I think that regardless of his title, Reggie is destined to be the Steve Jobs of the game industry. That may not mean that he's an advocate for the industry as a whole, but having a charasmatic maskot like Fils-Aime does help to legitimize the industry in the minds of the public, which goes a long way towards stemming off assholes like Jack Thompson. Jobs and Fils-Aime are rockstars, and lawyers look really unattractive in the eyes of the public, standing beside rockstars.
Because game companies would rather have an audience to be able to get money from. I don't know where you live, but I live on planet Earth, where less than 5% of the population (in developed countries) has anything resembling a home theatre, and only about 10% of them have them connected to PCs. And still, that doesn't solve the input device problem, where most PC games are still written for a device that wasn't designed with games in mind.
Hell, I'm a geek, but I'm not THAT much of a geek!
Funny thing about the BlackBerry; they don't have a touchscreen. From what I understand, they don't need it, and their testing probably indicates that the standard scroll wheel interface they use now is just "better", and the less you have things touching the screen, the better.
This is one reason why I think the iPhone is going to be a disappointment to a lot of folks who get them. I went to Apple to take a look at their plans, and when I went into the "How do I send an SMS message?" thing and saw the touch screen keyboard pop up, I thought to myself: "Great, another way people will muss up their screen and probably end up scratching the darn thing in the long run.
Nintendo DS... proving, every day, that touch screens are capable of being simple, effective, and positively unscratchable. Has anyone else tried to scratch their DS screen? I'm starting to think that it's made out of some kind of material we humans haven't been exposed to yet, I've yet to see a single scratch in the touch screen.
So no, I don't really agree about your assessment of touch screens. It is all about how well the company designs the UI. There are great touch screen interfaces (Nintendo DS), and then there are TERRIBLE touch screen interfaces (Korg Triton). I trust Apple over anyone else to make a good hardware UI, so I think the iPhone interface, and the possible touchscreen iPod will be in good hands.
Ya know, it might not be the language barrier. In every interview I've heard with him, he seems like he's a kinda timid guy. He's always seemed very gratious, and wanted to be there for his projects, but his wording always gave me the impression that he lacks a bit of confidence.
,p>Actually, #1 is pretty much a non issue. Game retailers make almost nothing on consoles, as companies advertise prices so heavilly, retailers are practically forced to sell them at break-even prices, and then make money on games (sort of like the hardware manufacturers themselves, sans Nintendo).
As for Tech Support? That would fall to the game manufacturer, not the retailer, so this isn't the issue either.
No, the reason is that the PC game is dwindling right now. I'd like to think that this comes from a general disgust of the industry that came out of the late 90s, which is when I ditched. Too many requirements, having to own just the right versions of software and hardware, or things wouldn't work. It became a full-time job just to do the research on what hardware and software you needed. Also, people enjoy being able to lounge back in their recliner or sofa and play games, and use an input device designed with gaming in mind. I'm not saying PC gaming won't come back, but in terms of what you get out of either, for what you have to put in (time and money), PC gaming has a lot of uphill battles.
Kingdom Hearts is basically PG. It's "T", but T is basically anything from PG to PG-13, and I think it's safe to say that it's at the PG end of the spectrum. Pirates is a good solid PG-13, though... but it's still of the familly friendly variety, although it did get an incredible reception from all across the board. The 12-18 year old age-range is generally very weary of anything rated familly friendly, since at that age, it's your responsibility to be as big of a pain in the ass to anyone outside of that age range (and to most inside it, as well). So anyone targetting "Everyone", is kinda shit out of luck.
This is a common political ploy, for the "other side" (in this case, politicians who do not believe in banning games), they amend the bill so that it includes something utterly rediculous, like this age restriction, simply so that it cannot possibly pass. So, in actuality, the 30-year age restriction was probably put on by an opponent of the original bill.
Re:Not impressed
on
iPhone Roundup
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
That's what women are for...
"Wait, no honey, I'm not talking about you, now get back in the kitchen and make me a goddamn sammich!"
They did, it's called "Seiken Densetsu 3", only released in Japan... and it is AMAZING. Better than Secret of Mana? Without question. Think Secret of Mana with about 10x the depth, 3 completely different storylines, depending upon who you choose to be in your party, much more flushed-out characters, and a similar, but more in-depth fighting system. I kinda laugh every time I hear about how Secret of Mana is such a classic... sure, it is, but the sequel is so much better, it's bearly even worth talking about. There's fansubs ROMs everywhere, if you want to play a REAL Secret of Mana sequel. Why they haven't released it on the GBA or DS, instead of continually remaking Seiken Densetsu 1 is beyond me.
Actually, though I know you're being facetious and flippent, there is a lot of truth to that. Unlike the film industry, sequels are very often more innovative than their originals. I think this is due to the fact that game designers are very scared of crashing and burning on the first go-around, but once they have an established series, they feel more freed up to try more unorthodox things. I think this tends to be a little more the case on the console end of things (recently, I've seen a swath of PC game sequels that are simply toned-down versions of their originals). But aside from a few outliers, I'd have to say that most of the innovation in the video game industry comes out of sequels.
In any case, I think we can agree that The Sequel works a lot better in video games than it does in film. For one thing, you must ask what it means to be "a sequel". In cinema, a sequal is a continuation of the film: story, characters, setting all remain constant, to a degree. In games, many times, one or more of these elements does not have to be the same, in fact, some series (Final Fantasy for example), these elements are consistantly always different. A video game series, in a way, becomes more of a subgenre than a series of connected works. The musical analog is that of a "song cycle", in which each work is a separate and individual entity, though through some sort of common theme, all works are related.
FF12 is great. I'm nearing the end of it now (I'm just doing all the hunts before going into the last part of the story). The one thing that works about it is that they pulled back and made it fairly impersonal, which has its pros and cons. For one, EVERY console RPG I've ever played has some hokeyness about it, that I just have to put aside (I was able to do that with FF8, where some people are not... I wasn't able to do that with FF7, though), but FF12 had the least amount of any game I've played. Unfortunately, I'm not as awe-inspired or drawn to the game, since I'm not all that emotionally involved with the characters. Sure, Balthier is fun, Ashe is intense, Panelo is wise but carefree... but there's a level of separation that I'm not as used to in an RPG, and that I guess I desire. The problem is, so many RPGs have such BAD characterization, that it can completely ruin a game.
That said, it's gameplay is incredible, it's scope is amazing, and the antagonists are far and away the most human (although, I happen to really like Kuja, who was evil as hell, but still incredibly human to the point of pitty). At the point I'm at in the game, I would actually PREFER the "bad guys" to win, as I think they have a better grasp of what all is going on. I've never felt that way before in an RPG. Vayne may have a fairly unethical way of going about doing things, but his motives are quite pure.
FF12 is so incredibly different from the rest of the series, that it virtually incomparable, and belongs in its own subgenre of RPGs entirely, so it's hard to rank it as compared to the rest. That said, its disconnectedness prohibits me from wanting to put it at the top of my favorites list. And honestly, Twilight Princess just toppled FF8 off the #1 spot, so it's not even getting GAME OF THE YEAR, in my book, but it's still easilly one of my top 5 favorites of the decade, so far.
Lol, can't believe I made that mixup, but yeah, Nevsky is kinda hokey, although, it does have some good cinematography. The Battle on the Ice is still pretty incredible. But if you want REALLY hokey, try the other Eisenstein movie that Prokofiev did the score for, "Ivan the Terrible", which is absolutely atrocious, and the music isn't even all that interesting. Ivan is made to look threatening by having this gross, but long, little beard, and then freezing in stylized pozes with his eyes popping out at you. I could bearly finish it it was so bad.
I got into video games through music. I was studying composition at Oberlin Music Conservatory, and I had been delving into a lot of Progressive Rock on the side... listening to a lot of Emerson Lake & Palmer, Yes, and Genesis. A friend of mine, with similar tastes in music told me I had to check out this stuff by this guy Nobuo Uematsu, who was largely influenced by ELP and Yes. He played me some selections from FF8 and FF6, and I was blown away. I immediately downloaded an emulator (didn't have a console at the time), and played through FF6 and FF8 immediately, and from then on, I was hooked. Then, I started transcribing many of various themes and pieces for piano. I finished out my stay at Oberlin with a piano recital of arranged game music, and packed a small auditorium with gamers, musicians, and all interested folks, alike... one of the best shows I've ever had the privilage of performing in.
Since then, I've been studying film scoring, in hopes to one day go into film or game composition. And I still play my daily dose of video games.
I got involved with the site "VGMix", and had a lot of my work up there, unfortunately, the site went down about a year ago, and hasn't come back up since. I put a few things on OCRemix, but I don't tend to follow the site very much. I have an album of piano recordings I did in the studio, but the cost of licensing prohibits me from releasing the recordings publicly.
Yes, FF13 is a 2008 release... that has nothing to do with the fact that FF12 was just released (FF8 and FF9 were less than a year apart, since they were developed similtaneously by different teams), but yes, it's not going to be out any time soon. And I'm glad other people are starting to question FF13s exlusivity, which I think is in danger of completely disappearing. I still maintain that Square has probably had an 360 version in the works, all along, just in case the PS3 tanks.
Agreed. But partially, this is an error in terminology. "Classical" music, technically refers to a period of about 75 years of western art music in the 18th century that basically stems from Hydan to Mozart. Bach is the tail end of the Baroque era, and Beethoven is basically the grandfather of the Romantic movement, which turned its back on the black & white philosophies of the classical era. Unfortunately, we've used the term "classical" to refer to ALL western art music from the Baroque era forward. Many times, it's not a problem, but it does betray a certain elitist ideal toward a certain, very dated, era of western art music, that holds mathamatics above all else, even creativity.
Modern orchestral cinema music, and by extension, orchestral game music, is largely post-romantic art music seen through the lens of neo-classicism, impressionism, expressionism, jazz, and classic rock. Very little of anything out of this past century can be directly owed to Bach, and even less can be owed to Mozart. Probably, least of all, in art music, which largely regards Mozart as a formula composer with about as much innovation as a dime novelist.
There is really very little difference between today's movie music, and the Opera of the 19th century, or the Ballet of the early 20th century, which makes up a significant portion of highly recieved art music. Collaborative and multimedia efforts are not a new thing. For almost as long as there has been music, there have been visual counterparts to accompany it, in some form or another. Sergei Diaghilev's commissioning of Stravinsky to compose the music to his ballet, "The Rite of Spring", is no different from Fritz Lang's commissioning of Sergei Prokofiev to compose the music for his movie "Alexander Nevsky", Tim Burton's comissioning of Danny Elfman to compose the music to "Edward Scissorhands", or Sakaguchi's comissioning of Nobuo Uematsu to compose the music for the game "Final Fantasy."
The fact that the scope of the production has changed has little effect on the composer, as it is still largely written by one composer, working directly in conjunction with one director. As for the audience? Well, today's world is simply yesterday's concert hall.
Even the arguement condemning cinematic music is no different from that of Brahms' disavowing of all music that has any visual or literary counterpart. You may agree with Brahms, but as long as you can accept the legitimacy of the ballet (a vast plurality of well-known 20th century compositions are from ballets) you should not have any trouble accepting the legitimacy of the cinema or game score.
I think he meant that the 2D and 3D Final Fantasy's are different enough, demographically, visually, and from depth-wise (except for FF6), that they're tough to compare. And in a way, I agree. Oh, and you're full of shit, FFVIII is an amazing game. Some of the best character portrayal in video games, a very well devised scope (starts very small, and ends very large), a lot of subtlety, and far and away one of the best soundtracks. And the best thing about it, it's one of the first video games that dared to show the characters as normal people, whose entire lives didn't just revolve around completing a stupid plot.
Oh well, the war over FFVIII will never end. It's a love or hate kinda game, I've met many who love it (mostly older gamers), and many who hate it, not very many in the middle.
Actually, in my experience, in hard-core FF circles, FF8 is considered one of the strongest (it's my favorite in the series, btw). It was bound to turn a lot of people off, since it's much more character driven (rather than plot driven) and by the fact that younger boys think that "love stories are gay", also, it's skill/equipment system is a huge departure from the rest of the series.
I meet many many people who hate the game, but I find that most of them have only played a couple of games in the series, and almost always, FFVII is their favorite. There are many exceptions, no doubt, but a surprising number of the older FF fans (college and up) I run into put FF8 at the top of their list.
Well, Guinness doesn't fit that list, it's pretty big in Ireland and very big in England. When my English relatives come state-side, they're pretty perticular about getting their Guinness. Actually, Ireland has about 20 different kinds of Guinness, most that we don't get over here. They're very proud of it.
Similarly, I saw Heineken all over Amsterdam (Netherlandic, not Dutch), and in France it was the number one beer that I saw sold in vending machines.
Well, in some cases, it's just not fair. I listen to a lot of progressive rock. A typical classic era Yes album is 45 minutes and has 3 tracks. If they charged $3 for an album, noone would make any money. Do I think "Close to the Edge" (at 20 minutes length), should be priced at the same amount as the latest 2.5minute radio hit? No way.
BUT, that's not how the pricing has been. The pricing per song is to keep record labels from doing what they've been talking about doing, pricing hits much higher than everything else. I hate the concept of hits, personally, I think they ruin albums, and they give the recording industry an incentive to find one-hit-wonders, instead of establishing seasoned musicians. So, in a way, pay-per-song enchorages the industry to find consistant musicians.
Unfortunately, people in the US DO drink that stuff. But don't worry, most country's have similarly bad, mass-produced crap. Just thank god you're not Mexico, and don't drink Tacote (Mexican equivelent of Budwiser... really terrible stuff). Remember, Canadians have Molson Ice (sorry, there is SOME good Molson, but some of it is just as bad as Bud).
I do agree that not ALL US beer is bad, but most of it is. Sam Adams is tollerable, I don't know if I'd exactly call it "great beer". Although, many smaller, more regional brews are quite good. Here in Alaska we have the "Alaskan" brewing company (I know, really creative name), but aside from the really uncreative name, some of their stuff is DAMN good. Alaskan Amber has become a stapple, and is now exported all along the pacific coast. They also make a really good "Guinness-like" Oatmeal stout that's worth a try. The fact is, few country's are big enough to warrant such incredibly hugely mass-produced beers as Bud and Miller, even things like Heineken are a drop-in-the-hat comparitively... which is why they're so much better. After a brewing company gets too big, it just gets bad. The same happens with really small micro-brews too... as many individuals have no idea how to make good beer (myself included... but I don't brew).
Your post very-much confuses me. Who cares if they are a Teddy Rosevelt style preservationist, who's ultimate goal is preserving the world so that HUMANS can enjoy it, or a spiritual conservationist who believes it's our moral duty to preserve the world for its own sake... ultimately their goals are the same. The term "envirnomentalist" is an umbrella term for all of the above, and it seems like you've pigieon-holed it to a group of almost non-existant radicals.
Very very few environmentalists have any interest in removing the human species from this planet... but drawing attention to our viral-like properties is a dramatic, and motivating analogy. Sure, it might be a bit mellodramatic, but if it gets people's attention, and gets people thinking about how to do better for the future of this world and ourselves, I'm not going to complain.
One thing though... when was the last time you knew a scientist that was a producer (Carl Sagan)... okay... who is still alive. And you can be sure that if Carl was still alive, he'd be right their helping Gore. Besides Carl Sagan, scientists hardly EVER make good producers and spokesman. But who fucking cares? Gore had a full team of scientists double-checking and tripple-checking every tidbit of information given in the movie, not to mention that the vast bulk of the movie is backed up by hundreds of published scientific journal articles. The fact that the person standing in front of the camera, or the person in charge of getting funding for the film isn't a scientist isn't just irrelivant, it's a no-brainer.
So, I'll re-itterate, the only reason why a scientist didn't make An Inconvenient Truth is because Carl Sagan is dead.
To a certain degree, I can understand it as a part of Apple's "One Size Fits All" marketting (which I happen to think is damn effective). Currently, when you download a music off of iTMS, every file has the same restrictions, and allows the same freedoms. On the public front, this is simply to make it "easier for the consumer". But in actuality, it is a cover, a little trick to keep record lables from ever pushing more severe DRM... if they put up an umbrella specification on their files, and make a big stink about how it is for user-friendliness, the recording industry just flat out can't argue with them.
Apple's DRM reflects their pricing: 99cents per song. Sure, maybe there could have been a few songs here and there placed at 75cents, but it makes sure that no songs are priced at $3. Their DRM policy is invasive, to be sure, but on the scheme of things, it's the least invasive that ever has been, but it keeps the record industry to go any further.
The bottom line is, DRM has no benefit to Apple. The iTMS is a loss or "break-even" leader, in order to sell iPods... and it's possible that not having DRM would result in a FEW more iPod sales. They have no personal reason to ever want DRM on their material... but they gotta, according to the recording industry. People act like they're not fighting it. They're fighting it like crazy, but they know that they can't win without some form of compromise. DRM is simply one part of the music industry's grand scheme of controlling media. Apple put their foot down when it came to pricing, and they came up with one of the least invasive DRM schemes ever. And the reason they've been able to keep with both of these is because they are completely unwavering in their support of this system. If they were to start selling a few non-DRM tunes, the recording industry would see this as a new-found flexability in Apple's infrastructure, and try to take advantage of that.
This might sound fanboyish, but there's a lot of psychology going in to play here. By setting one universal standard, and utterly keeping with it, it creates a rock-solid wall in which the recording industry can't touch.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that regardless of his title, Reggie is destined to be the Steve Jobs of the game industry. That may not mean that he's an advocate for the industry as a whole, but having a charasmatic maskot like Fils-Aime does help to legitimize the industry in the minds of the public, which goes a long way towards stemming off assholes like Jack Thompson. Jobs and Fils-Aime are rockstars, and lawyers look really unattractive in the eyes of the public, standing beside rockstars.
Heheh...
Because game companies would rather have an audience to be able to get money from. I don't know where you live, but I live on planet Earth, where less than 5% of the population (in developed countries) has anything resembling a home theatre, and only about 10% of them have them connected to PCs. And still, that doesn't solve the input device problem, where most PC games are still written for a device that wasn't designed with games in mind.
Hell, I'm a geek, but I'm not THAT much of a geek!
Nintendo DS... proving, every day, that touch screens are capable of being simple, effective, and positively unscratchable. Has anyone else tried to scratch their DS screen? I'm starting to think that it's made out of some kind of material we humans haven't been exposed to yet, I've yet to see a single scratch in the touch screen.
So no, I don't really agree about your assessment of touch screens. It is all about how well the company designs the UI. There are great touch screen interfaces (Nintendo DS), and then there are TERRIBLE touch screen interfaces (Korg Triton). I trust Apple over anyone else to make a good hardware UI, so I think the iPhone interface, and the possible touchscreen iPod will be in good hands.
Ya know, it might not be the language barrier. In every interview I've heard with him, he seems like he's a kinda timid guy. He's always seemed very gratious, and wanted to be there for his projects, but his wording always gave me the impression that he lacks a bit of confidence.
As for Tech Support? That would fall to the game manufacturer, not the retailer, so this isn't the issue either.
No, the reason is that the PC game is dwindling right now. I'd like to think that this comes from a general disgust of the industry that came out of the late 90s, which is when I ditched. Too many requirements, having to own just the right versions of software and hardware, or things wouldn't work. It became a full-time job just to do the research on what hardware and software you needed. Also, people enjoy being able to lounge back in their recliner or sofa and play games, and use an input device designed with gaming in mind. I'm not saying PC gaming won't come back, but in terms of what you get out of either, for what you have to put in (time and money), PC gaming has a lot of uphill battles.
Whatever... as long as I get some Dream Theater in the next one... can't quite figure out why they haven't done any as of yet.
Kingdom Hearts is basically PG. It's "T", but T is basically anything from PG to PG-13, and I think it's safe to say that it's at the PG end of the spectrum. Pirates is a good solid PG-13, though... but it's still of the familly friendly variety, although it did get an incredible reception from all across the board. The 12-18 year old age-range is generally very weary of anything rated familly friendly, since at that age, it's your responsibility to be as big of a pain in the ass to anyone outside of that age range (and to most inside it, as well). So anyone targetting "Everyone", is kinda shit out of luck.
This is a common political ploy, for the "other side" (in this case, politicians who do not believe in banning games), they amend the bill so that it includes something utterly rediculous, like this age restriction, simply so that it cannot possibly pass. So, in actuality, the 30-year age restriction was probably put on by an opponent of the original bill.
That's what women are for...
"Wait, no honey, I'm not talking about you, now get back in the kitchen and make me a goddamn sammich!"
They did, it's called "Seiken Densetsu 3", only released in Japan... and it is AMAZING. Better than Secret of Mana? Without question. Think Secret of Mana with about 10x the depth, 3 completely different storylines, depending upon who you choose to be in your party, much more flushed-out characters, and a similar, but more in-depth fighting system. I kinda laugh every time I hear about how Secret of Mana is such a classic... sure, it is, but the sequel is so much better, it's bearly even worth talking about. There's fansubs ROMs everywhere, if you want to play a REAL Secret of Mana sequel. Why they haven't released it on the GBA or DS, instead of continually remaking Seiken Densetsu 1 is beyond me.
Actually, though I know you're being facetious and flippent, there is a lot of truth to that. Unlike the film industry, sequels are very often more innovative than their originals. I think this is due to the fact that game designers are very scared of crashing and burning on the first go-around, but once they have an established series, they feel more freed up to try more unorthodox things. I think this tends to be a little more the case on the console end of things (recently, I've seen a swath of PC game sequels that are simply toned-down versions of their originals). But aside from a few outliers, I'd have to say that most of the innovation in the video game industry comes out of sequels.
In any case, I think we can agree that The Sequel works a lot better in video games than it does in film. For one thing, you must ask what it means to be "a sequel". In cinema, a sequal is a continuation of the film: story, characters, setting all remain constant, to a degree. In games, many times, one or more of these elements does not have to be the same, in fact, some series (Final Fantasy for example), these elements are consistantly always different. A video game series, in a way, becomes more of a subgenre than a series of connected works. The musical analog is that of a "song cycle", in which each work is a separate and individual entity, though through some sort of common theme, all works are related.
FF12 is great. I'm nearing the end of it now (I'm just doing all the hunts before going into the last part of the story). The one thing that works about it is that they pulled back and made it fairly impersonal, which has its pros and cons. For one, EVERY console RPG I've ever played has some hokeyness about it, that I just have to put aside (I was able to do that with FF8, where some people are not... I wasn't able to do that with FF7, though), but FF12 had the least amount of any game I've played. Unfortunately, I'm not as awe-inspired or drawn to the game, since I'm not all that emotionally involved with the characters. Sure, Balthier is fun, Ashe is intense, Panelo is wise but carefree... but there's a level of separation that I'm not as used to in an RPG, and that I guess I desire. The problem is, so many RPGs have such BAD characterization, that it can completely ruin a game.
That said, it's gameplay is incredible, it's scope is amazing, and the antagonists are far and away the most human (although, I happen to really like Kuja, who was evil as hell, but still incredibly human to the point of pitty). At the point I'm at in the game, I would actually PREFER the "bad guys" to win, as I think they have a better grasp of what all is going on. I've never felt that way before in an RPG. Vayne may have a fairly unethical way of going about doing things, but his motives are quite pure.
FF12 is so incredibly different from the rest of the series, that it virtually incomparable, and belongs in its own subgenre of RPGs entirely, so it's hard to rank it as compared to the rest. That said, its disconnectedness prohibits me from wanting to put it at the top of my favorites list. And honestly, Twilight Princess just toppled FF8 off the #1 spot, so it's not even getting GAME OF THE YEAR, in my book, but it's still easilly one of my top 5 favorites of the decade, so far.
Lol, can't believe I made that mixup, but yeah, Nevsky is kinda hokey, although, it does have some good cinematography. The Battle on the Ice is still pretty incredible. But if you want REALLY hokey, try the other Eisenstein movie that Prokofiev did the score for, "Ivan the Terrible", which is absolutely atrocious, and the music isn't even all that interesting. Ivan is made to look threatening by having this gross, but long, little beard, and then freezing in stylized pozes with his eyes popping out at you. I could bearly finish it it was so bad.
I got into video games through music. I was studying composition at Oberlin Music Conservatory, and I had been delving into a lot of Progressive Rock on the side... listening to a lot of Emerson Lake & Palmer, Yes, and Genesis. A friend of mine, with similar tastes in music told me I had to check out this stuff by this guy Nobuo Uematsu, who was largely influenced by ELP and Yes. He played me some selections from FF8 and FF6, and I was blown away. I immediately downloaded an emulator (didn't have a console at the time), and played through FF6 and FF8 immediately, and from then on, I was hooked. Then, I started transcribing many of various themes and pieces for piano. I finished out my stay at Oberlin with a piano recital of arranged game music, and packed a small auditorium with gamers, musicians, and all interested folks, alike... one of the best shows I've ever had the privilage of performing in.
Since then, I've been studying film scoring, in hopes to one day go into film or game composition. And I still play my daily dose of video games.
I got involved with the site "VGMix", and had a lot of my work up there, unfortunately, the site went down about a year ago, and hasn't come back up since. I put a few things on OCRemix, but I don't tend to follow the site very much. I have an album of piano recordings I did in the studio, but the cost of licensing prohibits me from releasing the recordings publicly.
Yes, FF13 is a 2008 release... that has nothing to do with the fact that FF12 was just released (FF8 and FF9 were less than a year apart, since they were developed similtaneously by different teams), but yes, it's not going to be out any time soon. And I'm glad other people are starting to question FF13s exlusivity, which I think is in danger of completely disappearing. I still maintain that Square has probably had an 360 version in the works, all along, just in case the PS3 tanks.
Agreed. But partially, this is an error in terminology. "Classical" music, technically refers to a period of about 75 years of western art music in the 18th century that basically stems from Hydan to Mozart. Bach is the tail end of the Baroque era, and Beethoven is basically the grandfather of the Romantic movement, which turned its back on the black & white philosophies of the classical era. Unfortunately, we've used the term "classical" to refer to ALL western art music from the Baroque era forward. Many times, it's not a problem, but it does betray a certain elitist ideal toward a certain, very dated, era of western art music, that holds mathamatics above all else, even creativity.
Modern orchestral cinema music, and by extension, orchestral game music, is largely post-romantic art music seen through the lens of neo-classicism, impressionism, expressionism, jazz, and classic rock. Very little of anything out of this past century can be directly owed to Bach, and even less can be owed to Mozart. Probably, least of all, in art music, which largely regards Mozart as a formula composer with about as much innovation as a dime novelist.
There is really very little difference between today's movie music, and the Opera of the 19th century, or the Ballet of the early 20th century, which makes up a significant portion of highly recieved art music. Collaborative and multimedia efforts are not a new thing. For almost as long as there has been music, there have been visual counterparts to accompany it, in some form or another. Sergei Diaghilev's commissioning of Stravinsky to compose the music to his ballet, "The Rite of Spring", is no different from Fritz Lang's commissioning of Sergei Prokofiev to compose the music for his movie "Alexander Nevsky", Tim Burton's comissioning of Danny Elfman to compose the music to "Edward Scissorhands", or Sakaguchi's comissioning of Nobuo Uematsu to compose the music for the game "Final Fantasy."
The fact that the scope of the production has changed has little effect on the composer, as it is still largely written by one composer, working directly in conjunction with one director. As for the audience? Well, today's world is simply yesterday's concert hall.
Even the arguement condemning cinematic music is no different from that of Brahms' disavowing of all music that has any visual or literary counterpart. You may agree with Brahms, but as long as you can accept the legitimacy of the ballet (a vast plurality of well-known 20th century compositions are from ballets) you should not have any trouble accepting the legitimacy of the cinema or game score.
I think he meant that the 2D and 3D Final Fantasy's are different enough, demographically, visually, and from depth-wise (except for FF6), that they're tough to compare. And in a way, I agree. Oh, and you're full of shit, FFVIII is an amazing game. Some of the best character portrayal in video games, a very well devised scope (starts very small, and ends very large), a lot of subtlety, and far and away one of the best soundtracks. And the best thing about it, it's one of the first video games that dared to show the characters as normal people, whose entire lives didn't just revolve around completing a stupid plot.
Oh well, the war over FFVIII will never end. It's a love or hate kinda game, I've met many who love it (mostly older gamers), and many who hate it, not very many in the middle.
Actually, in my experience, in hard-core FF circles, FF8 is considered one of the strongest (it's my favorite in the series, btw). It was bound to turn a lot of people off, since it's much more character driven (rather than plot driven) and by the fact that younger boys think that "love stories are gay", also, it's skill/equipment system is a huge departure from the rest of the series.
I meet many many people who hate the game, but I find that most of them have only played a couple of games in the series, and almost always, FFVII is their favorite. There are many exceptions, no doubt, but a surprising number of the older FF fans (college and up) I run into put FF8 at the top of their list.
Well, Guinness doesn't fit that list, it's pretty big in Ireland and very big in England. When my English relatives come state-side, they're pretty perticular about getting their Guinness. Actually, Ireland has about 20 different kinds of Guinness, most that we don't get over here. They're very proud of it.
Similarly, I saw Heineken all over Amsterdam (Netherlandic, not Dutch), and in France it was the number one beer that I saw sold in vending machines.
Carl Sagan (aka: Butthead Astronomer ©): "Billions and Billions of Dollars"
Well, in some cases, it's just not fair. I listen to a lot of progressive rock. A typical classic era Yes album is 45 minutes and has 3 tracks. If they charged $3 for an album, noone would make any money. Do I think "Close to the Edge" (at 20 minutes length), should be priced at the same amount as the latest 2.5minute radio hit? No way.
BUT, that's not how the pricing has been. The pricing per song is to keep record labels from doing what they've been talking about doing, pricing hits much higher than everything else. I hate the concept of hits, personally, I think they ruin albums, and they give the recording industry an incentive to find one-hit-wonders, instead of establishing seasoned musicians. So, in a way, pay-per-song enchorages the industry to find consistant musicians.
Unfortunately, people in the US DO drink that stuff. But don't worry, most country's have similarly bad, mass-produced crap. Just thank god you're not Mexico, and don't drink Tacote (Mexican equivelent of Budwiser... really terrible stuff). Remember, Canadians have Molson Ice (sorry, there is SOME good Molson, but some of it is just as bad as Bud).
I do agree that not ALL US beer is bad, but most of it is. Sam Adams is tollerable, I don't know if I'd exactly call it "great beer". Although, many smaller, more regional brews are quite good. Here in Alaska we have the "Alaskan" brewing company (I know, really creative name), but aside from the really uncreative name, some of their stuff is DAMN good. Alaskan Amber has become a stapple, and is now exported all along the pacific coast. They also make a really good "Guinness-like" Oatmeal stout that's worth a try. The fact is, few country's are big enough to warrant such incredibly hugely mass-produced beers as Bud and Miller, even things like Heineken are a drop-in-the-hat comparitively... which is why they're so much better. After a brewing company gets too big, it just gets bad. The same happens with really small micro-brews too... as many individuals have no idea how to make good beer (myself included... but I don't brew).
Your post very-much confuses me. Who cares if they are a Teddy Rosevelt style preservationist, who's ultimate goal is preserving the world so that HUMANS can enjoy it, or a spiritual conservationist who believes it's our moral duty to preserve the world for its own sake... ultimately their goals are the same. The term "envirnomentalist" is an umbrella term for all of the above, and it seems like you've pigieon-holed it to a group of almost non-existant radicals.
Very very few environmentalists have any interest in removing the human species from this planet... but drawing attention to our viral-like properties is a dramatic, and motivating analogy. Sure, it might be a bit mellodramatic, but if it gets people's attention, and gets people thinking about how to do better for the future of this world and ourselves, I'm not going to complain.
One thing though... when was the last time you knew a scientist that was a producer (Carl Sagan)... okay... who is still alive. And you can be sure that if Carl was still alive, he'd be right their helping Gore. Besides Carl Sagan, scientists hardly EVER make good producers and spokesman. But who fucking cares? Gore had a full team of scientists double-checking and tripple-checking every tidbit of information given in the movie, not to mention that the vast bulk of the movie is backed up by hundreds of published scientific journal articles. The fact that the person standing in front of the camera, or the person in charge of getting funding for the film isn't a scientist isn't just irrelivant, it's a no-brainer.
So, I'll re-itterate, the only reason why a scientist didn't make An Inconvenient Truth is because Carl Sagan is dead.
To a certain degree, I can understand it as a part of Apple's "One Size Fits All" marketting (which I happen to think is damn effective). Currently, when you download a music off of iTMS, every file has the same restrictions, and allows the same freedoms. On the public front, this is simply to make it "easier for the consumer". But in actuality, it is a cover, a little trick to keep record lables from ever pushing more severe DRM... if they put up an umbrella specification on their files, and make a big stink about how it is for user-friendliness, the recording industry just flat out can't argue with them.
Apple's DRM reflects their pricing: 99cents per song. Sure, maybe there could have been a few songs here and there placed at 75cents, but it makes sure that no songs are priced at $3. Their DRM policy is invasive, to be sure, but on the scheme of things, it's the least invasive that ever has been, but it keeps the record industry to go any further.
The bottom line is, DRM has no benefit to Apple. The iTMS is a loss or "break-even" leader, in order to sell iPods... and it's possible that not having DRM would result in a FEW more iPod sales. They have no personal reason to ever want DRM on their material... but they gotta, according to the recording industry. People act like they're not fighting it. They're fighting it like crazy, but they know that they can't win without some form of compromise. DRM is simply one part of the music industry's grand scheme of controlling media. Apple put their foot down when it came to pricing, and they came up with one of the least invasive DRM schemes ever. And the reason they've been able to keep with both of these is because they are completely unwavering in their support of this system. If they were to start selling a few non-DRM tunes, the recording industry would see this as a new-found flexability in Apple's infrastructure, and try to take advantage of that.
This might sound fanboyish, but there's a lot of psychology going in to play here. By setting one universal standard, and utterly keeping with it, it creates a rock-solid wall in which the recording industry can't touch.