This sort of pointless flamebait article, and the Linux/Mac drivel that's sure to follow, is the reason why I'm this close to deleting Slashdot's feed from my feed reader. No wonder Slashdot is out of fashion now.
Compiling Linux is a "steep learning curve". Learning MS Office 2007 requires you to click on the tabs and see where the options are. My girlfriend is a total end user, and she didn't even MENTION having difficulties adapting to the new layout... It's organized logically enough.
Also, I wish they'd stop saying that the DS is intended to be a childrens' toy. It certainly is something small kids would enjoy, and it certainly is a toy, but a lot of adults have them and enjoy them and get together at PAX to draw penises at each other while getting smashed. It's not like a Leappad or something.
The fact many adults enjoy it (including myself) does not make it any less of a children's toy.
Re:The first day(s) have always been industry only
on
E3 Grows Up - A Little
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
On the bright side, GameStop clerks and most of the press are mostly relegated to the flashy wings of E3, rarely venturing into the lower cost booths rented by middleware companies - where the business end of things takes place. That said, it would be folly to assume that all of E3 is intended to be industry only. Publishers do not spend millions of dollars setting up the biggest most saturated displays and loudest speakers possible to entice potential investors, they do it to spread hype among their target audience. E3 can be thought of as a slight continuation of GDC, with the focus on marketing.
I beg to differ. Big publishers are parading their millions to let stockholders, investors and studios know that they are strong in the market, and the game is about business deals, very much so, and possibly more, than in the 'basement'. Most of the large publishers have soundproof meeting rooms, and trust me, there's huge business going on there.
I agree with your main point; I just thought your point didn't need the inclusion of your credits on a multi-million dollar PC game to work, and it's the reason your entire argument was derailed.
And hey, I know all about the strong link between videogames and emerging technologies, and I think the tone of the original poster is bullshit. I'm a videogame producer.
He did go to great lengths to underline the fact he worked on a multi-million dollar PC game... If that ain't pimping for celebrity status on the side, I don't know what is.
Writing SF based only on "real science" is like trying to reinvent cooking by using only wooden utensils.
SF is not always about speculating where science is going. As a matter of fact, I would argue that GOOD SF is never about that.
Speculation is a process by which you create an allegory of the modern world, by removing and adding some elements. For a better explanation of this, pick up Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Left Hand of Darkness" in paperback, and read the introduction.
If all you're doing is focusing on the science, you'll just miss the point. You'll put a constraint on the story that will just limit your ability to speculate.
Replicator technology and FTL travel might never come to exist? No shit, Sherlock. For me, though, it's just a way to remove some elements of modern society (scarcity of resources) and provide an exciting setting full of potential (other star systems) to talk about the human condition.
Here in Shanghai, I saw it in a theater at 12:05 (yay to worldwide releases), with people answering their cellphones, explaining the movie to their girlfriends, and with the projectionist with his head so far up his ass that he kept fucking up the reel changes and would cut out 3 seconds every time. Oh yeah, and the print was badly damaged on the first show.
Nintendo didn't miss out on online in the current generation. Xbox Live has been a mild success, though the majority of Xbox owners don't use it, but PS2 online was a fizzle.
Honestly, I think Nintendo has been trying harder than anyone to innovate. The DS lineup is really out there: Nintendogs, PacPix, Electroplankton. Weird, wonderful stuff. But maybe the rest of the hardcore gaming market has gone too much over the top, expecting desaturated military shooters, which is what everyone is announcing at E3 this year.
Man, I wish people would stop analyzing the gaming console market with preconceived ideas like that.
The ONE major innovation of the current generation of consoles is online. Don't believe me? Check out how Sony and Nintendo are both pushing for Live-like central servers for online matchmaking? They're emulating Live. We'll look back to the XBOX in 10 year and say, 'Microsoft changed gaming'.
Whether Live is a 'mild success' or not, why can't people give Microsoft the benefit of innovation? When Nintendo puts something out with mitigated success, people say, 'Well, at least they try.' Compare Microsoft's hard push of Live, and tell me they didn't take a chance and execute a daring vision.
Live is not enough to convince you? Here's two other innovations from Microsoft on the XBOX:
1. Hard drive: Another perfect example of Microsoft innovation, whether you like it or not. Sony and Nintendo both scoffed at it, and yet the PS3 and the NRV will both feature one. How's that for a failure?
2. Non-exclusivity: Look back to the launches of PSX and PS2. Remember how little they had? Now look at the launch of PS3 and X360... They're PACKED. XBOX didn't have that many exclusive games, but they broke the paradigm of 'one console per game'. Ultimately, that's a bonus for the consumer.
The GameCube didn't innovate at all. Nintendo as a developper put out some good, innovative games, and as a publisher has always attracted offbeat developpers. That I won't argue against. But on the hardware front? They're living on their reputation.
Re:From what I've seen so far, I'd rate this avera
on
Review: Jade Empire
·
· Score: 1
I agree with you. The combat system is a major letdown, which makes all the near-perfect scores JE has been getting dubious, to say the least. The game is great, and I enjoy it immensely... but the combat system sucks.
Legendary Strike, for instance, is a slow, sluggish sequence of three moves : punch, roundkick, roundkick. Whatever you do, this is the sequence. It's slow, it looks like crap, and is not exciting.
It gets better when you speed it up with XP, but all in all, the combat system is a bad feature in an otherwise well-polished game.
Your assertion of my assertion is all the more disheartening, because it is false. Like I said, I'm all for Western-style fringe-world low-tech, and that's a great basis. At that level, the parallel between SF and Western is great.
What's not great is when said low-tech is ripped off of Westerns. That is destroying a cool analogy, and replacing it with a lame 'Western... in SPACE!' setting.
Watching Firefly, I always felt Josh Whedon understood perfectly the line between 'inspired by Western setting' and 'giving the main characters Colts', but the Producers or the network was not that bright and pushed for stupid cowboy stuff.
That being said, about the characters, your distinction is artificial. Good character hooks, an good character developments, are not mutually exclusive. It was entirely possible to make interesting characters from the get-go; that's precisely the case of Buffy, for instance.
- A random Slashdot reader stumbles upon an article; - Realizing it's about China, he suspects this could make the front page; - BUT! It's not anti-Chinese, just about allowing Hanzi URLs! What to do! - The random Slashdot reader adds a RANDOM ANTI-COMMUNIST BASTARDS slant. Voila! - Editors approve the article in the blink of an eye.
And that, my friend, is how Slashdot front pages are made.
I'm a huge SF fan, although I tend to stick to books rather than TV. (I haven't been gripped by a SF TV series since B5.) I tried, really TRIED, to get into Firefly while it was on TV. I like Whedon a lot, and I was excited about Firefly. I set my VCR to record it every Friday.
Truth is, you know... It wasn't that good. I watched 4-5 episodes, and although the dialog was snappy, the characters felt flat, and the setting was give-and-take. The idea of a Western in space is good as a CONCEPT, if you transpose it intelligently. But in the case of Firefly, it felt really silly: people having Colt-type pistols, a lot of horses and wagons... It felt like the SF had no place in it at all, and was just dressing.
In short, I gave up on Firefly, not because of the schedule or the stupid TV execs, but because I just didn't like it all that much. It was sub-par. I'm sorry to say this, but in my opinion, Firefly could have made it despite the atrocious time slot IF it had been truly exceptional. They had everything against them, yes, but the series wasn't, say, 'X-Files Season 1 good' or 'Babylon 5 good' to survive these odds.
That being said, this trailer looks good, and even though I stopped watching Firefly, I want to see Serenity. I'm not expecting a lot from the movie, but it seems action-packed, well-done, and the dialog seems to be really good.
I understand why they toned down the Western stuff in the trailer, because it would look really silly to the people who haven't seen the series. I suspect it's all still in there. It sounds like the trailer is a success all around, because even as a non-fan, this movie sounds exciting.
You're awfully optimistic if you think South Korea will reunify with the North by 2010.
The North wants it with Kim Il Song in place; the South have seen Berlin and know how it would crush their economy for a decade; Japan and China don't want a reunified peninsula if it means the US will do the rebuilding.
I spend a lot of time in focus groups with casual gamers, and here's an interesting insight on their position on the whole 'kill prostitutes' thing...
What appeals to gamers in that is that you CAN do it. It's about freedom: it's about being able to do something, not about actually doing it. Yes, it appeals to gamers to run over prostitutes because it shows that the game is deep and the designers have thought of things that are immoral in real life.
That being said, they don't equate these possibilities with a moral choice. I mean, they don't do these choices as a liberation, but rather as a gameplay mechanic. Most gamers I've met in focus groups spoke of this sort of freedom as something they do because it's interesting that the game allows you to do it. They don't feel they are doing something illegal or immoral because they know it's a game.
But here's the twist... If the game forces you to do it, then they get uncomfortable with it, for the most part. If a game forced you to kill prostitutes and get back the money, then casual gamers *will* start to get squeamish, because it becomes the intention of the game designer, and not a question of freedom.
I think the Right is using GTA as a scapegoat by forgetting that you have as much choice to act well-behaved than you have to be bad. For gamers, the distinction between the freedom to be bad, and being forced to be bad, is still very clear.
Believe it or not, I've met a few gamers who played the whole game by stopping at every red light and respecting traffic laws just for the heck of it. It's not the most popular option and, true, you can argue the game leans you towards bad behavior more than good... But you don't see anyone claiming GTA teaches people how to drive lawfully, now, do you?
P.S.: I don't work for Rockstar. Trust me, even if you're doing, say, a SF shooter, GTA comes up a LOT in any gaming focus group.
P.P.S.: It sucks that H. Clinton is using GTA as an example of racism, since GTA:SA is a rare game that has an African-American as a protagonist and doesn't make a big deal out of it. Saying GTA:SA encourages you to kill black and Latinos is as stupid as saying Burnout 3: Takedown encourages you to destroy red cars.
Any astronomer could tell you that the Milky Way does have Dark Matter, since by the astrophysical definition of Dark Matter, the Earth, your neighbor and your grandmother's cat are Dark Matter: baryonic and not emitting light.
Your predictions come through because they're a cop-out. You predicted that either the XBOX 2 would come out first or slightly after the PS3, which is like saying 'Tomorrow it's gonna either rain or be sunny'.
Actually, North Korea turned off the nuclear power plant monitors after the famous 'Axis of Evil' speech by Bush, and in direct relation to the threat they perceived to Irak, knowing real well they were next. In other words, they were doing fine until they felt a threat coming from the US, whose President named them in a list of 3 countries deemed as 'Evil'.
Since then, the US doesn't want to get involved in one-on-one talks, not because they need China's leverage (they want Japan and SK to be involved too, remember) but because they can't afford one-on-one talks to go sour and force the US into a conflict. By having a multilateral talk, the US is ensuring that North Korea is perceived as a 'Regional' problem, and can hope that an eventual conflict can erupt between North Korea and all talk partners, not just between NK and the US.
In other words, it's not so much about NK lying and the US needing China to help; it's more about the US provoking a paranoid, money-hungry dictatorship, and then refusing to face them one-on-one because they are busy elswhere on the planet.
The US can solve the NK nuclear crisis. In order to do so, they need to appease NK with promises that 1) will contradict their 'dialectic of war' which they currently need to justify their actions in the Middle East, and 2) give every other dictatorship afraid of US invasion a clear way to hold the US at bay.
Slashdot Mirror
No.
Next question.
This sort of pointless flamebait article, and the Linux/Mac drivel that's sure to follow, is the reason why I'm this close to deleting Slashdot's feed from my feed reader. No wonder Slashdot is out of fashion now.
Compiling Linux is a "steep learning curve". Learning MS Office 2007 requires you to click on the tabs and see where the options are. My girlfriend is a total end user, and she didn't even MENTION having difficulties adapting to the new layout... It's organized logically enough.
Heh heh. I guess Linux and Mac owners actually have no choice but to boycott it.
Also, I wish they'd stop saying that the DS is intended to be a childrens' toy. It certainly is something small kids would enjoy, and it certainly is a toy, but a lot of adults have them and enjoy them and get together at PAX to draw penises at each other while getting smashed. It's not like a Leappad or something.
The fact many adults enjoy it (including myself) does not make it any less of a children's toy.
On the bright side, GameStop clerks and most of the press are mostly relegated to the flashy wings of E3, rarely venturing into the lower cost booths rented by middleware companies - where the business end of things takes place. That said, it would be folly to assume that all of E3 is intended to be industry only. Publishers do not spend millions of dollars setting up the biggest most saturated displays and loudest speakers possible to entice potential investors, they do it to spread hype among their target audience. E3 can be thought of as a slight continuation of GDC, with the focus on marketing.
I beg to differ. Big publishers are parading their millions to let stockholders, investors and studios know that they are strong in the market, and the game is about business deals, very much so, and possibly more, than in the 'basement'. Most of the large publishers have soundproof meeting rooms, and trust me, there's huge business going on there.
I agree with your main point; I just thought your point didn't need the inclusion of your credits on a multi-million dollar PC game to work, and it's the reason your entire argument was derailed.
And hey, I know all about the strong link between videogames and emerging technologies, and I think the tone of the original poster is bullshit. I'm a videogame producer.
He did go to great lengths to underline the fact he worked on a multi-million dollar PC game... If that ain't pimping for celebrity status on the side, I don't know what is.
Writing SF based only on "real science" is like trying to reinvent cooking by using only wooden utensils.
SF is not always about speculating where science is going. As a matter of fact, I would argue that GOOD SF is never about that.
Speculation is a process by which you create an allegory of the modern world, by removing and adding some elements. For a better explanation of this, pick up Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Left Hand of Darkness" in paperback, and read the introduction.
If all you're doing is focusing on the science, you'll just miss the point. You'll put a constraint on the story that will just limit your ability to speculate.
Replicator technology and FTL travel might never come to exist? No shit, Sherlock. For me, though, it's just a way to remove some elements of modern society (scarcity of resources) and provide an exciting setting full of potential (other star systems) to talk about the human condition.
...this would be it.
Seriously, what is the point of posting this to Slashdot? No, REALLY? Is this some kind of group anger management therapy?
Let me guess the Xbox was your first console?
Nope. That would be Pong.
Here in Shanghai, I saw it in a theater at 12:05 (yay to worldwide releases), with people answering their cellphones, explaining the movie to their girlfriends, and with the projectionist with his head so far up his ass that he kept fucking up the reel changes and would cut out 3 seconds every time. Oh yeah, and the print was badly damaged on the first show.
I think that BT will be a definite improvement...
Nintendo didn't miss out on online in the current generation. Xbox Live has been a mild success, though the majority of Xbox owners don't use it, but PS2 online was a fizzle.
Honestly, I think Nintendo has been trying harder than anyone to innovate. The DS lineup is really out there: Nintendogs, PacPix, Electroplankton. Weird, wonderful stuff. But maybe the rest of the hardcore gaming market has gone too much over the top, expecting desaturated military shooters, which is what everyone is announcing at E3 this year.
Man, I wish people would stop analyzing the gaming console market with preconceived ideas like that.
The ONE major innovation of the current generation of consoles is online. Don't believe me? Check out how Sony and Nintendo are both pushing for Live-like central servers for online matchmaking? They're emulating Live. We'll look back to the XBOX in 10 year and say, 'Microsoft changed gaming'.
Whether Live is a 'mild success' or not, why can't people give Microsoft the benefit of innovation? When Nintendo puts something out with mitigated success, people say, 'Well, at least they try.' Compare Microsoft's hard push of Live, and tell me they didn't take a chance and execute a daring vision.
Live is not enough to convince you? Here's two other innovations from Microsoft on the XBOX:
1. Hard drive: Another perfect example of Microsoft innovation, whether you like it or not. Sony and Nintendo both scoffed at it, and yet the PS3 and the NRV will both feature one. How's that for a failure?
2. Non-exclusivity: Look back to the launches of PSX and PS2. Remember how little they had? Now look at the launch of PS3 and X360... They're PACKED. XBOX didn't have that many exclusive games, but they broke the paradigm of 'one console per game'. Ultimately, that's a bonus for the consumer.
The GameCube didn't innovate at all. Nintendo as a developper put out some good, innovative games, and as a publisher has always attracted offbeat developpers. That I won't argue against. But on the hardware front? They're living on their reputation.
Wow. That was spectacularly unfunny.
I agree with you. The combat system is a major letdown, which makes all the near-perfect scores JE has been getting dubious, to say the least. The game is great, and I enjoy it immensely... but the combat system sucks.
Legendary Strike, for instance, is a slow, sluggish sequence of three moves : punch, roundkick, roundkick. Whatever you do, this is the sequence. It's slow, it looks like crap, and is not exciting.
It gets better when you speed it up with XP, but all in all, the combat system is a bad feature in an otherwise well-polished game.
We never heard back from the parents and the kid never returned to the class.
Wow. That has all the markings of an urban legend right there. Why wouldn't the kid return to class if he was registered in it?
Sounds like all urban legends that end in the 'victim' fleeing in shame; something which never happens in real life but all the time in ULs.
Ya know, I'll take Slashdot's China-censoring rants seriously the day the Chinese government actually, you know, censors Slashdot...
As it stands, I've been healthily losing time reading anti-Chinese ramblings on Slashdot for two years from Shanghai.
I have yet to run into any t#*#&$&$[NO CARRIER]
Your assertion of my assertion is all the more disheartening, because it is false. Like I said, I'm all for Western-style fringe-world low-tech, and that's a great basis. At that level, the parallel between SF and Western is great.
What's not great is when said low-tech is ripped off of Westerns. That is destroying a cool analogy, and replacing it with a lame 'Western... in SPACE!' setting.
Watching Firefly, I always felt Josh Whedon understood perfectly the line between 'inspired by Western setting' and 'giving the main characters Colts', but the Producers or the network was not that bright and pushed for stupid cowboy stuff.
That being said, about the characters, your distinction is artificial. Good character hooks, an good character developments, are not mutually exclusive. It was entirely possible to make interesting characters from the get-go; that's precisely the case of Buffy, for instance.
Don't fret. Here's how this article came to be:
- A random Slashdot reader stumbles upon an article;
- Realizing it's about China, he suspects this could make the front page;
- BUT! It's not anti-Chinese, just about allowing Hanzi URLs! What to do!
- The random Slashdot reader adds a RANDOM ANTI-COMMUNIST BASTARDS slant. Voila!
- Editors approve the article in the blink of an eye.
And that, my friend, is how Slashdot front pages are made.
I'm a huge SF fan, although I tend to stick to books rather than TV. (I haven't been gripped by a SF TV series since B5.) I tried, really TRIED, to get into Firefly while it was on TV. I like Whedon a lot, and I was excited about Firefly. I set my VCR to record it every Friday.
Truth is, you know... It wasn't that good. I watched 4-5 episodes, and although the dialog was snappy, the characters felt flat, and the setting was give-and-take. The idea of a Western in space is good as a CONCEPT, if you transpose it intelligently. But in the case of Firefly, it felt really silly: people having Colt-type pistols, a lot of horses and wagons... It felt like the SF had no place in it at all, and was just dressing.
In short, I gave up on Firefly, not because of the schedule or the stupid TV execs, but because I just didn't like it all that much. It was sub-par. I'm sorry to say this, but in my opinion, Firefly could have made it despite the atrocious time slot IF it had been truly exceptional. They had everything against them, yes, but the series wasn't, say, 'X-Files Season 1 good' or 'Babylon 5 good' to survive these odds.
That being said, this trailer looks good, and even though I stopped watching Firefly, I want to see Serenity. I'm not expecting a lot from the movie, but it seems action-packed, well-done, and the dialog seems to be really good.
I understand why they toned down the Western stuff in the trailer, because it would look really silly to the people who haven't seen the series. I suspect it's all still in there. It sounds like the trailer is a success all around, because even as a non-fan, this movie sounds exciting.
You're awfully optimistic if you think South Korea will reunify with the North by 2010.
The North wants it with Kim Il Song in place; the South have seen Berlin and know how it would crush their economy for a decade; Japan and China don't want a reunified peninsula if it means the US will do the rebuilding.
I spend a lot of time in focus groups with casual gamers, and here's an interesting insight on their position on the whole 'kill prostitutes' thing...
What appeals to gamers in that is that you CAN do it. It's about freedom: it's about being able to do something, not about actually doing it. Yes, it appeals to gamers to run over prostitutes because it shows that the game is deep and the designers have thought of things that are immoral in real life.
That being said, they don't equate these possibilities with a moral choice. I mean, they don't do these choices as a liberation, but rather as a gameplay mechanic. Most gamers I've met in focus groups spoke of this sort of freedom as something they do because it's interesting that the game allows you to do it. They don't feel they are doing something illegal or immoral because they know it's a game.
But here's the twist... If the game forces you to do it, then they get uncomfortable with it, for the most part. If a game forced you to kill prostitutes and get back the money, then casual gamers *will* start to get squeamish, because it becomes the intention of the game designer, and not a question of freedom.
I think the Right is using GTA as a scapegoat by forgetting that you have as much choice to act well-behaved than you have to be bad. For gamers, the distinction between the freedom to be bad, and being forced to be bad, is still very clear.
Believe it or not, I've met a few gamers who played the whole game by stopping at every red light and respecting traffic laws just for the heck of it. It's not the most popular option and, true, you can argue the game leans you towards bad behavior more than good... But you don't see anyone claiming GTA teaches people how to drive lawfully, now, do you?
P.S.: I don't work for Rockstar. Trust me, even if you're doing, say, a SF shooter, GTA comes up a LOT in any gaming focus group.
P.P.S.: It sucks that H. Clinton is using GTA as an example of racism, since GTA:SA is a rare game that has an African-American as a protagonist and doesn't make a big deal out of it. Saying GTA:SA encourages you to kill black and Latinos is as stupid as saying Burnout 3: Takedown encourages you to destroy red cars.
Any astronomer could tell you that the Milky Way does have Dark Matter, since by the astrophysical definition of Dark Matter, the Earth, your neighbor and your grandmother's cat are Dark Matter: baryonic and not emitting light.
Your predictions come through because they're a cop-out. You predicted that either the XBOX 2 would come out first or slightly after the PS3, which is like saying 'Tomorrow it's gonna either rain or be sunny'.
Actually, North Korea turned off the nuclear power plant monitors after the famous 'Axis of Evil' speech by Bush, and in direct relation to the threat they perceived to Irak, knowing real well they were next. In other words, they were doing fine until they felt a threat coming from the US, whose President named them in a list of 3 countries deemed as 'Evil'.
Since then, the US doesn't want to get involved in one-on-one talks, not because they need China's leverage (they want Japan and SK to be involved too, remember) but because they can't afford one-on-one talks to go sour and force the US into a conflict. By having a multilateral talk, the US is ensuring that North Korea is perceived as a 'Regional' problem, and can hope that an eventual conflict can erupt between North Korea and all talk partners, not just between NK and the US.
In other words, it's not so much about NK lying and the US needing China to help; it's more about the US provoking a paranoid, money-hungry dictatorship, and then refusing to face them one-on-one because they are busy elswhere on the planet.
The US can solve the NK nuclear crisis. In order to do so, they need to appease NK with promises that 1) will contradict their 'dialectic of war' which they currently need to justify their actions in the Middle East, and 2) give every other dictatorship afraid of US invasion a clear way to hold the US at bay.