really like, but there are a lot of older songs from the 60's/70's era (before I was born) that I catch pieces of in movies, commercials, or when I'm with my father and he's listening to them, ect. that I haven't bothered to investigate purchasing because it's a pain and I'm not sure it'll be worth it.
I would sometimes try to find songs on P2P services, but by and large I've found it isn't worth the trouble. Due to lack of sources and my slow dialup connection, it can take a week to download a 4 minute song. Plus, I feel obligated to share when I use P2P, so keeping my P2P client on kills my download and general Internet browsing capability because I'm always uploading. On top of that there isn't always a way to tell that the quality of the song I'm getting is good, the version I'm looking for, ect. Plus there's the nagging part of my conscience that doesn't like the fact that I am "stealing" a song that is, in some form, still for sale today.
I think iTMS will be successful because it's very convenient and facillitates impulse buying. If I hear a song I like, I just do a web search for a bit of the song's lyric (if I don't happen to know the artist or song name, which is often the case) and then I can do a quick search on iTunes. Within 2 minutes I can have purchased and started a download on a song that I otherwise never would have purchased and probably wouldn't ever have even bothered downloading via spotty P2P services, even if those were perfectly legit.
I don't know how many people like me there are out there, but if Apple doesn't drop the ball on marketing, and a good word-of-mouth buzz gets around... and if they can improve their song selection a bit more (my two favorite bands, the Beatles and the Smashing Pumpkins, have almost no songs listed on the service), iTMS is going to take off like a rocket, have a long ascension and stay in the air indefinitely.
I don't know if this is going to lead to "better music", unfortunately. And the RIAA isn't going to wake up overnight to realize the fact that technology that empowers the customer can be a good thing for everyone if they go about things the right way. But eventually I think things will more or less work out. It won't be perfect... there will still be music "piracy", there will still be the "draconian" RIAA trying to destroy what they can't completely control, but I think we are finally starting to move in the right direction.
Apple is doing the reverse of what video game console manufacturers do. In the video game industry, they sell the consoles at a break even price, or less than what they cost to make, but profit on licensing fees paid to them by game developers. Essentially "giving" the hardware away while cashing in on software.
Apple is doing the reverse. Selling the "software" (or music in this case) for cheap while (hopefully) profiting on sales of iPods and iPod accessories.
If I got hooked up with a broadband Internet connection, given software bloat what it is, I'm pretty sure that I could fill a 625 GB hard drive in a couple years time, but that's not really what important. I'd probably rather have a solid state drive for speed, sure, but there's nothing to say I couldn't have both. Maybe one day "small" 10 GB-ish solid strive drives will act as cache for terabyte protein drives.
But even ignoring the desktop, big drives like this would be great, even if they are somewhat sluggish. If you can get the prices down to affordable levels, you can stick one of these things in a TiVo, ReplayTV, what have you, and keep all of your favorite movies, every season and every episode of your favorite TV shows, as well as all the big sports events, stored on one box using nearly lossless compression.
Personally I think that's pretty cool.
But I'll believe all of this when I see it. I'm just a layman, but I don't see anything that's convincing me that we're going to see a huge leap in hard drive technology any time soon.
It would seem there'd be two challenges in creating a successful game based on physical activity in this manner:
1) Creating a game that is actually compelling and find to play. Game designers already have a lot of expertise in creating more traditional games with more traditional methods of control: gamepads, joysticks, keyboard/mouse, ect. Making the shift to designing games meant to be played on a cycle could be difficult for some.
2) Getting people to actually buy the (probably expensive) peripheral control device (unless of course it's an arcade game.)
But I love the idea. Even without the fact that of course it'd be a heck of a lot healthier than playing most games, it would also introduce what is (to me at least) a new and novel type of gameplay. It takes a really outstanding traditional game to keep my sustained interest these days, but when something's fresh and new (and yes, I know this concept isn't entirely new, but it'd be new to most gamers) it scores a lot of points for fun just for being something different.
Unfortunately, I have difficulty imagining enough gamers shelling out the cash to buy the expensive controller for what is probably going to have an extremely limited selection of games that support it. I don't even think some of the more recent console systems have the familiar light gun yet, let alone something as out there as a "controller-cycle".
Re:Eeek, I do *not* want stock quotes on my watch
on
Assorted CES Gizmos
·
· Score: 1
This is just a "me too" post, but I have to agree. Really, why do I want my email being broadcast through FM airwaves to my watch, where I have to strain to read it because it's on a display small enough to fit on my wrist? And if I'm so serious about my investments as to actually want to buy this watch, chances are I own a cell phone or other device already with the same functionality.
Plus, I'm sure it's a nightmare to navigate the user interface of one of these things with their tiny little buttons. I loathe the task of setting an alarm on a digital wristwatch, I can just imagine how lame it would be to try to sort through my spam-filled inbox, receive an IM, or add a new stock quote to watch.
I was curious about what these things look like, and found some concept images here. Two of them don't look so bad, but they're all kind of cheesy if you ask me. I think of a wristwatch almost as a fashion accessory as much as anything else. I want it to look good, like it belongs on my person. I don't want it to look like I have a gadget strapped to my wrist.
And for $120-300 + $8.25/month? Seems kind of silly to me.
When you play a console game, you're sitting back on your couch, beanbag, what have you, probably several feet away from the TV set. PC games have you hunched over a keyboard, your face a few inches away from the monitor.
With console gaming, you seldom have to worry about the game crashing, your save game information getting corrupted, hardware/software conflicts or lagging frame rates.
Obviously console systems are easier to set up as well.
Some types of games do play better on PCs. First person shooters for one, though the GameCube and X-Box both have controllers pretty well suited to FPS style games, so that is becoming less of an issue. Strategy and hardcore RPGs tend to play better on the PC, but for other genres, like platformers and adventure games... well, do these type of games even exist for the PC?
Online... though X-Box Live is looking pretty good, it's only for broadband users, and PC gaming is far more mature. Still, this was one thing that older consoles were lacking, but no more.
Obviously, price is another factor. Though PC games do tend to be less expensive, the best selling games tend to be a bit slow to drop in price, if they ever do, and the hardware needed to play many PC games effectively is prohibitively expensive... mainstream users won't even be sure if their computers are powerful enough to run most games. A lot of people are generally happy with their computer for what they use them for, so they're not going to drop another $1000-2000 on a computer as a gaming rig, or crack open the PC case and try to install upgrades in most cases.
Another thing is that in-person multiplayer is a lot better supported by console systems. There's no fuss in having a few friends over to play a few bouts of Super Smash Brothers Melee or Mortal Kombat. Only the most serious gamers and geeks will make the effort to throw a LAN party.
Plus... it just seems like this year, there have been more quality games released for the consoles than the PC.
I bought a GameCube for all of these reasons... there are a lot of great GameCube and PS2 games that you won't ever see on a PC, and even if you did, they wouldn't be as fun unless you could find a working controller adapter (damn Kiki-Joy). I probably wouldn't buy an X-Box though, because its main selling points: cutting edge graphics, good online capability and many of its better games, are still overshadowed by the capabilities of the $1200ish PC I built myself about a year ago.
I'm definitely still going to game on my PC. For me, it just isn't an "either-or" choice. Though these days, most of my time playing is either console games, or online persistent worlds, like EverQuest and GemStone III. It would be interesting to see what the revenue generated by console and PC gaming were like, considering subscription based services MMORPGs and services like X-Box Live.
Yeah, I know this post is highly redundant, but man, this makes me sick.
It's one thing if they want to shut down P2P filesharing that make piracy appealing to your average Joe. Those services (I feel) have substantial non-infringing uses and are one of the best ways to get exposure to new music, but they do faccilitate piracy.
It's another thing that they seem to be trying to villify ripping music off cds you own, and mixing and burning that music on to other cds for personal use. My lord, isn't this is the very definition of fair use?
It's suddenly unacceptable to do anything but listen to music on the media it's published on and it's wrong to faccilitate fair use with any of the technologies that people want.
Not everybody who telecommutes has a high paying job or owns their own business. She's a medical transcriptionist, and really doesn't get paid all that much, despite the fact that she's really good at her job and works full time. I'm not sure how much a "business line" costs, but if it's very expensive, it's not an expense that she can really afford, and even the with frequent outages... and she can't simply pick up her lunky transcriptionist equipment to work at the nearest library (which is about an hours drive away anyway) and her capacity to work offline is severely limited by the antiquated delivery system used by her employer (which I don't even think uses the Internet... or at least her office doesn't).
Anyway, her problem was that her 3 phone lines would simply not work for hours at a time... sometimes during peak business hours, sometimes days in a row. These problems I believe continued for about 3 months... she wasn't sure exactly who do contact about the problem, and after several unfulfilled promises to fix the problem from the phone company, she went through the "escalation process" and the problem was supposedly fixed... only to crop up again a few months later. This time she directly our state's PUC and the problem was "fixed" again, and so far for the past month or so, there's been no problems with her lines that I'm aware of.
What is the best way for a person in my mother's situation to get the stable connection that she really could use, without paying through the nose? All she needs is POTS that won't suffer random frequent outages, or are her only options to deal with the problem after the fact by contacting the Florida PUC (with no hope for compensation for lost wages), or pay for some sort of "business" service (despite the fact that she does not own a business and can't afford anything too fancy?)
These people really have no idea how to run a company do they?
Maybe some of them know how to run a company, but they're sucking at it because they're too busy trying to run the entire industry.
Afterall, that's what the RIAA is meant to do, isn't it? The problem (as I see it, I may be wrong, I'm no expert here) is that the RIAA is serving as an impediment to the progress of the companies it represents. Instead of letting things like the state of technology and consumer demand determine their practices and policies, they are trying to dictate the state of the technology (by limiting the use of technology in court battles) and trying to control consumer demand (through marketing... it's easier for them if they get to tell us what we want).
So far it looks like their tactics just aren't working. People don't like the music they're promoting and they don't like the manner in which it's being delivered.
So what good is the RIAA? Maybe I'm completely wrong here, but it seems to me that the industry (not to mention consumers) would benefit greatly if they just stopped trying to work together to control the digital revolution, and instead started actually competing with each other in finding a way to profit from the wonderful advancements in technology.
Ah well, it'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. I don't like a lot of music so I'm not as passionate on this subject as I might be... I just want don't want to see the technology go to waste (or see it forced underground).
The real question is, are they truly supportive of it as a matter of principle, or do they simply enjoy getting something for free; being unwilling to pay for it if it was available through legal means?
In my case, both.
I support the principle behind abandonware... though not really because it's not sold anymore. I like it because it's an unofficial public domain of sorts... it's a way for budding game designers to have cheap and easy access to the history of video games... classic or little known gems of yesteryear that a person wouldn't spend a penny on continue to get exposure... and I think that's a good thing for gamers and the gaming industry in general.
I also support Abandonware because the companies no longer support the games, and people who purchased a game license who lost the physical media on which the game was stored (or the silly copyright toys that lots of old games used) have a way of enjoying the products that they legitimately own... without putting a burden of service and support on the game publisher (which might not even exist any longer).
Those are the reasons why I think abandonware distribution is a noble cause in general. It's the reason I've donated a few bucks to The Underdogs.
On a personal level, I "rationalize" downloading abandonware by telling myself (and it's the truth) that there is no way I could feasibly purchase the software these days, and that even if I could, I probably wouldn't... I'm not taking anything material away from anyone. It's a victimless crime, so to speak.
I personally don't download "abandonware" that isn't truly abandoned, that someone is actually trying to sell... if I do, it's software that I feel I have a legitimate right to use (as in, I purchased it sometime in the past.) Maybe many others aren't as "scrupulous", but it's seldom an issue since very little of what most people define as "abandonware" is readily available... that's why it's called "abandonware".
Slashdot Mirror
And while we're at it, we'll bring the typo fairies who have hexed my keyboard to justice, too.
Think I'm stretching? Stop burying your head in the sand. This can't be just a coincidence.
The way a game plays (control, core gameplay) and is designed (the way specific challenges are tailored) are the most important things in a game. If I want to enjoy a good story, I can read a mediocre novel and appreciate better plot and character development than the better stories found in video games. If I want to be wow'd by cool visual effects, I can watch a big budget action or sci-fi movie.
Don't get me wrong, I love it when a game has a good story, and I'm not totally unfamiliar with MUDs myself (used to play GemStone IV among others, and was an active member of that game's role-playing community when I did play) but if the actual process of playing the game isn't great, the game's story isn't going to work as a saving grace.
Graphics (but really I should say "style", as a game can be very technically advanced graphically, but still lack style, which is what's important), storyline, music, sound effects collectively work together to give the game polish and immersiveness. Games that don't have polish and immersiveness may be fun to play (which is what's most important), but a game that's fun and immersive is a gaming masterpiece.
Games like Deus Ex, the Ocarina of Time, Star Control 2, Grand Theft Auto III, Metroid Prime and Yoshi's Island are a few games that I'd consider masterpieces for their time. Some of them have a greater emphasis on story than others, but the key is, each of them is built first on a solid foundation of fun and compelling gameplay, and thestoryline and/or other elements intergrate with the game near-perfectly and enhances the overall gameplay experience so it starts to feel like something greater than a mere game.
Some of the early arcade games like Asteroids, Ms. Pac-Man, Missle Command, ect. can still be pretty fun to play, despite the fact that the plot and storylines are as primitive as the graphics. Also a lot of games (simulators, sports games) don't have a plot either, they just have a premise. I'd rather play those types of games than an RPG or FPS with a first-rate story but poorly designed gameplay, maps, levels, encounters, ect.
That's just me though.
I'm sure you're right (about the children thing, not the troll thing, which you're wrong about). I've only played GTA3, myself, but I have talked to someone who mentioned killing a child "accidentally" in one of their anecdotes of playing the game. However, the person I was talking to was inexperienced in playing the game and I expect simply mistaken.
In any event, whether there are children in the games or not, it doesn't change what people have told me about how they supposedly play the game. The fact is most people I know personally who have played a Grand Theft Auto game haven't completed very many of the game's missions. That was my point.
What I find interesting in this article is the way games like Grand Theft Auto III are referred to as "mature titles", because they involve graphic violence. To my thinking (and probably to the thinking of a lot of Japanese people), "immature titles" would be just as apt a description (which isn't to say I think they are necessarily bad games--I love GTA3... it's just that I think violence appeals to a less mature audience).
I can have a lot of fun playing games with cartoonish characters, because I'm not particularly concerned that a game is depicted in that style... I'm an adult, and a more colorful, kid-oriented style may not have huge appeal (though really a lot of it is really charming... Tarutaru in Final Fantasy XI are just obscenely "awww!"-inducingly cute), but nor does it particularly bother me, and I'm secure enough in my masculinity, adulthood, whatever, to enjoy a game that doesn't involve manhood-reaffirming pursuits like tackling people, driving around a fast, powerful car, or blowing people to smithereens with a rocket launcher.
Nintendo, like any corporation, is concerned with making money, but I don't think for them it's as much the driving factor as it is for companies like, say Microsoft. Personally I'm rather glad they've resisted the temptation to "sell out" and focus their development efforts on stuff that falls outside their traditional domain.
They still have third party developers working on other stuff for them (as far as I know, NASCAR and NFL games available on the GameCube too).
Plus I respect the fact that they've managed to produce a decent console that sells for about half the price of the competitors' consoles while keeping the workmanship of the console itself up to fairly high standard of quality (a GameCube is a lot studier and less likely to break down on you than a PlayStation 2.)
I think Nintendo is a little misunderstood and is too often dismissed out of hand by people too concerned with what it will look like if they are caught playing a game that looks like the Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker. They could make some effort to change their image, but at this point I'm not sure it would even be possible... it might be kind of like when Hammer tried to reinvent himself as a "Gangsta" rapper after having cut songs like "You've Got To Pray". They could sacrifice their niche only to not be taken seriously in the end by anybody else anyway.
While playing like that can be a fun diversion, it gets old pretty fast.
The real core gameplay for GTA3 for me, though, has been the missions that you're given the course of the main storyline. Right from the beginning of the game it's made very clear where you can get missions to advance the game plot, and it's always pretty obvious where you get your next issue to advance the linear game plot.
GTA3 is about as non-linear as the Final Fantasy games, really. There is a main plot that you are generally ushered towards completing, but there are also a few "sub-quests" and mini-games that you can fool around with, or you can just play around and explore. A lot of games that are popular in America just aren't quality games. They are successful due to marketing, gratuitous violence, ect. Japan is a different culture so marketing has to be done differently, and gratuitous violence doesn't seem to be as appealing to them. However, a game like Grand Theft Auto III, which is genuinely well crafted can apparently enjoy some measure of success.
Generally I prefer Japanese games myself. I think many American games cater to a younger, less mature audience, while Japanese games cater to a older, more mature, intelligent (but creepier) audience. I love the games that Nintendo produces, and though lately I haven't been a big fan of RPGs in general, I generally prefer Japanese style RPGs to American ones. And though I don't have any particular aversion to graphically depicted violence in video games, I don't really see it as a selling point, nor do I find cute, cartoonish graphics in a game a turn-off, if it's done with style. I also would prefer to see hot a hot girl depicted in a game than blood splattering everywhere. American games do sometimes try to give their games sex appeal, but it's done in a really crude manner... see BMX XXX, or Lara Croft, who is simply frumpy compared to hundreds of virtually anonymous chicks in Japanese fighting games, RPGs, ect, ect.
I wish more American companies would take a hint and focus on producing quality titles rather than producing lame franchised garbage and using violence and crudity (and yeah, I know, at least we aren't obsessed with tentacle sex) as an attention grabber.
A lot of American games are really fun and inventive, and there are going to be good games made here that simply don't hold appeal to most Japanese, but there's a lot American developers can learn from the Japanese, and there's a lot U.S. gamers could learn from the Japanese as well... namely to look past the surface of a game and how it's marketed and pay attention how it actually plays. The Japanese could take a hint from many American games though, and remove a little emphasis on storyline... no, I don't want to read through pages and pages of dialog or wait through hours of cutscenes when I'm playing a game, even an RPG.
I'm going to patent the process of reverse engineering.
That doesn't mean that I think that you shouldn't get broadband if it's available in your area. If I could get DSL or cable I'd jump right on it, and I'm in favor of just about any regulation, de-regulation, initiative, technology or enterprise that might bring broadband to more people. I just spent over a thousand dollars building a tower on my property so I could receive an signal to fixed wireless Internet access, so I'm not some sort of luddite who isn't convinced of the greatness of broadband.
I'm just saying that most people don't need.
Not so weird... a ground-level nuclear explosion is pretty dramatic. A blinding flash, a shockwave, a thunderclap, high velocity winds and a mushroom cloud... produces a pretty big "wow" factor. Much more interesting than a silent, invisible space explosion.
I'm on dialup and I've downloaded 600+ mb files before... on P2P networks even, without the benefit of an uninterupted download. So obviously, 50-60 mb files aren't a big deal... again, it just means I have to remember to start the download before I go to bed or go out. And the phone lines running to my house suck... my connection is slow even for dialup, but I manage. It does mean you have to change the way you manage your downloads, and certain uses for the Internet are out of the question on dialup... but for some people, that just isn't a big deal.
And though it's true that a lot of people are ignorant about service packs and the like, and put their system security at risk, I'm not sure your typical broadband user is that much more savvy. By and large it's better for a person ignorant about PC security to be on and off with dialup rather than using an always-on shared network to access the Internet.
Right. Bigger numbers look good on paper, hence the model numbers.
I've called them, but the answers I got from them at the time weren't too encouraging. I told them where I lived, and so I was told that I'd have to erect a tower to shoot over the trees. I asked about how much that would cost, and the answer I got back sounded as if the responsibility of erecting a tower would be left to me, and that doing everything "new" would probably cost upwards of $1,000, but that it might be possible doing it with other stuff for less. Well, that had me feeling pretty daunted at the time... I didn't have $1,000 to spend on that at the time (still don't), and I didn't want to call back before educating myself a bit more.
The other thing that turned me off were the speeds quoted by the guy... 128 kbits per second, but that they usually 256 kbits per second is what he says he gives people "if they don't abuse it" (I didn't ask what "abuse" was). I live in a house with three fairly heavy Internet users... 128 kbps split 3 ways just doesn't sound like something worth spending $1,000 up front on (and what I think he said was $40/month). However, he did say they were thinking about dropping the price, so I'll have to ask about what other levels of service they provide.
Some of what I'm willing to spend depends partially on how reliable the service is, however. Right now between our dialup ISP accounts and the extra phone line we're spending about $62/month. So of course we'd be willing to spend at least that much per month on a broadband connection that we could share with the entire house... if it were reliable enough to not need to maintain a "backup" dialup account or extra phone line.
Thanks again.
Thanks for the information. One question, what is the difference between the "line of sight path distance" and the "distance from the beginning of the path to the point in question?" They sound the same to me, but I know I'm misunderstanding something.
Right. I suspect there may be similar reasons behind Smashing Pumpkins (correction from my previous post, there's no "the" in their band name). I know Smashing Pumpkins released their last album as a free download apparently to spite to the music industry, but I don't know the whole history behind who they recorded with, who owns their songs and all that. I don't know for sure, but that sort of thing seems to be the reason a lot of artists reacquire the rights to their music or start their own labels... they don't like the way the mega music industry establishment treated them or their customers. Well, Apple isn't the music industry, so hopefully artists like this will be willing to deal with Apple so everyone can reap the benefits of a system that is largely driven by technology and innovation and at least partially outside the control of the RIAA. Of course a lot of artists are just as bad as the RIAA as far as far as being "greedy" and wanting "control" goes. If somebody decides that they won't see their songs selling for less than $3 a pop, that's their perogative, even if I might think it sucks... at least it isn't some middleman in a suit pushing that price without any input from the actual artist.
For me, iTMS is starting to rekindle my interest in music. It's true that I haven't heard any new bands/artsits in the past few years that I really like, but there are a lot of older songs from the 60's/70's era (before I was born) that I catch pieces of in movies, commercials, or when I'm with my father and he's listening to them, ect. that I haven't bothered to investigate purchasing because it's a pain and I'm not sure it'll be worth it.
I would sometimes try to find songs on P2P services, but by and large I've found it isn't worth the trouble. Due to lack of sources and my slow dialup connection, it can take a week to download a 4 minute song. Plus, I feel obligated to share when I use P2P, so keeping my P2P client on kills my download and general Internet browsing capability because I'm always uploading. On top of that there isn't always a way to tell that the quality of the song I'm getting is good, the version I'm looking for, ect. Plus there's the nagging part of my conscience that doesn't like the fact that I am "stealing" a song that is, in some form, still for sale today.
I think iTMS will be successful because it's very convenient and facillitates impulse buying. If I hear a song I like, I just do a web search for a bit of the song's lyric (if I don't happen to know the artist or song name, which is often the case) and then I can do a quick search on iTunes. Within 2 minutes I can have purchased and started a download on a song that I otherwise never would have purchased and probably wouldn't ever have even bothered downloading via spotty P2P services, even if those were perfectly legit.
I don't know how many people like me there are out there, but if Apple doesn't drop the ball on marketing, and a good word-of-mouth buzz gets around... and if they can improve their song selection a bit more (my two favorite bands, the Beatles and the Smashing Pumpkins, have almost no songs listed on the service), iTMS is going to take off like a rocket, have a long ascension and stay in the air indefinitely.
I don't know if this is going to lead to "better music", unfortunately. And the RIAA isn't going to wake up overnight to realize the fact that technology that empowers the customer can be a good thing for everyone if they go about things the right way. But eventually I think things will more or less work out. It won't be perfect... there will still be music "piracy", there will still be the "draconian" RIAA trying to destroy what they can't completely control, but I think we are finally starting to move in the right direction.
Apple is doing the reverse. Selling the "software" (or music in this case) for cheap while (hopefully) profiting on sales of iPods and iPod accessories.
So, yeah, you're right.
But even ignoring the desktop, big drives like this would be great, even if they are somewhat sluggish. If you can get the prices down to affordable levels, you can stick one of these things in a TiVo, ReplayTV, what have you, and keep all of your favorite movies, every season and every episode of your favorite TV shows, as well as all the big sports events, stored on one box using nearly lossless compression.
Personally I think that's pretty cool.
But I'll believe all of this when I see it. I'm just a layman, but I don't see anything that's convincing me that we're going to see a huge leap in hard drive technology any time soon.
1) Creating a game that is actually compelling and find to play. Game designers already have a lot of expertise in creating more traditional games with more traditional methods of control: gamepads, joysticks, keyboard/mouse, ect. Making the shift to designing games meant to be played on a cycle could be difficult for some.
2) Getting people to actually buy the (probably expensive) peripheral control device (unless of course it's an arcade game.)
But I love the idea. Even without the fact that of course it'd be a heck of a lot healthier than playing most games, it would also introduce what is (to me at least) a new and novel type of gameplay. It takes a really outstanding traditional game to keep my sustained interest these days, but when something's fresh and new (and yes, I know this concept isn't entirely new, but it'd be new to most gamers) it scores a lot of points for fun just for being something different.
Unfortunately, I have difficulty imagining enough gamers shelling out the cash to buy the expensive controller for what is probably going to have an extremely limited selection of games that support it. I don't even think some of the more recent console systems have the familiar light gun yet, let alone something as out there as a "controller-cycle".
Plus, I'm sure it's a nightmare to navigate the user interface of one of these things with their tiny little buttons. I loathe the task of setting an alarm on a digital wristwatch, I can just imagine how lame it would be to try to sort through my spam-filled inbox, receive an IM, or add a new stock quote to watch.
I was curious about what these things look like, and found some concept images here. Two of them don't look so bad, but they're all kind of cheesy if you ask me. I think of a wristwatch almost as a fashion accessory as much as anything else. I want it to look good, like it belongs on my person. I don't want it to look like I have a gadget strapped to my wrist.
And for $120-300 + $8.25/month? Seems kind of silly to me.
When you play a console game, you're sitting back on your couch, beanbag, what have you, probably several feet away from the TV set. PC games have you hunched over a keyboard, your face a few inches away from the monitor.
With console gaming, you seldom have to worry about the game crashing, your save game information getting corrupted, hardware/software conflicts or lagging frame rates.
Obviously console systems are easier to set up as well.
Some types of games do play better on PCs. First person shooters for one, though the GameCube and X-Box both have controllers pretty well suited to FPS style games, so that is becoming less of an issue. Strategy and hardcore RPGs tend to play better on the PC, but for other genres, like platformers and adventure games... well, do these type of games even exist for the PC?
Online... though X-Box Live is looking pretty good, it's only for broadband users, and PC gaming is far more mature. Still, this was one thing that older consoles were lacking, but no more.
Obviously, price is another factor. Though PC games do tend to be less expensive, the best selling games tend to be a bit slow to drop in price, if they ever do, and the hardware needed to play many PC games effectively is prohibitively expensive... mainstream users won't even be sure if their computers are powerful enough to run most games. A lot of people are generally happy with their computer for what they use them for, so they're not going to drop another $1000-2000 on a computer as a gaming rig, or crack open the PC case and try to install upgrades in most cases.
Another thing is that in-person multiplayer is a lot better supported by console systems. There's no fuss in having a few friends over to play a few bouts of Super Smash Brothers Melee or Mortal Kombat. Only the most serious gamers and geeks will make the effort to throw a LAN party.
Plus... it just seems like this year, there have been more quality games released for the consoles than the PC.
I bought a GameCube for all of these reasons... there are a lot of great GameCube and PS2 games that you won't ever see on a PC, and even if you did, they wouldn't be as fun unless you could find a working controller adapter (damn Kiki-Joy). I probably wouldn't buy an X-Box though, because its main selling points: cutting edge graphics, good online capability and many of its better games, are still overshadowed by the capabilities of the $1200ish PC I built myself about a year ago.
I'm definitely still going to game on my PC. For me, it just isn't an "either-or" choice. Though these days, most of my time playing is either console games, or online persistent worlds, like EverQuest and GemStone III. It would be interesting to see what the revenue generated by console and PC gaming were like, considering subscription based services MMORPGs and services like X-Box Live.
It's one thing if they want to shut down P2P filesharing that make piracy appealing to your average Joe. Those services (I feel) have substantial non-infringing uses and are one of the best ways to get exposure to new music, but they do faccilitate piracy.
It's another thing that they seem to be trying to villify ripping music off cds you own, and mixing and burning that music on to other cds for personal use. My lord, isn't this is the very definition of fair use?
It's suddenly unacceptable to do anything but listen to music on the media it's published on and it's wrong to faccilitate fair use with any of the technologies that people want.
Just sickening.
Anyway, her problem was that her 3 phone lines would simply not work for hours at a time... sometimes during peak business hours, sometimes days in a row. These problems I believe continued for about 3 months... she wasn't sure exactly who do contact about the problem, and after several unfulfilled promises to fix the problem from the phone company, she went through the "escalation process" and the problem was supposedly fixed... only to crop up again a few months later. This time she directly our state's PUC and the problem was "fixed" again, and so far for the past month or so, there's been no problems with her lines that I'm aware of.
What is the best way for a person in my mother's situation to get the stable connection that she really could use, without paying through the nose? All she needs is POTS that won't suffer random frequent outages, or are her only options to deal with the problem after the fact by contacting the Florida PUC (with no hope for compensation for lost wages), or pay for some sort of "business" service (despite the fact that she does not own a business and can't afford anything too fancy?)
Maybe some of them know how to run a company, but they're sucking at it because they're too busy trying to run the entire industry.
Afterall, that's what the RIAA is meant to do, isn't it? The problem (as I see it, I may be wrong, I'm no expert here) is that the RIAA is serving as an impediment to the progress of the companies it represents. Instead of letting things like the state of technology and consumer demand determine their practices and policies, they are trying to dictate the state of the technology (by limiting the use of technology in court battles) and trying to control consumer demand (through marketing... it's easier for them if they get to tell us what we want).
So far it looks like their tactics just aren't working. People don't like the music they're promoting and they don't like the manner in which it's being delivered.
So what good is the RIAA? Maybe I'm completely wrong here, but it seems to me that the industry (not to mention consumers) would benefit greatly if they just stopped trying to work together to control the digital revolution, and instead started actually competing with each other in finding a way to profit from the wonderful advancements in technology.
Ah well, it'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. I don't like a lot of music so I'm not as passionate on this subject as I might be... I just want don't want to see the technology go to waste (or see it forced underground).
In my case, both.
I support the principle behind abandonware... though not really because it's not sold anymore. I like it because it's an unofficial public domain of sorts... it's a way for budding game designers to have cheap and easy access to the history of video games... classic or little known gems of yesteryear that a person wouldn't spend a penny on continue to get exposure... and I think that's a good thing for gamers and the gaming industry in general.
I also support Abandonware because the companies no longer support the games, and people who purchased a game license who lost the physical media on which the game was stored (or the silly copyright toys that lots of old games used) have a way of enjoying the products that they legitimately own... without putting a burden of service and support on the game publisher (which might not even exist any longer).
Those are the reasons why I think abandonware distribution is a noble cause in general. It's the reason I've donated a few bucks to The Underdogs.
On a personal level, I "rationalize" downloading abandonware by telling myself (and it's the truth) that there is no way I could feasibly purchase the software these days, and that even if I could, I probably wouldn't... I'm not taking anything material away from anyone. It's a victimless crime, so to speak.
I personally don't download "abandonware" that isn't truly abandoned, that someone is actually trying to sell... if I do, it's software that I feel I have a legitimate right to use (as in, I purchased it sometime in the past.) Maybe many others aren't as "scrupulous", but it's seldom an issue since very little of what most people define as "abandonware" is readily available... that's why it's called "abandonware".