I received most of my magazines last week with HL2 reviews and read the online HL2 reviews, and all of them noted that their review of Half Life 2 was done in house at Valve. Only one stated that the Steam distribution might change their review.
Reviewing in house sounded fishy to me anyway, because the installation process should be - and usually is - reviewed as part of the game. How many times have you read a review that made of the game because it didn't review properly, or chastised a MMORPG because the reviewer couldn't log on the game on the first day? Shouldn't the "greatest PC game of all time" be held to the same technical standards as the $9.99 budget title "Beach Babes College Tournament Summer Tennis Volleyball"?
I'm disappointed that apparently none of the major gaming media sites and magazines bothered to wait for technical "final code" on HL2, although for most final code is their standing policy. Instead of waiting for truly final code - be it distributed through Steam or out of the box - the media sites jumped the gun.
The gaming media prematuraly ejacualted their reviews on this one. I'm not saying that HL2 isn't the greatest game in the world - I haven't played it yet because I have the box version. But if that $19.99 budget title or a MMORPG like World War II Online gets points deducted for faulty installation, so should Half Life 2. It's only fair. This just shows who has whom by the balls.
Halo hype was a college-dorm-carpet-roots movement
on
Halo 2 Feb 9th Speculation
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
OMF, you're wrong about Halo being hyped merely because it was on the Xbox. I helped manage an EB when the Xbox and Halo were released. At first, sure, there was this sense of Xbox zeitgeist. But Halo - and the Xbox - did so well because it was the first time many people had a PC LAN experience without having a PC or a LAN party. If the "hype" had nothing to do with the game, than Oddworld would have done much better. Microsoft was pushing it as much as they were Halo, if not more. The mascot for the XBox has become Master Chief, but if you look at the original marketing, it was the Oddworld guy. In fact, the only hype Halo had was bad hype. Nearly all the magazines trashed what they'd seen of Halo the E3 before its release and complained of poor framerates and unresponsive controls. The press fully expected Halo to bomb, and Microsoft adjusted their campaign accordingly. That it did so well surprised everyone but Bungie.
And might I add that this is not one-sided. I love all games, from all systems. I am no Xbox Patriot. Yet, you have no f***ing idea how many times I heard from the Sony rep and PS2 patriots how great Killzone was going to be, how it was going to be the "Halo-Killer." Well, if you want an example of not living up to the hype, there it is. If you wanted to rant against video game hype, why not examine one where the game wasn't good? Like Enter the Matrix, or Driver 3? Halo 1 and 2 aren't such great case studies because they're actually great games.
Halo 2 might have hype, but the original Halo hype was entirely generated from the ground up, by college guys who just spend an entire weekend without sleep playing blood gulch and capture the flag. It was hyped by people, not a marketing machine.
That certainly can't be said of Halo 2, I'll admit. But I find that the people who don't appreciate the original Halo here on slashdot tend to be PC people who've had some experience with LAN parties. Remember your first time, in Unreal with the head shot, or Doom with the shotgun blast, or if you're oldskool enough, ROTT with the boost jump? Well, that was Halo for most people. Halo didn't do it first, but it certainly brought to more people than most PC games have ever done and it deserves something for that.
So step down from the high horse. Advertising for good games like Halo only helps us OMF. Every new person that enjoys a good, solid video game like Halo 2 is one more wallet for the industry to pull money from, and a better chance of all of us getting a great game in the future. Advertising and hyping bad games is what you should really be ranting about, and there's plenty to choose from there.
Naw I'm no fancy shmancy programmer from tha Valley like my colleague here -BAKCKAAAK- but it seems a trite odd that this Xbax 2 won't play Xbax 1 games because has something called a PahwaPC chip. Yet, -BAKCAAK- it can play PC games fahne as the day is braght? Now being the simple country chicken that I am, I may not know what an Xbax even is. But I humbly submit that something smells in the kitchen and it ain't momma's cooking. The Inquiahah is not exactly a shahnin example of what they call in the big city "journalistic intagratah."
First: anyone who's read Malcolm Gladwell's _Tipping Point_ is familiar with what he refers to as human networking hubs. These people process and relay information to their friends and family and are often responsible for purchasing decisions not only for themselves but upwards 10-20 families.
I would venture to say that most of the people BB is actively trying to alienate are those type of people. Yes, those people will go to great lengths to manipulate rebates and pricematches and loss leaders to walk away from the store having spent as little money as possible. But these human deal hubs don't just pass on information about what BB would consider rip-off deals, they also pass on information about other products in the store.
I think what BB is really experiencing is what Wired covered in their last issue: brands mean piss in the information age. How much are these human hubs, these financial "tipping points" financially responsible for is hard to gauge, but I imagine BB will soon find out.
Secondly, what BB is experiencing is merely karmic retribution. What are rebates but a similar way to manipulate customers into paying more? It is boldly advertising one price and requiring a substantial amount of work to obtain. That rebates have pretty much maintained legality is beyond me. BB could stop offering rebates. They could stop pricematching. They could simply offer a product at a fair price and that be the end of it. But they don't, because these systems inherently take advantage of the consumer. Wal-mart, for all their sprawling corporate evil, are rarely on the deals sites because the price they advertise is the price you pay. So what's up BB's ass?
Well, the internet has empowered individuals to turn the tables on corporations like BB and take advantage of these manipulative systems on wide enough scale that it obviously causes BB execs to lose sleep and break par on the golf course.
I am a FWer, and I have walked out of BB with some pretty good deals. But I've used BB to buy dvds on opening day, I've bought several hundreds of dollars worth of electronics without finnegaling, and I've refrerred people to BB many times over. In fact, I planned to go buy Halo 2 from them tomorrow. Now, I'll be going somewhere else. I'll be visiting BB again, but when I do it will cost BB, and it will be paid for with untrackable cash.
Microsoft announced earlier this morning that the Xbox2 would be cartridge based. "This will allow um, er, better graphics and sound for the Xbox2, yes that's it," Allard was quoted as saying.
I'm not sure I'd call the N64 and Gamecube "trumps" persay. You'd think, as well, that with a year's delay they'd come up with more and better launch titles than Pilotwings 64 and Luigi's Mansion. Maybe they're just slow?
I think you're confusing "Not caring" with "sitting back and see what the competition comes out with."
I'm not sure you can sue the ISP for merely refusing service. I haven't worked in IT, but I've worked in the management of retail for several years, and it's a well established fact that stores can refuse service to nearly anyone they choose. Of course, if it's based on certain predicating factors (like race or gender) the issue becomes much more complicated. Is that not true for an ISP? And it would seem that their TOS would only reinforce this.
Say you're the ISP in this situation. It makes more sense to take it down than it does to leave it up. What do you gain for just leaving it up after receiving a dispute? Nothing, really. What do you have to lose if you continue host something that is truly under copyright? A lot more. The potential for more work is there by leaving it up than there is for merely taking it down.
Now, I'm not saying this is right. But there has to be a better incentive than "the good of all humanity" to protect fair use.
I've been following the XBL rhetoric since the beginning, and I remember them being ambiguous enough with the fee structure that it was obvious - to me anyway - that they planned to charge for content. Even when True Fantasy Live wasn't a fantasy, everyone knew that you'd pay to play. When Galaxies was rumored to be coming the Xbox, the same was also true. So where this "one fee" myth cropped up I'm not exactly sure. Maybe Microsoft's marketing was too effective?
I can see the Sims being "cool," but Bloodrayne? Who even played it? And of those who played it, who liked it enough to think, "That'd be a cool movie and/or political statement on MTV." There's a second one coming out (maybe?) and a movie, all to the tune of no one whistling. This smells of money from a marketer's ass to me.
Halo 2 better be the second coming of your favorite messianic figure then, otherwise largest videogame presell number ever might turn into largest videogame mob ever. What's working against MS and bungie is that Halo has a mythic, nostalgic quality that few games ever attain. If Halo 2 ends up being a Phantom Menace, its ramifications could even hurt sales of Xbox2. There's a lot more to lose here than there is to gain.
Here's hoping. I have my copy preordered (thanks to a ridiculously generous Blockbuster trade in offer).
So how can he be a hardcore game visionary at Microsoft but not at IL?
Easy. With the Xbox, Bachus didn't need a job. He already had a very secure position within MS. He risked more by pushing the Xbox within MS than if he'd just shut up and continued to work on DirectX. I can't say why he went with Infinium exactly, but he was unemployed. Before that, he was part of the rather placid and failed CEG. Now, Infinium pretty much has him doing their dirty work. Short of some E3 evangelism and threats of lawsuits, we haven't seen much from Kevin Bachus-Infinium.
Here's a swell experiment if you're bored: go back and read articles with Bachus about the Xbox pre-launch. Then read through the press and interviews he's done while at Infinium, and tell me which one is the excited Bachus and which one is the I'm-Glad-I'm-Getting-Paid-Bachus. Have fun.
Hey - I'm not saying they're charities. But if you look at the people in charge of the gaming divisions in each of those companies, they really are people who are gaming enthusiasts. I can't cite specific individuals at Sony just because I'm less aware, but the people in Microsoft who are convinced Gates to fund the Xbox are definitely these visionary-gamer-type-people (Allard, Blackley, and now people like Lobb).
Nintendo you probably shouldn't have included at all in your retort, as it's quite clear they have always had a very definitive vision for gaming.
In other words, these people play games. They have an idea for what games can do, their power and their influence. Are their parent companies out to make money? Hell yes. But contrast that to Infinium who - excepting one Microsoft refugee - have shown a complete disregard for all things gaming. They're clueless.
Just imagine if people told Linus, stop it, Minix is all we need.
Look. You're talking about gamers here. Gamers. These are guys (and a few girls) that drool over screenshots in magazines. They buy games before reviews come out. They have an innate enthusiasm for all things gamey. These are guys that - even after three or four duds - will still buy a game from a certain studio or developer. They'll pay upwards $30 for 4 new levels. In other words: you have to work to make gamers cynical.
And if anyone has worked at it, it's Infinium. Not only have they demonstrated a complete and utter lack of understanding when it comes to gamers and games, but they go as far as to sue gamers when they start saying bad things about them. And it's not that gamers were dead set against the Phantom. For example, this article clearly shows that people have wanted to believe in the Phantom, but Infinium has kept giving gamers reasons not to believe them.
I've seen nothing of Infinium that says, "We get to make money for making games? What a deal!" These are not artists here, BrookH. These aren't a bunch of hardcore gamers in a garage with a great vision. There is no art or design here. It's just the opposite. If there was any beachfront property left in Florida, Infinium would be busier buying that instead of making a video game console. Myths like "bigger sales than Hollywood" give the perception that gaming is the new dotcom. As far as I can tell, Infinium is just trying to get in while they can, or at least some property in Florida opens up.
Portal. IM. Searching. Now, music. They're just jumping on the bandwagon, albeit 2 years too late. They had a good idea once, and they let that walk away from them. Or, in more official terms, they IPOed.
Hmm, so let's see, who else has just recently IPOed...Ah yes, Google! webmail, browser....Hmm.
So I guess in 10 years, when my Sims CD is scratched due to normal wear and tear, EA will remain in existence as a company and provide me - free of charge - a replacement CD, whenever I ask?
Perhaps inadvertently, "The Sims" seemed to me as indictment of materialism.
Quite an intriguing statement, and you're probably right. But I think that Wright's design is open enough that, theoritically, your goal could be to have a happy sim in a small house with a limited number of objects. It could very well be done. Perhaps the game is designed not so much as an indictment but as a reflection. We think that happiness comes from material, so we obviously think that that's the way the Sims works. Maybe Sims 2 doesn't have to be that way. In Sims, you didn't have to either. It was certainly more difficult, but you could depend on other Sims for happiness instead of objects. Not at unlike a modern American society.
Besides, we're back to the whole sand house/doll house things. What kid do you know of spends their time building a shovel instead of a massive dump truck, or how many Barbies buy a reasonably priced used Ford escort instead of a corvette?
No, but only in the sense that every single slashdotter who reads your post has bought essentially the same movie 5 times over. I'd say that after paying for the same flick 4 or 5 times a little fair use is in order?
Just to piss you off more, here's some more delicious fair use "piracy"
I've watched a far share of Farscape and while the set design is excellent, I've never been as enamored as others obviously are. The plots seem, to me anyway, Babylon 5 level of complexity, and it's not a show anyone could really watch casually.
That said, I support Farscape because it's far better than the drivel that rules the rest of the television landscape. To support Farscape is to support a genre, one that is populated by personal favorites like Futurama and Firefly (which I both enjoy far more than Farscape).
Is it worth watching? Not especially, in my opinion - at least, if you don't have a Tivo or a Nielson box. Otherwise, macro it away.
Slashdot Mirror
I received most of my magazines last week with HL2 reviews and read the online HL2 reviews, and all of them noted that their review of Half Life 2 was done in house at Valve. Only one stated that the Steam distribution might change their review.
Reviewing in house sounded fishy to me anyway, because the installation process should be - and usually is - reviewed as part of the game. How many times have you read a review that made of the game because it didn't review properly, or chastised a MMORPG because the reviewer couldn't log on the game on the first day? Shouldn't the "greatest PC game of all time" be held to the same technical standards as the $9.99 budget title "Beach Babes College Tournament Summer Tennis Volleyball"?
I'm disappointed that apparently none of the major gaming media sites and magazines bothered to wait for technical "final code" on HL2, although for most final code is their standing policy. Instead of waiting for truly final code - be it distributed through Steam or out of the box - the media sites jumped the gun.
The gaming media prematuraly ejacualted their reviews on this one. I'm not saying that HL2 isn't the greatest game in the world - I haven't played it yet because I have the box version. But if that $19.99 budget title or a MMORPG like World War II Online gets points deducted for faulty installation, so should Half Life 2. It's only fair. This just shows who has whom by the balls.
OMF, you're wrong about Halo being hyped merely because it was on the Xbox. I helped manage an EB when the Xbox and Halo were released. At first, sure, there was this sense of Xbox zeitgeist. But Halo - and the Xbox - did so well because it was the first time many people had a PC LAN experience without having a PC or a LAN party. If the "hype" had nothing to do with the game, than Oddworld would have done much better. Microsoft was pushing it as much as they were Halo, if not more. The mascot for the XBox has become Master Chief, but if you look at the original marketing, it was the Oddworld guy. In fact, the only hype Halo had was bad hype. Nearly all the magazines trashed what they'd seen of Halo the E3 before its release and complained of poor framerates and unresponsive controls. The press fully expected Halo to bomb, and Microsoft adjusted their campaign accordingly. That it did so well surprised everyone but Bungie.
And might I add that this is not one-sided. I love all games, from all systems. I am no Xbox Patriot. Yet, you have no f***ing idea how many times I heard from the Sony rep and PS2 patriots how great Killzone was going to be, how it was going to be the "Halo-Killer." Well, if you want an example of not living up to the hype, there it is. If you wanted to rant against video game hype, why not examine one where the game wasn't good? Like Enter the Matrix, or Driver 3? Halo 1 and 2 aren't such great case studies because they're actually great games.
Halo 2 might have hype, but the original Halo hype was entirely generated from the ground up, by college guys who just spend an entire weekend without sleep playing blood gulch and capture the flag. It was hyped by people, not a marketing machine.
That certainly can't be said of Halo 2, I'll admit. But I find that the people who don't appreciate the original Halo here on slashdot tend to be PC people who've had some experience with LAN parties. Remember your first time, in Unreal with the head shot, or Doom with the shotgun blast, or if you're oldskool enough, ROTT with the boost jump? Well, that was Halo for most people. Halo didn't do it first, but it certainly brought to more people than most PC games have ever done and it deserves something for that.
So step down from the high horse. Advertising for good games like Halo only helps us OMF. Every new person that enjoys a good, solid video game like Halo 2 is one more wallet for the industry to pull money from, and a better chance of all of us getting a great game in the future. Advertising and hyping bad games is what you should really be ranting about, and there's plenty to choose from there.
Naw I'm no fancy shmancy programmer from tha Valley like my colleague here -BAKCKAAAK- but it seems a trite odd that this Xbax 2 won't play Xbax 1 games because has something called a PahwaPC chip. Yet, -BAKCAAK- it can play PC games fahne as the day is braght? Now being the simple country chicken that I am, I may not know what an Xbax even is. But I humbly submit that something smells in the kitchen and it ain't momma's cooking. The Inquiahah is not exactly a shahnin example of what they call in the big city "journalistic intagratah."
My case -BACAKAAA- rests your honah.
Two things.
First: anyone who's read Malcolm Gladwell's _Tipping Point_ is familiar with what he refers to as human networking hubs. These people process and relay information to their friends and family and are often responsible for purchasing decisions not only for themselves but upwards 10-20 families.
I would venture to say that most of the people BB is actively trying to alienate are those type of people. Yes, those people will go to great lengths to manipulate rebates and pricematches and loss leaders to walk away from the store having spent as little money as possible. But these human deal hubs don't just pass on information about what BB would consider rip-off deals, they also pass on information about other products in the store.
I think what BB is really experiencing is what Wired covered in their last issue: brands mean piss in the information age. How much are these human hubs, these financial "tipping points" financially responsible for is hard to gauge, but I imagine BB will soon find out.
Secondly, what BB is experiencing is merely karmic retribution. What are rebates but a similar way to manipulate customers into paying more? It is boldly advertising one price and requiring a substantial amount of work to obtain. That rebates have pretty much maintained legality is beyond me. BB could stop offering rebates. They could stop pricematching. They could simply offer a product at a fair price and that be the end of it. But they don't, because these systems inherently take advantage of the consumer. Wal-mart, for all their sprawling corporate evil, are rarely on the deals sites because the price they advertise is the price you pay. So what's up BB's ass?
Well, the internet has empowered individuals to turn the tables on corporations like BB and take advantage of these manipulative systems on wide enough scale that it obviously causes BB execs to lose sleep and break par on the golf course.
I am a FWer, and I have walked out of BB with some pretty good deals. But I've used BB to buy dvds on opening day, I've bought several hundreds of dollars worth of electronics without finnegaling, and I've refrerred people to BB many times over. In fact, I planned to go buy Halo 2 from them tomorrow. Now, I'll be going somewhere else. I'll be visiting BB again, but when I do it will cost BB, and it will be paid for with untrackable cash.
Way to go, Brad. Enjoy your golf.
This guy's just giving in to peer pressure.
Microsoft announced earlier this morning that the Xbox2 would be cartridge based. "This will allow um, er, better graphics and sound for the Xbox2, yes that's it," Allard was quoted as saying.
I'm not sure I'd call the N64 and Gamecube "trumps" persay. You'd think, as well, that with a year's delay they'd come up with more and better launch titles than Pilotwings 64 and Luigi's Mansion. Maybe they're just slow?
I think you're confusing "Not caring" with "sitting back and see what the competition comes out with."
I'm not sure you can sue the ISP for merely refusing service. I haven't worked in IT, but I've worked in the management of retail for several years, and it's a well established fact that stores can refuse service to nearly anyone they choose. Of course, if it's based on certain predicating factors (like race or gender) the issue becomes much more complicated. Is that not true for an ISP? And it would seem that their TOS would only reinforce this.
So maybe you're agreeing with me? I'm not sure.
Say you're the ISP in this situation. It makes more sense to take it down than it does to leave it up. What do you gain for just leaving it up after receiving a dispute? Nothing, really. What do you have to lose if you continue host something that is truly under copyright? A lot more. The potential for more work is there by leaving it up than there is for merely taking it down.
Now, I'm not saying this is right. But there has to be a better incentive than "the good of all humanity" to protect fair use.
I've been following the XBL rhetoric since the beginning, and I remember them being ambiguous enough with the fee structure that it was obvious - to me anyway - that they planned to charge for content. Even when True Fantasy Live wasn't a fantasy, everyone knew that you'd pay to play. When Galaxies was rumored to be coming the Xbox, the same was also true. So where this "one fee" myth cropped up I'm not exactly sure. Maybe Microsoft's marketing was too effective?
I can see the Sims being "cool," but Bloodrayne? Who even played it? And of those who played it, who liked it enough to think, "That'd be a cool movie and/or political statement on MTV." There's a second one coming out (maybe?) and a movie, all to the tune of no one whistling. This smells of money from a marketer's ass to me.
Halo 2 better be the second coming of your favorite messianic figure then, otherwise largest videogame presell number ever might turn into largest videogame mob ever. What's working against MS and bungie is that Halo has a mythic, nostalgic quality that few games ever attain. If Halo 2 ends up being a Phantom Menace, its ramifications could even hurt sales of Xbox2. There's a lot more to lose here than there is to gain.
Here's hoping. I have my copy preordered (thanks to a ridiculously generous Blockbuster trade in offer).
So the Xbox can run OSX. But can it run OSX running a Dreamcast emulator running an NES emulator?
Japanese Video Game Designers(Shrooms + Multiple Viewings of Yellow Submarine + Caramel)= Katamari Damacy
What the hell are those pandas doing anyway?
So how can he be a hardcore game visionary at Microsoft but not at IL?
Easy. With the Xbox, Bachus didn't need a job. He already had a very secure position within MS. He risked more by pushing the Xbox within MS than if he'd just shut up and continued to work on DirectX. I can't say why he went with Infinium exactly, but he was unemployed. Before that, he was part of the rather placid and failed CEG. Now, Infinium pretty much has him doing their dirty work. Short of some E3 evangelism and threats of lawsuits, we haven't seen much from Kevin Bachus-Infinium.
Here's a swell experiment if you're bored: go back and read articles with Bachus about the Xbox pre-launch. Then read through the press and interviews he's done while at Infinium, and tell me which one is the excited Bachus and which one is the I'm-Glad-I'm-Getting-Paid-Bachus. Have fun.
As opposed to Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo...
Hey - I'm not saying they're charities. But if you look at the people in charge of the gaming divisions in each of those companies, they really are people who are gaming enthusiasts. I can't cite specific individuals at Sony just because I'm less aware, but the people in Microsoft who are convinced Gates to fund the Xbox are definitely these visionary-gamer-type-people (Allard, Blackley, and now people like Lobb).
Nintendo you probably shouldn't have included at all in your retort, as it's quite clear they have always had a very definitive vision for gaming.
In other words, these people play games. They have an idea for what games can do, their power and their influence. Are their parent companies out to make money? Hell yes. But contrast that to Infinium who - excepting one Microsoft refugee - have shown a complete disregard for all things gaming. They're clueless.
Just imagine if people told Linus, stop it, Minix is all we need.
Look. You're talking about gamers here. Gamers. These are guys (and a few girls) that drool over screenshots in magazines. They buy games before reviews come out. They have an innate enthusiasm for all things gamey. These are guys that - even after three or four duds - will still buy a game from a certain studio or developer. They'll pay upwards $30 for 4 new levels. In other words: you have to work to make gamers cynical.
And if anyone has worked at it, it's Infinium. Not only have they demonstrated a complete and utter lack of understanding when it comes to gamers and games, but they go as far as to sue gamers when they start saying bad things about them. And it's not that gamers were dead set against the Phantom. For example, this article clearly shows that people have wanted to believe in the Phantom, but Infinium has kept giving gamers reasons not to believe them.
I've seen nothing of Infinium that says, "We get to make money for making games? What a deal!" These are not artists here, BrookH. These aren't a bunch of hardcore gamers in a garage with a great vision. There is no art or design here. It's just the opposite. If there was any beachfront property left in Florida, Infinium would be busier buying that instead of making a video game console. Myths like "bigger sales than Hollywood" give the perception that gaming is the new dotcom. As far as I can tell, Infinium is just trying to get in while they can, or at least some property in Florida opens up.
You're welcome to show me otherwise.
At first I thought you said, they got iPwned.
Damn. That would've made my post a helluva lot funnier. Sigh.
why?
Portal. IM. Searching. Now, music. They're just jumping on the bandwagon, albeit 2 years too late. They had a good idea once, and they let that walk away from them. Or, in more official terms, they IPOed.
Hmm, so let's see, who else has just recently IPOed...Ah yes, Google! webmail, browser....Hmm.
So I guess in 10 years, when my Sims CD is scratched due to normal wear and tear, EA will remain in existence as a company and provide me - free of charge - a replacement CD, whenever I ask?
Perhaps inadvertently, "The Sims" seemed to me as indictment of materialism.
Quite an intriguing statement, and you're probably right. But I think that Wright's design is open enough that, theoritically, your goal could be to have a happy sim in a small house with a limited number of objects. It could very well be done. Perhaps the game is designed not so much as an indictment but as a reflection. We think that happiness comes from material, so we obviously think that that's the way the Sims works. Maybe Sims 2 doesn't have to be that way. In Sims, you didn't have to either. It was certainly more difficult, but you could depend on other Sims for happiness instead of objects. Not at unlike a modern American society.
Besides, we're back to the whole sand house/doll house things. What kid do you know of spends their time building a shovel instead of a massive dump truck, or how many Barbies buy a reasonably priced used Ford escort instead of a corvette?
Is there no shame left?
No, but only in the sense that every single slashdotter who reads your post has bought essentially the same movie 5 times over. I'd say that after paying for the same flick 4 or 5 times a little fair use is in order?
Just to piss you off more, here's some more delicious fair use "piracy"
Right. Because original science fiction movies that aren't sequels, remakes, or Star Trek always do well at the theater.
I've watched a far share of Farscape and while the set design is excellent, I've never been as enamored as others obviously are. The plots seem, to me anyway, Babylon 5 level of complexity, and it's not a show anyone could really watch casually.
That said, I support Farscape because it's far better than the drivel that rules the rest of the television landscape. To support Farscape is to support a genre, one that is populated by personal favorites like Futurama and Firefly (which I both enjoy far more than Farscape).
Is it worth watching? Not especially, in my opinion - at least, if you don't have a Tivo or a Nielson box. Otherwise, macro it away.
TV would be good again.
pssss tv is good again (cf. arrested development)