No, I got the joke. That was more a counterargument for the people who really believe that.
True, sex and violence sells. And true, everything is subjective. But once you admit that, everything's good, and where's the fun if you can't make fun of From Justin to Kelly or Battleship Earth?
True...but why do you even think that's the reason it contributed?
Let's see...even if I don't like company names that start with P, saying "I think pets.com went out of business because it starts with a P" doesn't make a lot of sense. It's not grandly insane, like "It is incontrovertible fact that pets.com went out of business because it starts with a P", but that just because it isn't insane doesn't mean it makes any sense.
Just so you understand, I'm not saying that you're wrong. It's just that when the issue of why sports games led to the downfall of arcades came up, your response was just "because I don't like them". Even padded with "I think", that's not the most logical chain of thought around.
I can understand your problems with GitS, etc., but Ninja Scroll?!?! That's like saying Mulholland Drive was impenetrable and plotless, so you'd rather watch Battlefield Earth.
Little info for you Slashdotters who haven't been to a Japanese movie theater: the new ones are generally nice and clean, like upscale theaters in the U.S. Old theaters tend to be pits. Old theaters have standing room tickets, so popular movies / opening nights will have people sitting in the aisles. Beer is sold at all movie theaters (I'm sure there's an exception somewhere, of course). And, best thing: there is no policy against bringing in food / drinks.
Well, the first thing you need to realize is that not all anime is created equally (I suspect you know that, but just saying it in case), and that, just as with any other media, what's popular isn't necessarily what's good. I personally hated Ghost in the Shell, so I understand where you're coming from. Basically, you just need to find your niche. My anime niche is incredibly small, consisting basically of Miyazaki's stuff, as well as a smattering of random things (Rojin-Z, Memories...hmm...too few to even recall now, but I'm sure there are others).
Some anime has a lot of Japanese cultural references, some doesn't (comedies, predictably, have much, much more, which is true in any medium). I suspect that it isn't so much the cultural divide that keeps you from enjoying anime, but discerning tastes.
Just remember, if you hear a billion people praising a certain anime, it means no less and no more than a billion people praising a certain movie. The Fast and the Furious was very successful, but that doesn't mean it was good. The good stuff is out there, but you have to look, and that can be a pain in the butt.
What I recommend is: don't bother looking. However, keep in mind that there is good stuff out there, but you haven't seen it. Then, one day, when a friend of yours whose tastes you trust recommends some anime, give it a shot and see if you've found the proverbial needle in the haystack.
Yes. They're called small companies. It's like saying "people aren't interested in sex. There are plenty of 1 year olds who have no interest in sex whatsoever."
This hadn't occurred to me, and now I'm kicking myself for it. I don't know if it will turn out like that, but it makes emminent sense on so many levels. Microsoft has been talking about XBox being a home entertainment center, Sony has released the PSX (I'm talking the Japanese PSX, not the English-speaking countries' PSX), the XBox has been accused of being too damn big, etc. By releasing a slim, cheap model and a big, powerful model, they can serve all the markets.
You're reading the parent backwards. What he is saying is that people will start small companies and create innovative games in order to get bought out. Start small, make a good product, get bought for a lot of money, live well. And although that studio will no longer be producing innovative games, other companies will try to make innovative and successful games so that they can be bought out as well.
I'm not saying I agree with the idea, but just noting that you seem to have read the post backwards.
Exactly. The Phantom is a relatively standard PC with a very [i]un[/i]standard content delivery system. Their demo for 1UP consisted of the gaming end, not the content delivery end. That's fundamentally no different than me demoing a game on my MegaSpecterGhostotron gaming console that I'm typing on right now.
It could be worse. The most expensive Zaurus I've ever seen (I live in Japan, so I see a lot that don't make it abroad) ran about $1,600. Sure, it had a video camera built in, but $1,600?!?!
True. The issue, then, is how much control is necessary to make the optimal performance.
In Case 1, there's just a soundtrack playing. In that case, there is optimal sound quality, but no control at all over suitability of atmosphere.
In Case 2 (the one in the article, more or less (perhaps the article is 2.5?)), there is a human controlling the prerecorded parts. They have a lot more control over atmospheric suitability, and almost optimal sound quality (by way of example: pro DJs seldom make mistakes, but it isn't unheard of)
In Case 3, a human controls the other parts, which are also all produced by humans. Assuming that everyone is a pro, you have pretty much total atmospheric suitability, and good sound quality (more people makes for more likelihood of a mis-hit string or an off time note, but, again, with pros, this isn't an issue).
Not saying anything new here, but categorizing what we're talking about to make it a bit more manageable.
That's the best response I've heard. It's essentially saying that, for whatever reason, pre-recordings cannot take the place of live performances from an actual sound standpoint. The flexibility of a live musician makes adjusting the music to the conditions that much easier, producing different sounds than a pre-recorded performance would.
I don't know that it matters that much in Broadway plays (I suspect they play things the way they play them without any influence from the audience), but I know that it's especially true in a DJed setting, where a good DJ is defined not only as a person with the technical ability to smoothly mix tracks (which could be done beforehand), but to match the selection, EQs, mixing, etc. to the particular crowd at the particular event that particular day.
Actually, I think you'd be surprised that, within the electronic music community, even among people who know jack about music, the idea that not only technical performance but fuzzy "situational adaption" is of paramount importance is practically a given.
As for the final snide "profit" comment, I don't know where the hell that came from. I hope you aren't projecting your own priorities onto me, and were just speaking generally.
Hmm...the more replies that gather, the more I realize that I'm just the exception, and that y'all are probably "in the right", as it were.
That is to say: I like a lot of electronic music. Stuff with full drum parts, bass parts, samples, synths, midrange melodies, and upper range melodies, all made by one person. There's no way in hell I expect this one person to sprout 5 billion arms for a show, but I still love to go to shows. The reasons are the ancillary things that I don't have in my own room: a big sound system, unreleased versions of tracks, mountains in the distance, the sun on my face, chai shops, friends milling about, etc. Hell, if you think about electronic music performances, most of it is by DJs anyway, who the entire audience is well aware are spinning someone else's CDs. Some people still make a big deal about whether musicians are fiddling with their own synths or using DATs, or whether they're using mixers to make tunes from looping preset parts on the fly. I think these people are pretty strange, too, as I'm there for the music, scenery, etc., and not to "know" that somebody can hit the keys on a keyboard really really fast.
That said, I realize that in my position, I'm definitely the exception to the rule. It has colored my approach to live music played with traditional instruments as well. Even for live shows of conventionally produced music, I'm in it for the sound. I'd rather someone play a new version from some pre-recorded media than to play a note-perfect version of a song I already own with his own instrument.
Well, for me, I guess so, as I didn't quite get the scandal. Their music sucked, so I didn't really care if the people on stage were the ones singing or not. And for the rest of the bands I like: I'd probably just be mighty amused to find out that the musicians playing aren't the ones up on stage.
Besides which, disliking a musician because the person who appears in a music video isn't the real singer is patently stupid (patent pending). Unless you're a teeny-bopper girl who's into bands because they're cute.
Good response. I guess what I'm saying is that I find the whole concept of enjoying difficult music for its difficultness is beyond me. Maybe it's just my own tastes, but my qualifiers for the music I like are just the sounds, plain and simple. If they're produced by a human or a synth doesn't matter, as I'm not listening to the method of production, but the sounds.
As for the exam, that's a bit of a flawed example (or, rather, it is flawed for a person with my approach to music). The important thing in a test is not the answers, but the knowledge of the answerer. Therefore, if they cheated, that doesn't change a secondary aspect, but a primary aspect. A better example would be if I had a list of questions I needed answered, and a friend answered them. Then he said that he actually looked up the answers on the internet. That's fine by me: I don't like the answers because they were given by my friend, I like the answers because they answer my questions.
And this is something that has always boggled my mind. You go to hear music for the music, and the sights, and sounds, and smells, and feel, and tastes (just wanted to cover the 5 senses there). If everything sounds right (and looks right, etc.), what the hell does it matter what's behind the curtain. To think that a person could enjoy a concert thoroughly and have their enjoyment dashed by someone saying "the music was prerecorded" boggles my mind. That statement doesn't change a single sweet note of the music that sounded so good. And, in fact, it could be a lie. Someone could come up and say, "Actually, no, they decided not to use a CD today, so the music is live", and you'd be right back to thinking it was great.
Maybe, just maybe, people should decide their opinions of art based on the art, not on the meta-discussion behind it and the concensus of the cultural elite.
I think the original poster made a typo. I suspect he meant to say if a MMORPG is PocketPC playable, the market will expand greatly. I suspect (hope) he wasn't referring to Microsoft's new MMORPG.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I got the joke. That was more a counterargument for the people who really believe that. True, sex and violence sells. And true, everything is subjective. But once you admit that, everything's good, and where's the fun if you can't make fun of From Justin to Kelly or Battleship Earth?
True...but why do you even think that's the reason it contributed?
Let's see...even if I don't like company names that start with P, saying "I think pets.com went out of business because it starts with a P" doesn't make a lot of sense. It's not grandly insane, like "It is incontrovertible fact that pets.com went out of business because it starts with a P", but that just because it isn't insane doesn't mean it makes any sense.
Just so you understand, I'm not saying that you're wrong. It's just that when the issue of why sports games led to the downfall of arcades came up, your response was just "because I don't like them". Even padded with "I think", that's not the most logical chain of thought around.
That's why, consequently:
1) Your company will always be a small company, and
2) Your life will be better for it.
I can understand your problems with GitS, etc., but Ninja Scroll?!?! That's like saying Mulholland Drive was impenetrable and plotless, so you'd rather watch Battlefield Earth.
The problem is that it's boring. Why bother reading manga if you can get the same effect from a Maxim and a Guns & Ammo?
Little info for you Slashdotters who haven't been to a Japanese movie theater: the new ones are generally nice and clean, like upscale theaters in the U.S. Old theaters tend to be pits. Old theaters have standing room tickets, so popular movies / opening nights will have people sitting in the aisles. Beer is sold at all movie theaters (I'm sure there's an exception somewhere, of course). And, best thing: there is no policy against bringing in food / drinks.
Yes. There's also shallow pop-philosophy and religion.
Well, the first thing you need to realize is that not all anime is created equally (I suspect you know that, but just saying it in case), and that, just as with any other media, what's popular isn't necessarily what's good. I personally hated Ghost in the Shell, so I understand where you're coming from. Basically, you just need to find your niche. My anime niche is incredibly small, consisting basically of Miyazaki's stuff, as well as a smattering of random things (Rojin-Z, Memories...hmm...too few to even recall now, but I'm sure there are others).
Some anime has a lot of Japanese cultural references, some doesn't (comedies, predictably, have much, much more, which is true in any medium). I suspect that it isn't so much the cultural divide that keeps you from enjoying anime, but discerning tastes.
Just remember, if you hear a billion people praising a certain anime, it means no less and no more than a billion people praising a certain movie. The Fast and the Furious was very successful, but that doesn't mean it was good. The good stuff is out there, but you have to look, and that can be a pain in the butt.
What I recommend is: don't bother looking. However, keep in mind that there is good stuff out there, but you haven't seen it. Then, one day, when a friend of yours whose tastes you trust recommends some anime, give it a shot and see if you've found the proverbial needle in the haystack.
That seems more like your personal problem with arcades than a reason for the death of arcades.
Yes. They're called small companies. It's like saying "people aren't interested in sex. There are plenty of 1 year olds who have no interest in sex whatsoever."
This hadn't occurred to me, and now I'm kicking myself for it. I don't know if it will turn out like that, but it makes emminent sense on so many levels. Microsoft has been talking about XBox being a home entertainment center, Sony has released the PSX (I'm talking the Japanese PSX, not the English-speaking countries' PSX), the XBox has been accused of being too damn big, etc. By releasing a slim, cheap model and a big, powerful model, they can serve all the markets.
You're reading the parent backwards. What he is saying is that people will start small companies and create innovative games in order to get bought out. Start small, make a good product, get bought for a lot of money, live well. And although that studio will no longer be producing innovative games, other companies will try to make innovative and successful games so that they can be bought out as well.
I'm not saying I agree with the idea, but just noting that you seem to have read the post backwards.
Offtopic moderation, I understand, but Trolling?
So if it's the third time it's posted, do all the trolls calling First Post lose Troll points?
Exactly. The Phantom is a relatively standard PC with a very [i]un[/i]standard content delivery system. Their demo for 1UP consisted of the gaming end, not the content delivery end. That's fundamentally no different than me demoing a game on my MegaSpecterGhostotron gaming console that I'm typing on right now.
It could be worse. The most expensive Zaurus I've ever seen (I live in Japan, so I see a lot that don't make it abroad) ran about $1,600. Sure, it had a video camera built in, but $1,600?!?!
Ignoring, not laughing at.
Nothing like being alone to make you feel like the world revolves around you, eh?
True. The issue, then, is how much control is necessary to make the optimal performance.
In Case 1, there's just a soundtrack playing. In that case, there is optimal sound quality, but no control at all over suitability of atmosphere.
In Case 2 (the one in the article, more or less (perhaps the article is 2.5?)), there is a human controlling the prerecorded parts. They have a lot more control over atmospheric suitability, and almost optimal sound quality (by way of example: pro DJs seldom make mistakes, but it isn't unheard of)
In Case 3, a human controls the other parts, which are also all produced by humans. Assuming that everyone is a pro, you have pretty much total atmospheric suitability, and good sound quality (more people makes for more likelihood of a mis-hit string or an off time note, but, again, with pros, this isn't an issue).
Not saying anything new here, but categorizing what we're talking about to make it a bit more manageable.
That's the best response I've heard. It's essentially saying that, for whatever reason, pre-recordings cannot take the place of live performances from an actual sound standpoint. The flexibility of a live musician makes adjusting the music to the conditions that much easier, producing different sounds than a pre-recorded performance would.
I don't know that it matters that much in Broadway plays (I suspect they play things the way they play them without any influence from the audience), but I know that it's especially true in a DJed setting, where a good DJ is defined not only as a person with the technical ability to smoothly mix tracks (which could be done beforehand), but to match the selection, EQs, mixing, etc. to the particular crowd at the particular event that particular day.
Actually, I think you'd be surprised that, within the electronic music community, even among people who know jack about music, the idea that not only technical performance but fuzzy "situational adaption" is of paramount importance is practically a given.
As for the final snide "profit" comment, I don't know where the hell that came from. I hope you aren't projecting your own priorities onto me, and were just speaking generally.
Hmm...the more replies that gather, the more I realize that I'm just the exception, and that y'all are probably "in the right", as it were.
That is to say: I like a lot of electronic music. Stuff with full drum parts, bass parts, samples, synths, midrange melodies, and upper range melodies, all made by one person. There's no way in hell I expect this one person to sprout 5 billion arms for a show, but I still love to go to shows. The reasons are the ancillary things that I don't have in my own room: a big sound system, unreleased versions of tracks, mountains in the distance, the sun on my face, chai shops, friends milling about, etc. Hell, if you think about electronic music performances, most of it is by DJs anyway, who the entire audience is well aware are spinning someone else's CDs. Some people still make a big deal about whether musicians are fiddling with their own synths or using DATs, or whether they're using mixers to make tunes from looping preset parts on the fly. I think these people are pretty strange, too, as I'm there for the music, scenery, etc., and not to "know" that somebody can hit the keys on a keyboard really really fast.
That said, I realize that in my position, I'm definitely the exception to the rule. It has colored my approach to live music played with traditional instruments as well. Even for live shows of conventionally produced music, I'm in it for the sound. I'd rather someone play a new version from some pre-recorded media than to play a note-perfect version of a song I already own with his own instrument.
Hehe...
Well, for me, I guess so, as I didn't quite get the scandal. Their music sucked, so I didn't really care if the people on stage were the ones singing or not. And for the rest of the bands I like: I'd probably just be mighty amused to find out that the musicians playing aren't the ones up on stage.
Besides which, disliking a musician because the person who appears in a music video isn't the real singer is patently stupid (patent pending). Unless you're a teeny-bopper girl who's into bands because they're cute.
Good response. I guess what I'm saying is that I find the whole concept of enjoying difficult music for its difficultness is beyond me. Maybe it's just my own tastes, but my qualifiers for the music I like are just the sounds, plain and simple. If they're produced by a human or a synth doesn't matter, as I'm not listening to the method of production, but the sounds.
As for the exam, that's a bit of a flawed example (or, rather, it is flawed for a person with my approach to music). The important thing in a test is not the answers, but the knowledge of the answerer. Therefore, if they cheated, that doesn't change a secondary aspect, but a primary aspect. A better example would be if I had a list of questions I needed answered, and a friend answered them. Then he said that he actually looked up the answers on the internet. That's fine by me: I don't like the answers because they were given by my friend, I like the answers because they answer my questions.
Sure, when you buy me a 3-D television.
And this is something that has always boggled my mind. You go to hear music for the music, and the sights, and sounds, and smells, and feel, and tastes (just wanted to cover the 5 senses there). If everything sounds right (and looks right, etc.), what the hell does it matter what's behind the curtain. To think that a person could enjoy a concert thoroughly and have their enjoyment dashed by someone saying "the music was prerecorded" boggles my mind. That statement doesn't change a single sweet note of the music that sounded so good. And, in fact, it could be a lie. Someone could come up and say, "Actually, no, they decided not to use a CD today, so the music is live", and you'd be right back to thinking it was great.
Maybe, just maybe, people should decide their opinions of art based on the art, not on the meta-discussion behind it and the concensus of the cultural elite.
I think the original poster made a typo. I suspect he meant to say if a MMORPG is PocketPC playable, the market will expand greatly. I suspect (hope) he wasn't referring to Microsoft's new MMORPG.