Well, according to most sources I've read on the matter, Tolkien's first interest wasn't even to write a story or tell a history.
To begin with he was a language geek. A huge language geek. He began playing around with developing an entire language(actually, a grouping of interrelated languages). The world history that is mostly contained in the Silmarillion, was a side effect. In order to create languages, you have to have a world for them to inhabit(and grow from so to speak). Then came The Hobbit, which eventually got published. Then came the Lord of the Rings. So, while LotR may be what most of his fans focus on today, from his own perspective it was a side effect(so to speak), twice removed from his real focus, the languages.
As far as the 'interpretation of LotR as an allegory' aspect of the stories, I seem to recall Tolien vehemently denied that such was his purpose behind the book...
Well, if what you say about the online PS2 experience is true, then that really is pathetic. Even the Dreamcast allowed enter once, use for any game network settings...
Not that the XBox doesn't have a really good setup as far as online console gaming goes.
Just a response on the topic of hardware providers limiting third party developers and thus choice for consumers. Sony isn't the first to do this. Back in the 8-bit days, Nintendo had some truly draconian deals in place with third party developers. The situation changed in the 16 bit days, but back in the NES and Master System days Nintendo was, if anything, worse than Sony is today.
Nintendo still kept a bit of a leash on third party developers even in the 16 bit days, mostly in terms of some censorship(the so called 'kiddy gaming' complaint you hear bandied about so much these days). Amusingly enough, after the really bad results they got from censoring out one of the Mortal Kombats(the Genesis version sold better overwhelmingly better), they finally stopped their big censorship of games drive. Yet despite the fact that this change of tune took place during the very end of the 16 bit era, we still hear so much about Nintendo being the kiddy console(despite the fact they're generally more lenient than Sony(note the BMX XXX incident)). It just goes to show you how depressingly strong an effect ranting fanboys online can have on public perception.
Actually, I think he was pointing out that at one point in time(the 8 bit generation), Nintendo held a lot more power of the console market than Sony does now. There were some pretty stringent legal agreements in place to prevent third parties from developing for the competition(aka the Sega Master System, a system which in its day had a lot less market share and mind share than either the Gamecube or Xbox do now).
Nintendo once had a barrier of entry as large or larger than Sony has raised, but in the end they lost their number one position(though they have kept it in the handheld arena). Thus, discussing Sony's current stranglehold on the number one position, and using Nintendo as the 'underdog trying to break in' is ironic, given that Nintendo's current position is an example of the fact that Sony's current position isn't guaranteed in the long term.
NES. During the 16 bit era Sega certainly gave Nintendo a run for its money, but during the 8 bit days Nintendo was at least as dominant as Sony is today. There is a certain subjective aspect to this, and I don't have the hard numbers to back this up in front of me, but I'd wager that Nintendo had a much stronger stranglehold on gaming during the 8 bit days than Sony has on it today. Both the XBox and the Gamecube are much more common than the Sega Master System was back in the day.
As far as Sony buying the others out of the marketplace... maybe, maybe not. Third party popularity can certainly make a large impact, and I'd argue that it has been the driving force behind both the PS1 and PS2's success, but advantages of strong branding and strong first party support aren't insignificant either. Without being bought out directly, stealing away third party support can only have minimal damage to Nintendo. Nintendo in general has made a profit on hardware, and can produce a large enough(and largely composed of 'blockbuster' quality) supply of games by themselves. Microsoft on the other hand doesn't have the first party developer record of Nintendo to fall back on, but it does have amazingly deep pockets to buy plenty of developers themselves, coupled with a business plan that seems to imply that losing money is acceptable(they're pouring money into something, no profits on it... obviously it is for some form of positioning, either in terms of attempting to make a profit on later generation consoles, or securing some form of foothold in the living room/entertainment center business).
Strong first party support can falter. Since the NES days, Sega has been the only other hardware developer with a stable of game developers that could rival Nintendo, and they have bowed out. It took the one two punch of very bad decisions in one generation, followed by the PS2 hype undermining what confidence was left in Sega during the Dreamcast years. But, it wasn't a quick fall, and Sega had to make some serious mis steps(during the Saturn generation) to cause it to happen. At least from my persepective, Nintendo hasn't made those sort of mistakes yet. Microsoft still wants to break into the console area for some strategic reason, and they still have the money to blow on it. Only way they'll bow out is if they decide the advantagous position they're trying to achieve isn't worth the cost of the money they're blowing away on their console.
This isn't the first time there has been a sole 'ruler' in the console market, and while Sony definitely has a strong lead, I don't even think it's close to as large a lead as some companies have previously held over the market. Exclusive titles from third parties aren't a huge danger to the market... the market has dealt with it before, and things turned out fine. Certain situations can be annoying(a title that exists for a platform but it bought out for a certain market, like this I-Ninja in EU example, or the Shenmue II no DC version released in NA). Frankly, I found the Shenmue situation more of a problem because it was a case of a game where the sequel makes use of the save from the original game. But without importing, a NA gamer can't do this because of a forced system change.
Well, maybe I didn't make that part of my point clear in my first post, but I think we're generally in agreement. I agree that looking in terms of the future, online gaming will become a larger part of console gaming. It is probable that one day having strong support for online gaming will be a necessity for a console system.
However, the big point I was trying to make in my first post was that there are a lot of people, both in the video game media and the armchair pundit sorts who post on slashdot and similar, who are railing against Nintendo for the weak online support in the Gamecube. There are a lot of claims that this is one of the big things that is holding back the Gamecube. That is what I disagree with.
To dabble in my own bit of armchair punditry, from what I see I think Nintendo's current take on online console gaming is that it will eventually be something that needs pursuing, but right now the cost and effort involved isn't worth the return. Thus, the Gamecube has the hardware support for going online should it prove necessary before the end of the console, but not heavy support for online gaming from the company beyond that. If trends turned towards a real boom in online gaming via consoles, then Nintendo could follow suit pretty quickly.
No disagreements here. For any FPS, pure or otherwise, Marathon wins hands down for story. Shoot, there's only one game I've played that I think has a better story, Eternal Darkness. But the odd thing about Marathon is that the strength of its story isn't the basic story/plot and character interaction. It's the depth of misdirection, and subtle hints and clues that make up the real plot... that is what made Marathon so impressive, imo.
While it certainly doesn't show blood and guts flying across the screen, the game certainly has its own form of violence, coupled with really morbid undertones(the entire survival of the fittest, natural world in which things kill or be killed vibe). Yet, at the same time it's brightly colored, has a very cute look, and a fairly cheery feel to it(all the while little Olimar is discussing how he'll run out of oxygen in so many days...)
Still, the game would be good for a kid... I'm just not certain 'non violent' is the most accurate description.
I keep hearing this repeated again and again, by both 'professional' critics, and online experts debating the various consoles. But if you look at the numbers, it just doesn't add up. When compared to the installed user base, or compared to the sales of blockbuster(or near blockbuster) game titles, the numbers of consoles being used online is rather pitiful.
This isn't to say that going online is a bad step for a console, but the reality of the current situation is that a very vocal minority are hyping the concept, but the majority are rather lukewarm to it. If online consoles were the must have killer app that people make them out to be, then the Dreamcast should have done a lot better. The XBox should be overtaking the PS2, not losing to the Cube in Japan, and fighting on fairly even footing across the rest of the world. If online console gaming is such a killer app, then XBox live subscriptions should be through the roof.
A good online system is definitely a benefit to a console. Currently, in the console market online gaming sells, but it's not the sort of issue that makes or breaks a deal yet. The market for online consoles is definitely improving, and growing and one day a strong online function will be a requirement for a console, but given the current numbers that day hasn't occured yet.
Er... Maybe I'm misremembering release dates, but I'm pretty certain there were three games that predated Half Life which did at least as good a job of level design combined with a story driven game in an FPS. Half Life was simply the first that achieved a certain level of popularity... The Thief, System Shock and Marathon(including Pathways into Darkness, if you want to get nitpicky) series deserve that honor more so than Half Life, assuming I'm remembering correctly that they all predated Half Life. I'm certain at least Marathon did.
Many many thanks for posting that link... I'd been needing to track down old lego manuals for some old sets that had been pulled out of storage, and hadn't gotten around to it. This should make things go quicker.
Not exactly from scratch, but the game that's the closest I can think of to a 'fair shot' for all of the competitors would be Soul Calibur II. Originally for arcade hardware, thus not originally designed around any of the home consoles in particular. Taking a look at SC2 on a console in relation to other games on the same console, it certainly looks like they put a strong effort into tweaking the game to the utmost for all the consoles.
And in the end, the PS2 version does notably lag behind the Gamecube and Xbox versions, which are graphically pretty damn similar, though the Xbox holds has the nice addition of multiple channel sound for those with a good audio setup...
Shoot, for a video game specific comparison, just because the Saturn was hard to program for with a lot of parallel processors, didn't mean it would be more powerful than things that came out much later than it...
Er, you do realize that both the GameCube and Xbox have pretty decent support for progressive scan(and there's even fledgling support on the PS2 with only recent models, I believe...). Shoot, the Xbox can even do some of the higher resolutions provided on HD ready sets... So, 60 FPS does matter, assuming you're going progressive scan... (and it does make a notable difference)
Well, Finding Nemo(or, the begining of it at any rate), was something rather dark for a kids movie. Yes, all the classic fairy tales were originally rather gruesome, but given what is generally produced for and considered proper for kids these days, I was rather surprised...
That said, a really good film for kids, entertaining enough to be worth a watch by adults(doubly so if you happen to be a computer generated animation nut).
Well, it is open to debate, and not everyone will agree, but I'm certain there's a healthy population that would say No One Lives Forever(both one and two) could fit that bill. And considering they can pump out a franchise, with a two game series plus one prequel/sidestory in less time than it takes to make DNF, even if you don't like the NOLF's quite as much, you've still got three of them. ^_-
Well, fortunately the orcs are free from being the victims in the post-censoring version of Vice City. When Rockstar first decided to change the scene, the orcs were a strong first candidate. "Nobody would care if we changed the Haitians to Orcs, it's so simple!"
However, upon second thought they realized that this didn't mesh well with the theme and placement of the game. Realizing that they'd exhausted most of the other stereotyped Florida residents(Cubans, Haitians, etc.), they were forced to play there one remaining trump.
In the new reworked scene, the mission is changed from "Kill all Haitians" to "Kill all octogenarians." A crowd of elderly, wielding false teeth and walkers commence an assault upon the protagonist. It is rumored that a new vehicle, the electric wheelchair, has been added to the game.
Just because one game spends too long in cutscenes for a particular person's tastes, doesn't necessarily mean they only want to play games with minimal/no plot. There are plot heavy games out there that go heavy handed with the application of cut scenes. Shoot, these days there a few games where it would be possible to play through a game to the end with more time spent in cutscene than in interactive gameplay. On the other hand, there are plot heavy games that make minimal use of cutscenes and still are very tied to their plot.
To sum it up, just because a person doesn't like a game that is heavy on the cut scenes doesn't mean they don't want a plot heavy game. Silicon Knights(developers working on the MGS1 cube remake) are a good example of this. Their Eternal Darkness is a great example of a very plot driven game that didn't rely on frequently occuring or lengthy cut scenes...
First half is good, second half(after the raid on the Hellsing headquarters) goes downhill IMO... That also happens to be the point in time when the animators stopped following the original comic... Character designs and plot from there on out I find better in the comic, which is actually slated for a US release...
Though, as far as the actual anime went, the animation quality was pretty good(particularly in the first few episodes), but it was the music that really made it work in my opinion.
Er... Isn't the last statement there a little broad considering the example you gave...
From the FreeCraft/WarCraft II fiasco, I would think the lesson would be that companies are willing to go after open source projects that try to be direct clones of existing games. There's a big difference between creating a game in the same genre, and creating a game that is supposed to be a clone(down to importing art files) from an existing game.
While the attitude of the companies is rather short sighted, I'm not entirely certain it is a bad thing in some respects... Work on new games, rather than simply cloning classics, seems like a more productive venture to me... Though, I admit, there are a few old classics I'd like to see recreated that are unlikely to be revisited by the original creators...
Well, there are exceptions to the 'scared of assembler' rule. It does vary by the individual program though.
The school I went to put me through two types of assembly, because it was a 'general' CS program, not in spite of that fact. The program had a very academic(as opposed to 'practical' slant). The requirement were structured for a combination of breadth, and understanding underlying concepts. Thus, assembly itself was a subject(typically x86), and there was a hardware course on microcontrollers. Wire up and program a simple z80 system...
That said, my school was(from what I heard of other programs) the exception to the rule...
Just a quick bit of info, that little pirate is the logo of all the various Jump magazines... So, not surprising that it's there, and it has nothing to do with FF 12.
Reading the article at the Register... it sounds like they're blowing things out of proportion. The quote from Jobs that they focus on is: "We would like to break even/make a little bit of money but it's not a money maker."
While this could mean they are taking a permanent loss, it could also mean it is a slow profit that hasn't quite surpassed the initial one time investment portions of setting up iTunes... Or, it could even mean that they do break even or make a very small profit, but the profit is so small that in the large picture of the companies profits it comparatively makes no money...
I'd want to see some actual numbers and the real math before coming to any conclusions... The article simply jumps from the quote that iTunes isn't "a money maker" and enters areas of rampant speculation, leaning a little in the tinfoil hat direction.
Well, I know from people who can speak the languages, that there is a real significant difference between Quebecois French, and 'true' French. Such a big difference that many people raised speaking one of them cannot understand the other. In other words, dialects that vary enough they border on being different languages in some senses...
Now, these differences are a combination of pronunciation, slang, and legitimate vocabulary. My question is, are the two dialects, in their written forms, similar enough to get by with a single French translation for a video game? If not, then I really see the silly language laws biting them on the ass in Quebec, since their market is a tad small to justify a translation, and 'true' French translations possibly not being entirely 'legible...'
Anyone here know enough about the two dialects to comment on the differences between them, and whether a single translation would suffice?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, according to most sources I've read on the matter, Tolkien's first interest wasn't even to write a story or tell a history.
To begin with he was a language geek. A huge language geek. He began playing around with developing an entire language(actually, a grouping of interrelated languages). The world history that is mostly contained in the Silmarillion, was a side effect. In order to create languages, you have to have a world for them to inhabit(and grow from so to speak). Then came The Hobbit, which eventually got published. Then came the Lord of the Rings. So, while LotR may be what most of his fans focus on today, from his own perspective it was a side effect(so to speak), twice removed from his real focus, the languages.
As far as the 'interpretation of LotR as an allegory' aspect of the stories, I seem to recall Tolien vehemently denied that such was his purpose behind the book...
Well, if what you say about the online PS2 experience is true, then that really is pathetic. Even the Dreamcast allowed enter once, use for any game network settings...
Not that the XBox doesn't have a really good setup as far as online console gaming goes.
"Solid Snake may be a stud, but you don't see them marketing Solid Snake's sexual appeal."
I don't know, looking at the name for the third Metal Gear Solid, I'm not certain that's the case... *grin*
Just a response on the topic of hardware providers limiting third party developers and thus choice for consumers. Sony isn't the first to do this. Back in the 8-bit days, Nintendo had some truly draconian deals in place with third party developers. The situation changed in the 16 bit days, but back in the NES and Master System days Nintendo was, if anything, worse than Sony is today.
Nintendo still kept a bit of a leash on third party developers even in the 16 bit days, mostly in terms of some censorship(the so called 'kiddy gaming' complaint you hear bandied about so much these days). Amusingly enough, after the really bad results they got from censoring out one of the Mortal Kombats(the Genesis version sold better overwhelmingly better), they finally stopped their big censorship of games drive. Yet despite the fact that this change of tune took place during the very end of the 16 bit era, we still hear so much about Nintendo being the kiddy console(despite the fact they're generally more lenient than Sony(note the BMX XXX incident)). It just goes to show you how depressingly strong an effect ranting fanboys online can have on public perception.
Actually, I think he was pointing out that at one point in time(the 8 bit generation), Nintendo held a lot more power of the console market than Sony does now. There were some pretty stringent legal agreements in place to prevent third parties from developing for the competition(aka the Sega Master System, a system which in its day had a lot less market share and mind share than either the Gamecube or Xbox do now).
Nintendo once had a barrier of entry as large or larger than Sony has raised, but in the end they lost their number one position(though they have kept it in the handheld arena). Thus, discussing Sony's current stranglehold on the number one position, and using Nintendo as the 'underdog trying to break in' is ironic, given that Nintendo's current position is an example of the fact that Sony's current position isn't guaranteed in the long term.
NES. During the 16 bit era Sega certainly gave Nintendo a run for its money, but during the 8 bit days Nintendo was at least as dominant as Sony is today. There is a certain subjective aspect to this, and I don't have the hard numbers to back this up in front of me, but I'd wager that Nintendo had a much stronger stranglehold on gaming during the 8 bit days than Sony has on it today. Both the XBox and the Gamecube are much more common than the Sega Master System was back in the day.
As far as Sony buying the others out of the marketplace... maybe, maybe not. Third party popularity can certainly make a large impact, and I'd argue that it has been the driving force behind both the PS1 and PS2's success, but advantages of strong branding and strong first party support aren't insignificant either. Without being bought out directly, stealing away third party support can only have minimal damage to Nintendo. Nintendo in general has made a profit on hardware, and can produce a large enough(and largely composed of 'blockbuster' quality) supply of games by themselves. Microsoft on the other hand doesn't have the first party developer record of Nintendo to fall back on, but it does have amazingly deep pockets to buy plenty of developers themselves, coupled with a business plan that seems to imply that losing money is acceptable(they're pouring money into something, no profits on it... obviously it is for some form of positioning, either in terms of attempting to make a profit on later generation consoles, or securing some form of foothold in the living room/entertainment center business).
Strong first party support can falter. Since the NES days, Sega has been the only other hardware developer with a stable of game developers that could rival Nintendo, and they have bowed out. It took the one two punch of very bad decisions in one generation, followed by the PS2 hype undermining what confidence was left in Sega during the Dreamcast years. But, it wasn't a quick fall, and Sega had to make some serious mis steps(during the Saturn generation) to cause it to happen. At least from my persepective, Nintendo hasn't made those sort of mistakes yet. Microsoft still wants to break into the console area for some strategic reason, and they still have the money to blow on it. Only way they'll bow out is if they decide the advantagous position they're trying to achieve isn't worth the cost of the money they're blowing away on their console.
This isn't the first time there has been a sole 'ruler' in the console market, and while Sony definitely has a strong lead, I don't even think it's close to as large a lead as some companies have previously held over the market. Exclusive titles from third parties aren't a huge danger to the market... the market has dealt with it before, and things turned out fine. Certain situations can be annoying(a title that exists for a platform but it bought out for a certain market, like this I-Ninja in EU example, or the Shenmue II no DC version released in NA). Frankly, I found the Shenmue situation more of a problem because it was a case of a game where the sequel makes use of the save from the original game. But without importing, a NA gamer can't do this because of a forced system change.
Well, maybe I didn't make that part of my point clear in my first post, but I think we're generally in agreement. I agree that looking in terms of the future, online gaming will become a larger part of console gaming. It is probable that one day having strong support for online gaming will be a necessity for a console system.
However, the big point I was trying to make in my first post was that there are a lot of people, both in the video game media and the armchair pundit sorts who post on slashdot and similar, who are railing against Nintendo for the weak online support in the Gamecube. There are a lot of claims that this is one of the big things that is holding back the Gamecube. That is what I disagree with.
To dabble in my own bit of armchair punditry, from what I see I think Nintendo's current take on online console gaming is that it will eventually be something that needs pursuing, but right now the cost and effort involved isn't worth the return. Thus, the Gamecube has the hardware support for going online should it prove necessary before the end of the console, but not heavy support for online gaming from the company beyond that. If trends turned towards a real boom in online gaming via consoles, then Nintendo could follow suit pretty quickly.
No disagreements here. For any FPS, pure or otherwise, Marathon wins hands down for story. Shoot, there's only one game I've played that I think has a better story, Eternal Darkness. But the odd thing about Marathon is that the strength of its story isn't the basic story/plot and character interaction. It's the depth of misdirection, and subtle hints and clues that make up the real plot... that is what made Marathon so impressive, imo.
Er... Pikmin is nonviolent?
While it certainly doesn't show blood and guts flying across the screen, the game certainly has its own form of violence, coupled with really morbid undertones(the entire survival of the fittest, natural world in which things kill or be killed vibe). Yet, at the same time it's brightly colored, has a very cute look, and a fairly cheery feel to it(all the while little Olimar is discussing how he'll run out of oxygen in so many days...)
Still, the game would be good for a kid... I'm just not certain 'non violent' is the most accurate description.
Not out in the US yet, but Donkey Konga is a Bemani style game. Aka, a rythym type game like DDR, but based on drums not dancing...
Er... Online play is a necessity?
I keep hearing this repeated again and again, by both 'professional' critics, and online experts debating the various consoles. But if you look at the numbers, it just doesn't add up. When compared to the installed user base, or compared to the sales of blockbuster(or near blockbuster) game titles, the numbers of consoles being used online is rather pitiful.
This isn't to say that going online is a bad step for a console, but the reality of the current situation is that a very vocal minority are hyping the concept, but the majority are rather lukewarm to it. If online consoles were the must have killer app that people make them out to be, then the Dreamcast should have done a lot better. The XBox should be overtaking the PS2, not losing to the Cube in Japan, and fighting on fairly even footing across the rest of the world. If online console gaming is such a killer app, then XBox live subscriptions should be through the roof.
A good online system is definitely a benefit to a console. Currently, in the console market online gaming sells, but it's not the sort of issue that makes or breaks a deal yet. The market for online consoles is definitely improving, and growing and one day a strong online function will be a requirement for a console, but given the current numbers that day hasn't occured yet.
Er... Maybe I'm misremembering release dates, but I'm pretty certain there were three games that predated Half Life which did at least as good a job of level design combined with a story driven game in an FPS. Half Life was simply the first that achieved a certain level of popularity... The Thief, System Shock and Marathon(including Pathways into Darkness, if you want to get nitpicky) series deserve that honor more so than Half Life, assuming I'm remembering correctly that they all predated Half Life. I'm certain at least Marathon did.
Many many thanks for posting that link... I'd been needing to track down old lego manuals for some old sets that had been pulled out of storage, and hadn't gotten around to it. This should make things go quicker.
Not exactly from scratch, but the game that's the closest I can think of to a 'fair shot' for all of the competitors would be Soul Calibur II. Originally for arcade hardware, thus not originally designed around any of the home consoles in particular. Taking a look at SC2 on a console in relation to other games on the same console, it certainly looks like they put a strong effort into tweaking the game to the utmost for all the consoles.
And in the end, the PS2 version does notably lag behind the Gamecube and Xbox versions, which are graphically pretty damn similar, though the Xbox holds has the nice addition of multiple channel sound for those with a good audio setup...
Shoot, for a video game specific comparison, just because the Saturn was hard to program for with a lot of parallel processors, didn't mean it would be more powerful than things that came out much later than it...
Er, you do realize that both the GameCube and Xbox have pretty decent support for progressive scan(and there's even fledgling support on the PS2 with only recent models, I believe...). Shoot, the Xbox can even do some of the higher resolutions provided on HD ready sets... So, 60 FPS does matter, assuming you're going progressive scan... (and it does make a notable difference)
Well, Finding Nemo(or, the begining of it at any rate), was something rather dark for a kids movie. Yes, all the classic fairy tales were originally rather gruesome, but given what is generally produced for and considered proper for kids these days, I was rather surprised...
That said, a really good film for kids, entertaining enough to be worth a watch by adults(doubly so if you happen to be a computer generated animation nut).
Comedy, personality and interactivity?
Well, it is open to debate, and not everyone will agree, but I'm certain there's a healthy population that would say No One Lives Forever(both one and two) could fit that bill. And considering they can pump out a franchise, with a two game series plus one prequel/sidestory in less time than it takes to make DNF, even if you don't like the NOLF's quite as much, you've still got three of them. ^_-
Well, fortunately the orcs are free from being the victims in the post-censoring version of Vice City. When Rockstar first decided to change the scene, the orcs were a strong first candidate. "Nobody would care if we changed the Haitians to Orcs, it's so simple!"
However, upon second thought they realized that this didn't mesh well with the theme and placement of the game. Realizing that they'd exhausted most of the other stereotyped Florida residents(Cubans, Haitians, etc.), they were forced to play there one remaining trump.
In the new reworked scene, the mission is changed from "Kill all Haitians" to "Kill all octogenarians." A crowd of elderly, wielding false teeth and walkers commence an assault upon the protagonist. It is rumored that a new vehicle, the electric wheelchair, has been added to the game.
It can be a question of degree...
Just because one game spends too long in cutscenes for a particular person's tastes, doesn't necessarily mean they only want to play games with minimal/no plot. There are plot heavy games out there that go heavy handed with the application of cut scenes. Shoot, these days there a few games where it would be possible to play through a game to the end with more time spent in cutscene than in interactive gameplay. On the other hand, there are plot heavy games that make minimal use of cutscenes and still are very tied to their plot.
To sum it up, just because a person doesn't like a game that is heavy on the cut scenes doesn't mean they don't want a plot heavy game. Silicon Knights(developers working on the MGS1 cube remake) are a good example of this. Their Eternal Darkness is a great example of a very plot driven game that didn't rely on frequently occuring or lengthy cut scenes...
First half is good, second half(after the raid on the Hellsing headquarters) goes downhill IMO... That also happens to be the point in time when the animators stopped following the original comic... Character designs and plot from there on out I find better in the comic, which is actually slated for a US release...
Though, as far as the actual anime went, the animation quality was pretty good(particularly in the first few episodes), but it was the music that really made it work in my opinion.
Er... Isn't the last statement there a little broad considering the example you gave...
From the FreeCraft/WarCraft II fiasco, I would think the lesson would be that companies are willing to go after open source projects that try to be direct clones of existing games. There's a big difference between creating a game in the same genre, and creating a game that is supposed to be a clone(down to importing art files) from an existing game.
While the attitude of the companies is rather short sighted, I'm not entirely certain it is a bad thing in some respects... Work on new games, rather than simply cloning classics, seems like a more productive venture to me... Though, I admit, there are a few old classics I'd like to see recreated that are unlikely to be revisited by the original creators...
Well, there are exceptions to the 'scared of assembler' rule. It does vary by the individual program though.
The school I went to put me through two types of assembly, because it was a 'general' CS program, not in spite of that fact. The program had a very academic(as opposed to 'practical' slant). The requirement were structured for a combination of breadth, and understanding underlying concepts. Thus, assembly itself was a subject(typically x86), and there was a hardware course on microcontrollers. Wire up and program a simple z80 system...
That said, my school was(from what I heard of other programs) the exception to the rule...
Just a quick bit of info, that little pirate is the logo of all the various Jump magazines... So, not surprising that it's there, and it has nothing to do with FF 12.
Reading the article at the Register... it sounds like they're blowing things out of proportion. The quote from Jobs that they focus on is: "We would like to break even/make a little bit of money but it's not a money maker."
While this could mean they are taking a permanent loss, it could also mean it is a slow profit that hasn't quite surpassed the initial one time investment portions of setting up iTunes... Or, it could even mean that they do break even or make a very small profit, but the profit is so small that in the large picture of the companies profits it comparatively makes no money...
I'd want to see some actual numbers and the real math before coming to any conclusions... The article simply jumps from the quote that iTunes isn't "a money maker" and enters areas of rampant speculation, leaning a little in the tinfoil hat direction.
Well, I know from people who can speak the languages, that there is a real significant difference between Quebecois French, and 'true' French. Such a big difference that many people raised speaking one of them cannot understand the other. In other words, dialects that vary enough they border on being different languages in some senses...
Now, these differences are a combination of pronunciation, slang, and legitimate vocabulary. My question is, are the two dialects, in their written forms, similar enough to get by with a single French translation for a video game? If not, then I really see the silly language laws biting them on the ass in Quebec, since their market is a tad small to justify a translation, and 'true' French translations possibly not being entirely 'legible...'
Anyone here know enough about the two dialects to comment on the differences between them, and whether a single translation would suffice?