But that episode really sucked. I get it, "You won't know it's coming. Everything will just go black."
Thats kind of why I enjoyed the ending, because thats 100% not how I took it. I don't think he got whacked at all. But your theory fits, and I think my theory of the ending fits too. Its all vague and ambiguous, just like every other episode of the sopranos.
There really wasn't anything in the link. Just references to an upcoming Game Informer issue. I'll paste the article below, but theres really nothing there.:(
Fallout 3 is heading to PC, Xbox 360 and PS3, according to Game Informer magazine which has posted a scan of the cover of a forthcoming issue that features the sequel.
Bethesda's game is described as an open-ended RPG by the GI chaps, and as you'll know if you watched yesterday's teaser trailer it's due out in autumn 2008.
It's no great surprise that the developer is targeting those three platforms, but it's always nice to have it confirmed.
Expect a flood of Fallout 3 information to plaster itself all over the internet soon.
I was talking about used prices. Whats the difference?
You're so clueless and judgmental man. As I said in my post, I have $100 to blow on electronics for myself every once in awhile. Don't you worry about me, I've got my 80 acres, AND a HD-DVD player. What've you got? The $100 you saved in the bank... good on ya champ. Well, apparently you DON'T have $400 or $100 for that matter to treat yourself to something. If your investments are dependent upon a $100 investment right now... you're riding the wrong wave man.
What do you mean by "its not a full feature HD-DVD player"? Will it not output hd-dvd in 1080p? Or does it limit the viewing of certain features? Or maybe handle the menus differently or something?
Hehehe, used 360 hd-dvd player on craigslist for $100 sucka. MUHAHAHAHAHA. And if you consider that a fortune, or think I care if its a paperweight in a year then you are either really young or need to set higher goals for yourself in life, at least financially just so you're a bit comfortable. I mean I'm not saying you have to be a millionaire to be successful, but really you gotta treat yourself in life and if its difficult for you to spend $100 on yourself every once in awhile then you gotta reach higher man! You're sitting there watching 480p DVDs like a chump, while I'm cutting the rug fantastic with true HD (well actually just 720p because anyone who buys a 1080p tv is a moron, I mean duh have you not even heard of the betamax debacle?!?)
I ran out and rebought Batman Begins, V for Vendetta, Casino and Goodfellas when I got my cheap HD-DVD player. Soo... not sure what I'm trying to say. I also make fun of people who run out and bought the first LotR release. Then the extended release, and then the super-dooper extended release. So, there must be a difference, in my mind at least.
But seriously the difference in quality is amazing. Its the difference between SD and HD broadcast channels. It doesn't alter your perception or make you orgasm on site, but once you'd watched your favorite movie, in your living room in true 720p, its hard to go back.
Just wanted to chime in and support your post. I own a hd-dvd player and have had the chance to compare a hd-dvd movie I own to its counterpart playing on HD-Net. The difference there was noticable. I wouldn't say it blew me away, but you could easily see a crisper, prettier picture. Don't even get me started on comparing them to a standard DVD (even with up-conversion). The difference on my 720p tv is like the difference between a HD channel and a SD channel. Theres just no going back once you've made the switch.
I'm kind of surprised that since you were an early adapter for dvd that you're so down on those that are early adapters for hd-dvd and blu-ray. But really, its one of those things, either you're into it or you're not, so I'm not blaming or calling you out or anything. The bottom line is, if you don't have a HD tv, theres zero reason to switch. If you have a 720p or 1080i tv (thats me) theres a slight advantage to switching. If you have a 1080p tv, i could see a real reason to switch.
Its interesting though because I would argue the same points you made of the VHS switch to DVD, for the most part. The quality is A LOT better. It just really is, and this is from a guy who owns a 720p tv not even a 1080p. The quality between a HD-DVD and an upgraded DVD is significant. In addition (I don't have blu-ray so I can only speak for HD-DVD) the menu/special features area is greatly improved over DVDs. Menus/options pop-up right over the playing movie. So if you end up on French subtitles somehow, you can turn them off without pausing the movie. Plus the enhancing viewing feature which gives you a VH1 pop-up video style of commentary/extras overlaid on the movie itself, is a pretty sweet feature. Much cooler than a DVD's director's commentary. Its one of those things you have to watch to really appreciate it.
Finally, as far as HD-DVD players go. They start at $399 (I saw a sale at a major chain this weekend that was down to $299) and its not like this huge outpouring of money like your $500 back 12 years ago. Or, like me, I bought a used xbox360 hd-dvd player for $100. For that price, its definitely worth it.
Just trying to give the other side really... its all personal preference.
I mean, I hope you didn't think I was trying to say Battlestar was a dumb-show per say. If ya did, then I misspoke. I just meant that its not this literary masterpiece that requires hours of study to truly delve into the meaning or significance of an episode. Its a TV show. But it is a damn good tv show.:)
And as for the Reality show thing... yeah, ya know I actually have to defend Survivor a lot on this topic. It seems like a lot of people who don't watch Survivor like saying things like that about it. Lets see... Survivor, as a show, didn't dub itself "Reality TV" thats a media/society word thats come about and has been applied to all shows using "real" people. Its basically a game show... a long game show would be a better term for it. As for the scripting/contriving, its kind of like this (and this is something you just couldn't know if you haven't watched a fun season or anything) there are truly times when people break-down, or get angry, or get happy or whatever that just couldn't possibly be scripted. The emotion itself is just too real. I guess they could all be actors, but... I mean we're talking Oscar level if that were the case. And they obviously don't show you everything, so I'm sure the people are being fed and there are probably check-ups and all of this that we don't see, but... thats external, beyond the fact that we're not watching them 24 hours a day, it doesn't change the emotions they show when something happens to them. I would compare that to the fact that theres CGI in Battlestar, and then someone pointing out "Ya know, thats not a real spaceship!" Well of course its not man, its a tv-show, who cares, have fun. So I'd love to say give Survivor a shot, but ya know different strokes... its just this whole "Reality TV" phrase popped up and it (Survivor) ends up getting lumped together with Real World and American Idol and... I dunno Next Model or whatever the f. When, as a viewer, its definitely just a long drawn-out gameshow. But I guess that makes me biased too.:)
Also, most of the American TV viewing public is stupid and couldn't possibly understand or enjoy a show like Battlestar or Firefly for long
Don't mean to crap on your birthday cake here, and believe me I enjoy Battlestar and Firefly as much as the next slashdotter, but its not as if these shows are pixelated genius. I'm fairly confident that if my 8-year old cousin can hold a lengthy discussion with me about BSG that we're not really straining people's brains here.
And then just as an aside, its interesting when you imply that Reality shows are thusly "stupid." I mean we're definitely talking apples and oranges (reality tv and dramas), but I think anyone who's interested in Game Theory and sociology would definitely find some intriguing aspects in Survivor.
I thought the creator had said at one point that they would never find Earth... I'm sure I remember reading that somewhere. Not that he couldn't have changed his mind though at some point.
Personally it doesn't seem like these games carry the same weight as the PS3 exclusives that made it to the 360, but still good for Sony taking something back.
Just wanted to throw in that the 360 does look pretty amazing at 720p. So far seeing ps3 games and 360 games at 720p I haven't seen anything on the ps3 that really "wow'd" me. (Not to say it didn't look good, just nothing that made me regret getting a 360). Can't speak to the 1080p though, so thats definitely an opportunity for Sony to excel if the 360 doesn't start putting its own 1080p games out.
On the other hand again its ridiculous to say that the graphical output of a 360 in HD is a half-generation behind the Wii.
This statement tells me you've never done web development.
Not only that it seems the OP doesn't even work in the business world. Exactly like you said it takes more time to ensure the site works with more than 1 browser. Ususally clients I do work for ask for the difference in prices between just IE (because their market research shows that x% of their users use IE exclusively) and IE and FireFox. They look at the price. They look at the additional # of users they might get by supporting FireFox and finally say "Leave it out. We'll do that in phase 2."
And thats fine with me. What do I care? As the ever-witty coffee mug says "Don't ask me, I just work here."
Or they are stuck using Microsoft Visual Studio on a Microsoft Vista workstation, producing Microsoft ASP.NET applications for bosses who enjoy the occasional dinner and/or trip by... Microsoft!
Are you a web developer? Visual Studio/Vista/.NET would have zero impact on whether or not it would run in FireFox. You realize.NET is all compiled on the server and generates standard markup language output? Your point is like saying an mp3 ripped on a windows machine with Media Player wouldn't play on an iPod; theres absolutely no correlation.
I couldn't, thats why I won't do it. I'm sorry that Microsoft and NetFlix and the networks aren't making it possible for you to do EXACTLY what you want for the price that you want... my point was that this occurs everywhere, to everyone, with just about every product.
The cost of a single show *cannot* be the same as the cost of an entire cable subscription.
Sure I'd like consoles themselves to be cheaper, I think $500 for a ps3 as you say "is less than a novelty, its an insult." So I don't buy it. I wish my new house cost half the price. Gas is too high. Cigarette prices keep going up. Coffee from Starbucks is $4. And you're complaining about a downloadable TV show... that you've already seen... on cable... ooooo-kay.
You'd be hard-pressed to find that kind of in-depth political discussion on CNN or Fox News.
If you're a fan of the liberal humor on the Daily Show its better to keep your mouth shut about such things. As a "comedy program" they are allowed to bring in whatever guests (read political candidates) they want. As a "news program" they'd be required by law to give equal time to both Democratic and Republican candidates.
Meh, not that an Anonymous Coward posting on slashdot is going to change that but still, something to consider.
Yup, good point. No subscriptions, no hardware, no accessories. For either the consoles or the videos (players, cables, etc). And I have to admit that data is 2 years old... its close enough that the numbers could have shifted the other direction in 06.
Slashdot Mirror
Hehehe, bravo sir.
But that episode really sucked. I get it, "You won't know it's coming. Everything will just go black."
Thats kind of why I enjoyed the ending, because thats 100% not how I took it. I don't think he got whacked at all. But your theory fits, and I think my theory of the ending fits too. Its all vague and ambiguous, just like every other episode of the sopranos.
Any links for these free comics you speak of? I'd love to get a hold of some of those. Thanks.
There really wasn't anything in the link. Just references to an upcoming Game Informer issue. I'll paste the article below, but theres really nothing there.
Fallout 3 is heading to PC, Xbox 360 and PS3, according to Game Informer magazine which has posted a scan of the cover of a forthcoming issue that features the sequel.
Bethesda's game is described as an open-ended RPG by the GI chaps, and as you'll know if you watched yesterday's teaser trailer it's due out in autumn 2008.
It's no great surprise that the developer is targeting those three platforms, but it's always nice to have it confirmed.
Expect a flood of Fallout 3 information to plaster itself all over the internet soon.
I was talking about used prices. Whats the difference?
You're so clueless and judgmental man. As I said in my post, I have $100 to blow on electronics for myself every once in awhile. Don't you worry about me, I've got my 80 acres, AND a HD-DVD player. What've you got? The $100 you saved in the bank... good on ya champ. Well, apparently you DON'T have $400 or $100 for that matter to treat yourself to something. If your investments are dependent upon a $100 investment right now... you're riding the wrong wave man.
What do you mean by "its not a full feature HD-DVD player"? Will it not output hd-dvd in 1080p? Or does it limit the viewing of certain features? Or maybe handle the menus differently or something?
Hehehe, used 360 hd-dvd player on craigslist for $100 sucka. MUHAHAHAHAHA. And if you consider that a fortune, or think I care if its a paperweight in a year then you are either really young or need to set higher goals for yourself in life, at least financially just so you're a bit comfortable. I mean I'm not saying you have to be a millionaire to be successful, but really you gotta treat yourself in life and if its difficult for you to spend $100 on yourself every once in awhile then you gotta reach higher man! You're sitting there watching 480p DVDs like a chump, while I'm cutting the rug fantastic with true HD (well actually just 720p because anyone who buys a 1080p tv is a moron, I mean duh have you not even heard of the betamax debacle?!?)
I ran out and rebought Batman Begins, V for Vendetta, Casino and Goodfellas when I got my cheap HD-DVD player. Soo... not sure what I'm trying to say. I also make fun of people who run out and bought the first LotR release. Then the extended release, and then the super-dooper extended release. So, there must be a difference, in my mind at least.
But seriously the difference in quality is amazing. Its the difference between SD and HD broadcast channels. It doesn't alter your perception or make you orgasm on site, but once you'd watched your favorite movie, in your living room in true 720p, its hard to go back.
Just wanted to chime in and support your post. I own a hd-dvd player and have had the chance to compare a hd-dvd movie I own to its counterpart playing on HD-Net. The difference there was noticable. I wouldn't say it blew me away, but you could easily see a crisper, prettier picture. Don't even get me started on comparing them to a standard DVD (even with up-conversion). The difference on my 720p tv is like the difference between a HD channel and a SD channel. Theres just no going back once you've made the switch.
I'm kind of surprised that since you were an early adapter for dvd that you're so down on those that are early adapters for hd-dvd and blu-ray. But really, its one of those things, either you're into it or you're not, so I'm not blaming or calling you out or anything. The bottom line is, if you don't have a HD tv, theres zero reason to switch. If you have a 720p or 1080i tv (thats me) theres a slight advantage to switching. If you have a 1080p tv, i could see a real reason to switch.
Its interesting though because I would argue the same points you made of the VHS switch to DVD, for the most part. The quality is A LOT better. It just really is, and this is from a guy who owns a 720p tv not even a 1080p. The quality between a HD-DVD and an upgraded DVD is significant. In addition (I don't have blu-ray so I can only speak for HD-DVD) the menu/special features area is greatly improved over DVDs. Menus/options pop-up right over the playing movie. So if you end up on French subtitles somehow, you can turn them off without pausing the movie. Plus the enhancing viewing feature which gives you a VH1 pop-up video style of commentary/extras overlaid on the movie itself, is a pretty sweet feature. Much cooler than a DVD's director's commentary. Its one of those things you have to watch to really appreciate it.
Finally, as far as HD-DVD players go. They start at $399 (I saw a sale at a major chain this weekend that was down to $299) and its not like this huge outpouring of money like your $500 back 12 years ago. Or, like me, I bought a used xbox360 hd-dvd player for $100. For that price, its definitely worth it.
Just trying to give the other side really... its all personal preference.
Polished games and excellent Mac support makes for many happy Mac gamers.
/i kid because i love.
Mac gamers? Really? Sounds like Paint graphic designers.
I mean, I hope you didn't think I was trying to say Battlestar was a dumb-show per say. If ya did, then I misspoke. I just meant that its not this literary masterpiece that requires hours of study to truly delve into the meaning or significance of an episode. Its a TV show. But it is a damn good tv show. :)
:)
And as for the Reality show thing... yeah, ya know I actually have to defend Survivor a lot on this topic. It seems like a lot of people who don't watch Survivor like saying things like that about it. Lets see... Survivor, as a show, didn't dub itself "Reality TV" thats a media/society word thats come about and has been applied to all shows using "real" people. Its basically a game show... a long game show would be a better term for it. As for the scripting/contriving, its kind of like this (and this is something you just couldn't know if you haven't watched a fun season or anything) there are truly times when people break-down, or get angry, or get happy or whatever that just couldn't possibly be scripted. The emotion itself is just too real. I guess they could all be actors, but... I mean we're talking Oscar level if that were the case. And they obviously don't show you everything, so I'm sure the people are being fed and there are probably check-ups and all of this that we don't see, but... thats external, beyond the fact that we're not watching them 24 hours a day, it doesn't change the emotions they show when something happens to them. I would compare that to the fact that theres CGI in Battlestar, and then someone pointing out "Ya know, thats not a real spaceship!" Well of course its not man, its a tv-show, who cares, have fun. So I'd love to say give Survivor a shot, but ya know different strokes... its just this whole "Reality TV" phrase popped up and it (Survivor) ends up getting lumped together with Real World and American Idol and... I dunno Next Model or whatever the f. When, as a viewer, its definitely just a long drawn-out gameshow. But I guess that makes me biased too.
Also, most of the American TV viewing public is stupid and couldn't possibly understand or enjoy a show like Battlestar or Firefly for long
Don't mean to crap on your birthday cake here, and believe me I enjoy Battlestar and Firefly as much as the next slashdotter, but its not as if these shows are pixelated genius. I'm fairly confident that if my 8-year old cousin can hold a lengthy discussion with me about BSG that we're not really straining people's brains here.
And then just as an aside, its interesting when you imply that Reality shows are thusly "stupid." I mean we're definitely talking apples and oranges (reality tv and dramas), but I think anyone who's interested in Game Theory and sociology would definitely find some intriguing aspects in Survivor.
I thought the creator had said at one point that they would never find Earth... I'm sure I remember reading that somewhere. Not that he couldn't have changed his mind though at some point.
Garaunteed Failure. That's all I have to say.
Just to clarify, you're saying Halo 3 is going to be a guaranteed failure? Out loud, to other people, you're saying that? Alrighty then...
Personally it doesn't seem like these games carry the same weight as the PS3 exclusives that made it to the 360, but still good for Sony taking something back.
Just wanted to throw in that the 360 does look pretty amazing at 720p. So far seeing ps3 games and 360 games at 720p I haven't seen anything on the ps3 that really "wow'd" me. (Not to say it didn't look good, just nothing that made me regret getting a 360). Can't speak to the 1080p though, so thats definitely an opportunity for Sony to excel if the 360 doesn't start putting its own 1080p games out.
On the other hand again its ridiculous to say that the graphical output of a 360 in HD is a half-generation behind the Wii.
Ding ding ding ding! I'd give you +6 Insightful, but there isn't such a thing. And I have no mod points. Annnnd I'm kind of lazy, but you're spot on!
This statement tells me you've never done web development.
Not only that it seems the OP doesn't even work in the business world. Exactly like you said it takes more time to ensure the site works with more than 1 browser. Ususally clients I do work for ask for the difference in prices between just IE (because their market research shows that x% of their users use IE exclusively) and IE and FireFox. They look at the price. They look at the additional # of users they might get by supporting FireFox and finally say "Leave it out. We'll do that in phase 2."
And thats fine with me. What do I care? As the ever-witty coffee mug says "Don't ask me, I just work here."
Or they are stuck using Microsoft Visual Studio on a Microsoft Vista workstation, producing Microsoft ASP.NET applications for bosses who enjoy the occasional dinner and/or trip by... Microsoft!
.NET is all compiled on the server and generates standard markup language output? Your point is like saying an mp3 ripped on a windows machine with Media Player wouldn't play on an iPod; theres absolutely no correlation.
Are you a web developer? Visual Studio/Vista/.NET would have zero impact on whether or not it would run in FireFox. You realize
How can you justify that cost?
I couldn't, thats why I won't do it. I'm sorry that Microsoft and NetFlix and the networks aren't making it possible for you to do EXACTLY what you want for the price that you want... my point was that this occurs everywhere, to everyone, with just about every product.
The cost of a single show *cannot* be the same as the cost of an entire cable subscription.
And yet it is. Mind-boggling...
If you have cable, why do you even care?
Sure I'd like consoles themselves to be cheaper, I think $500 for a ps3 as you say "is less than a novelty, its an insult." So I don't buy it. I wish my new house cost half the price. Gas is too high. Cigarette prices keep going up. Coffee from Starbucks is $4. And you're complaining about a downloadable TV show... that you've already seen... on cable... ooooo-kay.
You'd be hard-pressed to find that kind of in-depth political discussion on CNN or Fox News.
If you're a fan of the liberal humor on the Daily Show its better to keep your mouth shut about such things. As a "comedy program" they are allowed to bring in whatever guests (read political candidates) they want. As a "news program" they'd be required by law to give equal time to both Democratic and Republican candidates.
Meh, not that an Anonymous Coward posting on slashdot is going to change that but still, something to consider.
Yup, good point. No subscriptions, no hardware, no accessories. For either the consoles or the videos (players, cables, etc). And I have to admit that data is 2 years old... its close enough that the numbers could have shifted the other direction in 06.
Wanna bet?
Sure, lets bet. Unfortunately I'm lazy and only found numbers for WorldWide sales in 2004.
Video / DVD Sales - $20.9 billion
Portable / Console game sales - $18 billion
I didn't include hardware or accessories. So... I dunno is $20 fair?