Silent Hill is generally acknowledged as the best videogame-to-movie adaptation, and I agree. It captured the game's atmosphere very well, and even added to it. Not every movie has to be a character-driven story. A movie that offers only action, comedy, gore, or scares, is still a good movie if that's what you want to see. So I disagree with the OP's assertion that videogame adaptations "universally suck".
"If you don't like the facts presented on the sites of established news organizations, you simply keep clicking until you find one whose "facts" accord with your beliefs."
That's the way it has always been. People choose the newspaper or TV channel that selects / presents / distorts / invents the news in the way most fitting to their own world view. All that has changed is that the number of available publications has increased.
The voices in my head keep saying words like karma, comeuppance, just deserts... and then laughing maniacally. We live in an age when large companies can no longer treat people badly with impunity.
Guessing is guessing but here's what I think happened, based on a conversation I've since had with the manager of the depot: The guard reported the "incident" to his boss, with some things that were true and other (minor) things that weren't. His boss reported it to the police. Next thing he knows, the security guard is giving a statement to the police, and he realises what a pathetic "concern" it is. That's when he adds all the stuff about me taking photos of the depot. He never said anything about that to his boss. You'd think that would be the _first_ thing he would have mentioned to his boss, wouldn't you?
I'll tell you something funny, and slightly on-topic: I am currently a terrorism suspect. I'm a photographer, and for a few weeks earlier this month I was employed to photograph the final stages of an industrial project. This involved photographing a buoy being towed out to sea. I requested access to an oil storage depot that has a long jetty, which would have provided a good spot to take pictures from. I wasn't allowed access, and that was the end of it. Until a few days ago, when the police contacted me. A security guard at the depot had reported me, and the police were investigating why I was "taking photographs of an oil facility", which was considered a possible act of terrorist activity. I was interviewed on Friday, and the police have more-or-less said that I've got nothing to worry about. But it just shows the absurd level to which "terrorism concerns" can be used to harass people.
Remember, what happened: Requested access to take pictures _from_ oil depot's jetty with full explanation of why, told no, end of story. What police are investigating: Taking photos _of_ an oil facility for unknown reasons. I never took a single photo anywhere near the place!
I can only speak for myself but I don't think Android will go the distance. The quality isn't there. I jumped from Apple to Android a year ago, knowing that Android was in its infancy but expecting it to mature and improve. It hasn't. Yes some things have changed but for the most part it all feels a bit flimsy and incomplete, in my opinion. When I got my iPhone, three years ago, iOS was a more solid product than Android is today. (Of course iOS wasn't as feature-rich, but it was more polished, and nowadays it's catching up on features.) My blunt feeling about Android is that it proves the validity of Apple's locked-down approach: Apple has a solid, stable product, whereas Android has become fragmented and unreliable. I hope everyone else who jumped to Android is loving it and continues to do so, but for me, I'll be knocking on Apple's door again in the not too distant future. All the law suits are silly -- products should compete on quality and price, those are the realms in which consumers make our choices.
DVDs caught on because you could go and buy a DVD player and play DVDs. With Blu-Ray you need to go and buy a Blu-Ray player and, in most cases, also buy a hi-def TV costing 3-4 times the price of the player. The price of hi-def TVs has come down a lot but Blu-Ray is years old now so the novelty has worn off.
Also Blu-Ray discs are obnoxiously expensive. You can usually get a new release DVD for £10 or the Blu-Ray for £20-25. People (at least here in the UK) simply don't have that kind of disposable income at this time.
I predict that there will be a lot of fair comments in this thread modded down as flamebait, and I guess this will be one of them.
My personal experience of Google: I do photographs for newspapers. Google have used several of my photographs as part of Google News without permission or payment. I sent them an invoice, and a long time later they contacted me to say that they weren't going to pay AND would only take down the photos if I filed a DMCA complaint.
Even if you disregard the (valid) parasite claims in the Daily Mail article, I would say that Google simply doesn't respect copyright. (Or, more accurately, doesn't respect other people's copyright. I'm quite sure they would jealously protect their own.)
Interesting that Microsoft, established in 1975, doesn't appear on the list of the 100 oldest dotcom registrations. Xerox registered before IBM. Boeing before Adobe. And Microsoft isn't on the list. Did they not recognise the long-term importance of the internet?
Lots of good comments in this thread about DRM, forced trailers etc.
One extra thing I would say to publishers is that price reductions need to be significant. £13 CDs need to be coming down to the £4 mark. £40 games need to be down in the £8-10 range. The prices of entertainment media have reached laughable levels.
Years ago I wrote a piece on my blog about how the owner of a popular web site had defrauded lots of his visitors out of thousands of dollars. It was common knowledge amongst insiders, and the blog post was backed up by copies of documents that proved the fraud.
Truth and proof didn't matter. The fraudster posted a personal attack, spread my email address around, I got hundred of vicious emails from his fans, and my daily spam count shot up to over a thousand per day which continues even now. He kept the money, and is still celebrated as siomething of an internet hero.
The thing is, it's not all about graphics. I can spend £40 on a game for my PS3 that's, what, 3 years old? And it will be very, very close to what the PC version is like. Or I can spend £10 less on the PC version, but I'd need to spend hundreds of pounds upgrading my PC every year. And then I'd have to put up with all the DRM junk. And PC versions tend to be buggier. So no, right now, I don't really "get" the appeal of PC gaming. The cost vs reward doesn't add up.
7 years in prison for $8m? $1.14m per year wage is pretty good. I'd guess that a lot of hard-working, honest people would do 7 years inside if it netted their family $8m.
Also it'll be nice for him when he gets out after 4 years and realises he got a pay rise to $2m per year.
I don't think these "mid-range" sentences for high-gain crimes are really effective unless the criminals are forced to give the money back.
Slashdot Mirror
Silent Hill is generally acknowledged as the best videogame-to-movie adaptation, and I agree. It captured the game's atmosphere very well, and even added to it. Not every movie has to be a character-driven story. A movie that offers only action, comedy, gore, or scares, is still a good movie if that's what you want to see. So I disagree with the OP's assertion that videogame adaptations "universally suck".
No, it's an archaic word for "deserves".
"If you don't like the facts presented on the sites of established news organizations, you simply keep clicking until you find one whose "facts" accord with your beliefs."
That's the way it has always been. People choose the newspaper or TV channel that selects / presents / distorts / invents the news in the way most fitting to their own world view. All that has changed is that the number of available publications has increased.
"I avoid movies that have anything to do with videogames because, so far, they universally suck"
Silent Hill.
lol
SIlly me :-)
The voices in my head keep saying words like karma, comeuppance, just deserts... and then laughing maniacally. We live in an age when large companies can no longer treat people badly with impunity.
(*) Yes only one 's' in deserts.
That makes me sick. It undermines the reform goal of imprisonment if people are still considered "likely to do it again" once they rejoin society.
Guessing is guessing but here's what I think happened, based on a conversation I've since had with the manager of the depot: The guard reported the "incident" to his boss, with some things that were true and other (minor) things that weren't. His boss reported it to the police. Next thing he knows, the security guard is giving a statement to the police, and he realises what a pathetic "concern" it is. That's when he adds all the stuff about me taking photos of the depot. He never said anything about that to his boss. You'd think that would be the _first_ thing he would have mentioned to his boss, wouldn't you?
Hah, I've been using Facebook too much. Went to click "like" on this post :-)
I'll tell you something funny, and slightly on-topic: I am currently a terrorism suspect. I'm a photographer, and for a few weeks earlier this month I was employed to photograph the final stages of an industrial project. This involved photographing a buoy being towed out to sea. I requested access to an oil storage depot that has a long jetty, which would have provided a good spot to take pictures from. I wasn't allowed access, and that was the end of it. Until a few days ago, when the police contacted me. A security guard at the depot had reported me, and the police were investigating why I was "taking photographs of an oil facility", which was considered a possible act of terrorist activity. I was interviewed on Friday, and the police have more-or-less said that I've got nothing to worry about. But it just shows the absurd level to which "terrorism concerns" can be used to harass people.
Remember, what happened: Requested access to take pictures _from_ oil depot's jetty with full explanation of why, told no, end of story. What police are investigating: Taking photos _of_ an oil facility for unknown reasons. I never took a single photo anywhere near the place!
I can only speak for myself but I don't think Android will go the distance. The quality isn't there. I jumped from Apple to Android a year ago, knowing that Android was in its infancy but expecting it to mature and improve. It hasn't. Yes some things have changed but for the most part it all feels a bit flimsy and incomplete, in my opinion. When I got my iPhone, three years ago, iOS was a more solid product than Android is today. (Of course iOS wasn't as feature-rich, but it was more polished, and nowadays it's catching up on features.) My blunt feeling about Android is that it proves the validity of Apple's locked-down approach: Apple has a solid, stable product, whereas Android has become fragmented and unreliable. I hope everyone else who jumped to Android is loving it and continues to do so, but for me, I'll be knocking on Apple's door again in the not too distant future. All the law suits are silly -- products should compete on quality and price, those are the realms in which consumers make our choices.
"Project Tuva still requires Silverlight"
They'd be better sending it out on 5.25" floppies, more people would see it.
DVDs caught on because you could go and buy a DVD player and play DVDs. With Blu-Ray you need to go and buy a Blu-Ray player and, in most cases, also buy a hi-def TV costing 3-4 times the price of the player. The price of hi-def TVs has come down a lot but Blu-Ray is years old now so the novelty has worn off.
Also Blu-Ray discs are obnoxiously expensive. You can usually get a new release DVD for £10 or the Blu-Ray for £20-25. People (at least here in the UK) simply don't have that kind of disposable income at this time.
I predict that there will be a lot of fair comments in this thread modded down as flamebait, and I guess this will be one of them.
My personal experience of Google: I do photographs for newspapers. Google have used several of my photographs as part of Google News without permission or payment. I sent them an invoice, and a long time later they contacted me to say that they weren't going to pay AND would only take down the photos if I filed a DMCA complaint.
Even if you disregard the (valid) parasite claims in the Daily Mail article, I would say that Google simply doesn't respect copyright. (Or, more accurately, doesn't respect other people's copyright. I'm quite sure they would jealously protect their own.)
Went to site, it turned grey and popped up a message asking me to "like" it on Facebook. Closed tab.
Interesting that Microsoft, established in 1975, doesn't appear on the list of the 100 oldest dotcom registrations. Xerox registered before IBM. Boeing before Adobe. And Microsoft isn't on the list. Did they not recognise the long-term importance of the internet?
Lots of good comments in this thread about DRM, forced trailers etc.
One extra thing I would say to publishers is that price reductions need to be significant. £13 CDs need to be coming down to the £4 mark. £40 games need to be down in the £8-10 range. The prices of entertainment media have reached laughable levels.
Years ago I wrote a piece on my blog about how the owner of a popular web site had defrauded lots of his visitors out of thousands of dollars. It was common knowledge amongst insiders, and the blog post was backed up by copies of documents that proved the fraud.
Truth and proof didn't matter. The fraudster posted a personal attack, spread my email address around, I got hundred of vicious emails from his fans, and my daily spam count shot up to over a thousand per day which continues even now. He kept the money, and is still celebrated as siomething of an internet hero.
"This domain has been seized by ICE â" Homeland Security Investigations"
Those government guys aren't so good at the acronyms.
It appears that one way to improve your chance of survival in a tsunami is to not have a white car.
http://i.imgur.com/ddHiq.jpg
The thing is, it's not all about graphics. I can spend £40 on a game for my PS3 that's, what, 3 years old? And it will be very, very close to what the PC version is like. Or I can spend £10 less on the PC version, but I'd need to spend hundreds of pounds upgrading my PC every year. And then I'd have to put up with all the DRM junk. And PC versions tend to be buggier. So no, right now, I don't really "get" the appeal of PC gaming. The cost vs reward doesn't add up.
"it might be best to take your device to your carrier and exchange it for a new one"
Yeah good luck with that.
Sorry, skimmed the article and failed to see that bit.
7 years in prison for $8m? $1.14m per year wage is pretty good. I'd guess that a lot of hard-working, honest people would do 7 years inside if it netted their family $8m.
Also it'll be nice for him when he gets out after 4 years and realises he got a pay rise to $2m per year.
I don't think these "mid-range" sentences for high-gain crimes are really effective unless the criminals are forced to give the money back.
"employees moonlight and keep the resulting intellectual property and 70% of the revenue"
Is the remaining 30% for Apple?