Think hard about buying a DSLR. I went with mirrorless after doing a ton of research, and also because of what I saw with almost every single one of my friends who bought into the DSLR "monopoly": they stopped using their cameras after a couple of months. Why? Because it's too big. The body is large, the lens are large. And heavy. Odds are, this will happen to you too.
As other posters will mention, the best camera is the camera you have with you.
Mirrorless cameras are a compromise. They are a compromise between image quality and size. For a lot of people, this is a worthwhile compromise over DSLRs. Honestly for most people, with the exception of pro photographers, MILCs and high end compacts (Canon S100, Panasonic LX5, Olympus XZ-1, etc) will do just as well as a DSLR. Most people will not be able to tell the difference in image quality between these cameras, especially photos taken in good light.
With most MILCs, you get enough shallow depth of field with the right fast prime lenses and you don't feel like you're carrying a brick with you. People are more relaxed around you, because they won't think twice about that "large" point-and-shoot you're carrying.
In my opinion Micro Four Thirds (Olympus + Panasonic) are the most viable MILCs now, due to the large number of high quality native lenses (disclaimer: I own an Olympus E-P3 and love it to death). Sony NEX series follows - they just need to release better/more lenses. Nikon's new 1 series (V1, J1) aren't of interest to me due to the small sensor size.
So you're saying people like Bernie Madoff or the louts behind the Enron debacle don't deserve prison, because they're "non-violent"? Even though they wiped out people's life savings, or worse? Just because a crime doesn't involve a physical altercation doesn't mean it doesn't warrant stiff prison penalties.
Double standard
on
ZOMG New Zunes
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I've always wondered about this... and it perplexed me to no great end that no one in the media mentioned this...
When the Zune came out, everybody lambasted it for not having wireless syncing, even though it had WiFi (come on, this is a "duh of course you should have it" feature). Yet the iPhone came out and it didn't have wireless syncing EITHER. But nobody complained, heck nobody even MENTIONED this. AND... the Zune didn't have the capability to be used as a storage device (e.g. usb drive). Guess what? Neither does the iPhone and iPod Touch!
I'm not a Microsoft nor Apple fanboy (heck, I have an iPhone myself!). But I'm curious as to why no one's complaining about the lack of wireless syncing with iTunes with either the iPhone or iPod Touch. Seems like a... "duh of course you should have it" feature.:) Definitely a double standard. Apple up to this point has had a lot of slack given to it, both by the media and its users. They better be careful though, with all the missteps lately with the iPhone (price drop timing, locking down the device, etc) they shouldn't rest on their laurels. I for one, will never buy an Apple product again within 6 months of its introduction.
(I do know that at least one review complained of the lack of use as a disk drive - iLounge's review).
Play the FULL game, not just the demo, and you'll understand.
The demo is just a facet of the entire game, and taken in its entirety, the game is a major disappointment and definitely warrants the 2/5 rating. Trust me, I played the demo as well and IT'S GREAT. However when you play the FULL GAME you'll realize other elements of the game THAT'S NOT IN THE DEMO bring the game down.
Don't rate the game on the demo alone. Rate it on the full game!
My own review... currently playing up around mission 7 or 8...
Overall? Same as Zonk, I'd say: 2/5
This game could have been so much fun. When I played it at last year's E3, the action seemed nailed down, the weapons (and more importantly, the feel of combat) was also fun. Pretty sad to finally play the game and find that so many things have gone wrong.
Story and Narrative - well it just plain stinks. The narrative and story doesn't make much sense, and the way the game is setup there is no continuity. Here is how the game plays: watch narrative... read still screen giving you mission objectives (boring and kills the "immersiveness" factor)... play through level... beat boss. Repeat. With every mission you start with the same weapon: your trusty machine gun, at 300 ammo. I guess you really don't need that really nifty plasma rifle you picked up on the last mission huh? Again, that just further kills any kind of continuity and flow this game had.
The boss battles are basically a practice in frustration. Their attacks are usually high-damage types that make you fall over in a lengthy animation. Then you get up. However in the meantime you've got another boss attack coming down at you. Expect this to be repeated quite a few times. Once you are able to get up, there's another problem: the pretty smoke. I have to say, this game has got some really nice graphics, and one of the best explosions/smoke effects yet. However the problem is that it totally obscures your vision and does not fade out fast enough. In the meantime, the enemy/boss/ai can totally see you. Again, not fun.
The tech in this game is great. But the design just falls flat on its face. It's not all bad however. The actual playthrough of a level is usually pretty fun. But expect to turn that amount of fun you had into an equal amount of frustration when you get into that boss fight. I really, really wanted to like this game. Heck, I spent $60. I *should* be liking this game.
Honestly I'd stop playing at mission 5 if it weren't for achievement points.:)
You wait in line for 12+ hours expecting to buy an item at $X price. Lo and behold, when you're ready to pay it's now $X+Y. So your only recourse is leave or pay the extra $$.
It's not exactly FORCING you to buy anything, but that's not really the issue. They've wasted that person's time - a good chunk of it - and time is money.
Just don't drop it... there goes your shiny new $$$$ investment.
With all these new features they're adding to phones nowadays, I sure hope they try to make them durable enough to last at least several drops from several feet.
I mean, who hasn't dropped their celphone? Multiple times??
As an owner of TWO cats, I can say, what a relief!
I've already had to toss out 2 PS2 and 1 XBox controller(s) due to cats chewing the cable. I don't know what it is about strings and cables but they drive cats wild.:(
As a gamer, I understand what you're saying. Playable demos would be nice.
But as a developer, that's not going to happen for launch titles. As it is, working on a launch title will shorten your lifespan considerably:p
You're working with alpha, beta hardware where aspects of the hardware may not be finalized yet. You're working an incredible amount of hours getting the game done for a *hard date* that you cannot miss.
Add to this another playable demo version, and it's not gonna happen. Making a separate demo version actually requires a significant amount of resources (a good part which will go into the demo and won't be useable for the full release). Most game developers will not have the bandwidth/resources to do this for a launch title, simply put.
Here in California Best Buy is selling the game for about $55. I don't care how "awesome" the game is, or how long it took the developers, or how much marketing costs, or whatever. It's just too damn expensive!
The game pricing inflation has gotten way out of hand.
Yeah it's bad for small developers - especially for console game development. For PC developers, I believe there's always a chance, because entry development is very cheap. Within this past year, I've seen way too many game developers close their studios, including the one I (used) to work for - they went ka-plink too.
The problem is that games are "Big Business" now. Really big business. In the old days, people went into the industry because they either liked playing games, or liked making them. Now that the industry is so big, and so much money is being moved around, lots of people come into the industry for other reasons (mostly, money). So you've got one group of people (the gamers) and another group, (the bizsuits), and sometimes their goals will be the same. Many other times, that's not the case. The bizsuits care only about one thing: money. There are a lot of non-game related pressures on the business side. If it means releasing a game too early, so be it. If it means cancelling a game even if it's in beta, so be it. And if it means closing down game developer shops, so be it.
Another problem is that console development has increased in difficulty, exponentially. The hardware is very very complicated now, the technology running the hardware amazingly hard core (we're talking about technology that was in the realm of computer science professors just a few years ago). Very small teams will have difficulty just handling the hardware, let alone implementing 3D technologies/engines on top of that hardware. Therefore, large teams with people just specializing in one area are the norm nowadays, and that won't change anytime. And while the small team is barely finished reading the hardware manuals for the consoles, the larger teams are already putting the latest occlusion and particle systems on top of their engines.
Fortunately nowadays middleware is coming to the rescue of game developers, who are interested in making games, not engines. Unfortunately those don't come cheap either. In any case, entry costs to do *console* game development is huge.
Expect more small game developer studios to close their doors, and the big game companies (EA, Activision, Sony, etc) to hire the cream of that crop. If you want to work in the game industry, don't expect stability in your job.
More and more I think this industry is resembling the movie biz. Bunch of people come together for one project, work on it, get it released and everybody leaves for the next project...
The only problem is that the artists don't get any money either when you buy used cd's.
But maybe that's a good thing - then they'll be forced to realize that perhaps the RIAA and the recording companies aren't the only way to get your music out there.
If consumers don't need the RIAA.. and the artists don't need the RIAA... well that would be just dandy, wouldn't it?
The toolset is probably using MFC for the front end gui framework. MFC is very tightly coupled to the Windows api, and would be very difficult to port within a reasonable time.
Don't forget that publishing games on a console platform has as much to do with politics as the game itself.
Many big publishers (Eidos, Acclaim, Activision, etc) are given what I call "slack points". Basically these are allocated to them for a few games that they can use to push through QA on a "fast track". They typically use these on big-name games (Tomb Raider, anyone?) and *especially* if these big games need to be out by a hard date, such as quarterlies, Xmas, license coincide launches (ie moveies) or console launch dates. (Launch dates are a little bit different because QA is a bit tougher than usual - you don't want your launch titles to be too buggy!!)
In addition to slack points, these big publishers will also use whatever else influence they have to push a big game through. Nowadays it's all about $$$ - if a bug is not a showstopper, well lots of people are willing to look the other way (anyone remember Digital Polyphony's GT3 not being 100% finished? Lots of examples).
Very bad form indeed. No Sony game gets released without the approval of the Sony QA process. And that process can be very political. If they really want to hose you, Sony QA will return your release submissions over and over, quibbling about tiny details, until you miss your much coveted deadlines (XMas and financial quarterly).
Rockstar may be on top now... but no franchise goes on forever. Take a look at Tomb Raider and Tony Hawk's Skating. Stale. That can (and odds are, will) happen to the GTA franchise too.
People have long memories in this business. They won't forget.
However having said all that, I've given up on people being decent in the games industry. Just too many greedy idiots, morons and wankers.
It's HIGHLY doubtful that the PSP will play PSX games right out of the box - the form factor for CDs is too big. People are already used to very small MP3 players, the small GBA SP, etc. I think the PSP will be using the Minidisc form factor, if not the disc format itself outright.
Having said that, it might be possible for the PSP to play PSX games with an add-on - perhaps a cd-player like attachment. Klunky but hey, if you want to play your old, old, old PS1 games on your PSP...
Also, how important is backward compatibility, really? How many of you out there are *actually* playing your PS1 games on your PS2??? Or are playing some original GB games on your GBA SP? I know I don't. IMO it's purely a selling point - a marketing gimmick. You might buy it because it's listed as an additional "bullet point" in a long feature list, but will you really use it? Doubtful.
It will be better than Galaxies. For many reasons, the main being that it's developed by Bioware.
Bioware is responsible for the Baldur's Gate series of games, and of course Neverwinter Nights. Don't forget about MDK2. All these games got from decent to very good reviews.
They also did a mech game years ago called Shattered Steel. That was an ok game.
Anybody who has played any kind of massive online game already knows this - that being online and somewhat anonymous actually LEADS to behavior that is mischievous or harmful to others. It's easy to be an a-hole when nobody knows you. Having played Everquest for some time in the past, grief players and scammers abound. And you know what? It'll always be like that.
IMO there's *more* "crime" online than there is in the real-world - why? Because what's the worse that can happen to you? Get banned? Yah, that's about it. For games with a persistent character, this is a somewhat effective deterrent (see Everquest). But really, this won't stop many people from ruining other people's online experiences.
Slashdot Mirror
Think hard about buying a DSLR. I went with mirrorless after doing a ton of research, and also because of what I saw with almost every single one of my friends who bought into the DSLR "monopoly": they stopped using their cameras after a couple of months. Why? Because it's too big. The body is large, the lens are large. And heavy. Odds are, this will happen to you too.
As other posters will mention, the best camera is the camera you have with you.
Mirrorless cameras are a compromise. They are a compromise between image quality and size. For a lot of people, this is a worthwhile compromise over DSLRs. Honestly for most people, with the exception of pro photographers, MILCs and high end compacts (Canon S100, Panasonic LX5, Olympus XZ-1, etc) will do just as well as a DSLR. Most people will not be able to tell the difference in image quality between these cameras, especially photos taken in good light.
With most MILCs, you get enough shallow depth of field with the right fast prime lenses and you don't feel like you're carrying a brick with you. People are more relaxed around you, because they won't think twice about that "large" point-and-shoot you're carrying.
In my opinion Micro Four Thirds (Olympus + Panasonic) are the most viable MILCs now, due to the large number of high quality native lenses (disclaimer: I own an Olympus E-P3 and love it to death). Sony NEX series follows - they just need to release better/more lenses. Nikon's new 1 series (V1, J1) aren't of interest to me due to the small sensor size.
Go to DPReview.com and read, read, read.
So you're saying people like Bernie Madoff or the louts behind the Enron debacle don't deserve prison, because they're "non-violent"? Even though they wiped out people's life savings, or worse? Just because a crime doesn't involve a physical altercation doesn't mean it doesn't warrant stiff prison penalties.
So, are they going to rename WiMax to 4G now?
I've always wondered about this... and it perplexed me to no great end that no one in the media mentioned this...
:) Definitely a double standard. Apple up to this point has had a lot of slack given to it, both by the media and its users. They better be careful though, with all the missteps lately with the iPhone (price drop timing, locking down the device, etc) they shouldn't rest on their laurels. I for one, will never buy an Apple product again within 6 months of its introduction.
When the Zune came out, everybody lambasted it for not having wireless syncing, even though it had WiFi (come on, this is a "duh of course you should have it" feature). Yet the iPhone came out and it didn't have wireless syncing EITHER. But nobody complained, heck nobody even MENTIONED this. AND... the Zune didn't have the capability to be used as a storage device (e.g. usb drive). Guess what? Neither does the iPhone and iPod Touch!
I'm not a Microsoft nor Apple fanboy (heck, I have an iPhone myself!). But I'm curious as to why no one's complaining about the lack of wireless syncing with iTunes with either the iPhone or iPod Touch. Seems like a... "duh of course you should have it" feature.
(I do know that at least one review complained of the lack of use as a disk drive - iLounge's review).
Play the FULL game, not just the demo, and you'll understand.
The demo is just a facet of the entire game, and taken in its entirety, the game is a major disappointment and definitely warrants the 2/5 rating. Trust me, I played the demo as well and IT'S GREAT. However when you play the FULL GAME you'll realize other elements of the game THAT'S NOT IN THE DEMO bring the game down.
Don't rate the game on the demo alone. Rate it on the full game!
My own review... currently playing up around mission 7 or 8...
:)
Overall? Same as Zonk, I'd say: 2/5
This game could have been so much fun. When I played it at last year's E3, the action seemed nailed down, the weapons (and more importantly, the feel of combat) was also fun. Pretty sad to finally play the game and find that so many things have gone wrong.
Story and Narrative - well it just plain stinks. The narrative and story doesn't make much sense, and the way the game is setup there is no continuity. Here is how the game plays: watch narrative... read still screen giving you mission objectives (boring and kills the "immersiveness" factor)... play through level... beat boss. Repeat. With every mission you start with the same weapon: your trusty machine gun, at 300 ammo. I guess you really don't need that really nifty plasma rifle you picked up on the last mission huh? Again, that just further kills any kind of continuity and flow this game had.
The boss battles are basically a practice in frustration. Their attacks are usually high-damage types that make you fall over in a lengthy animation. Then you get up. However in the meantime you've got another boss attack coming down at you. Expect this to be repeated quite a few times. Once you are able to get up, there's another problem: the pretty smoke. I have to say, this game has got some really nice graphics, and one of the best explosions/smoke effects yet. However the problem is that it totally obscures your vision and does not fade out fast enough. In the meantime, the enemy/boss/ai can totally see you. Again, not fun.
The tech in this game is great. But the design just falls flat on its face. It's not all bad however. The actual playthrough of a level is usually pretty fun. But expect to turn that amount of fun you had into an equal amount of frustration when you get into that boss fight. I really, really wanted to like this game. Heck, I spent $60. I *should* be liking this game.
Honestly I'd stop playing at mission 5 if it weren't for achievement points.
If you go to the link and RTFA, you'll see a picture of Tyson Mao. Interestingly enough he's not mentioned in the article (nor was he the winner).
;)
But he is a contestant on this season's Beauty and the Geek
You wait in line for 12+ hours expecting to buy an item at $X price. Lo and behold, when you're ready to pay it's now $X+Y. So your only recourse is leave or pay the extra $$.
It's not exactly FORCING you to buy anything, but that's not really the issue. They've wasted that person's time - a good chunk of it - and time is money.
Video review here (informative):
:)
http://theory.isthereason.com/?p=300 Somebody mirror this before it gets swamped
It doesn't matter who invented the GUI first... what you should be asking instead - who popularized it?
Who made the key step from being merely a nerdy tech tool, to a groundbreaking interface to the rest of the non-techie world?
Just don't drop it... there goes your shiny new $$$$ investment.
With all these new features they're adding to phones nowadays, I sure hope they try to make them durable enough to last at least several drops from several feet.
I mean, who hasn't dropped their celphone? Multiple times??
As an owner of TWO cats, I can say, what a relief!
:(
I've already had to toss out 2 PS2 and 1 XBox controller(s) due to cats chewing the cable. I don't know what it is about strings and cables but they drive cats wild.
According to the the CNN article, Stern's show on satellite will STILL have ads. Nice, huh?
As a gamer, I understand what you're saying. Playable demos would be nice.
:p
But as a developer, that's not going to happen for launch titles. As it is, working on a launch title will shorten your lifespan considerably
You're working with alpha, beta hardware where aspects of the hardware may not be finalized yet. You're working an incredible amount of hours getting the game done for a *hard date* that you cannot miss.
Add to this another playable demo version, and it's not gonna happen. Making a separate demo version actually requires a significant amount of resources (a good part which will go into the demo and won't be useable for the full release). Most game developers will not have the bandwidth/resources to do this for a launch title, simply put.
One word: inertia
Here in California Best Buy is selling the game for about $55. I don't care how "awesome" the game is, or how long it took the developers, or how much marketing costs, or whatever. It's just too damn expensive!
The game pricing inflation has gotten way out of hand.
The problem is that games are "Big Business" now. Really big business. In the old days, people went into the industry because they either liked playing games, or liked making them. Now that the industry is so big, and so much money is being moved around, lots of people come into the industry for other reasons (mostly, money). So you've got one group of people (the gamers) and another group, (the bizsuits), and sometimes their goals will be the same. Many other times, that's not the case. The bizsuits care only about one thing: money. There are a lot of non-game related pressures on the business side. If it means releasing a game too early, so be it. If it means cancelling a game even if it's in beta, so be it. And if it means closing down game developer shops, so be it.
Another problem is that console development has increased in difficulty, exponentially. The hardware is very very complicated now, the technology running the hardware amazingly hard core (we're talking about technology that was in the realm of computer science professors just a few years ago). Very small teams will have difficulty just handling the hardware, let alone implementing 3D technologies/engines on top of that hardware. Therefore, large teams with people just specializing in one area are the norm nowadays, and that won't change anytime. And while the small team is barely finished reading the hardware manuals for the consoles, the larger teams are already putting the latest occlusion and particle systems on top of their engines.
Fortunately nowadays middleware is coming to the rescue of game developers, who are interested in making games, not engines. Unfortunately those don't come cheap either. In any case, entry costs to do *console* game development is huge.
Expect more small game developer studios to close their doors, and the big game companies (EA, Activision, Sony, etc) to hire the cream of that crop. If you want to work in the game industry, don't expect stability in your job.
More and more I think this industry is resembling the movie biz. Bunch of people come together for one project, work on it, get it released and everybody leaves for the next project...
The only problem is that the artists don't get any money either when you buy used cd's.
But maybe that's a good thing - then they'll be forced to realize that perhaps the RIAA and the recording companies aren't the only way to get your music out there.
If consumers don't need the RIAA.. and the artists don't need the RIAA... well that would be just dandy, wouldn't it?
The toolset is probably using MFC for the front end gui framework. MFC is very tightly coupled to the Windows api, and would be very difficult to port within a reasonable time.
Don't forget that publishing games on a console platform has as much to do with politics as the game itself.
Many big publishers (Eidos, Acclaim, Activision, etc) are given what I call "slack points". Basically these are allocated to them for a few games that they can use to push through QA on a "fast track". They typically use these on big-name games (Tomb Raider, anyone?) and *especially* if these big games need to be out by a hard date, such as quarterlies, Xmas, license coincide launches (ie moveies) or console launch dates. (Launch dates are a little bit different because QA is a bit tougher than usual - you don't want your launch titles to be too buggy!!)
In addition to slack points, these big publishers will also use whatever else influence they have to push a big game through. Nowadays it's all about $$$ - if a bug is not a showstopper, well lots of people are willing to look the other way (anyone remember Digital Polyphony's GT3 not being 100% finished? Lots of examples).
OK, for a moment there I thought they actually interviewed NINE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY designers and engineers.
Next time, try using "970's designers".
*sigh*
Very bad form indeed. No Sony game gets released without the approval of the Sony QA process. And that process can be very political. If they really want to hose you, Sony QA will return your release submissions over and over, quibbling about tiny details, until you miss your much coveted deadlines (XMas and financial quarterly).
Rockstar may be on top now... but no franchise goes on forever. Take a look at Tomb Raider and Tony Hawk's Skating. Stale. That can (and odds are, will) happen to the GTA franchise too.
People have long memories in this business. They won't forget.
However having said all that, I've given up on people being decent in the games industry. Just too many greedy idiots, morons and wankers.
It's HIGHLY doubtful that the PSP will play PSX games right out of the box - the form factor for CDs is too big. People are already used to very small MP3 players, the small GBA SP, etc. I think the PSP will be using the Minidisc form factor, if not the disc format itself outright.
Having said that, it might be possible for the PSP to play PSX games with an add-on - perhaps a cd-player like attachment. Klunky but hey, if you want to play your old, old, old PS1 games on your PSP...
Also, how important is backward compatibility, really? How many of you out there are *actually* playing your PS1 games on your PS2??? Or are playing some original GB games on your GBA SP? I know I don't. IMO it's purely a selling point - a marketing gimmick. You might buy it because it's listed as an additional "bullet point" in a long feature list, but will you really use it? Doubtful.
It will be better than Galaxies. For many reasons, the main being that it's developed by Bioware.
Bioware is responsible for the Baldur's Gate series of games, and of course Neverwinter Nights. Don't forget about MDK2. All these games got from decent to very good reviews.
They also did a mech game years ago called Shattered Steel. That was an ok game.
Anybody who has played any kind of massive online game already knows this - that being online and somewhat anonymous actually LEADS to behavior that is mischievous or harmful to others. It's easy to be an a-hole when nobody knows you. Having played Everquest for some time in the past, grief players and scammers abound. And you know what? It'll always be like that.
IMO there's *more* "crime" online than there is in the real-world - why? Because what's the worse that can happen to you? Get banned? Yah, that's about it. For games with a persistent character, this is a somewhat effective deterrent (see Everquest). But really, this won't stop many people from ruining other people's online experiences.