I think the problems lies in the the fact that to a large majority of the population, "music" is nothing more than the stuff that comes out of the radio when you turn it on. They aren't listening to subtleties and turns of phrase that show true creativity. The fact that those subtleties are what possibly CAUSE them to like a given song is a non-factor in their appreciation for it. They know what they like, and there's nothing wrong with that, of course. But if they even understood the concept of Auto-Tune, they would probably not understand why it might give some music aficionados pause.
I do agree with several other posters that its sad to me that many "artists" who might otherwise not have the talent to produce this on their own will use it as a crutch, but as has been pointed it, it isn't like that hasn't happened before with other technologies.
This argument gets old. I was a trained musician (years, upon years, upon years of piano and trumpet lessons and playing). Yes, it is immensely enjoyable to play a real instrument. So is Guitar Hero. Playing a real instrument and playing Guitar Hero are not mutually exclusive. One is a hobby/pastime/your personal artistic outlet/way of life/whatever - the other is a fun game. Especially with a crowd of people. With GH, everyone can have a turn. With real guitar, most people stand around and watch one person do it.
Not knocking real guitar playing (at all - I have a dusty acoustic in the corner of my living room that is begging me to learn how to play it), but they serve different purposes, and as I said, are not mutually exclusive.
I still can't believe that we're even debating if it's just a Vista rebrand/service pack. It looks, feel, and operates almost exactly LIKE Vista, in nearly every way. Yes, there are some changes, some of them even approach fundamental, but even those only affect one specific bit of OS behavior. By and large, it feels EXACTLY like a service pack for Vista.
Not trying to fan the flames of fanboyism, but I bought it on release day for PS3 and don't remember having a single issue with it. I know there were some freezing/lockup issues, which I fortunately never had. Game looked and played great.
Too bad Saints Row 2 is the game that GTA IV *should* have been.:)
And seriously, who here in/. does _not_ know what it is.
*raises hand*
Some of us don't have time to learn EVERYTHING, since we do go outside every once in a while. That's that bright place between your folks' basement and the D&D store, btw.
I can fit more than a whole season of Dora on a single disk and keep the little one quiet on long trips
Careful, statements like that will get you ragged on in here about how you're a horrible parent (by people who have never even touched a member of the opposite sex, let alone had kids of their own), and you should be taking your child outside to play - while you're in the car on long trips.;-)
Linux can run on a whole lot more computers than Windows 7 ever will.
Fixed that for you. Let's note that important difference, whether we like the reality or not. (source)
And I can tell you that yes, drivers are an issue, even today, hence why a 32-bit version. Besides, do you really think that MS is going to miss an opportunity to get it onto even ONE more computer?
It's a shame, since I'm also left waiting for Crysis Warhead and Dead Space. I could purchase the X360 or PS3 versions, but I know they won't be as fun or look as nice so I generally only purchase console games when they are exclusive to consoles.
I have Dead Space for PS3, and I fail to see how it wouldn't be "as fun", unless you have a small TV or something. It's the same game, other than using a gamepad to play it, which actually works quite well for this game. If you're a diehard kb+mouse player, I suppose I can't help you, though. I thought it pretty stellar on PS3. As for looks as nice, I dunno - looks pretty sweet on 40 inches at 1080p.
Before someone brings up the tired PC vs. console argument, they both have strengths. I played Crysis: Warhead on PC. It was a lot of fun. I played Dead Space on the PS3, and it was also a lot of fun.
You are clearly not from the US, where it's okay for us to buy guns at Wal-Mart, but OMG BOOBIES HIDE TEH CHILDERN!!!!;-)
Note that even as a lefty-moderate, I actually don't see anything wrong with guns. I do love me some shootin', and properly handled and locked up, they're no more dangerous than a hammer or any other object that could be used to kill someone.
This is essentially what I do (though I admit I've been lax over the last 6 months or so - should really get caught up). For me, it isn't so much about being "green" - I just hate having to store all that paper crap. I receive e-mail reminders to pay my bill, and I print a PDF page as the receipt, and (when I remember) I download and save the actual PDF bill along with the receipt. With proper backups (something else I've been lax on lately... hmmm), I should be good to go. Done and done.
I've had essentially the exact experience as you. All around (now that the library has finally started picking up some steam), it's an excellent console. I was an original Xbox owner, only console I've ever owned. Got the PS3 as a Blu-ray player, and found out quite accidentally about its strengths as a media center console (hint: it's amazing). Add to that the library of games has finally gotten interesting (I'll admit it was a wasteland for the first year), and I'm pretty pleased with it.
Unfortunately, as we all know, you can't say anything positive about a console without the owners of one of the OTHER brands taking some weird personal offense, regardless of the brand, so I expect to get modded into last week.:)
bout the only thing that crossed my mind a few times was what KOTOR2 would look like with current generation graphics on the level of Fallout 3 but with more style.
You're in luck - it's called Mass Effect.;-)
Re:Someone actually listens to NPR?
on
Penny Arcade On NPR
·
· Score: 1, Funny
I'm amazed you got modded at all, you AC fuckwad. You obviously struck a chord with some other annoying halfwit in here. I'm trembling at your anonymous threats! I'm also glad that you hate my choices in music, because I don't listen to your friend's (singular) shitty garage band that no one has ever heard of or ever should.
I'd explain at how my life doesn't resemble at all what you seem think it does, but you're obviously a cowardly little shitbag whose mother didn't love them enough, so I'll leave it at the little bit that I already did.
Re:Someone actually listens to NPR?
on
Penny Arcade On NPR
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
It's funny, I used to disdain NPR. The image of tatty-clothes-wearing hippies running a radio station always kind of turned me off. Perhaps not surprisingly, as I've gotten older, I find I listen to them almost exclusively. I can't stand regular for-profit radio anymore. It's all the same, a constant noise barrage littered with commercials and moronic DJ's. It's not that I don't like the music (although I avoid most bubblegum pop), my iPod is wide and varied (Metallica to Rammstein to Sigur Ros to Perfume Tree to Beethoven). But I find something very refined about NPR, and find all that they do well-thought and well-presented. Hell, I've even started listening to A Prairie Home Companion. Click and Clack are my weekend appointment, however, I try not to miss a show if I can help it.
I agree; sadly, I saw the movie YEARS after I read the book, so that's absolutely true - not only did I already know the character would go nuts, but fercrissakes, it's JACK NICHOLSON!
It's a beautifully (in the cinematic sense, maybe blood pouring down a hallway isn't technically "beautiful") shot movie that captures the feeling of "cabin fever" that the author intended, IMO. It's just based on a completely mediocre book using a totally miscast, er, cast. It didn't help that can't STAND Shelley Duvall - what a shrieking shrew. Go eat a cheeseburger for god's sake, you hop-headed drug-addled dope fiend. (Shelley Duvall, not you;-) )
As I've said in another post, I'm not a comic fan. That said, the appeal for me in any comic-based narrative (the comics themselves, a movie, a TV show), is the character's personal story and circumstance as to how they got to where they are, and how it affects what they do in the here and now. I would suspect that for most comic fans, that's probably true as well. Maybe I should become one.:)
That's precisely what attracted me to The Watchmen... Each of the characters has a pretty interesting backstory, and the pleasure is in watching it unfold to get you to the point where they become a "team". I am honestly not interested in the "BIF POW SOCK BAM OOF!" part of comics. I like me some action like the next person, but without the good narrative to back it up, then they ARE precisely as you describe - interchangeable. I find myself FAR more interested in the NON-power superheros - Batman, Iron Man, etc. The regular Joe who decides to take on evil with his own bare hands. I can honestly say I don't give a shit about Spiderman, Superman, etc. I think it's because I feel that it's forced the creators to, well, be creative in how they adapt themselves to become more than your average man, more than "TEH GAMMA RAYS GAEV HIM SUPARPOWERS LULZ!1!11!"
I'm going to stop talking about superheroes now, because not being a comic fan, and I'm on the border of really starting to show my ignorance.;-)
Well, the argument is whether a faithful representation can be made, yes. I've read The Shining. I *was* a big Stephen King fan, years and years ago in my youth. I *am* a big Kubrick fan. I dislike both the book and the movie. But I would say that the movie, while obviously and noticeably different, didn't hack the story into snack-sized chunks so digestible by today's audiences with the TV-induced attention spans of gnats, like most movies do that are adapted from novels these days. In fact, that could never be said about Kubrick; his movies are methodical and precise, when I'm being kind. Plodding and ponderous when I'm not - I'm looking at you, Barry Lyndon (the one Kubrick film I don't need to see again). I'm continually surprised to hear that King didn't like Kubrick's adaptation; I thought he did a remarkable job in capturing and reinterpreting the novel, as you accurately describe a director's job to be.
But this strays from the point. Of course I don't want a word-for-word, page-by-page regurgitation of a novel. But I also want a movie to at least resemble the novel that I've read; to do otherwise is misrepresentation. And movie studios, knowing this, very often create boilerplate contracts with authors that basically allow them to do this; I'm assuming mostly because they KNOW what's involved in faithfully representing a book, and for the most part they are incapable of doing that. The contract allows them to hack things to pieces, slap a high-paid actor's name on it, and call it "art".
To struggle to keep this on topic (which is often a task for me), I see this in no more prevalent situation than the comic book realm. I think that most comic creators don't have the kind of clout a big-name author does, and as such have even less power to protect their interest. Stan Lee is maybe the exception, and I think that his stories seem to have done well, for the most part. I should also state that am no comic fan; I can't tell you the backstory of any "superhero" besides maybe Spiderman and Superman. But I did read the Watchmen, a few times. And I can say that I can't conceive of a way that this movie will be anything other than a meandering mess, given the characters involved in the book and the short time in which to tell ALL their stories, plus their conjoined story(ies). I'd be happy to be proved wrong, however.
Slashdot Mirror
replace "problem" with "issue". Better? We're having a discussion here, not finger-pointing (at least that wasn't my intention).
Don't get yourself all worked up over it, it isn't worth it.
I think the problems lies in the the fact that to a large majority of the population, "music" is nothing more than the stuff that comes out of the radio when you turn it on. They aren't listening to subtleties and turns of phrase that show true creativity. The fact that those subtleties are what possibly CAUSE them to like a given song is a non-factor in their appreciation for it. They know what they like, and there's nothing wrong with that, of course. But if they even understood the concept of Auto-Tune, they would probably not understand why it might give some music aficionados pause.
I do agree with several other posters that its sad to me that many "artists" who might otherwise not have the talent to produce this on their own will use it as a crutch, but as has been pointed it, it isn't like that hasn't happened before with other technologies.
This argument gets old. I was a trained musician (years, upon years, upon years of piano and trumpet lessons and playing). Yes, it is immensely enjoyable to play a real instrument. So is Guitar Hero. Playing a real instrument and playing Guitar Hero are not mutually exclusive. One is a hobby/pastime/your personal artistic outlet/way of life/whatever - the other is a fun game. Especially with a crowd of people. With GH, everyone can have a turn. With real guitar, most people stand around and watch one person do it.
Not knocking real guitar playing (at all - I have a dusty acoustic in the corner of my living room that is begging me to learn how to play it), but they serve different purposes, and as I said, are not mutually exclusive.
I still can't believe that we're even debating if it's just a Vista rebrand/service pack. It looks, feel, and operates almost exactly LIKE Vista, in nearly every way. Yes, there are some changes, some of them even approach fundamental, but even those only affect one specific bit of OS behavior. By and large, it feels EXACTLY like a service pack for Vista.
Not trying to fan the flames of fanboyism, but I bought it on release day for PS3 and don't remember having a single issue with it. I know there were some freezing/lockup issues, which I fortunately never had. Game looked and played great.
:)
Too bad Saints Row 2 is the game that GTA IV *should* have been.
*raises hand*
Some of us don't have time to learn EVERYTHING, since we do go outside every once in a while. That's that bright place between your folks' basement and the D&D store, btw.
Pure awesome.
Well, the self-destruct feature is easy, I already have one on my Crackberry. I just open an HTML e-mail. BOOM.
It was easy, you just had a special seat attached way back on the tip of the brontosaurus' tail...
Wait, now I sound like a Creationist.
Careful, statements like that will get you ragged on in here about how you're a horrible parent (by people who have never even touched a member of the opposite sex, let alone had kids of their own), and you should be taking your child outside to play - while you're in the car on long trips. ;-)
Fixed that for you. Let's note that important difference, whether we like the reality or not. (source)
And I can tell you that yes, drivers are an issue, even today, hence why a 32-bit version. Besides, do you really think that MS is going to miss an opportunity to get it onto even ONE more computer?
I have Dead Space for PS3, and I fail to see how it wouldn't be "as fun", unless you have a small TV or something. It's the same game, other than using a gamepad to play it, which actually works quite well for this game. If you're a diehard kb+mouse player, I suppose I can't help you, though. I thought it pretty stellar on PS3. As for looks as nice, I dunno - looks pretty sweet on 40 inches at 1080p.
Before someone brings up the tired PC vs. console argument, they both have strengths. I played Crysis: Warhead on PC. It was a lot of fun. I played Dead Space on the PS3, and it was also a lot of fun.
Wow, the uber-libs really came out in force on this one. :)
But if I were to try and beat someone to death, I'd sure pick a hammer over a gun. :-P
You are clearly not from the US, where it's okay for us to buy guns at Wal-Mart, but OMG BOOBIES HIDE TEH CHILDERN!!!! ;-)
Note that even as a lefty-moderate, I actually don't see anything wrong with guns. I do love me some shootin', and properly handled and locked up, they're no more dangerous than a hammer or any other object that could be used to kill someone.
This is essentially what I do (though I admit I've been lax over the last 6 months or so - should really get caught up). For me, it isn't so much about being "green" - I just hate having to store all that paper crap. I receive e-mail reminders to pay my bill, and I print a PDF page as the receipt, and (when I remember) I download and save the actual PDF bill along with the receipt. With proper backups (something else I've been lax on lately... hmmm), I should be good to go. Done and done.
I've had essentially the exact experience as you. All around (now that the library has finally started picking up some steam), it's an excellent console. I was an original Xbox owner, only console I've ever owned. Got the PS3 as a Blu-ray player, and found out quite accidentally about its strengths as a media center console (hint: it's amazing). Add to that the library of games has finally gotten interesting (I'll admit it was a wasteland for the first year), and I'm pretty pleased with it.
:)
Unfortunately, as we all know, you can't say anything positive about a console without the owners of one of the OTHER brands taking some weird personal offense, regardless of the brand, so I expect to get modded into last week.
Jerks.
You're in luck - it's called Mass Effect. ;-)
I'm amazed you got modded at all, you AC fuckwad. You obviously struck a chord with some other annoying halfwit in here. I'm trembling at your anonymous threats! I'm also glad that you hate my choices in music, because I don't listen to your friend's (singular) shitty garage band that no one has ever heard of or ever should.
I'd explain at how my life doesn't resemble at all what you seem think it does, but you're obviously a cowardly little shitbag whose mother didn't love them enough, so I'll leave it at the little bit that I already did.
It's funny, I used to disdain NPR. The image of tatty-clothes-wearing hippies running a radio station always kind of turned me off. Perhaps not surprisingly, as I've gotten older, I find I listen to them almost exclusively. I can't stand regular for-profit radio anymore. It's all the same, a constant noise barrage littered with commercials and moronic DJ's. It's not that I don't like the music (although I avoid most bubblegum pop), my iPod is wide and varied (Metallica to Rammstein to Sigur Ros to Perfume Tree to Beethoven). But I find something very refined about NPR, and find all that they do well-thought and well-presented. Hell, I've even started listening to A Prairie Home Companion. Click and Clack are my weekend appointment, however, I try not to miss a show if I can help it.
I agree; sadly, I saw the movie YEARS after I read the book, so that's absolutely true - not only did I already know the character would go nuts, but fercrissakes, it's JACK NICHOLSON!
;-) )
It's a beautifully (in the cinematic sense, maybe blood pouring down a hallway isn't technically "beautiful") shot movie that captures the feeling of "cabin fever" that the author intended, IMO. It's just based on a completely mediocre book using a totally miscast, er, cast. It didn't help that can't STAND Shelley Duvall - what a shrieking shrew. Go eat a cheeseburger for god's sake, you hop-headed drug-addled dope fiend. (Shelley Duvall, not you
You owe me a new monitor and keyboard.
As I've said in another post, I'm not a comic fan. That said, the appeal for me in any comic-based narrative (the comics themselves, a movie, a TV show), is the character's personal story and circumstance as to how they got to where they are, and how it affects what they do in the here and now. I would suspect that for most comic fans, that's probably true as well. Maybe I should become one. :)
;-)
That's precisely what attracted me to The Watchmen... Each of the characters has a pretty interesting backstory, and the pleasure is in watching it unfold to get you to the point where they become a "team". I am honestly not interested in the "BIF POW SOCK BAM OOF!" part of comics. I like me some action like the next person, but without the good narrative to back it up, then they ARE precisely as you describe - interchangeable. I find myself FAR more interested in the NON-power superheros - Batman, Iron Man, etc. The regular Joe who decides to take on evil with his own bare hands. I can honestly say I don't give a shit about Spiderman, Superman, etc. I think it's because I feel that it's forced the creators to, well, be creative in how they adapt themselves to become more than your average man, more than "TEH GAMMA RAYS GAEV HIM SUPARPOWERS LULZ!1!11!"
I'm going to stop talking about superheroes now, because not being a comic fan, and I'm on the border of really starting to show my ignorance.
Well, the argument is whether a faithful representation can be made, yes. I've read The Shining. I *was* a big Stephen King fan, years and years ago in my youth. I *am* a big Kubrick fan. I dislike both the book and the movie. But I would say that the movie, while obviously and noticeably different, didn't hack the story into snack-sized chunks so digestible by today's audiences with the TV-induced attention spans of gnats, like most movies do that are adapted from novels these days. In fact, that could never be said about Kubrick; his movies are methodical and precise, when I'm being kind. Plodding and ponderous when I'm not - I'm looking at you, Barry Lyndon (the one Kubrick film I don't need to see again). I'm continually surprised to hear that King didn't like Kubrick's adaptation; I thought he did a remarkable job in capturing and reinterpreting the novel, as you accurately describe a director's job to be.
But this strays from the point. Of course I don't want a word-for-word, page-by-page regurgitation of a novel. But I also want a movie to at least resemble the novel that I've read; to do otherwise is misrepresentation. And movie studios, knowing this, very often create boilerplate contracts with authors that basically allow them to do this; I'm assuming mostly because they KNOW what's involved in faithfully representing a book, and for the most part they are incapable of doing that. The contract allows them to hack things to pieces, slap a high-paid actor's name on it, and call it "art".
To struggle to keep this on topic (which is often a task for me), I see this in no more prevalent situation than the comic book realm. I think that most comic creators don't have the kind of clout a big-name author does, and as such have even less power to protect their interest. Stan Lee is maybe the exception, and I think that his stories seem to have done well, for the most part. I should also state that am no comic fan; I can't tell you the backstory of any "superhero" besides maybe Spiderman and Superman. But I did read the Watchmen, a few times. And I can say that I can't conceive of a way that this movie will be anything other than a meandering mess, given the characters involved in the book and the short time in which to tell ALL their stories, plus their conjoined story(ies). I'd be happy to be proved wrong, however.