I would wager that if Nintendo did something to slow a third party game down, the third party would just cancel the Gamecube release. "Well it was buggy anyway so we don't want it." Riiiiiiiiight, it makes me laugh to see someone argue that fewer games is better.
So that brings us to Sony and Microsoft. They can and do reject games because of quality. But they can't just go rejecting a game because they don't like it. If it functions according to their standards and as the publisher intends, what grounds do they have to not allow it to be released? Its a tight-rope, my friends.
Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are all in the same boat on this when it comes to their consoles. If the game is buggy and just doesn't work the way it's supposed to, they might prevent it from being released, it really just depends on the level of demand for the title and what role they play in the process of that game. I know that Nintendo and Microsoft both will delay titles that they are publishing (as opposed to titles published by someone else for their consoles) for almost any reason, including gameplay, but then when they publish they're paying for a good chunk of the development. Sony may do so as well, but then I haven't heard a whole lot about Sony's publishing. If someone else is footing the bill to put the game out, chances are it'll go out the door unless it's so bad that they feel it will somehow bring the console's reputation down, and I really haven't seen that happen yet (despite such debacles as Enter the Matrix and the latest Tomb Raider).
So are we talking bugs or are we talking design? If its a bug, really truly a bug that is going to affect many end-users experiences it just doesn't get out the door. Does clipping affect an end-users experience? A whiny end-user maybe. Are they going to return the product? Maybe, but they would find fault in anything at that point since that individual is just probably an unhappy person who sits around judging things like Comic Book Store Guy.
Clipping definitely effects the end user. However, the real question is, what choice does the end user have? If the end user is totally disappointed with the game, what are they going to do? Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo already know the answer to this. It has no effect on the console makers unless it becomes a serious problem with a large number of games on their platform. Games can't be returned once they've been opened at most stores. At best they become used titles and the retailers end up with so many used copies that they don't buy more new copies to stock their shelves.
If its a design choice, who is the first party to stop it? Just because YOU don't like it, someone else might. And standards do exist to ensure a consistent user experience in all games that come out on a given console. Beyond that, its not really QA's job to make sure a game is fun. QA is QA, just like any other software company. Just "does it work?"
That last part is really the best point you make, that QA is there to make sure the game functions, and some portion of each publisher's QA team isn't going to like each title that they test (though most likely different portions based on the title). QA teams usually have to go through very specific steps, too, to test very specific portions of the game. Most QA work is not sitting down and playing through the game (though you'll have some people do that at some point), it's playing through a particular part of the game doing a particular thing. The real question is, do we need people to perform some sort of QA that answers questions like 'Is this fun?' and 'Does this control/play well?'. Personally, I'm not sure that it's really needed. Despite what people like to say, even at the height of Nintendo's power to control what was released for their console, there were a lot of crappy titles released with their 'Seal of Quality', it's just that people don't like to remember those most of the time.
The Gameboy has been around longer than most gamers,
If this were true, the NGage would be in even more trouble. The fact is that the average age of gamers is roughly 5-10 years older than the GameBoy, and most gamers grew up with the GameBoy (I didn't, but then I had a Lynx, and never owned an SNES).
I can't see why people are always comparing the N-Gage with the Gameboy (Advance SP).
Probably because the GBA SP is the primary piece of hardware in the handheld gaming market. Simple as that, it's the main competition when it comes to the gaming features of the NGage.
All these comparisons seem weak in light of the fact that most retailers simply shun the N-Gage. (Two posters and a binder with a couple pages of infomation is weak comparing to a wall of Gameboy displays, posters, and prop-up displays)
That's pretty funny, since every GameStop in my area has the NGage display front and center when you walk through their doors, and has had it there for close to a month, with mockups of the cases for various games (and now the cases for those games that are available), said binder, and now the unit itself. You can't even get into the place without seeing the display, while the GBA stuff is in the back of the store (best place for it, since people have to walk past everything else to get to it, which is why I don't understand their tendency to put PS2 games in the front). New stuff you want to sell but probably can't goes in front, stuff everyone's coming in to look at goes in back. It's the same reason I have to go all the way to the back of the grocery store to buy a gallon of milk and then stand in line where the only thing to look at is magazines, candy, and maybe some trading cards.
From the different styles, you can see what sort of games people are going to play. For example, Doom II is a great game, but on the GBA you have to complete an entire level to save your place, which can take 20-30 minutes. People don't necessarily have 20-30 minutes to play on their GBA, so Doom II doesn't work very well.
The sad fact is that this is a limitation of the GBA version of the game, and is not inherent in the game itself (Doom 2 has fully-functional save-anywhere/-anytime gameplay on the PC), so a feature that would've been better suited to the medium was changed because the medium itself wouldn't support it (and another note: save-anywhere/-anytime was created on the PC because it was possible with the hard drive and/or floppy disk, where much more room is/was available than on a game cartridge or memory card). The lack of these types of features being added to ports of consoles games to the PC has often been derided by PC gamers, even though, as you say, you may sit down and play a PC game much longer than you would a GBA game. Console games have always sucked you into long times between saves, but the GameBoy and it's descendants have had to balance the minimal space for saved games with the need for players to play a quick game and be done with it (so you get shorter missions in many games). PC game developers rarely had a major concern about space (except with floppies, and even then if your entire game state has to fit in 1MB of RAM, how hard is it to make the save fit on a floppy?), and therefore the question of how to handle saves was usually a gameplay and design issue rather than a concern about the platform's capabilities and limitations.
I think what a lot of people miss when they talk about why internet play on consoles isn't taking off very quickly is the change that occured in PC gaming when internet play took off, and the time it took for that to occur. Internet play didn't take traditional PC genres online immediately. New genres formed and introduced online gaming, and then the rest of the genres were dragged kicking and screaming, with a handful (many of which are genres performed best by consoles now) being left behind completely. Before internet games took off on the PC, adventure, puzzle, RPG, and platform games were the big genres. Now, we have RTS and FPS primarily, and these were among the genres that introduced online gaming.
In short, although we'll be bringing along the genres that consoles are most used for, I think we'll see some new genres (for consoles anyway) bringing internet gaming to the forefront. Perhaps we won't see them coming, but when they do, things will change a great deal, and people will be willing to pay an ISP just to put their console online.
In short, I don't think your argument that "those laws may have meant that they would be making 4-10x as much" holds any water. There's simply no reason that slapping laws in place is going to magically increase workers wages...
Many labour laws apply to how long a worker is permitted to work, how old they must be, and how much they will be paid. The first means that more people will be employed and/or people will be paid overtime. The second means that children may have a chance to get an education, and that more adults will be employed. The third means that they will be paid more for their time.
Sure, it's no magical solution, and it can't be done over nite. The laws have to change over time, or you have to shift the cost over to the corporations (ie force corporations coming in from other countries to follow the most strict of the laws of the two countries in terms of labour and environment).
The difference comes in a few ways: 1) with absolutely no changes in laws except free trade, the only barrier for foreign corporations remaining is the cost of building a labour force in that foreign country. They don't have to produce any of the environmental protections they would in 1st world nations, nor do they have to protect their workers. Local companies or even people working for themselves have little chance of competing with someone that's used to paying far higher wages and looks at larger-than-average wages for the area as a pittance.
2) I forgot what 2 was because I got a phone call that derailed my train of thought:)
Do people really expect developing nations to adopt US-style environmental and labor laws, just for the sake of making comparisons to the US worker easier?
Shouldn't that be a part of a free trade agreement? Otherwise, you're simply signing an agreement that will guarantee that any corporation that can afford to do so will ship all of their labour out to countries that have as little monetary cost for production as possible.
The costs related to import/export tariffs are often in place for just this reason, to try to encourage countries to put better labour and environmental laws in place, as well as protect domestic jobs (though in some cases also domestic corporations).
On the other hand, in 3rd world countries individuals are unlikely to care, as free trade could mean that they get twice the pay ($2/day instead of $1!) and can even get their friends and family members jobs as well. They may not even understand that the lack of labour and environmental laws may mean that they're shortening their lives and destroying the very land they work and live on, they just know they're making twice as much, and that there are more jobs, while those laws may have meant that they would be making 4-10x as much and be able to live longer, and their children might eventually be able to work the same land (without actually being children when they start working).
It isn't about 'making comparisons to the US worker easier', it's about making the conditions for foreign workers comparable to those of US workers, so that corporations aren't allowed free reign to pillage 3rd world nations' natural and labour resources.
On the other hand, we could go the route of 'Freihandel uber allen' and decree that free trade is more important than the consequences thereof, even to the point of destroying the world economy in 1 or 2 generations as every 3rd world nation experiences the same type of environmental and economic conditions the US did in the Depression Era, though recovery would of course be helped by the fact that we've already been through it once, and could always return the labour to the US at increased cost.
And just out of curiosity. What did the dreamcast use for browsing on the net?
The DreamCast had a custom web-browser (I believe it was IE, but don't remember) that you could boot into from a CD that came with the console. I'm not sure why Sony or Microsoft haven't tried to do this yet, except maybe that it didn't really work out for Sega.
As for getting the systems in the living room connected to the router or whatever connection, I'm still looking at the possibility of simply putting a 4-port wireless router in my living room and then using the wireless portion to connect to the cable router in my computer room. Then I won't need individual wireless adapters for the consoles, just one to connect the wireless router to the wired router and 4 short cat5 patch cords to connect the consoles to the wireless router.
Use just about any keyboard you'd like. Much better, IMO, than something like the PS2 keyboard, which sticks you with something that may not be very comfortable to use (ie I can't use a standard keyboard for more than 20 minutes without having carpal tunnel problems).
One other point that the author missed: the new dual G5 PowerMac is also a very nice candidate (especially with the 9800 Pro). The authors have declined to provide pricing for anything AFAIK, but I'm pretty sure the Mac will come in less expensive for similar features - and it runs MacOS X among many other advantages.:-)
Probably because they wanted to be able to play the majority of commercial computer games. Roughly 5% of commercial games run on Mac OS or Linux, and even the best-selling games don't usually make the transition (Half-Life, for instance, one of the top 3 best-selling PC games of all time and one of the top 20 games (including consoles)).
On the other hand, any time I've tried to price out a Mac with equivalent RAM/hard drive space to what I already have and a fairly current processor, it's come out over $1000 above what I'm willing to spend. That doesn't mean it's necessarily any more expensive than the x86 side, but I can simply upgrade what I need on the x86 rather than buy a whole new computer (I've never bought an entire PC all at once, even my first one was bought as parts over 6 months' time). The exception to the pricing issue was with laptops, where, at least the last time I looked, the Apple notebooks were fairly competetive in pricing with x86 notebooks.
That being said, I doubt that most knowledgable readers will agree with everything in the article. Most people have individual preferences that can run counter to the article, and there're few right or wrong answers to some of the choices made. In other cases, monetary concerns can make some choices easier than others (like 1 vs. 2 CPUs and 512MB RAM vs. XGBs of RAM). Not to mention little things like Corsair RAM vs. generic, where the cost difference is in the realm of 2-4x for arguable benefits.
As I see it, consoles are already multiplayer-enabled. Plug in a second controller (or more), and you're ready to go. Any time I see a console, I see two or three kids sitting in front of it. Local multiplay. Why do you need to go online? Just so your friends don't have to come over to your house, exchanging a 5 minute walk for a couple of bucks on the phone bill (and removing the social factor)?
Some of us have friends and family outside of a 5 minute walk (try a 3-days drive for most of my friends and family). Some of us already have broadband for various reasons (ie have a PC). There's also the additional problem that most of the people I know are fairly casual players, and therefore have mostly decided not to play against me in any game, regardless of whether or not I've ever played it before, even if I've been drinking heavily for several hours.
You have to remember, though, that it's 500 units out of 6000 locations selling them. So one in every 12 stores has someone wander in and accidentally buy an N-Gage, or get sucked in by the notably lackluster sales pitch given by someone that's practically begging you not to buy one.
These people need to learn that many consumers have geeks like us as friends who can recognized a truly terrible product and tell them about it.
It doesn't even take a geek. My girlfriend's 10-year-old brother saw the commercial on TV earlier this week and asked me if that was new. When I said yes, he said 'it looks stupid'.
This from a kid that plays Tony Hawk Pro Skater all the time, which is of course one of the games they advertise. He never even asked how much it was or any of the specs, just saw the commercial.
For all of the people that inevitably say 'go look at it, play a game on it before you judge it', I simply say no one is going to look at it if your marketing doesn't get them motivated.
I saw 2 people come into EBGames on Wednesday and ask for the spiel on the thing (more or less), and they didn't look too impressed, despite the fact that it was the only reason they were in there in the first place (and frankly, they sounded like they were shopping for a cell phone more than a game machine anyway).
Maybe I'll look at them if some good games come out and my cell carrier starts supporting them (and then hopefully if I want one I can get a better deal from them).
The size of the GC itself really isn't a problem, though. If your friend already has one, it's even easier than if they didn't, because you can just pull the two connectors from the back of their GC and put them on your GC (and since both connectors are fairly easy to connect/disconnect, that's not a problem, either).
Other than that, the Player itself is fairly easy to move from Cube to Cube, it's just a little more effort.
Right, carbon dating rocks eh? Using what carbon? Carbon dating can only date things which had sufficient carbon 14 content and is based on its radio active decay to carbon 12. It only works on things that were once living (I'm no scientist but I'm pretty sure these rocks weren't) and even then it can produce hideously inaccurate results.
compared to http://www.c14dating.com/int.html
Of major recent interest is the development of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry method of direct C14 isotope counting. In 1977, the first AMS measurements were conducted by teams at Rochester/Toronto and the General Ionex Corporation and soon after at the Universities of Simon Fraser and McMaster (Gove, 1994). The crucial advantage of the AMS method is that milligram sized samples are required for dating. Of great public interest has been the AMS dating of carbonacous material from prehistoric rock art sites, the Shroud of Turin and the Dead Sea Scrolls in the last few years. The development of high-precision dating (up to +/-2.0 per mille or +/-16 yr) in a number of gas and liquid scintillation facilities has been of similar importance (laboratories at Belfast (N.Ireland), Seattle (US), Heidelberg (Ger), Pretoria (S.Africa), Groningen (Netherlands), La Jolla (US), Waikato (NZ) and Arizona (US) are generally accepted to have demonstrated radiocarbon measurements at high levels of precision). The calibration research undertaken primarily at the Belfast and Seattle labs required that high levels of precision be obtained which has now resulted in the extensive calibration data now available. The development of small sample capabilities for LSC and Gas labs has likewise been an important development - samples as small as 100 mg are able to be dated to moderate precision on minigas counters (Kromer, 1994) with similar sample sizes needed using minivial technology in Liquid Scintillation Counting. The radiocarbon dating method remains arguably the most dependable and widely applied dating technique for the late Pleistocene and Holocene periods.
Materials that can be carbon-dated using current methods include: # Charcoal, wood, twigs and seeds. # Bone. # Marine, estuarine and riverine shell. # Leather. # Peat # Coprolites. # Lake muds (gyttja) and sediments. # Soil. # Ice cores. # Pollen. # Hair. # Pottery. # Metal casting ores. # Wall paintings and rock art works. # Iron and meteorites. # Avian eggshell. # Corals and foraminifera. # Speleothems. # Tufa. # Blood residues. # Textiles and fabrics. # Paper and parchment. # Fish remains. # Insect remains. # Resins and glues. # Antler and horn. # Water.
rock art, metal casting ores, water? I'm pretty sure these weren't living, either.
A link from the site to http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/stoneh/start.htm yields the following: # A thorough reassessment of all existing radiocarbon dates was attempted.
# New samples were selected according to rigorous selection procedures.
# Radiocarbon dating was carried out on these samples, either using Liquid Scintillation Counting or Accelerator Mass Spectrometry.
# Rigorous quality control procedures at the dating laboratories ensured the scientific reliability of the measurements.
# Statistical analysis and calibration of the reliable results using the calibration and analysis program OxCal (v2.16) enabled us to model the chronology of Stonehenge.
It might have something to do with the fact that Stonehenge and the carvings date to the early portion of the Bronze Age. Therefore, it's very likely that the axe heads would be bronze.
Not only that, but the broadcast networks have known for a long time that certain nights/times are better timeslots than others
Someone I work with has 2 VCRs setup at home to record different channels at 8PM on Wednesday nite, so he can watch a 3rd channel without missing the shows on the other 2.
On the other hand, Thursday nites after 9 or so there's nothing to watch unless you like CSI. Tuesday nites seem pretty slow at the moment, too. Guess that's why I've got games to play;)
As far as I'm concerned, let CBS take their crap off the air. The FCC is supposed to be forcing non-HDTV signals off the air eventually anyway, so they can take their pick. If the FCC mandates the copy flag being honoured, then the courts should overturn it on the same grounds as were used for the Home Recording Act and other protections of consumers' ability to time-shift and share music and video. Just because your content and our recordings are 'digital' or 'high-quality' doesn't mean that anything's changed. The VCR was going to ruin these guys, too, but now they're selling the shows on VHS and DVD and raking in even more cash.
Even with those games I don't get nostalgic. Hell, I don't feel special about ANY games. 'Real' memories are built from interaction with friends and the world around you.
hmm I remember that my friend and I spent many days helping each other get through Metroid, or Mike Tyson's Punch Out!!, or sharing tricks for Super Mario Bros.
In college my friends and I would get together, have a few beers, and setup a tournament in KI (speaking of which, why don't more fighting games have tournament modes like KI did? The best part of course was that you didn't have to remember who was next because the game would tell you (the best part for those of us that had too much to drink, anyway)). We also played Mario Kart quite often.
Playing games wasn't just something we did when we were alone, it was what we did with our friends, too.
When it comes to analyzing who has the best hardware I think it's more important to consider what company had the best designs and foresight - rather than which company made the slimmest of profit margins on the hardware.
Then you'd probably be looking at Sega's DreamCast as being the best hardware, but we all know that having the 'best' hardware doesn't really mean much in terms of market share. The PS2 is probably the worst hardware of the current generation of consoles by most measurements, but has the largest chunk of the market. The only thing they did really well was include backwards compatability (though not complete), which guaranteed a large software library even if no one developed specifically for the PS2, and a larger number of early adopters specifically because it would run older software.
My dad tells stop lights apart the same way, which worked great until he drove though some town out west and realized there was a light with one end lit up (doesn't matter if it was left or right), and no cars except a cop on the side of the road. Fortunatly the cop wasn't watching because he has no idea if he did the right thing.
I'm pretty sure the left-hand light is red in these cases, but it's been a very long time since I've been through a town that has these lights, so I couldn't be sure.
I'm color blind, but I can see red just fine, and the "green" light is normally light blue. (this is intentional, most stoplights switched to a bluegreen a few years back to give colorblind people a clue of which is green, though I don't know if it helps for every case)
I haven't talked to my step-father in a few years, but I'll try to keep that in mind next time I see him. I did notice that they switched to much brighter lights in the town where my father lives, mostly because they use less energy (while still being brighter) and last longer.
(My family that can't see blaze orange in the woods can clearly see most camo clothing!)
My stepfather says that he tells green and red lights (on traffic signals) apart based on their position (red on top, green on bottom), to give some idea of what his colourblindness is. On the other hand, when we go fishing he has a much easier time seeing a fish in the river than I do (or anyone else I know), and he has the same ability to see camo clothing quite clearly. His father was in the army (in a primarily non-combat role), and occasionally his ability to see this so clearly was reason enough to send him out with a scouting party or to check a perimiter. I never thought to ask either of them how their vision handled blaze orange, though they go hunting quite often.
That portion of the screen (the right hand side) is hard to read for me on this particular monitor, and I am not colourblind in the least. Of course, this type of monitor (aperture grill CRT, like a large percentage of monitors) makes images appear dark, so the game itself might be fine, but using dark colours and greys on a black background, for text no less, is not a good idea. White text would be perfectly fine, and is actually the easiest to read on a monitor for the majority of people. Bright shades of green would also be fine in most cases (like a good old monochrome monitor).
I actually like Wal-Mart's system with games and movies even if it's only because they actually carry the stuff. I'm always a little leary about buying movies, music, and games at Wal-Mart after the early-to-mid-90s, when half of what you'd buy there would be censored and wouldn't have much of a label to let you know it. At least if they're checking IDs they're less likely to censor the content.
The replies I've read so far have made me sick. Of course video games should be subject to the restrictions of movies and music. So far the general sentiment has been "let the parents take care of it", which I agree with, but the ratings system is a nice backup.... Everyone says that video games are just as much of an artistic medium as anything else, so why shouldn't they be subject to the same restrictions?
They already are. There are no restrictions on music or movies outside of obscenity and porn laws. Any restrictions you may have seen on these items are based on local law or policies by the store and/or theater. I've been carded at Wal-Mart for movies and games, but I've never been carded at a Sam Goody or EBGames or SunCoast (and SunCoast does sell some porn). I haven't been carded at a theater since about 6 months after Terminator 2 came out (my parents had to buy the tickets and walk me to the area where they take the tickets for that one).
And yes, those few 'kids' that are mature enough to handle playing GTA are treated unfair by the system...THAT is when the parent should be able to say yes or no. Don't just let them have things, know what your getting your kids and know if they can handle it...ignorance is no excuse
But you're making comparisons to porn here. In the US, it's illegal to give kids access to porn, even if you are their parent and believe they're mature enough to handle it.
That's what's really twisted about the whole sex is worse than violence thing. People have sex at a fairly early age, in part because their parents are so up tight about it. On the other hand, people get all freaked out about violence but aren't willing to put the same restrictions on it.
Personally, I feel that parents should be informed and then allowed to control access as they see fit. If the child turns into a whacko, hold the parents responsible, they had guidelines to follow, and chose to ignore them.
Then again, I watched Faces of Death when I was ~13, and we watched Red Asphault in driver's ed when I was 15. I also played Doom when I was ~14. I never had problems in high school, graduated fairly high in my class, and hold down a good job. One of my neighbors wasn't allowed to play Doom, or watch R rated movies, which just meant that they did those things when their parents weren't around, mostly at other people's houses. I'm not sure if their parents' complete adherence to the ratings was more or less dangerous than observing what they were exposed to, because they really didn't bother to screen anything by any means other than the rating (though the ratings for video games weren't the same back then, they did exist).
The rules applied to movies, magazines, or other mediums should also apply to to video games.
Let's see: magazines: Anything that isn't regulated by porn laws is up to the individual stores. An 8-year-old can easily buy High Times, Guns & Ammo, and Maxim.
movies: Anything that isn't regulated by porn laws is up to the individual stores (or theaters). It's slightly harder for an 8-year-old to get into a PG-13 movie at the theater, but they can buy them, and R movies, quite easily.
There aren't even any ratings on magazines, and they can be sold to anyone without regulation. Laws regarding movies vary from state to state, and even down to the local level, but in most areas there is no law against selling R rated movies to minors, or allowing them to see them in theaters. These are things completely controlled by store/theater policies, not by laws. Why should games be any different?
I wasn't aware of that, probably because I don't read the LA Times. I am aware that I saw many mentions of The Sims Online before the launch on national news channels (CNN, MSNBC, etc), but nothing about it since the launch went downhill.
Slashdot Mirror
I would wager that if Nintendo did something to slow a third party game down, the third party would just cancel the Gamecube release. "Well it was buggy anyway so we don't want it." Riiiiiiiiight, it makes me laugh to see someone argue that fewer games is better.
So that brings us to Sony and Microsoft. They can and do reject games because of quality. But they can't just go rejecting a game because they don't like it. If it functions according to their standards and as the publisher intends, what grounds do they have to not allow it to be released? Its a tight-rope, my friends.
Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are all in the same boat on this when it comes to their consoles. If the game is buggy and just doesn't work the way it's supposed to, they might prevent it from being released, it really just depends on the level of demand for the title and what role they play in the process of that game. I know that Nintendo and Microsoft both will delay titles that they are publishing (as opposed to titles published by someone else for their consoles) for almost any reason, including gameplay, but then when they publish they're paying for a good chunk of the development. Sony may do so as well, but then I haven't heard a whole lot about Sony's publishing. If someone else is footing the bill to put the game out, chances are it'll go out the door unless it's so bad that they feel it will somehow bring the console's reputation down, and I really haven't seen that happen yet (despite such debacles as Enter the Matrix and the latest Tomb Raider).
So are we talking bugs or are we talking design?
If its a bug, really truly a bug that is going to affect many end-users experiences it just doesn't get out the door. Does clipping affect an end-users experience? A whiny end-user maybe. Are they going to return the product? Maybe, but they would find fault in anything at that point since that individual is just probably an unhappy person who sits around judging things like Comic Book Store Guy.
Clipping definitely effects the end user. However, the real question is, what choice does the end user have? If the end user is totally disappointed with the game, what are they going to do? Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo already know the answer to this. It has no effect on the console makers unless it becomes a serious problem with a large number of games on their platform. Games can't be returned once they've been opened at most stores. At best they become used titles and the retailers end up with so many used copies that they don't buy more new copies to stock their shelves.
If its a design choice, who is the first party to stop it? Just because YOU don't like it, someone else might. And standards do exist to ensure a consistent user experience in all games that come out on a given console. Beyond that, its not really QA's job to make sure a game is fun. QA is QA, just like any other software company. Just "does it work?"
That last part is really the best point you make, that QA is there to make sure the game functions, and some portion of each publisher's QA team isn't going to like each title that they test (though most likely different portions based on the title). QA teams usually have to go through very specific steps, too, to test very specific portions of the game. Most QA work is not sitting down and playing through the game (though you'll have some people do that at some point), it's playing through a particular part of the game doing a particular thing. The real question is, do we need people to perform some sort of QA that answers questions like 'Is this fun?' and 'Does this control/play well?'. Personally, I'm not sure that it's really needed. Despite what people like to say, even at the height of Nintendo's power to control what was released for their console, there were a lot of crappy titles released with their 'Seal of Quality', it's just that people don't like to remember those most of the time.
The Gameboy has been around longer than most gamers,
If this were true, the NGage would be in even more trouble. The fact is that the average age of gamers is roughly 5-10 years older than the GameBoy, and most gamers grew up with the GameBoy (I didn't, but then I had a Lynx, and never owned an SNES).
I can't see why people are always comparing the N-Gage with the Gameboy (Advance SP).
Probably because the GBA SP is the primary piece of hardware in the handheld gaming market. Simple as that, it's the main competition when it comes to the gaming features of the NGage.
All these comparisons seem weak in light of the fact that most retailers simply shun the N-Gage. (Two posters and a binder with a couple pages of infomation is weak comparing to a wall of Gameboy displays, posters, and prop-up displays)
That's pretty funny, since every GameStop in my area has the NGage display front and center when you walk through their doors, and has had it there for close to a month, with mockups of the cases for various games (and now the cases for those games that are available), said binder, and now the unit itself. You can't even get into the place without seeing the display, while the GBA stuff is in the back of the store (best place for it, since people have to walk past everything else to get to it, which is why I don't understand their tendency to put PS2 games in the front). New stuff you want to sell but probably can't goes in front, stuff everyone's coming in to look at goes in back. It's the same reason I have to go all the way to the back of the grocery store to buy a gallon of milk and then stand in line where the only thing to look at is magazines, candy, and maybe some trading cards.
From the different styles, you can see what sort of games people are going to play. For example, Doom II is a great game, but on the GBA you have to complete an entire level to save your place, which can take 20-30 minutes. People don't necessarily have 20-30 minutes to play on their GBA, so Doom II doesn't work very well.
The sad fact is that this is a limitation of the GBA version of the game, and is not inherent in the game itself (Doom 2 has fully-functional save-anywhere/-anytime gameplay on the PC), so a feature that would've been better suited to the medium was changed because the medium itself wouldn't support it (and another note: save-anywhere/-anytime was created on the PC because it was possible with the hard drive and/or floppy disk, where much more room is/was available than on a game cartridge or memory card). The lack of these types of features being added to ports of consoles games to the PC has often been derided by PC gamers, even though, as you say, you may sit down and play a PC game much longer than you would a GBA game. Console games have always sucked you into long times between saves, but the GameBoy and it's descendants have had to balance the minimal space for saved games with the need for players to play a quick game and be done with it (so you get shorter missions in many games). PC game developers rarely had a major concern about space (except with floppies, and even then if your entire game state has to fit in 1MB of RAM, how hard is it to make the save fit on a floppy?), and therefore the question of how to handle saves was usually a gameplay and design issue rather than a concern about the platform's capabilities and limitations.
I think what a lot of people miss when they talk about why internet play on consoles isn't taking off very quickly is the change that occured in PC gaming when internet play took off, and the time it took for that to occur. Internet play didn't take traditional PC genres online immediately. New genres formed and introduced online gaming, and then the rest of the genres were dragged kicking and screaming, with a handful (many of which are genres performed best by consoles now) being left behind completely. Before internet games took off on the PC, adventure, puzzle, RPG, and platform games were the big genres. Now, we have RTS and FPS primarily, and these were among the genres that introduced online gaming.
In short, although we'll be bringing along the genres that consoles are most used for, I think we'll see some new genres (for consoles anyway) bringing internet gaming to the forefront. Perhaps we won't see them coming, but when they do, things will change a great deal, and people will be willing to pay an ISP just to put their console online.
In short, I don't think your argument that "those laws may have meant that they would be making 4-10x as much" holds any water. There's simply no reason that slapping laws in place is going to magically increase workers wages...
:)
Many labour laws apply to how long a worker is permitted to work, how old they must be, and how much they will be paid. The first means that more people will be employed and/or people will be paid overtime. The second means that children may have a chance to get an education, and that more adults will be employed. The third means that they will be paid more for their time.
Sure, it's no magical solution, and it can't be done over nite. The laws have to change over time, or you have to shift the cost over to the corporations (ie force corporations coming in from other countries to follow the most strict of the laws of the two countries in terms of labour and environment).
The difference comes in a few ways:
1) with absolutely no changes in laws except free trade, the only barrier for foreign corporations remaining is the cost of building a labour force in that foreign country. They don't have to produce any of the environmental protections they would in 1st world nations, nor do they have to protect their workers. Local companies or even people working for themselves have little chance of competing with someone that's used to paying far higher wages and looks at larger-than-average wages for the area as a pittance.
2) I forgot what 2 was because I got a phone call that derailed my train of thought
Do people really expect developing nations to adopt US-style environmental and labor laws, just for the sake of making comparisons to the US worker easier?
Shouldn't that be a part of a free trade agreement? Otherwise, you're simply signing an agreement that will guarantee that any corporation that can afford to do so will ship all of their labour out to countries that have as little monetary cost for production as possible.
The costs related to import/export tariffs are often in place for just this reason, to try to encourage countries to put better labour and environmental laws in place, as well as protect domestic jobs (though in some cases also domestic corporations).
On the other hand, in 3rd world countries individuals are unlikely to care, as free trade could mean that they get twice the pay ($2/day instead of $1!) and can even get their friends and family members jobs as well. They may not even understand that the lack of labour and environmental laws may mean that they're shortening their lives and destroying the very land they work and live on, they just know they're making twice as much, and that there are more jobs, while those laws may have meant that they would be making 4-10x as much and be able to live longer, and their children might eventually be able to work the same land (without actually being children when they start working).
It isn't about 'making comparisons to the US worker easier', it's about making the conditions for foreign workers comparable to those of US workers, so that corporations aren't allowed free reign to pillage 3rd world nations' natural and labour resources.
On the other hand, we could go the route of 'Freihandel uber allen' and decree that free trade is more important than the consequences thereof, even to the point of destroying the world economy in 1 or 2 generations as every 3rd world nation experiences the same type of environmental and economic conditions the US did in the Depression Era, though recovery would of course be helped by the fact that we've already been through it once, and could always return the labour to the US at increased cost.
And just out of curiosity. What did the dreamcast use for browsing on the net?
.
The DreamCast had a custom web-browser (I believe it was IE, but don't remember) that you could boot into from a CD that came with the console. I'm not sure why Sony or Microsoft haven't tried to do this yet, except maybe that it didn't really work out for Sega
As for getting the systems in the living room connected to the router or whatever connection, I'm still looking at the possibility of simply putting a 4-port wireless router in my living room and then using the wireless portion to connect to the cable router in my computer room. Then I won't need individual wireless adapters for the consoles, just one to connect the wireless router to the wired router and 4 short cat5 patch cords to connect the consoles to the wireless router.
I wish Microsoft would release a keyboard for Xbox, I have no desire to voice chat with random gamers. I doubt I'll be renewing my subscription.
h tm
http://www.xbox.com/en-us/pso2/keyboardadapter.
Use just about any keyboard you'd like. Much better, IMO, than something like the PS2 keyboard, which sticks you with something that may not be very comfortable to use (ie I can't use a standard keyboard for more than 20 minutes without having carpal tunnel problems).
One other point that the author missed: the new dual G5 PowerMac is also a very nice candidate (especially with the 9800 Pro). The authors have declined to provide pricing for anything AFAIK, but I'm pretty sure the Mac will come in less expensive for similar features - and it runs MacOS X among many other advantages. :-)
Probably because they wanted to be able to play the majority of commercial computer games. Roughly 5% of commercial games run on Mac OS or Linux, and even the best-selling games don't usually make the transition (Half-Life, for instance, one of the top 3 best-selling PC games of all time and one of the top 20 games (including consoles)).
On the other hand, any time I've tried to price out a Mac with equivalent RAM/hard drive space to what I already have and a fairly current processor, it's come out over $1000 above what I'm willing to spend. That doesn't mean it's necessarily any more expensive than the x86 side, but I can simply upgrade what I need on the x86 rather than buy a whole new computer (I've never bought an entire PC all at once, even my first one was bought as parts over 6 months' time). The exception to the pricing issue was with laptops, where, at least the last time I looked, the Apple notebooks were fairly competetive in pricing with x86 notebooks.
That being said, I doubt that most knowledgable readers will agree with everything in the article. Most people have individual preferences that can run counter to the article, and there're few right or wrong answers to some of the choices made. In other cases, monetary concerns can make some choices easier than others (like 1 vs. 2 CPUs and 512MB RAM vs. XGBs of RAM). Not to mention little things like Corsair RAM vs. generic, where the cost difference is in the realm of 2-4x for arguable benefits.
As I see it, consoles are already multiplayer-enabled. Plug in a second controller (or more), and you're ready to go. Any time I see a console, I see two or three kids sitting in front of it. Local multiplay. Why do you need to go online? Just so your friends don't have to come over to your house, exchanging a 5 minute walk for a couple of bucks on the phone bill (and removing the social factor)?
Some of us have friends and family outside of a 5 minute walk (try a 3-days drive for most of my friends and family). Some of us already have broadband for various reasons (ie have a PC). There's also the additional problem that most of the people I know are fairly casual players, and therefore have mostly decided not to play against me in any game, regardless of whether or not I've ever played it before, even if I've been drinking heavily for several hours.
You have to remember, though, that it's 500 units out of 6000 locations selling them. So one in every 12 stores has someone wander in and accidentally buy an N-Gage, or get sucked in by the notably lackluster sales pitch given by someone that's practically begging you not to buy one.
These people need to learn that many consumers have geeks like us as friends who can recognized a truly terrible product and tell them about it.
It doesn't even take a geek. My girlfriend's 10-year-old brother saw the commercial on TV earlier this week and asked me if that was new. When I said yes, he said 'it looks stupid'.
This from a kid that plays Tony Hawk Pro Skater all the time, which is of course one of the games they advertise. He never even asked how much it was or any of the specs, just saw the commercial.
For all of the people that inevitably say 'go look at it, play a game on it before you judge it', I simply say no one is going to look at it if your marketing doesn't get them motivated.
I saw 2 people come into EBGames on Wednesday and ask for the spiel on the thing (more or less), and they didn't look too impressed, despite the fact that it was the only reason they were in there in the first place (and frankly, they sounded like they were shopping for a cell phone more than a game machine anyway).
Maybe I'll look at them if some good games come out and my cell carrier starts supporting them (and then hopefully if I want one I can get a better deal from them).
The size of the GC itself really isn't a problem, though. If your friend already has one, it's even easier than if they didn't, because you can just pull the two connectors from the back of their GC and put them on your GC (and since both connectors are fairly easy to connect/disconnect, that's not a problem, either).
Other than that, the Player itself is fairly easy to move from Cube to Cube, it's just a little more effort.
Right, carbon dating rocks eh? Using what carbon? Carbon dating can only date things which had sufficient carbon 14 content and is based on its radio active decay to carbon 12. It only works on things that were once living (I'm no scientist but I'm pretty sure these rocks weren't) and even then it can produce hideously inaccurate results.
compared to http://www.c14dating.com/int.html
Of major recent interest is the development of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry method of direct C14 isotope counting. In 1977, the first AMS measurements were conducted by teams at Rochester/Toronto and the General Ionex Corporation and soon after at the Universities of Simon Fraser and McMaster (Gove, 1994). The crucial advantage of the AMS method is that milligram sized samples are required for dating. Of great public interest has been the AMS dating of carbonacous material from prehistoric rock art sites, the Shroud of Turin and the Dead Sea Scrolls in the last few years. The development of high-precision dating (up to +/-2.0 per mille or +/-16 yr) in a number of gas and liquid scintillation facilities has been of similar importance (laboratories at Belfast (N.Ireland), Seattle (US), Heidelberg (Ger), Pretoria (S.Africa), Groningen (Netherlands), La Jolla (US), Waikato (NZ) and Arizona (US) are generally accepted to have demonstrated radiocarbon measurements at high levels of precision). The calibration research undertaken primarily at the Belfast and Seattle labs required that high levels of precision be obtained which has now resulted in the extensive calibration data now available. The development of small sample capabilities for LSC and Gas labs has likewise been an important development - samples as small as 100 mg are able to be dated to moderate precision on minigas counters (Kromer, 1994) with similar sample sizes needed using minivial technology in Liquid Scintillation Counting. The radiocarbon dating method remains arguably the most dependable and widely applied dating technique for the late Pleistocene and Holocene periods.
Materials that can be carbon-dated using current methods include:
# Charcoal, wood, twigs and seeds.
# Bone.
# Marine, estuarine and riverine shell.
# Leather.
# Peat
# Coprolites.
# Lake muds (gyttja) and sediments.
# Soil.
# Ice cores.
# Pollen.
# Hair.
# Pottery.
# Metal casting ores.
# Wall paintings and rock art works.
# Iron and meteorites.
# Avian eggshell.
# Corals and foraminifera.
# Speleothems.
# Tufa.
# Blood residues.
# Textiles and fabrics.
# Paper and parchment.
# Fish remains.
# Insect remains.
# Resins and glues.
# Antler and horn.
# Water.
rock art, metal casting ores, water? I'm pretty sure these weren't living, either.
A link from the site to http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/stoneh/start.htm
yields the following:
# A thorough reassessment of all existing radiocarbon dates was attempted.
# New samples were selected according to rigorous selection procedures.
# Radiocarbon dating was carried out on these samples, either using Liquid Scintillation Counting or Accelerator Mass Spectrometry.
# Rigorous quality control procedures at the dating laboratories ensured the scientific reliability of the measurements.
# Statistical analysis and calibration of the reliable results using the calibration and analysis program OxCal (v2.16) enabled us to model the chronology of Stonehenge.
It might have something to do with the fact that Stonehenge and the carvings date to the early portion of the Bronze Age. Therefore, it's very likely that the axe heads would be bronze.
Not only that, but the broadcast networks have known for a long time that certain nights/times are better timeslots than others
;)
Someone I work with has 2 VCRs setup at home to record different channels at 8PM on Wednesday nite, so he can watch a 3rd channel without missing the shows on the other 2.
On the other hand, Thursday nites after 9 or so there's nothing to watch unless you like CSI. Tuesday nites seem pretty slow at the moment, too. Guess that's why I've got games to play
As far as I'm concerned, let CBS take their crap off the air. The FCC is supposed to be forcing non-HDTV signals off the air eventually anyway, so they can take their pick. If the FCC mandates the copy flag being honoured, then the courts should overturn it on the same grounds as were used for the Home Recording Act and other protections of consumers' ability to time-shift and share music and video. Just because your content and our recordings are 'digital' or 'high-quality' doesn't mean that anything's changed. The VCR was going to ruin these guys, too, but now they're selling the shows on VHS and DVD and raking in even more cash.
Even with those games I don't get nostalgic. Hell, I don't feel special about ANY games. 'Real' memories are built from interaction with friends and the world around you.
hmm I remember that my friend and I spent many days helping each other get through Metroid, or Mike Tyson's Punch Out!!, or sharing tricks for Super Mario Bros.
In college my friends and I would get together, have a few beers, and setup a tournament in KI (speaking of which, why don't more fighting games have tournament modes like KI did? The best part of course was that you didn't have to remember who was next because the game would tell you (the best part for those of us that had too much to drink, anyway)). We also played Mario Kart quite often.
Playing games wasn't just something we did when we were alone, it was what we did with our friends, too.
When it comes to analyzing who has the best hardware I think it's more important to consider what company had the best designs and foresight - rather than which company made the slimmest of profit margins on the hardware.
Then you'd probably be looking at Sega's DreamCast as being the best hardware, but we all know that having the 'best' hardware doesn't really mean much in terms of market share. The PS2 is probably the worst hardware of the current generation of consoles by most measurements, but has the largest chunk of the market. The only thing they did really well was include backwards compatability (though not complete), which guaranteed a large software library even if no one developed specifically for the PS2, and a larger number of early adopters specifically because it would run older software.
My dad tells stop lights apart the same way, which worked great until he drove though some town out west and realized there was a light with one end lit up (doesn't matter if it was left or right), and no cars except a cop on the side of the road. Fortunatly the cop wasn't watching because he has no idea if he did the right thing.
I'm pretty sure the left-hand light is red in these cases, but it's been a very long time since I've been through a town that has these lights, so I couldn't be sure.
I'm color blind, but I can see red just fine, and the "green" light is normally light blue. (this is intentional, most stoplights switched to a bluegreen a few years back to give colorblind people a clue of which is green, though I don't know if it helps for every case)
I haven't talked to my step-father in a few years, but I'll try to keep that in mind next time I see him. I did notice that they switched to much brighter lights in the town where my father lives, mostly because they use less energy (while still being brighter) and last longer.
(My family that can't see blaze orange in the woods can clearly see most camo clothing!)
My stepfather says that he tells green and red lights (on traffic signals) apart based on their position (red on top, green on bottom), to give some idea of what his colourblindness is. On the other hand, when we go fishing he has a much easier time seeing a fish in the river than I do (or anyone else I know), and he has the same ability to see camo clothing quite clearly. His father was in the army (in a primarily non-combat role), and occasionally his ability to see this so clearly was reason enough to send him out with a scouting party or to check a perimiter. I never thought to ask either of them how their vision handled blaze orange, though they go hunting quite often.
There's enough contrast that it's not a problem.
That portion of the screen (the right hand side) is hard to read for me on this particular monitor, and I am not colourblind in the least. Of course, this type of monitor (aperture grill CRT, like a large percentage of monitors) makes images appear dark, so the game itself might be fine, but using dark colours and greys on a black background, for text no less, is not a good idea. White text would be perfectly fine, and is actually the easiest to read on a monitor for the majority of people. Bright shades of green would also be fine in most cases (like a good old monochrome monitor).
Of course, we all know how good Wal-Mart is about actually doing these things
Wal-Mart stops selling guns in California after nearly 500 violations of CA firearms laws
I actually like Wal-Mart's system with games and movies even if it's only because they actually carry the stuff. I'm always a little leary about buying movies, music, and games at Wal-Mart after the early-to-mid-90s, when half of what you'd buy there would be censored and wouldn't have much of a label to let you know it. At least if they're checking IDs they're less likely to censor the content.
The replies I've read so far have made me sick. Of course video games should be subject to the restrictions of movies and music. So far the general sentiment has been "let the parents take care of it", which I agree with, but the ratings system is a nice backup. ...
Everyone says that video games are just as much of an artistic medium as anything else, so why shouldn't they be subject to the same restrictions?
They already are. There are no restrictions on music or movies outside of obscenity and porn laws. Any restrictions you may have seen on these items are based on local law or policies by the store and/or theater. I've been carded at Wal-Mart for movies and games, but I've never been carded at a Sam Goody or EBGames or SunCoast (and SunCoast does sell some porn). I haven't been carded at a theater since about 6 months after Terminator 2 came out (my parents had to buy the tickets and walk me to the area where they take the tickets for that one).
And yes, those few 'kids' that are mature enough to handle playing GTA are treated unfair by the system...THAT is when the parent should be able to say yes or no. Don't just let them have things, know what your getting your kids and know if they can handle it...ignorance is no excuse
But you're making comparisons to porn here. In the US, it's illegal to give kids access to porn, even if you are their parent and believe they're mature enough to handle it.
That's what's really twisted about the whole sex is worse than violence thing. People have sex at a fairly early age, in part because their parents are so up tight about it. On the other hand, people get all freaked out about violence but aren't willing to put the same restrictions on it.
Personally, I feel that parents should be informed and then allowed to control access as they see fit. If the child turns into a whacko, hold the parents responsible, they had guidelines to follow, and chose to ignore them.
Then again, I watched Faces of Death when I was ~13, and we watched Red Asphault in driver's ed when I was 15. I also played Doom when I was ~14. I never had problems in high school, graduated fairly high in my class, and hold down a good job. One of my neighbors wasn't allowed to play Doom, or watch R rated movies, which just meant that they did those things when their parents weren't around, mostly at other people's houses. I'm not sure if their parents' complete adherence to the ratings was more or less dangerous than observing what they were exposed to, because they really didn't bother to screen anything by any means other than the rating (though the ratings for video games weren't the same back then, they did exist).
The rules applied to movies, magazines, or other mediums should also apply to to video games.
Let's see:
magazines: Anything that isn't regulated by porn laws is up to the individual stores. An 8-year-old can easily buy High Times, Guns & Ammo, and Maxim.
movies: Anything that isn't regulated by porn laws is up to the individual stores (or theaters). It's slightly harder for an 8-year-old to get into a PG-13 movie at the theater, but they can buy them, and R movies, quite easily.
There aren't even any ratings on magazines, and they can be sold to anyone without regulation. Laws regarding movies vary from state to state, and even down to the local level, but in most areas there is no law against selling R rated movies to minors, or allowing them to see them in theaters. These are things completely controlled by store/theater policies, not by laws. Why should games be any different?
I wasn't aware of that, probably because I don't read the LA Times. I am aware that I saw many mentions of The Sims Online before the launch on national news channels (CNN, MSNBC, etc), but nothing about it since the launch went downhill.