It's quite possible that to some comedians, not being able to hear the reaction of their audience would be a distinct advantage. Just turn loop a laugh track mpeg while they're playing, pretend it's an audience, and they get an ego booster while their audience gets . . . never mind.
That note the article ends on . . . what makes anybody think the internet is either of those extremes? The thing about the internet is it makes distribution of information and goods relatively easy for anybody with a computer. That includes pirates and corporations. The interesting thing about the internet is that it seems to level the playing field for both (although corporations still have one distinct advantage; advertising).
The Getaway was a great game, and I'm pretty excited about the sequel. Hopefully the plotting, acting, etc., will be as good, or better, than the original. That being said, some of the so-called "realism" of the game was a little unnecessary, and actually detracted from the experience. Hopefully, they'll fix this in the second game.
First of all, there's the player's "mutant healing factor." I know medkits are unrealistic, but is magically healing whenever you lean against a wall any more realistic? If anything, I'd say it's more absurd, and less fun.
Being able to move and shoot at the same time would be good, and as another poster pointed out in here, auto-aim would be nice as well.
Perhaps taking the whole "multiple perspectives" thing to the next level will mean less linearity within the game. Who knows, maybe different characters will even have different attributes that help/hinder in certain levels. I sure hope so.
Alright, I admit the original show was good. Screw that, the original series was freakin' groundbreaking, and the earlier episodes even attempted to not toss the laws of physics out the window (for the first couple of seasons or so, there was no sound in space). Of course, due to its enormous popularity, more was inevitable.
But wait! As Star Trek broke new ground in Sci-Fi, the Sci-Fi that followed it continued to explore virgin territory. The fact that Science Fiction could have complex, three dimensional characters slowly became accepted by the mainstream. The aliens got less human, and more . . . well, alien. In much Sci-Fi, the laws of physics were far more carefully observed. While Star Trek improved on an old formula, later Science Fiction continued to improve, and left the original series behind.
And yet, there was more Star Trek to come. First the movies. Then The Next Generation. Then movies of that. Then Deep Space Nine. Then Voyage. Etc., etc. (Yes, I know I'm probably getting my chronology screwed up here. So sue me.) Where other Science Fiction had continued to improve on the old formula, the "new" Star Trek stuck mostly to what was becoming an rapidly obsolete way of looking at the universe. Essentially, the new Star Trek came to represent all the faults of the old, with none of the originality that redeemed the old. The new shows had flat characters, absurd "science" and technobabble, tired, recycled plots, and aliens that not only looked, but acted exactly like humans (I know some people believe that evolution of sentient life forms could take place only under very specific conditions, but come on people, isn't slapping pointy ears on a person and calling him alien taking this theory to its illogical extreme?).
My point is that Star Trek should have died a natural death, long ago. Unfortunately, like so much other popular Science Fiction, it was dragged into the threshold where a graceful exit was impossible. Now, with Enterprise, it looks like Star Trek may die a slow and painful death. Sorry, Trekkies, but the dead horse is beaten. Beaten to the point where it is not even recognizable as a horse.
I haven't read much of Morrison's stuff, but his run on New X-Men was pretty good. It's going to be interesting to see what he can do with writing a game. But I wonder if even he can actually make something worthwhile out of Battlestar Galactica. I mean, that show actually causes me physical pain, if I ever accidentally watch it. Sure, he revitalized the X-Men, but they always had the potential to be good. Writing a good script for Battlestar Galactica would kind of be like trying to write Ultimate Ghost Rider.
I'm kind of torn regarding sites like this. On the one hand, I'm kind of a nitpicker myself, which is why most people I know who like Star Trek generally try to avoid me. On the other hand, there's still such a thing as being too much of a nitpicker. But back to the first hand, you can still think a movie is good while pointing out all the technical inaccuracies at the same time. But on the other hand, this sometimes causes one to miss the entire point of the movie.
I guess how I feel about nitpicking a movie depends on the quality of the film itself. Example: my favorite television show happens to be The X-Files. I have a very, very long list of scientific inaccuracies or just inconsistencies in the plot I've collected from the show. But it's more just to enjoy the show even more, by paying a close attention to detail.
On the other hand, let's look at the Dungeons and Dragons movie, which is one of the worst sorry excuses for a movie I have ever seen. With that movie, the only way I could possibly enjoy it is by pointing out every single thing they got wrong. It's like whoever wrote the "script" has never even opened a Player's Handbook.
Looking at games like MGS2, motion capture doesn't seem at all necessary. That game had fantastic animation, especially in the cinematics. Same thing with Splinter Cell, Jak and Daxter, and numerous other games. The only possible reason I can see for motion capture is either as a marketing gimmick (as it was with Enter the Matrix). I guess that motion capture is better if you're basing a game on a movie, so you can catch the subtle mannerisms of the actors (assuming they agree to be featured in the game at all).
I don't think there is that much of a difference. In my opinion, both James Bond and Lara Croft are incredibly shallow characters, but they continue to have incredibly substandard games and movies built around them simply by merit of being cultural icons.
Microsoft has a long, long history of taking incredibly cheap shots to maintain their monopoly. Whenever a competing corporation does something innovative, Microsoft will release an inferior version of it, then mock the smaller, weaker competition. This just happens to be another variation on a theme. Now that Apple's future is starting to look brighter, particularly with the G5 being released, Microsoft is trying to hold onto their large audience by making sure they can never leave.
Slashdot Mirror
It's quite possible that to some comedians, not being able to hear the reaction of their audience would be a distinct advantage. Just turn loop a laugh track mpeg while they're playing, pretend it's an audience, and they get an ego booster while their audience gets . . . never mind.
That note the article ends on . . . what makes anybody think the internet is either of those extremes? The thing about the internet is it makes distribution of information and goods relatively easy for anybody with a computer. That includes pirates and corporations. The interesting thing about the internet is that it seems to level the playing field for both (although corporations still have one distinct advantage; advertising).
The Getaway was a great game, and I'm pretty excited about the sequel. Hopefully the plotting, acting, etc., will be as good, or better, than the original. That being said, some of the so-called "realism" of the game was a little unnecessary, and actually detracted from the experience. Hopefully, they'll fix this in the second game. First of all, there's the player's "mutant healing factor." I know medkits are unrealistic, but is magically healing whenever you lean against a wall any more realistic? If anything, I'd say it's more absurd, and less fun. Being able to move and shoot at the same time would be good, and as another poster pointed out in here, auto-aim would be nice as well. Perhaps taking the whole "multiple perspectives" thing to the next level will mean less linearity within the game. Who knows, maybe different characters will even have different attributes that help/hinder in certain levels. I sure hope so.
Alright, I admit the original show was good. Screw that, the original series was freakin' groundbreaking, and the earlier episodes even attempted to not toss the laws of physics out the window (for the first couple of seasons or so, there was no sound in space). Of course, due to its enormous popularity, more was inevitable. But wait! As Star Trek broke new ground in Sci-Fi, the Sci-Fi that followed it continued to explore virgin territory. The fact that Science Fiction could have complex, three dimensional characters slowly became accepted by the mainstream. The aliens got less human, and more . . . well, alien. In much Sci-Fi, the laws of physics were far more carefully observed. While Star Trek improved on an old formula, later Science Fiction continued to improve, and left the original series behind. And yet, there was more Star Trek to come. First the movies. Then The Next Generation. Then movies of that. Then Deep Space Nine. Then Voyage. Etc., etc. (Yes, I know I'm probably getting my chronology screwed up here. So sue me.) Where other Science Fiction had continued to improve on the old formula, the "new" Star Trek stuck mostly to what was becoming an rapidly obsolete way of looking at the universe. Essentially, the new Star Trek came to represent all the faults of the old, with none of the originality that redeemed the old. The new shows had flat characters, absurd "science" and technobabble, tired, recycled plots, and aliens that not only looked, but acted exactly like humans (I know some people believe that evolution of sentient life forms could take place only under very specific conditions, but come on people, isn't slapping pointy ears on a person and calling him alien taking this theory to its illogical extreme?). My point is that Star Trek should have died a natural death, long ago. Unfortunately, like so much other popular Science Fiction, it was dragged into the threshold where a graceful exit was impossible. Now, with Enterprise, it looks like Star Trek may die a slow and painful death. Sorry, Trekkies, but the dead horse is beaten. Beaten to the point where it is not even recognizable as a horse.
Where are its shields? Will my Holtzmann generator fit inside?
I haven't read much of Morrison's stuff, but his run on New X-Men was pretty good. It's going to be interesting to see what he can do with writing a game. But I wonder if even he can actually make something worthwhile out of Battlestar Galactica. I mean, that show actually causes me physical pain, if I ever accidentally watch it. Sure, he revitalized the X-Men, but they always had the potential to be good. Writing a good script for Battlestar Galactica would kind of be like trying to write Ultimate Ghost Rider.
I'm kind of torn regarding sites like this. On the one hand, I'm kind of a nitpicker myself, which is why most people I know who like Star Trek generally try to avoid me. On the other hand, there's still such a thing as being too much of a nitpicker. But back to the first hand, you can still think a movie is good while pointing out all the technical inaccuracies at the same time. But on the other hand, this sometimes causes one to miss the entire point of the movie. I guess how I feel about nitpicking a movie depends on the quality of the film itself. Example: my favorite television show happens to be The X-Files. I have a very, very long list of scientific inaccuracies or just inconsistencies in the plot I've collected from the show. But it's more just to enjoy the show even more, by paying a close attention to detail. On the other hand, let's look at the Dungeons and Dragons movie, which is one of the worst sorry excuses for a movie I have ever seen. With that movie, the only way I could possibly enjoy it is by pointing out every single thing they got wrong. It's like whoever wrote the "script" has never even opened a Player's Handbook.
Meh. I still maintain that the best FPS ever was Deus Ex, and is going to be Deus Ex 2.
Looking at games like MGS2, motion capture doesn't seem at all necessary. That game had fantastic animation, especially in the cinematics. Same thing with Splinter Cell, Jak and Daxter, and numerous other games. The only possible reason I can see for motion capture is either as a marketing gimmick (as it was with Enter the Matrix). I guess that motion capture is better if you're basing a game on a movie, so you can catch the subtle mannerisms of the actors (assuming they agree to be featured in the game at all).
I don't think there is that much of a difference. In my opinion, both James Bond and Lara Croft are incredibly shallow characters, but they continue to have incredibly substandard games and movies built around them simply by merit of being cultural icons.
Microsoft has a long, long history of taking incredibly cheap shots to maintain their monopoly. Whenever a competing corporation does something innovative, Microsoft will release an inferior version of it, then mock the smaller, weaker competition. This just happens to be another variation on a theme. Now that Apple's future is starting to look brighter, particularly with the G5 being released, Microsoft is trying to hold onto their large audience by making sure they can never leave.