Okami to me just distracts you from the fact that the graphics are shitty by making them beautiful and artistic.
Actually, I tend to think the reverse:
Most games distract you from the fact that the designers have no artistic creativity, by spending millions in creating super high-tech photorealistic looking graphics that noone will care about in 2 years. Seriously, ten years from now, Okami will stand out a lot more in people's heads than most of the other 3D games, because the photorealistic games will look incredibly dated, where-as Okami will still look like a beautiful Japanese watercolor. Same goes for Golden Sun.
PS: Waltz of the Moon is probably my very favorite FMV ever, and that was over 10 years old.
Not neccessarilly. There are many games on the DS that hardly use the D-Pad, and I've found very playable control-heavy games on the iPhone, where I don't really even notice after playing for about 5 minutes. It's all about how you use the control schemes you have been given.
The biggest problem with the iPhone is that there's no standard in control schemes. Some companies do extremely well, and some are terrible at it.
Yes, and as good as mouse-keyboard control systems are, console titles (which use simple joy pads) outsell PC games like 3:1. Which either means that people don't care about control (which I would say is false), OR more likely, developers have learned how to utilize what control systems they're given, to an extent that most times, people aren't bothered by either.
It's all about what you do with the control scheme's you're given.
Agreed. Many times, graphics isn't about how advanced your engine is, but how creative you are with it. Still, probably my favorite graphics of all time are Okami, a fairly mid-budget PS2 game that blows away the graphics of most 360 and PS3 titles I see. The creators decided to go in an incredibly artistic direction with their graphics, but did them in sutch a way that they didn't require a lot of horsepower. In fact, the shots of the DS sequel (yes, that's right, DS), is remarkably similar, and the DS is one of the most underpowered devices out there. It's not how advanced your graphical power is, it's what you do with it.
Not really. Phones and game devices use vastly different technology, and even more vastly different infrastructure. Infrastructure is the most complicated part of making phones. Working out networks, contracts, etc. By comparison, the infrastructure for game devices is a walk in the park. When you make a phone, you're somewhat beholden to the phone companies which hold all the cards. Game hardware manufacturers control their own infrastructures, like XBox Live and Playstation ("home" is it called? I don't have a PS3). Also, the interface designs and hardware functionality is quite different. It's not particularly intuitive to combine a phone with a gaming handheld and not lose a bit of one side in the process. You hold them differently, the speakers locations for each are not ideal for each other, handhelds usually sacrifice some portability for ergonomics, phones must maintain an even smaller form factor. The two are really very different devices. The fact that they have screens and are essentially computers is the only major similarities. The control systems that are typically ideal for handhelds don't really make much sense for a phone. So then you either have tacked-on gaming controls which take up more space than your phone functionality needs, or you sacrifice gaming control to make up for the portability that a phone needs.
That's why contextual control devices like the iPhone are probably the MOST ideal. They're deffinitely not perfect, but they do both things relatively well without sacrificing too much. Now its a up to the game manufacturers to create control systems that are ideal to the non-tactile nature of the device. For instance, I've played a few very playable platformers on the iPhone like Soosiz (which uses large virtual left, right and jump buttons), Bounce On (which utilizes the tilt functionality of the iPhone remarkably well, for control). But on the flip side, Sega's port of Sonic the Hedgehog (which simply places a tiny virtual D-Pad) is almost entirely unplayable. This isn't Apple's fault, it's Sony's fault. Bounce On and Soosiz are both very similar to Sonic, and they play extremely well, so it can be done.
Phones and Games mix about as well as SPAM and Phad Thai. Really, the only seemless way of doing this is to create a contextual device that changes from one to the other seemlessly... wait... we already have that, it's called the iPhone. And it's the most rapidly growing gaming platform on the market. With titles outselling the PSP about 20:1. Now, it's getting handheld console ports like Broken Sword, Spore, Myst, Super Monkey Ball, and on and on. With capacity and processing power that outdoes the PSP, Sony really should be worried. And they are, but this kind of speak that their using in the above quote reaks of double-talk spawned by latent fear. Basically, they realize they're in trouble, and their trying to make it sound like everyone is jumping on board with the PSP from the iPhone... but where are the numbers? The PSP hasn't had any major sales increases, in fact, I've heard that their numbers are falling. This is all speculation, wishfull thinking, and advertising on Sony's part.
The big hurdle is control. Buttons are always very nice for many kinds of games, though finger-pad is really nice for other things, and stylus is great for other things. Adding a d-pad to a smartphone is going to be either combersomb or unneccessary or both. There are games with extrodinary control systems on the iPhone, and there are games with terrible control systems. Same goes for the PSP. But I honestly don't think control system is going to be a big loss for people when the games are 1/4 of the price, run smoother, and are more portable.
Sony should be scared, and it's fairly clear that they already are.
I have to agree. Multipul programs open at the same time is nice, but in actuality, it really isn't that neccessary. As long as one can switch between them seemlessly, you can accomplish all the same tasks. Many people, even power users, only look at one window at a time, and then switch between them.
As long as it allows for complex hierarchical data structures, I could care less what metaphor they use. But I suspect that it's precisely that, "hierarchical data structures" that people are having problems with. Get used to it people, it's an inevitable part of every day life.
The problem is that different organizational structures work better or worse for different functions. Databases work fine for music file management, they may also work fine for certain kinds of text document management, but they don't do so well for more complex subdivisional management like project workflows (which I do everyday at work and at home). File/Folder hierarchies have database subsections built into them. Theoretically, if you wanted to, you could keep ALL of your files on your computer in the same folder, and it would be fundimentally identical to a database. You could organize it by title, by date, by application, etc. The point is is that hierarchies include the ability of database management within them, but they also allow other types of management. Databases lock you into one way of managing data, which may or may not fit your needs at that time.
One interesting asside, note that on the iPod/iPhone, that music database essentially becomes a folder/file hierarchy. You chose Music, then you subdivide by Artist, then by Album, and then Song. You can't escape hierarchies, they are innevitable data structures, even within the most sophisticated database management.
I think that's a very realistic assessment. The fundimental difference between the two models is that Raskin's idea completely throws out the underlying workflow management system, which is fine for simpler applications, but complete falls apart on more complex project workflows like the everyday things we do at work and home.
The iPhone is slightly revolutionary in that it recognizes that that complexity is fairly unneccarry for the incidental type of computer use done on the go. But that won't hold up in the work or hobby environments that make up about 90% of all day-to-day computer usage. The only thing that survives is entertainment and gaming, of which TVs, consoles, and keyboards are better at anyway.
People also don't like to organize their bedrooms either, but they still have to do it.
The music organization analogy does not hold true when having to deal with larger-scale project workflow. All music files are essentially the same, they have an artist, a title, an album, and can be organized alphabetically. Now, superimpose that workflow to the project management I do at work, which is fairly typical for most professionals (ie: hundreds of millions of people worldwide) which have text documents, spreadsheets, and media files all organized together by project category or client.
Are you telling me that iTunes organization will work when managing my client porfolios at work, or the music production projects I do at home? Or my girlfriend's liguistics papers? You act as if those who are using the computer for complex workflow patterns are few and far between. We're not, and we possibly make up the majority of computer users today.
Correction: the iPhone doesn't allow any oranization AT ALL. The iPhone basically assumes that you're not going to require any kind of sophisticated workflow for the kinds of things you do on a smartphone, which is essentially correct. In this sense, the iPhone is completely comfortable and successful with it's own lack of organization, which is why it works so well. Not true for the types of activities that many people use an actual home computer or laptop for.
The iPhone isn't neccessarilly a step back, but it is meant to serve a different purpose. It's used to do much more rudimentary functionality, so it doesn't include the usual complexities that are required of a laptop/desktop. But unless the tablet is meant to replace the iPhone (unlikely), it must not use the same level of simplicity.
The "Desktop" and "File" and "Folder" metaphores are arbitrary, yes, but the basic concept of "hierarchies" is incredibly important, and undeniably required for larger-scale work. Unless we suggest that larger-scale project management is simply not going to occur (which is idiotic), than hierarchies are inevitable. Weather or not we call a sub section of a hierarchy a "file" or a "widget" or a "twig" is quite irrelivant.
The problem is that it's "hierarchies" that people have problem with it, but on the flip side it's "hierarchies" that are exactly what's required. People may not enjoy taking responsibility for their own organization, but to do sophisticated work on a computer, it is absolutely essential.
Fuck the "desktop", I really could care less one way or the other. Long ago I stopped thinking about it having anything to do with the hard wood covering of a piece office furniture. The basic premise, is that people are sick of hierarchies. But hey, we're also sick of cleaning and organizing our bedrooms too... that's not going to change anytime soon. I suggest we just get used to it, or allow our lives to become completely disorganized altogether.
Explain to me, then, how, if they're going to get me to buy a tablet to replace my mac, they're going to allow me to operate my recording studio running Digital Performer married with NI Kontakt, with music written in Sibelius notation software, album art created in Photoshop, all organized by project?
Yes, the iPhone OS is great for simple communcation, but when you get into the serious business of project workflow, and use many different applications communicating with each other in tandum to output one finished product, the "grab bag" organization of the iPhone does not begin to cut it. You don't even have to go to my extreme to reach the level of complexity that the iPhone can't handle it. We're all doing projects and hobbies on the laptop/desktop that require this type of cross application organization.
You hit the nail on the head, there. To be a "must have" gadget, it must replace and expand on the functionality of an existing market. The iPod replaced the portable discman market, which in turn replaced the walkman and boombox markets. The iPhone replaced the already booming cellphone market, the laptop replaced the desktop for many people. People forget that the only way the laptop ever tookoff as a market is when it could effectively replace 95% of the functionality of the desktop.
So, are Apple planning on having the tablet replace the iPhone? Not likely, because it won't have phone functionality, and the iPhone market is new and huge and would just cut into Apple's already tremendous success. So it will need to replace the laptop. It fundimentally can't do that with the unsophsiticated workflow of a smart phone OS.
Expect a hybrid OS that merries the robustness of a desktop OS workflow with the immediate nature of a smartphone OS.
People who are writing that the iPhone OS will do for everyday computer use obviously have a skewed view of "everyday computer use". For basic information repository, communication, and entertainment, the iPhone is ideal, but for production and management of "projects", the iPhone is entirely inadequate, as it should be. But a tablet is essentially a laptop in portability, which means that it needs to take over those responsibilities. A laptop can manage workflow, therefore a tablet must also. The iPhone OS can not do this.
Conclusion: tablet will not survive on an iPhone OS. It can not compete with the iPhone due to decreased portability, and it will not compete with a laptop due to lack of workflow management.
Apple isn't blind enough to see past this. Will it run a convention "desktop" style window structure? Possibly not, but it will likely have much more sophisticated content management and workflow than what this article is suggesting. I have a lot more faith in Apple at this point than to think they will release a cool but ultimately pointless device.
The comment about whether or not people like "files" is entirely irrelevant. People may not like files and folders, but they still use them. No one likes organizing their cabinets, or cleaning the house, but they have to do it anyway because it's necessary to function in a efficient manner. The "grab bag" model only works for so long before things get complicated.
And for those of you who are saying, "this won't be a business computer," that isn't the point. Even while at home, we all have our projects and hobbies that essentially use similar workflow to those of a professional nature. If we didn't, we probably wouldn't even own a computer. Unless this thing is just for games and entertainment, in which it will have a very tough time competing with the Xbox and Wii.
You're assuming that performance characteristics are the the most difficult thing to get around. That's not really the case though. Even though the performance of the Wii is quite a bit different, it's basic architecture is quite traditional and simple to code for, as is the 360. Whereas the PS3 is an insanely different beast. I've heard that porting code between PC, 360 and Wii is a lot simpler than the PS3. The PS3s cell multithreading is supposedly a dog.
The problem with the Wii is the demographic differences. It's really not very difficult to down-scale graphics, since you're likely having to do that already since the original assets are higher resolution than even the 360 or PS3. What's the big crossover problem is marketing. The Wii set itself up, unfortunately, for a lot of older and younger gamers and may not contain key demographics that the 360 and PS3 tend to go after. That's the main reason you see cross platform 360 and PS3 titles.
In movies, they're increasingly doing mo-cap and voice recording at the same time (e.g. Andy Serkis acting Gollum or Kong). Game cut scenes would be improved by using decent actors and adopting this technique.
Yes, but sometimes that doesn't turn out very well. I've heard many reports of the Japanese version of Final Fantasy X being pretty aweful, because they used the same people who did motion capture to do the voices. Sometimes it really requires the time and patience of a straightforward recording studio setup to really work out the little things.
Basic LCD isn't polarized the way that you need for 3D glasses though. 3D polarization creates two planes of light: light polarized vertically goes in one eye, horizontal light goes in the other. LCDs only have one plane of polarization, typically horizontal. I don't know if it's even possible to polarize LCDs on two planes, because the polarized filter is built into the layers of the screen. The way they do it in theatres is by using a projection system with two different elements: one with a vertical polarizer, and one with a horizontal polarizer. Each lens of the polarized glasses effectively knocks out the light from the other plane.
I dunno, maybe it's possible to construct a polarized filter actually made up for liquid crystals, that would realign itself horizontally and vertically once every 60th of a second, creating a dynamic polarized filter that could go in front of any type of TV screen. But until something like that happens, you're not going to likely see polarized LCD or Plasma screens anytime in the near future.
The problem with earth or earth-like historical settings is that you have technological boundaries that keep the settings fairly similar. Either you have wood or brick interiors, or forrest or plains exteriors. The more alien (Final Fantasy) or Sci Fi (Mass Effect) you go, the more creativity you have to open your environments up to very different locales. Mass Effect may be sci-fi, but you spend part of the game walking around a desolate ice-dield, or tropical paradise. So you get both natural and artificial environments. An "alien world" based game (Final Fantasy for example), opens up the possibilties of completely un-earth-like environments and technology. You can have stone age cultures, fantastic etherial backdrops, and space ships all in the same game. It just allows for more freedom and variety. My biggest complaint about DAO is that a lot of it looks and feels the same. Locales change, yes, but I'm only 10 hours in, and I'm starting to confuse the few locales that I've visited thus far.
Can middival fantasy be done in fresh new ways? Yes, but DAO isn't really setting out to do that, they seem to be setting out to take old tropes, and expand upon them. There's nothing wrong with that, but an open-ended RPG isn't probably the best place to do that. If you want to really bring out the full artistic experience of a sophisticated setting and story based on old tropes, make the game tighter, do away with dialog trees. Give the player a single character with a personality, and build a very linear narrative. That's why Zelda does so amazingly well. They take old tropes, make them very tight, and the creators create a very interesting experience. On the flipside, use non-linearity for less over-used tropes like in Mass Effect, where the player doesn't know what to expect, and can do whatever they want.
There's a place for linearity, there's a place for nonlinearity. Some people have the idea that linearity is inherently bad, and that games should ALWAYS strive for that, I disagree. Different amounts of player freedom depend upon how tightly the game should be controlled. Unfortunately, with wRPGs, D&D environments are always incredibly non-linear and uncontrolled, which often makes their progression quite bland. This is precisely the opposite of what SHOULD be done.
I'm sort of regretting picking up this game, but I'll continue playing it, since I have nothing else going, and I paid $60 for it. But come Assassins Creed II and FF:Crystal Chronicals, this one will likely be collecting dust.
Understood, but we're not talking mass-market appeal here. Yes, there will always be a few, and that's just dandy. But making a blanket statement to the effect of "video games are more enjoyable with bladder gauges" is kind of missing the mark. I doubt the majority of people playing games would prefer to see real ads over fake ones either. Hell, Bioshock and Fallout made their entire stylistic mark over the content of their ads, and it's a noticeable trend in No More Heroes and other games as well.
When I go to the movie theater, is the price of entry any less if the movie has tons of product placement? No. What do media producers do with the additional money they make from product placement... well, of course they pass the savings back to the viewers. Wait, no they don't, they pocket it.
IE: Rich people have found one more way to make themselves richer, while the average joe gets nothing in return except additional coersion.
Now, TV, Radio, and Internet are different. Network TV, Radio, and many internet websites are free to users because of advertising. Those are actually REAL examples of savings past onto the viewers. But games and movies? Not a dime. Unless you activity lower the price of the product because of advertising subsidization, there is no possitive outcome for the audience. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I tend to think the reverse:
Most games distract you from the fact that the designers have no artistic creativity, by spending millions in creating super high-tech photorealistic looking graphics that noone will care about in 2 years. Seriously, ten years from now, Okami will stand out a lot more in people's heads than most of the other 3D games, because the photorealistic games will look incredibly dated, where-as Okami will still look like a beautiful Japanese watercolor. Same goes for Golden Sun.
PS: Waltz of the Moon is probably my very favorite FMV ever, and that was over 10 years old.
Not neccessarilly. There are many games on the DS that hardly use the D-Pad, and I've found very playable control-heavy games on the iPhone, where I don't really even notice after playing for about 5 minutes. It's all about how you use the control schemes you have been given.
The biggest problem with the iPhone is that there's no standard in control schemes. Some companies do extremely well, and some are terrible at it.
Yes, and as good as mouse-keyboard control systems are, console titles (which use simple joy pads) outsell PC games like 3:1. Which either means that people don't care about control (which I would say is false), OR more likely, developers have learned how to utilize what control systems they're given, to an extent that most times, people aren't bothered by either.
It's all about what you do with the control scheme's you're given.
Agreed. Many times, graphics isn't about how advanced your engine is, but how creative you are with it. Still, probably my favorite graphics of all time are Okami, a fairly mid-budget PS2 game that blows away the graphics of most 360 and PS3 titles I see. The creators decided to go in an incredibly artistic direction with their graphics, but did them in sutch a way that they didn't require a lot of horsepower. In fact, the shots of the DS sequel (yes, that's right, DS), is remarkably similar, and the DS is one of the most underpowered devices out there. It's not how advanced your graphical power is, it's what you do with it.
Golden Sun is a dream too.
Not really. Phones and game devices use vastly different technology, and even more vastly different infrastructure. Infrastructure is the most complicated part of making phones. Working out networks, contracts, etc. By comparison, the infrastructure for game devices is a walk in the park. When you make a phone, you're somewhat beholden to the phone companies which hold all the cards. Game hardware manufacturers control their own infrastructures, like XBox Live and Playstation ("home" is it called? I don't have a PS3). Also, the interface designs and hardware functionality is quite different. It's not particularly intuitive to combine a phone with a gaming handheld and not lose a bit of one side in the process. You hold them differently, the speakers locations for each are not ideal for each other, handhelds usually sacrifice some portability for ergonomics, phones must maintain an even smaller form factor. The two are really very different devices. The fact that they have screens and are essentially computers is the only major similarities. The control systems that are typically ideal for handhelds don't really make much sense for a phone. So then you either have tacked-on gaming controls which take up more space than your phone functionality needs, or you sacrifice gaming control to make up for the portability that a phone needs.
That's why contextual control devices like the iPhone are probably the MOST ideal. They're deffinitely not perfect, but they do both things relatively well without sacrificing too much. Now its a up to the game manufacturers to create control systems that are ideal to the non-tactile nature of the device. For instance, I've played a few very playable platformers on the iPhone like Soosiz (which uses large virtual left, right and jump buttons), Bounce On (which utilizes the tilt functionality of the iPhone remarkably well, for control). But on the flip side, Sega's port of Sonic the Hedgehog (which simply places a tiny virtual D-Pad) is almost entirely unplayable. This isn't Apple's fault, it's Sony's fault. Bounce On and Soosiz are both very similar to Sonic, and they play extremely well, so it can be done.
Apple just released the ban on this the other day. Skype and AOL have already readied their apps, they should be launched within the next few weeks.
Phones and Games mix about as well as SPAM and Phad Thai. Really, the only seemless way of doing this is to create a contextual device that changes from one to the other seemlessly... wait... we already have that, it's called the iPhone. And it's the most rapidly growing gaming platform on the market. With titles outselling the PSP about 20:1. Now, it's getting handheld console ports like Broken Sword, Spore, Myst, Super Monkey Ball, and on and on. With capacity and processing power that outdoes the PSP, Sony really should be worried. And they are, but this kind of speak that their using in the above quote reaks of double-talk spawned by latent fear. Basically, they realize they're in trouble, and their trying to make it sound like everyone is jumping on board with the PSP from the iPhone... but where are the numbers? The PSP hasn't had any major sales increases, in fact, I've heard that their numbers are falling. This is all speculation, wishfull thinking, and advertising on Sony's part.
The big hurdle is control. Buttons are always very nice for many kinds of games, though finger-pad is really nice for other things, and stylus is great for other things. Adding a d-pad to a smartphone is going to be either combersomb or unneccessary or both. There are games with extrodinary control systems on the iPhone, and there are games with terrible control systems. Same goes for the PSP. But I honestly don't think control system is going to be a big loss for people when the games are 1/4 of the price, run smoother, and are more portable.
Sony should be scared, and it's fairly clear that they already are.
Wow... nothing really excited me all that much until this price point. Now, THAT'S low! Very unexpected. I was thinking $600 at bear minimum.
I have to agree. Multipul programs open at the same time is nice, but in actuality, it really isn't that neccessary. As long as one can switch between them seemlessly, you can accomplish all the same tasks. Many people, even power users, only look at one window at a time, and then switch between them.
As long as it allows for complex hierarchical data structures, I could care less what metaphor they use. But I suspect that it's precisely that, "hierarchical data structures" that people are having problems with. Get used to it people, it's an inevitable part of every day life.
The problem is that different organizational structures work better or worse for different functions. Databases work fine for music file management, they may also work fine for certain kinds of text document management, but they don't do so well for more complex subdivisional management like project workflows (which I do everyday at work and at home). File/Folder hierarchies have database subsections built into them. Theoretically, if you wanted to, you could keep ALL of your files on your computer in the same folder, and it would be fundimentally identical to a database. You could organize it by title, by date, by application, etc. The point is is that hierarchies include the ability of database management within them, but they also allow other types of management. Databases lock you into one way of managing data, which may or may not fit your needs at that time.
One interesting asside, note that on the iPod/iPhone, that music database essentially becomes a folder/file hierarchy. You chose Music, then you subdivide by Artist, then by Album, and then Song. You can't escape hierarchies, they are innevitable data structures, even within the most sophisticated database management.
I think that's a very realistic assessment. The fundimental difference between the two models is that Raskin's idea completely throws out the underlying workflow management system, which is fine for simpler applications, but complete falls apart on more complex project workflows like the everyday things we do at work and home.
The iPhone is slightly revolutionary in that it recognizes that that complexity is fairly unneccarry for the incidental type of computer use done on the go. But that won't hold up in the work or hobby environments that make up about 90% of all day-to-day computer usage. The only thing that survives is entertainment and gaming, of which TVs, consoles, and keyboards are better at anyway.
People also don't like to organize their bedrooms either, but they still have to do it.
The music organization analogy does not hold true when having to deal with larger-scale project workflow. All music files are essentially the same, they have an artist, a title, an album, and can be organized alphabetically. Now, superimpose that workflow to the project management I do at work, which is fairly typical for most professionals (ie: hundreds of millions of people worldwide) which have text documents, spreadsheets, and media files all organized together by project category or client.
Are you telling me that iTunes organization will work when managing my client porfolios at work, or the music production projects I do at home? Or my girlfriend's liguistics papers? You act as if those who are using the computer for complex workflow patterns are few and far between. We're not, and we possibly make up the majority of computer users today.
Correction: the iPhone doesn't allow any oranization AT ALL. The iPhone basically assumes that you're not going to require any kind of sophisticated workflow for the kinds of things you do on a smartphone, which is essentially correct. In this sense, the iPhone is completely comfortable and successful with it's own lack of organization, which is why it works so well. Not true for the types of activities that many people use an actual home computer or laptop for.
The iPhone isn't neccessarilly a step back, but it is meant to serve a different purpose. It's used to do much more rudimentary functionality, so it doesn't include the usual complexities that are required of a laptop/desktop. But unless the tablet is meant to replace the iPhone (unlikely), it must not use the same level of simplicity.
The "Desktop" and "File" and "Folder" metaphores are arbitrary, yes, but the basic concept of "hierarchies" is incredibly important, and undeniably required for larger-scale work. Unless we suggest that larger-scale project management is simply not going to occur (which is idiotic), than hierarchies are inevitable. Weather or not we call a sub section of a hierarchy a "file" or a "widget" or a "twig" is quite irrelivant.
The problem is that it's "hierarchies" that people have problem with it, but on the flip side it's "hierarchies" that are exactly what's required. People may not enjoy taking responsibility for their own organization, but to do sophisticated work on a computer, it is absolutely essential.
Fuck the "desktop", I really could care less one way or the other. Long ago I stopped thinking about it having anything to do with the hard wood covering of a piece office furniture. The basic premise, is that people are sick of hierarchies. But hey, we're also sick of cleaning and organizing our bedrooms too... that's not going to change anytime soon. I suggest we just get used to it, or allow our lives to become completely disorganized altogether.
Explain to me, then, how, if they're going to get me to buy a tablet to replace my mac, they're going to allow me to operate my recording studio running Digital Performer married with NI Kontakt, with music written in Sibelius notation software, album art created in Photoshop, all organized by project?
Yes, the iPhone OS is great for simple communcation, but when you get into the serious business of project workflow, and use many different applications communicating with each other in tandum to output one finished product, the "grab bag" organization of the iPhone does not begin to cut it. You don't even have to go to my extreme to reach the level of complexity that the iPhone can't handle it. We're all doing projects and hobbies on the laptop/desktop that require this type of cross application organization.
You hit the nail on the head, there. To be a "must have" gadget, it must replace and expand on the functionality of an existing market. The iPod replaced the portable discman market, which in turn replaced the walkman and boombox markets. The iPhone replaced the already booming cellphone market, the laptop replaced the desktop for many people. People forget that the only way the laptop ever tookoff as a market is when it could effectively replace 95% of the functionality of the desktop.
So, are Apple planning on having the tablet replace the iPhone? Not likely, because it won't have phone functionality, and the iPhone market is new and huge and would just cut into Apple's already tremendous success. So it will need to replace the laptop. It fundimentally can't do that with the unsophsiticated workflow of a smart phone OS.
Expect a hybrid OS that merries the robustness of a desktop OS workflow with the immediate nature of a smartphone OS.
People who are writing that the iPhone OS will do for everyday computer use obviously have a skewed view of "everyday computer use". For basic information repository, communication, and entertainment, the iPhone is ideal, but for production and management of "projects", the iPhone is entirely inadequate, as it should be. But a tablet is essentially a laptop in portability, which means that it needs to take over those responsibilities. A laptop can manage workflow, therefore a tablet must also. The iPhone OS can not do this.
Conclusion: tablet will not survive on an iPhone OS. It can not compete with the iPhone due to decreased portability, and it will not compete with a laptop due to lack of workflow management.
Apple isn't blind enough to see past this. Will it run a convention "desktop" style window structure? Possibly not, but it will likely have much more sophisticated content management and workflow than what this article is suggesting. I have a lot more faith in Apple at this point than to think they will release a cool but ultimately pointless device.
The comment about whether or not people like "files" is entirely irrelevant. People may not like files and folders, but they still use them. No one likes organizing their cabinets, or cleaning the house, but they have to do it anyway because it's necessary to function in a efficient manner. The "grab bag" model only works for so long before things get complicated.
And for those of you who are saying, "this won't be a business computer," that isn't the point. Even while at home, we all have our projects and hobbies that essentially use similar workflow to those of a professional nature. If we didn't, we probably wouldn't even own a computer. Unless this thing is just for games and entertainment, in which it will have a very tough time competing with the Xbox and Wii.
You're assuming that performance characteristics are the the most difficult thing to get around. That's not really the case though. Even though the performance of the Wii is quite a bit different, it's basic architecture is quite traditional and simple to code for, as is the 360. Whereas the PS3 is an insanely different beast. I've heard that porting code between PC, 360 and Wii is a lot simpler than the PS3. The PS3s cell multithreading is supposedly a dog.
The problem with the Wii is the demographic differences. It's really not very difficult to down-scale graphics, since you're likely having to do that already since the original assets are higher resolution than even the 360 or PS3. What's the big crossover problem is marketing. The Wii set itself up, unfortunately, for a lot of older and younger gamers and may not contain key demographics that the 360 and PS3 tend to go after. That's the main reason you see cross platform 360 and PS3 titles.
Yes, but sometimes that doesn't turn out very well. I've heard many reports of the Japanese version of Final Fantasy X being pretty aweful, because they used the same people who did motion capture to do the voices. Sometimes it really requires the time and patience of a straightforward recording studio setup to really work out the little things.
Except for the fact that Steve actually has the purality of shares in the company, giving him a leading vote in the board room.
...
Basic LCD isn't polarized the way that you need for 3D glasses though. 3D polarization creates two planes of light: light polarized vertically goes in one eye, horizontal light goes in the other. LCDs only have one plane of polarization, typically horizontal. I don't know if it's even possible to polarize LCDs on two planes, because the polarized filter is built into the layers of the screen. The way they do it in theatres is by using a projection system with two different elements: one with a vertical polarizer, and one with a horizontal polarizer. Each lens of the polarized glasses effectively knocks out the light from the other plane.
I dunno, maybe it's possible to construct a polarized filter actually made up for liquid crystals, that would realign itself horizontally and vertically once every 60th of a second, creating a dynamic polarized filter that could go in front of any type of TV screen. But until something like that happens, you're not going to likely see polarized LCD or Plasma screens anytime in the near future.
The problem with earth or earth-like historical settings is that you have technological boundaries that keep the settings fairly similar. Either you have wood or brick interiors, or forrest or plains exteriors. The more alien (Final Fantasy) or Sci Fi (Mass Effect) you go, the more creativity you have to open your environments up to very different locales. Mass Effect may be sci-fi, but you spend part of the game walking around a desolate ice-dield, or tropical paradise. So you get both natural and artificial environments. An "alien world" based game (Final Fantasy for example), opens up the possibilties of completely un-earth-like environments and technology. You can have stone age cultures, fantastic etherial backdrops, and space ships all in the same game. It just allows for more freedom and variety. My biggest complaint about DAO is that a lot of it looks and feels the same. Locales change, yes, but I'm only 10 hours in, and I'm starting to confuse the few locales that I've visited thus far.
Can middival fantasy be done in fresh new ways? Yes, but DAO isn't really setting out to do that, they seem to be setting out to take old tropes, and expand upon them. There's nothing wrong with that, but an open-ended RPG isn't probably the best place to do that. If you want to really bring out the full artistic experience of a sophisticated setting and story based on old tropes, make the game tighter, do away with dialog trees. Give the player a single character with a personality, and build a very linear narrative. That's why Zelda does so amazingly well. They take old tropes, make them very tight, and the creators create a very interesting experience. On the flipside, use non-linearity for less over-used tropes like in Mass Effect, where the player doesn't know what to expect, and can do whatever they want.
There's a place for linearity, there's a place for nonlinearity. Some people have the idea that linearity is inherently bad, and that games should ALWAYS strive for that, I disagree. Different amounts of player freedom depend upon how tightly the game should be controlled. Unfortunately, with wRPGs, D&D environments are always incredibly non-linear and uncontrolled, which often makes their progression quite bland. This is precisely the opposite of what SHOULD be done.
I'm sort of regretting picking up this game, but I'll continue playing it, since I have nothing else going, and I paid $60 for it. But come Assassins Creed II and FF:Crystal Chronicals, this one will likely be collecting dust.
Understood, but we're not talking mass-market appeal here. Yes, there will always be a few, and that's just dandy. But making a blanket statement to the effect of "video games are more enjoyable with bladder gauges" is kind of missing the mark. I doubt the majority of people playing games would prefer to see real ads over fake ones either. Hell, Bioshock and Fallout made their entire stylistic mark over the content of their ads, and it's a noticeable trend in No More Heroes and other games as well.
In practice, yes, in reality, not usually.
When I go to the movie theater, is the price of entry any less if the movie has tons of product placement? No. What do media producers do with the additional money they make from product placement... well, of course they pass the savings back to the viewers. Wait, no they don't, they pocket it.
IE: Rich people have found one more way to make themselves richer, while the average joe gets nothing in return except additional coersion.
Now, TV, Radio, and Internet are different. Network TV, Radio, and many internet websites are free to users because of advertising. Those are actually REAL examples of savings past onto the viewers. But games and movies? Not a dime. Unless you activity lower the price of the product because of advertising subsidization, there is no possitive outcome for the audience. Period.