The the series. And Angel. And the comics. And even the original movie. Buffy's had a lot come out over the years. Spinoffs are all well and good, but sometimes a franchise can be done to death with overexposure. (case in point: Star Trek)
Sometimes what a show or franchise really needs is to either go on hiaitus, or finish entirely.
Yes, as a story addict, I dearly love for every series I follow to go on forever and go from strength to strength. Sadly, this rarely happens. And I'd rather a show I enjoy finish early on a high note than get finally killed off after running too long.
Plus if Joss Whedon decides he's got other stories to tell then he should go for it.
Very true. But in this case it seems that SWG started off as something he was able to do. And I can only guess that disabled gamers put a lot of research into finding games that they can actually play.
But if a game you're spent you hard-earned cash on suddenly becomes unplayable because of something out of your control (like the devs assuming that every single gamer can either handle the changes or doesn't mind their money suddenly becoming wasted) then it's bloody annoying.
On the other hand, it's increasingly apparent that games are aimed towards the majority. Games that you get into because of a main factor often have it (or a sequel) changed 'cos it'd gain more sales. As long as the money comes in, who cares if people can actually play or enjoy it.
Maybe that's some solid math there, a proportion: how much they spend producing an album (studio + advertising + etc.), and how much they sell, or expect to sell, compared to how much it cost back in the pre-internet days and how much they sold back then.
Problem with that is that they get the right result and use it to get the wrong conclusion. I mean of course the sales are going to be down since pre-internet. But, in my opinion anyway, it's more the information side than the downloading-music side.
Word on the Net says a film sucks:
Even without downloading, people avoid the film and numbers go down. People may not believe reviewers in the newspapers but they may be more inclined to believe a site that tends to share their opinions.
Word on the Net says it's been out in another country for months:
People who really want to see a film and pay for it will legitimately obtain it from elsewhere.
I do maintain that the real downfall of the **AAs and their regional equivalents was not realising that the internet meant that their old methods of "Lots of filler", "Sequels, sequels, sequels", and "Slow Global Release" simply don't work anymore when just about anyone can be up to date with movie/music news from any country.
OK, so the 50Hz timing is still at least partially a valid issue - for console games, anyway. But the translation, however viable/required from a business point of view, simply doesn't cut it with the UK gamers anymore.
The companies need to acknowledge that there's no way to avoid the fact that, like it or not, people in the UK get annoyed if they've got to wait extra months where at least a part of the delay is translating the game out of the language you speak and into languages that you don't. For UK gamers that's a needless delay. And even to those who don't get pirate copies, it's reason enough to import the American version.
As I've said elsewhere before, whether it's right or not, there's no competition between "On the shelves in three months time" and "On P2P this morning".
It's called the iTunes music store. D/L the tracks you want and burn them to a CD. Done. Why wait to have the mouth breather at a "big store" do it?
The drawback with the iTMS is still the quality of the files downloaded. I can't find details on Apple's own site, but I think that the files are encoded at a lower rate than I, at least, would choose.
Because of the ability to burn CDs from iTunes I find that the DRM isn't the major reason I avoid the iTMS. I'm probably amongst the group that'd use iTMS if they made files available in ALAC. I'd rather buy a legit CD and rip to my own preferences than download from somewhere that uses DRM alongside a lower setting than I would[*].
Tiggs
[*] I've used Warp's Bleep store a couple of times. And although they're not lossless at least the files immediately work on anything I throw them at.
1) linux users need to be willing to pay for software.
True. But, Linux or not, Microsoft need tor ealise a couple of things, too.
Even people willing to pay for software have their limits.
So no more than £100 for "the basics".
Oh and if two versions of a product are still available at the same time, drop the price of the older product. (Every legitimate place I saw offering the full versions of Win2K and WinXP Pro had Win2K at either the same price or even £5 higher. Maybe I just found the wrong shops, but that was hardly encouraging)
Different platforms (as well as different target audiences) have different price-spots.
Don't expect your low-income or unemployed customers to pay the exhorbitant prices. That way leads to getting a copy off of a mate, or switching to a cheaper/free/Free alternative.
Yes, many Mac users are willing to pay higher, but some of them (us...) just blew the budget on getting the Mac in the first place.
Some Linux users would pay, but nowehere near Windows prices.
You raise a lot of good points there but the main one I've been running up against recently is:
One last thing that comes to mind is marketing. I've recently been doing a survey of off-the-shelf website search tools (for a work-related project). One thing I noticed was that the open source products were a lot more direct and honest than the commercial products about their features and what they were actually capable of. The commercial products, in absolute contrast, tended to be 90% vapour in their feature descriptions. They were non-specific, they glossed over anything that probably wasn't handled well, and mostly unhelpful for getting actual information. Many didn't even state their price clearly -- I presume these are the ones who want to know how much money the customer has before deciding a cost.
Free or Open Source products tend to be a hell of a lot more likely to say what their software is and does. Many more commercial products tend to have their information all spin and marketing and very little technical information. Too many buzzwords and not enough hard facts.
When I'm researching software I want to find out what it does, what options it has, technical specifications, system requirements. basically what is, to me, the obvious important information. Management-targetted marketing BS is very little use to me, but takes up so much of some sites that I can't figure out what the software actually does.
Microsoft's website is a good example of this. Maybe they do have the actual facts squirrelled away on their site somewhere, but all I can ever find is a lot of marketing telling my why I should be buying MS products and very little information on what they actually do. Finding minimum requirements always takes a few clicks, wheras many FOSS projects (or, at least, the ones I hold in high regard) have a very clear link to this information. Also, as the parent mentioned, it's bloody hard to find cost details. So many companies want you to talk before giving you a price. This is especially annoying as I like to know all details (especially price) before talking to them.
There are Open Source and Free software out there that is also lacking in the details, but I often find this equally offputting. Similarly there are commercial/proprietary products out there that give clear information - and they are the companies somewhat more likely to make me part with my money.
I think I agree with a lot or what you say. I will admit to missing the old three-or-more-part stories, and I do really miss spending more screen-time away from Earth (both Platform One and Satellite 5 were near Earth, efen if not planetside), but the current series does work. It's just different.
Plus it does deal with some of the issues that would be relevant today that weren't as relevant in previous seasons. missing persons (especially young human females) is an even bigger deal now than it ever was. Just having the new companion up-sticks and never look back would leave too many questions unanswered. The first return to London dealt with that pretty well, I thought. And I am enjoying the fact that there is a bit of Earth continuity - familiar people and situations that we keep glimpsing in at. If anything I think the drawback is that it's a relatively short season. If it was double the length but had the same amount of "back home" episodes it wouldn't seem to dominate the series as much.
I also think it's a new look at Doctor Who. It's a new generation of viewers, many of which won't have seen every last bit of the original series. I also get the feeling that, at least early on, we were getting a look at things from Rose's point of view. And that is bound to be very different from "Classic" Who.
The only real changes I'd like to see next season is a return to the multiparters being the rule rather than the exception, and a few more alien visits between popping back to contemporary Earth. Apart form that, though, I'm very much enjoying the feel of the new series.
I suppose that's one of the main drawbacks about any gaming genre. The complexity that puts some people off certain game genres is often what attracts others to the same genres.
I don't play FPS games, or sports games or many fighting games for the same reasons you stated above. I don't want to have to know loads about the genre just to play a game.
The related problem is that I enjoy RPGs because of the contexts. The ones that are more open to casual gamers often feel like they have something missing. They seem to err too much on the side of caution. You're right that a game doesn't have to be reduced to the lowest common denominator, but the developers (or, perhaps, the market research team) seem to do that anyway.
In many console games, particularly RPGs (strategy and otherwise), you can't just save wherever you want - you may have to traverse a dungeon to a certain point, finish a long battle, or similar before being allowed to save again.
Some games are (slowly) addressing this. Although more could do with adopting this approach:
They have two types of game-save. The persistent save, only available at actual save points. These are your standard "revert to last known backup" save points common to many RPGs and other games. They then also have the instant "quicksave" option. This is a one-off resume, and is removed as soon as you start playing again. But it serves it's purpose well as it at least allows you to pick up from where you left off even if you were nowhere near a full save point at the time.
Some even have this only available during battles, but even this is better than nothing. I also get the feeling that this was because outside of battle you could save at any point in the particular game I'm thinking of. (Unlimited SaGa)
The only drawback to that is that then you end up with only shorter RPGs, as companies will then focus on the general audience rather than the fringes.
I like the long-haul RPGs. I like a game that I know is going to take me weeks to complete the first time around and ages to unlock every last secret. Those are the games that make me feel like my money was well-spent. I definitely like something that I can switch on after work to and sink my mind into to escape from the daily grind.
On the flip-side I like puzzlers, fighting games and dancing games for exactly the opposite reason. They're the games I pick up for a journey (usually not the dancing games for this one...), or when I need to kill time before going out, or when I simply lack the brainpower for a more involved gaming session.
Granted I prefer RPGs with some sort of decent recap system, as it's useful for when a long period between sessions (or simple bad memory) leaves you unable to remember what you were in the middle of. But at today's gaming prices an RPG better be long and involved!
Now I come back to the game and I cannot for the life of me remember what it is I am supposed to be doing there. I can't remember where I am headed, where I have already been, etc. So I just spend my first session back at the game running around being lost, not having any fun, and I just quit and don't go back.
I definitely agree with that point. In the past I have found that the difference between a game I pick up after a break and a game I give up after a break is whether I can remember what I was up to at the time.
This is one of the things I like about the GC game Tales of Symphonia. Granted I never had a long break from playing it, but if I do (or, as does happen, if I have a glitch in m short-term memory and forget where I got up to yesterday) then the main menu has a "Synopsis" section. Each plot event that has occured (or is occuring) is in there. And any current "open" quests are in bright yellow. I've seen this kind of thing in PC RPGs before, but not Console RPGs. It is useful, though, as if you do return to a game after a few months you can immediately see which quests and side-quests you were involved in at the time.
Paying extra for different compiletime options seems fine to me. It's all to do with the required effort. Recompiling something is (to me) a major undertaking. But when the options are runtime it seems like the equivalent of basically passing a few extra flags to the executable - something that, to me, is trivial and a matter of course.
Charging extra for different runtime options seems wrong to me in a way that charging for compilation options does not.
Granted this is all academic to me, I run Linux and Mac OS X at home. But it's stuff like this that prompted me to jump ship from Windows in the first place.
One other thing about Naruto's case is that, unless there've been more details released in recent weeks, it looks scarily likely that it'll be a dub-only cut-only release made available. Apparently it's "destined for Cartoon Network", which certainly rings alarm bells in my head.
So combine those facts and you have a show thats 110+ episodes into a run and when licensed wasn't announced to definitely have an uncut subtitled version available. And seeing that a lot of fansub downloaders want an uncut subtitled release then the outcry is inevitable.
Hell, short series are bad enough. I was following Madlax last year. It was 26 episodes long and got licensed at about episode 20 into the fansubbed run. I'm now waiting for the entire show to get released on DVD simply so I can find out how the series ends. (I've no interest in the early episodes until the end of the series is out, so I kidna have to wait until the entire series is available for me to buy - which I will)
I watch them on TV anyhow, but how does the Fansub ethic apply if it is licesened, but also changed enough to make the plot different?
It is one of the greyest areas of fansub ethics. Technically Licensed is Licensed regardless of whether an uncut or subtitled version is available, and a fansub goes from "Program you aren't authorised to distribute" to "Program someone else has paid for the right to distribute".
Now some shows (Gundam Wing, Sailor Moon and Card Captor Sakura) do get licensed by companies who release a subtitled version in addition to their Kids-TV dub. Others (such as Digimon and Groove Adventure Rave/"Rave Master"), however, get released as dub-only versions. Often with cuts, major plot/dialog alteration, different music or a combination of all. And it seems likely that Naruto itself will fall into the latter category. (Although we live is hope that an uncut DVD version will get done too)
It's annoying when companies do this, because they obviously have no intention whatsoever to release the version that many people would be willing to spend money on. Yet it still remains illegal to actually distribute a fansubbed version. Not that it stops people, and these particular borderline cases tend to be tolerated amongst fans. But it's still not an ideal solution.
In my case there are a couple of kids' Anime shows that I have bought the VHS dubs of yet I lack a legal way of obtaining the original version with subtitles.
I've got to say that my main issue with the "Document and Settings" isn't so much that it's a confusing system but more that the directory names are long (and space-separated).
I know that in Windows you're "not supposed to" rely too much on the command-line, but for those of us who do having things like Documents and Settings or Program Files in the path are just a real bind to type.
Why not things like Home, Documents, Users or Programs?
The fact that the teenagers paying $12.95 pulls money away from the artists I enjoy while degrading their taste / minds further disgusts me. There's a point in time when you have much more leisure spending cash / time, and the fact that it's sucked up by such low quality, mind destroying dreck due to the bigheartedness of large corporations in shelling out such selfless advertising money to zombify kids offends me.
A current example would be this week's UK Singles Chart. Currently the top-selling single in the UK is Crazy Frog (the world's most annoying ringtone played over the top of what sounds like a cheap cover of Axel F). Second place went to Coldplay, with an actual song played with actual instruments and a guy who can actually sing.
I mean what the heck? This is all marketing, pure and simple. Convince the kids that whatever rubbish you want to play out is worthwhile and they'll pay for it. Coldplay still probably sold a bucketload but for God's sake, they were outsold by a ringtone? (And one that's universally derided amongst the UK adult population - at least one would've thought so until this week's chart positions)
I'm at least starting to consider the idea that it would be a good thing if music "piracy" meant that kids got to listen to more than what the heavy-rotation radio world plays at them and learned to appreciate actual music.
(Well, as long as they'd then actually go and spend their pocket money on a CD with actual musical value rather than another boyband or ringtone release)
Well, which are the greedy ones? The musicians who decide to sell music, or their so-called fans who want it without paying the artists?
What about a casual fan who hears from the horse mouth (band's official website) that the CD is copy-protected - label's idea not the band's - and decides not to buy the CD. (No use if it can't be played on computer in format of choice, as PC is the main jukebox and CD-palyer all but ignored these days)
Being all moral also doesn't download a copy from the internet. Never hears anything else from the band. Doesn't go gigging. Loses interest.
To my mind surely that's more of a lost sale than someone who grabs a copy off of a mate of from P2P. After all surely most people who get copies either already do/will have it, or never intend to pay anyway. So not really a lost sale.
I've been in the "casual fan" position a few times, though. Didn't obtain a dodgy copy, but didn't buy the "CD" either. Have bought other CDs from other artists, though. All stuff that I could rip (personal copies only) to my PC and portable player (or create a backup "scratch-safe" copy for the car), to listen to in my own way at my own convenience. I'd buy more by the same artists, too.
I want to pay for music. But, to me, any labels/execs who make it hard for me to listen to music I'm willing to pay for simply to protect their traditional business model are greedy. 'Cos it seems ike my money's not good enough unless they get everyone else's, too. And it probably sucks for any bands who find themselves locked into DRM formats by their labels as they have to know that it drives their (potential new) fans to either obtain copies or listen elsewhere instead.
And that's the point at which you abandon all hope for the character. But, as it's a prequel, you go in knowing there's no hope at all. It takes some of the edge off it, as you know he's lost even before he commits the acts that seal his fate.
The problem with constantly writing prequels is that they're not really interesting. You know what's going to happen, and some measure of whether or not a movie is good is how easily you can anticipate the ending. Most people don't enjoy knowing the ending in advance.
The other drawback is when you've got a character arc like Anakin's I, personally, like to know there's at least a chance of redemption. That maybe, just maybe, they don't get drawn too far into the dark. Even when they do, it's nice to know there's a chance they won't.
Prequels (or catching earlier seasons of a show) always let me down like that, as I know that there's no other possible way. In the case of Episodes I-III the whole point is showing Anakin's path to becoming Vader. But therefore there's no chance of him not falling, as the films where he's already fallen were made first.
Could also stand a good chance of being done right. Personally I enjoyed Episodes I & II (not seen RoTS yet), but I can see the main problem with them - which wouldn't be so pronounced in a much earlier prequel.
Episodes I through III were dealing in the too recent past directly dealing with known characters who many older fans have had 20 years to come up with their own theories about.
Now a pre-Phantom-Menace film wouldn't have quite so much "known" events to deal with. It would be somewhat harder to really jar with people's own perceptions of what could have happened. Plus if Lucas did step back and leave such a prequel to someone else it might well end up better than the current prequels. Not many people can create good stories in on their own - and even those who do don't (usually) do films on their own.
Editors, screenwriters, directors. As long as they're not all at odds then they stand a better chance of coming up with a great finished product.
i personally don't know how old this kid is, but maybe he shouldn't be giving her that much permission or access rights.
In theory you're right on the nail. You should not need to give kids that level of access rights. But, as we know by now, some games (the Sims being one commonly brought up) simply choke if not run under administrator rights.
If anything this is the worst type of software to need admin rights, as it's often the kids who play the games. So you're requiring kids either running with admin rights, routinely knowing how to run programs with those rights or routinely logging into the parent's account to play games. This is not a good thing.
Since when is it Microsoft's fault that people are duped into running this?
I agree with you on this. As much as I am down on Microsoft (and, believe me, I am) and their software I can't see how this particular type of virus is really their fault. What really helps viruses like these spead is user error.
People fall for these things. It could be a Linux exploit, or a Mac exploit, but you'd still get people who'd click on them honestly believing what the message said. Even if it wouldn't auto-execute it'd probably just give a list of official-sounding instructions on how to "protect" their system.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes and no.
The the series. And Angel. And the comics. And even the original movie. Buffy's had a lot come out over the years. Spinoffs are all well and good, but sometimes a franchise can be done to death with overexposure. (case in point: Star Trek)
Sometimes what a show or franchise really needs is to either go on hiaitus, or finish entirely.
Yes, as a story addict, I dearly love for every series I follow to go on forever and go from strength to strength. Sadly, this rarely happens. And I'd rather a show I enjoy finish early on a high note than get finally killed off after running too long.
Plus if Joss Whedon decides he's got other stories to tell then he should go for it.
Very true. But in this case it seems that SWG started off as something he was able to do. And I can only guess that disabled gamers put a lot of research into finding games that they can actually play.
But if a game you're spent you hard-earned cash on suddenly becomes unplayable because of something out of your control (like the devs assuming that every single gamer can either handle the changes or doesn't mind their money suddenly becoming wasted) then it's bloody annoying.
On the other hand, it's increasingly apparent that games are aimed towards the majority. Games that you get into because of a main factor often have it (or a sequel) changed 'cos it'd gain more sales. As long as the money comes in, who cares if people can actually play or enjoy it.
Problem with that is that they get the right result and use it to get the wrong conclusion. I mean of course the sales are going to be down since pre-internet. But, in my opinion anyway, it's more the information side than the downloading-music side.
Word on the Net says a film sucks:
Even without downloading, people avoid the film and numbers go down. People may not believe reviewers in the newspapers but they may be more inclined to believe a site that tends to share their opinions.
Word on the Net says it's been out in another country for months:
People who really want to see a film and pay for it will legitimately obtain it from elsewhere.
I do maintain that the real downfall of the **AAs and their regional equivalents was not realising that the internet meant that their old methods of "Lots of filler", "Sequels, sequels, sequels", and "Slow Global Release" simply don't work anymore when just about anyone can be up to date with movie/music news from any country.
OK, so the 50Hz timing is still at least partially a valid issue - for console games, anyway. But the translation, however viable/required from a business point of view, simply doesn't cut it with the UK gamers anymore.
The companies need to acknowledge that there's no way to avoid the fact that, like it or not, people in the UK get annoyed if they've got to wait extra months where at least a part of the delay is translating the game out of the language you speak and into languages that you don't. For UK gamers that's a needless delay. And even to those who don't get pirate copies, it's reason enough to import the American version.
As I've said elsewhere before, whether it's right or not, there's no competition between "On the shelves in three months time" and "On P2P this morning".
The drawback with the iTMS is still the quality of the files downloaded. I can't find details on Apple's own site, but I think that the files are encoded at a lower rate than I, at least, would choose.
Because of the ability to burn CDs from iTunes I find that the DRM isn't the major reason I avoid the iTMS. I'm probably amongst the group that'd use iTMS if they made files available in ALAC. I'd rather buy a legit CD and rip to my own preferences than download from somewhere that uses DRM alongside a lower setting than I would[*].
Tiggs[*] I've used Warp's Bleep store a couple of times. And although they're not lossless at least the files immediately work on anything I throw them at.
True. But, Linux or not, Microsoft need tor ealise a couple of things, too.
So no more than £100 for "the basics".
Oh and if two versions of a product are still available at the same time, drop the price of the older product. (Every legitimate place I saw offering the full versions of Win2K and WinXP Pro had Win2K at either the same price or even £5 higher. Maybe I just found the wrong shops, but that was hardly encouraging)
Don't expect your low-income or unemployed customers to pay the exhorbitant prices. That way leads to getting a copy off of a mate, or switching to a cheaper/free/Free alternative.
Yes, many Mac users are willing to pay higher, but some of them (us...) just blew the budget on getting the Mac in the first place.
Some Linux users would pay, but nowehere near Windows prices.
Free or Open Source products tend to be a hell of a lot more likely to say what their software is and does. Many more commercial products tend to have their information all spin and marketing and very little technical information. Too many buzzwords and not enough hard facts.
When I'm researching software I want to find out what it does, what options it has, technical specifications, system requirements. basically what is, to me, the obvious important information. Management-targetted marketing BS is very little use to me, but takes up so much of some sites that I can't figure out what the software actually does.
Microsoft's website is a good example of this. Maybe they do have the actual facts squirrelled away on their site somewhere, but all I can ever find is a lot of marketing telling my why I should be buying MS products and very little information on what they actually do. Finding minimum requirements always takes a few clicks, wheras many FOSS projects (or, at least, the ones I hold in high regard) have a very clear link to this information. Also, as the parent mentioned, it's bloody hard to find cost details. So many companies want you to talk before giving you a price. This is especially annoying as I like to know all details (especially price) before talking to them.
There are Open Source and Free software out there that is also lacking in the details, but I often find this equally offputting. Similarly there are commercial/proprietary products out there that give clear information - and they are the companies somewhat more likely to make me part with my money.
I think I agree with a lot or what you say. I will admit to missing the old three-or-more-part stories, and I do really miss spending more screen-time away from Earth (both Platform One and Satellite 5 were near Earth, efen if not planetside), but the current series does work. It's just different.
Plus it does deal with some of the issues that would be relevant today that weren't as relevant in previous seasons. missing persons (especially young human females) is an even bigger deal now than it ever was. Just having the new companion up-sticks and never look back would leave too many questions unanswered. The first return to London dealt with that pretty well, I thought. And I am enjoying the fact that there is a bit of Earth continuity - familiar people and situations that we keep glimpsing in at. If anything I think the drawback is that it's a relatively short season. If it was double the length but had the same amount of "back home" episodes it wouldn't seem to dominate the series as much.
I also think it's a new look at Doctor Who. It's a new generation of viewers, many of which won't have seen every last bit of the original series. I also get the feeling that, at least early on, we were getting a look at things from Rose's point of view. And that is bound to be very different from "Classic" Who.
The only real changes I'd like to see next season is a return to the multiparters being the rule rather than the exception, and a few more alien visits between popping back to contemporary Earth. Apart form that, though, I'm very much enjoying the feel of the new series.
I suppose that's one of the main drawbacks about any gaming genre. The complexity that puts some people off certain game genres is often what attracts others to the same genres.
I don't play FPS games, or sports games or many fighting games for the same reasons you stated above. I don't want to have to know loads about the genre just to play a game.
The related problem is that I enjoy RPGs because of the contexts. The ones that are more open to casual gamers often feel like they have something missing. They seem to err too much on the side of caution. You're right that a game doesn't have to be reduced to the lowest common denominator, but the developers (or, perhaps, the market research team) seem to do that anyway.
Some games are (slowly) addressing this. Although more could do with adopting this approach:
They have two types of game-save. The persistent save, only available at actual save points. These are your standard "revert to last known backup" save points common to many RPGs and other games. They then also have the instant "quicksave" option. This is a one-off resume, and is removed as soon as you start playing again. But it serves it's purpose well as it at least allows you to pick up from where you left off even if you were nowhere near a full save point at the time.
Some even have this only available during battles, but even this is better than nothing. I also get the feeling that this was because outside of battle you could save at any point in the particular game I'm thinking of. (Unlimited SaGa)
The only drawback to that is that then you end up with only shorter RPGs, as companies will then focus on the general audience rather than the fringes.
I like the long-haul RPGs. I like a game that I know is going to take me weeks to complete the first time around and ages to unlock every last secret. Those are the games that make me feel like my money was well-spent. I definitely like something that I can switch on after work to and sink my mind into to escape from the daily grind.
On the flip-side I like puzzlers, fighting games and dancing games for exactly the opposite reason. They're the games I pick up for a journey (usually not the dancing games for this one...), or when I need to kill time before going out, or when I simply lack the brainpower for a more involved gaming session.
Granted I prefer RPGs with some sort of decent recap system, as it's useful for when a long period between sessions (or simple bad memory) leaves you unable to remember what you were in the middle of. But at today's gaming prices an RPG better be long and involved!
I definitely agree with that point. In the past I have found that the difference between a game I pick up after a break and a game I give up after a break is whether I can remember what I was up to at the time.
This is one of the things I like about the GC game Tales of Symphonia. Granted I never had a long break from playing it, but if I do (or, as does happen, if I have a glitch in m short-term memory and forget where I got up to yesterday) then the main menu has a "Synopsis" section. Each plot event that has occured (or is occuring) is in there. And any current "open" quests are in bright yellow. I've seen this kind of thing in PC RPGs before, but not Console RPGs. It is useful, though, as if you do return to a game after a few months you can immediately see which quests and side-quests you were involved in at the time.
It feels like there's a difference.
Paying extra for different compiletime options seems fine to me. It's all to do with the required effort. Recompiling something is (to me) a major undertaking. But when the options are runtime it seems like the equivalent of basically passing a few extra flags to the executable - something that, to me, is trivial and a matter of course.
Charging extra for different runtime options seems wrong to me in a way that charging for compilation options does not.
Granted this is all academic to me, I run Linux and Mac OS X at home. But it's stuff like this that prompted me to jump ship from Windows in the first place.
One other thing about Naruto's case is that, unless there've been more details released in recent weeks, it looks scarily likely that it'll be a dub-only cut-only release made available. Apparently it's "destined for Cartoon Network", which certainly rings alarm bells in my head.
So combine those facts and you have a show thats 110+ episodes into a run and when licensed wasn't announced to definitely have an uncut subtitled version available. And seeing that a lot of fansub downloaders want an uncut subtitled release then the outcry is inevitable.
Hell, short series are bad enough. I was following Madlax last year. It was 26 episodes long and got licensed at about episode 20 into the fansubbed run. I'm now waiting for the entire show to get released on DVD simply so I can find out how the series ends. (I've no interest in the early episodes until the end of the series is out, so I kidna have to wait until the entire series is available for me to buy - which I will)
It is one of the greyest areas of fansub ethics. Technically Licensed is Licensed regardless of whether an uncut or subtitled version is available, and a fansub goes from "Program you aren't authorised to distribute" to "Program someone else has paid for the right to distribute".
Now some shows (Gundam Wing, Sailor Moon and Card Captor Sakura) do get licensed by companies who release a subtitled version in addition to their Kids-TV dub. Others (such as Digimon and Groove Adventure Rave/"Rave Master"), however, get released as dub-only versions. Often with cuts, major plot/dialog alteration, different music or a combination of all. And it seems likely that Naruto itself will fall into the latter category. (Although we live is hope that an uncut DVD version will get done too)
It's annoying when companies do this, because they obviously have no intention whatsoever to release the version that many people would be willing to spend money on. Yet it still remains illegal to actually distribute a fansubbed version. Not that it stops people, and these particular borderline cases tend to be tolerated amongst fans. But it's still not an ideal solution.
In my case there are a couple of kids' Anime shows that I have bought the VHS dubs of yet I lack a legal way of obtaining the original version with subtitles.
I've got to say that my main issue with the "Document and Settings" isn't so much that it's a confusing system but more that the directory names are long (and space-separated).
I know that in Windows you're "not supposed to" rely too much on the command-line, but for those of us who do having things like Documents and Settings or Program Files in the path are just a real bind to type.
Why not things like Home, Documents, Users or Programs?
I'm saying this as a smartass and not to condone copyright infringment, but...
More importantly even if it is in use, if it can be bypassed then can it really be called "effective"?
A current example would be this week's UK Singles Chart. Currently the top-selling single in the UK is Crazy Frog (the world's most annoying ringtone played over the top of what sounds like a cheap cover of Axel F). Second place went to Coldplay, with an actual song played with actual instruments and a guy who can actually sing.
I mean what the heck? This is all marketing, pure and simple. Convince the kids that whatever rubbish you want to play out is worthwhile and they'll pay for it. Coldplay still probably sold a bucketload but for God's sake, they were outsold by a ringtone? (And one that's universally derided amongst the UK adult population - at least one would've thought so until this week's chart positions)
I'm at least starting to consider the idea that it would be a good thing if music "piracy" meant that kids got to listen to more than what the heavy-rotation radio world plays at them and learned to appreciate actual music.
(Well, as long as they'd then actually go and spend their pocket money on a CD with actual musical value rather than another boyband or ringtone release)
What about a casual fan who hears from the horse mouth (band's official website) that the CD is copy-protected - label's idea not the band's - and decides not to buy the CD. (No use if it can't be played on computer in format of choice, as PC is the main jukebox and CD-palyer all but ignored these days)
Being all moral also doesn't download a copy from the internet. Never hears anything else from the band. Doesn't go gigging. Loses interest.
To my mind surely that's more of a lost sale than someone who grabs a copy off of a mate of from P2P. After all surely most people who get copies either already do/will have it, or never intend to pay anyway. So not really a lost sale.
I've been in the "casual fan" position a few times, though. Didn't obtain a dodgy copy, but didn't buy the "CD" either. Have bought other CDs from other artists, though. All stuff that I could rip (personal copies only) to my PC and portable player (or create a backup "scratch-safe" copy for the car), to listen to in my own way at my own convenience. I'd buy more by the same artists, too.
I want to pay for music. But, to me, any labels/execs who make it hard for me to listen to music I'm willing to pay for simply to protect their traditional business model are greedy. 'Cos it seems ike my money's not good enough unless they get everyone else's, too. And it probably sucks for any bands who find themselves locked into DRM formats by their labels as they have to know that it drives their (potential new) fans to either obtain copies or listen elsewhere instead.
And that's the point at which you abandon all hope for the character. But, as it's a prequel, you go in knowing there's no hope at all. It takes some of the edge off it, as you know he's lost even before he commits the acts that seal his fate.
The other drawback is when you've got a character arc like Anakin's I, personally, like to know there's at least a chance of redemption. That maybe, just maybe, they don't get drawn too far into the dark. Even when they do, it's nice to know there's a chance they won't.
Prequels (or catching earlier seasons of a show) always let me down like that, as I know that there's no other possible way. In the case of Episodes I-III the whole point is showing Anakin's path to becoming Vader. But therefore there's no chance of him not falling, as the films where he's already fallen were made first.
Episodes I through III were dealing in the too recent past directly dealing with known characters who many older fans have had 20 years to come up with their own theories about.
Now a pre-Phantom-Menace film wouldn't have quite so much "known" events to deal with. It would be somewhat harder to really jar with people's own perceptions of what could have happened. Plus if Lucas did step back and leave such a prequel to someone else it might well end up better than the current prequels. Not many people can create good stories in on their own - and even those who do don't (usually) do films on their own.
Editors, screenwriters, directors. As long as they're not all at odds then they stand a better chance of coming up with a great finished product.
In theory you're right on the nail. You should not need to give kids that level of access rights. But, as we know by now, some games (the Sims being one commonly brought up) simply choke if not run under administrator rights.
If anything this is the worst type of software to need admin rights, as it's often the kids who play the games. So you're requiring kids either running with admin rights, routinely knowing how to run programs with those rights or routinely logging into the parent's account to play games. This is not a good thing.
I always thought that it had to be soap-powder, as it makes it stickier. Granted there are usually always more than one way of doing things.
I agree with you on this. As much as I am down on Microsoft (and, believe me, I am) and their software I can't see how this particular type of virus is really their fault. What really helps viruses like these spead is user error.
People fall for these things. It could be a Linux exploit, or a Mac exploit, but you'd still get people who'd click on them honestly believing what the message said. Even if it wouldn't auto-execute it'd probably just give a list of official-sounding instructions on how to "protect" their system.Tiggs