I always love the "small government" arguement. Everyone bitches about a smaller government, but the fact is, they only want it downsized in certain areas.
I want to see a smaller government too: I want to see the military budget cut down to size, more incentives to jump-start a PRIVATE space program (so the tax payers don't have to pay for it), and I want the government to stay out of the bedroom and stop making judgements about people's sexual preferences. I also want to see drugs legalized and taxed: both cutting the prison populations down, putting the pushers out of business, and getting more government funding in the process. That's MY smaller government for ya, and I tell ya, with a smaller military budget and prison costs, it's probably a lot cheaper than the smaller government you're thinking of.
The same people who typically bitch about smaller government (republicans), are always the biggest government spenders, and what's worse is, in stead of spending on things that just might help people, they use our money to bring down God's wrath upon those they don't agree with. The only "small government" people who aren't fucking hypocrits are Libertarians... which, while I don't completely agree with them, at least aren't stumbing over their proverbs.
First, the number of people executed is currently only a fraction compared to those who get a life sentance without parole, anyway... by a power of magnitude. So, obviously, we actually can accomidate for a completely execution-free system, because we're practically doing it now.
Secondly, it costs MORE for the state to put a person through the death sentance procedings than to keep them in jail for life without parole. It's something in the neighborhood of 2-millon dollars, on average. Now, one could argue that this is largely due to the anti-death penalty constituency, and there for, if we just would shut up, this arguement would go away. But the fact is, there will ALWAYS be a large number of anti-death penalty people, and the ACLU, throwing hundreds of thousands per-case on lawyers, so from a pragmatic standpoint, it's not worth the money.
My biggest problem with the death penalty is not so much it's act, but the REAL intentions of most of the people involved. It is an act of revenge, the convenience arguement is usual just a cover for people's subconcious desires to "see the bad people burn". It's human, it's inescapable, I know; but vengence always hinders proper acts of justice, and we need to fight off these darker desires as much as we possibly can.
If we lived in a country/world where it was much ACTUALLY more efficient to use the death penalty, and were we were a people who's logic was no longer clouded by vengence... then the death penality would probably be much more applicable. But until then, we should realize that we may be simply playing into the hands of a childish, barberous need for revenge, and play it safe.
Still mostly behind-the-scenes fixes to keep the OS running normally (security features, WiFi udpates)... And most of those things you mentioned aren't even OS upgrades, they're software upgrades that can be gotten without upgrading the OS. The bottom line is that Microsoft is still struggling to solve basic underlying system problems, and they've been having to concentrate on those so much that they haven't even had the time to update the UI, and fix its general clunkiness. And don't tell me that's because it doesn't need touching up... OOOhhh, it needs some work, real bad!
Apple basically came to a stable system framework with OS10.2 (which is when I got onboard), and their updates usually revolve around extremely rare bug occurrences and new hardware that hadn't been considered, and their upgrades create whole new developement structures (like the Core implementations), and UI implementations, of which they've actually had the TIME to do.
That's because as an OS matures, the amount of new features and functionality that is required or even thought up, becomes less. Bugs get ironed out until there are litteraly no more bugs. OS X has been maturing and developing in both features and fixes since its conception. Of course, the computer industry never stands still, so an OS will always have to accomidate for new hardware, standards, and security concerns.
But here's an example:
MacOS 10.2 needed a better way of navigating individual windows, so designers created Exposé for 10.3... problem solved. From then on, there's no reason to spend a lot of time and energy into window navigation features. Little by little, every need gets satisfied, and there's less and less big new features to create.
I'm not saying that OS X is perfect, or even close to perfect; I hope it continues to grow and evolve as long as it exists. For one thing, it bewilders me why the designers have never bothered to standardize the window design in the Finder... which is still a bit clumsy. For the most part, Apple is pretty solid on creating very concise UI standards that are based on fundimental principals of grapic design and interface philosophy... but the finder is one area that they've stumbled a bit, and even though its probably more functional than OS9s, it's not as air-tight in regards to keeping with a standard Look & Feel. The original intent of brushed metal, for one, was a standardized Look & Feel for applications that simulate physical hardware: calcultors, CD players, Movie players, etc, so why it shows up in file navigation systems and web browsers is beyond me.
So, OS X has some improvements to make, but from a functional standpoint, they're small knit-picks.
In a word "yes", unquestionably, not that that's all that hard. FFX was surprisingly good for a JPRG, but JRPGs have unbelievably crappy acting, and I'm not so sure why, maybe because voice acting, all together, is a fairly new thing to video games?
But FF12's voice acting is quite impressive. Every character's voice not only depicts their general architype, but fits the scene (as if the actors actually knew what was going on in the story this time around), and some of it is just incredibly good. Balthier is pretty much everyone's highlite: a pirate, but incredibly sauve and sophisticated, with great dialog, without being TOO pretentious (his character is SUPPOSED to be a bit pretentious, and it comes off really well). Some complained about Fran, probably because they were expecting a "sexy kitten" voice... but I think her voice fits her character PERFECTLY: she's cold, confident, and introverted, while remaining slightly mysterious, but not melodramatically so.
Actually, probably the weakest link is Vaan, who seems to me to be a bit too decisive in his speech, even when it doesn't make much sense that he would be. It also sounds like his voice actor was sitting a little too close to the mic, his vocal production is a bit dryer and more forward feeling than the others, it's just a little off. But his character plays a fairly minor roll in the tale, and thankfully, unlike most other FF male leads, the other characters don't automatically look to him as a leader, he's not really even the "leader" type. So his acting is by no means, terrible, and combined with perfectly fitting dialog, and the fact that his personality is neither obnoxious, nor super-humanly charasmatic, makes for a comparitively stellar performance. Interestingly, he does a very good job coming across as the "older brother" personality, unlike Titus, who was undeniably the whiny, pampered, only child (I know the type, I am one). Even though Vaan has no real siblings, he's basically been raised along side Kytes, who's 12 or so, and he very much plays the roll of big brother, and his experience as a roll model really comes across in his personality, unlike every other game in the series, in which the main character is always a lone wolf.
Panello is interesting. At first glance, she appears to be another decendant from the long line of "teeny boppers" (Realm, Yuffie, Selphie, and Rikku), but her looks betray her personality. She's not childish and giggly—although you often see her and Vaan goofing off in the background of cut scenes (which is actually a breath of fresh air, and handled very well)—and even though she's still a teenager, you can get a sense of "who she is" and who she will be when she's older, unlike the others who always play the part of the "eternal teenager". In fact, she's fairly subdued and matriarchal, filling the roll older sister or even mother roll to Kytes at the time of the game's beginning. In fact, she's a fairly normal person... and while this doesn't make for jaw-droppingly dramatic scenes, it's refreshing, and her voice actress plays the part perfectly.
Actually, where the game shines is in its side characters, who supply the game with the dramatic pyrotechnics. While Al-Cid or Cid (yes, there are two Cids... completely unrelated, too) would be utterly obnoxious as main characters, their occational appearances are always a welcome addition, and serve to spice up the dialog and action.
Bottom line is the voice actors in FFX, as well as many other JRPGs, feel like they're trying too hard all the time to be cute, charasmatic, angsty, or melodramatic... if anything, FF12 is underplayed, the characters are much more human and normal, even though their rolls are extra-ordinary (Condemned Princess, Forsaken Knight, Pirate with a shaky past, a bunny-girl, and two orphans). Most JRPG characters take their rolls too seriously... you feel as if at all times, you're supposed to be thinking, "that's the clown" (Wakka), "that's the badass" (Auron), "that's the cutsie girl" (Rikku), "that'
Well, see it from my point of view... how the hell am I not supposed to be pissed off at your post? You've basically called me a "casual gamer", in so many words, by default. You attest that there are SOME non-casual gamers in the Wii camp, but you wouldn't consider them as hardcore as those not in the Wii camp. WTF? I had a PS2, I had a gamecube, and until the last 5 incredible months of the PS2 lifespan, I'd say that the GameCube had far better games, and quite a bit of them were just as involved as the most non-casual PS2 games. I want to see MORE involvement in games, if anything... but I can't help but see the PS3 community as the shallow, casual gamers, who simply buy expensive consoles and TVs to show off to their friends, and who play bloody games as a way of nursing their threatened masculinity. THAT'S the casual gamer for you... and the world is full of them.
How the hell is a 72 hour adventure game (Zelda: TP), more casual than Gears of War? It may be "nicer", it might be less violent, but it's fucking involved. It takes a lot of concentration, a lot of time and effort. I could give you a handfull of other top-selling GameCube games that were within the same margin of involvement. Nintendo isn't out to simply play to the tune of the casual gamer, they're out to turn the casual gamer into a more involved gamer. They've got the quick hooks to reel in the masses, and the more in-depth gameplay to keep them there. Basically, if you can pull off a 50+ hour game, of any type, you're NOT a casual gamer. I've played dozens of 40+ hour games, but the first time I went through one (Final Fantasy 6), I was hooked.
Most of the Wii owners I know are long time gamers, some of them are blood and guts freaks like you, some of them are sick and tired of attention to superficial graphics and gore and want to actually PLAY A GOOD GAME, like me. I've wound up putting my money on Nintendo because of personal philosophy, not by how many hours or how involved I am in the games I play; and from what I've seen, a large percentage of the Slashdot community has a lot of the same feelings. I'd like to see the console gaming industry, as a whole, move more towards the way that Nintendo is trying to establish it, and less away from the styles layed out by PC gaming. Yes, this is going to conflict with your personal opinion. I'd like to see thought and artistry grow in the gaming world... and I seriously think that pushing superficial graphical pyrotechnics (the PS3), as simply pushing the game industry toward the mindless blockbuster side of hollywood. Sure, Nintendo may be pushing the industry closer to Pixar, but at that doesn't play into the hands of the right-wing propoganda, meatheaded mindlessness of a lot of the gaming industry.
I take my games VERY seriously... the next few decades will define an entire entertainment genre, and whether it will progress into something greater, or whether it will simply become a mindless toy for angsty 16 year olds. I'd rather see ANYTHING happen to it besides that.
Now, I can not attest to knowing anything about this ordeal, but it has been interesting to follow how the forum is handling it. I've noted that most of the posts on this forum largely fall into two catagories: flippint remarks, usually involving common cliches and tidbits from geek pop culture thrown in for good measure; and then fairly serious posts by people who actually READ THE ARTICLE, most of which exhonerate Mr. Jobs. Now, I expected quite a few posts that would attempt to clear him and settle the unrest it has caused... but I expected more in opposition by people who actually have something worthwhile to say.
You do have a point, sales do give the directors/artists a clue as to what is popularly liked and disliked about their work, as do reviews. I used to not care about load times, but now I'm starting to realize that at a less conscious level, they're negetively effecting my experience as a whole. This is why there's not quite as much public outcry for better load times, most of the time people just don't notice, but it may give an overall less possitive feeling about the game. It's unfortunate, because it takes longer for game designers to come to the realization that it IS a pretty big issue. Graphics are right there in front of you. Since the beginning of video games, graphics have been one of the most closely scruitinized aspects of gaming, where waiting arond wasn't even an issue until the playstation, and for most of the early games of that generation, the content was simple enough that load times weren't that bad.
Now, they're bad. It sorta snuck up on us while we were busy counting polygons. I see more and more ingenious solutions to solving load time issues, and I hope that trend continues until we're back up to not having to wait between areas. Now you're starting to see more public awareness on the matter: recently a Tony Hawk TV commercial used "no load times" as one of the major selling points of the game. It showed a guy on a skateboard on a city block, and then he crashes into an invisible bearier, looks up, and watches a progress bar ticking off in the air... you may have seen it.
Hopefully this generation is more responsible with load time issues than the last.
Now that's a load of bull. I was following you, to a point, up until you started talking about Nintendo as if they only made games for kids. If by kids, you mean anyone not between the ages of 13 and 18, who have an irrational intrigue for blowing people's heads off, then I'll give it to you. I'm sorry, I don't buy it. You're falling for the same "us and them" propoganda the permiates the rest gaming community. The gaming community isn't simply made up of "casual gamers" and "hardcore gamers"... people who separate it into two psychographics are doing it simply to separate themselves from everyone else who has a difference of opinion. The fact is, there are MANY different types of gamers. Only some like to blow people's heads off... and I have a very low opinion of that psychographic. You act as if people who like Nintendo's output are somehow less connected, less informed, or less interested in gaming than everyone else. But it's just that we have different taste. Zelda and Metroid are two of my favorite series, they offer something a bit above and beyond your standard "shoot the bad guys in the head" games. I've been gaming since the NES, and I have an appreciation for the development the guys at the gaming division have taken over the years.
Nintendo is TRYING to make games that will appeal to casual gamers and serious gamers alike. That's not an unreasonable goal, and I don't think the two are at all mutually exclusive: a good gaming experiece shouldn't matter whether or not you're familliar with gaming or not. Similarly, Inside Man wasn't any less a good movie if you weren't familliar with Spike Lee's previous outtings or not. Pink Floyd appealled itself to non-musicians, and music connoseurs alike. Nintendo is attempting to do that, and from what I'm seeing by the various reviews... they do a DAMN good job of it. I don't feel any lesser that I'm enjoying something that a soccer-mom is also enjoying, why should it bother you? Are you so insecure in your personal philosophy that you have to actively dissassociate yourself with anything that anyone different than you may be enjoying? Cuz that's really sad.
Let me put this in a language that you're probably better familliar with:
Real gamers don't give a shit about who's enjoying the game, or even, what audience the game was made for. This is why I have trouble considering most FPS fans to be "gamers", as I've seen many of them pass through that stage on the way to adult hood, only to disown the entire genre in their mid 20s. People who follow Nintendos outtings have been around the block a few times. Think about that the next time you open your mouth.
While I agree that content trumps loading times, significant load times can substantially mar an otherwise exceptional gaming experience. If the game's goal is immersion (which is most games), significant loading can jolt you out of the experience. Suikoden V could have competed in the "game of the year" catagory, but its load times significantly altered the gameplay experience: you didn't feel the desire to walk around and explore quite so much, all you wanted to do was get to the next place and get the loading times over with. Now, I know this is an extreme (10 second load times every 5 seconds, in spots), but to a lesser degree, it effects quite a few games.
I hate it when people talk about entertainment products, as if the companies are doing as little as humanly possible. Behind those games are designers with a sense of personal pride, and intrigue. The first and foremost audience for their work is themselves. Even if you're put on a shitty project like making a blockbuster movie spinoff, the designers are trying to make the best thing they can with the resources they have. Usually there's one guy at the top directing the project, like in the film industry, and his sensabilities will be the most prevolent in the game's design. He doesn't want to see ungodly load times as much as Spike Lee doesn't want to see bad acting. What I'm trying to say is that they're not doing JUST the bear minimum of what people will allow.
In the film industry, we've been able to partially bypass the notion of corporate-created-material, by putting names and faces to directors and producers, and saying "this is their movie"... and to a large extent, we're correct in doing so. Thankfully, we're starting to see that more and more in the game industry, with directors and design teams being at the foremost attention of gamers: Kojima, Will Wright, Miyamodo, Clover Studios. I'm thrilled to see this transition, as credit for games is given to individuals and design teams.
I bet someone could develop one hell of a real-time-strategy game with google earth. Oh wait...we already do, it's called real life, but the only players are Bush and Chaney
Who didn't see this one coming? A plane that is only a viable solution for no more than a handfull of routes worldwide, and based on the now long-dead "Mega-Hub" system (which has since given way to the "micro-hub" system). Now couple that with the fact that it requires a specialized jetway to accomidate for the double-decker seating arrangement. Finally, add to that that the last real-life emergency exit test couldn't break 45 minutes for getting everyone out of the plane... the FAA requires 5 minutes; even the 747-400 can pull that off.
Here's the funniest part. Boeing decided to play it safe for a while, and then later announced a redesign of the 747, stretching the double-decker section to about half to 2/3rds the way down the plane, surpassing the capacity of the A380 with an already tried-and-true airframe design. Since then (something like 8 months ago), I've heard that many of the A380 orders have been canceled and shifted to Boeing's design. In the mean-time, Boeing creates one of the most revolutionary mid-large sized jets (the Dreamliner), which is proving to be a huge success (order-wise).
Airbus, your days are numbered, you've screwed up BIG TIME, and I mean "PlayStation 3" BIG TIME.
You're right, they did make top-quality electronics... 15 years ago. Seriously, ever since the Discman came out, it's all been downhill. Panasonic started making better portable CD players, Sharp kicked their asses in the MiniDisc world (a format of Sony's own design), and TVs... jesus christ, the TVs! Bottom line is, now, all they stand for is high prices, that's all I see in my mind. They're not the worst stuff in the world, but there's likely other large brands that are just as good or better for 70% the price $ony's been dorkin' us. I no longer see them as a top-quality product company, I see them as a run-of-the-mill electronics company like Panasonic, Magnovox, JVC, or anyone else, that are simply coasting on the acclaim of yesteryear.
Bottom line is, you can't find a product that Sony makes, where there's not another brand that will sell you something better for cheaper. You're not gonna get crap from Sony, but don't expect the world, either. That should be their new slogan.
Seriously, I don't see how this is any different from the original experiment, other than the possibility that the data is completely scued due to people's realization that the characters aren't real (although I think the response would probably be similar). The original experiment was deemed unethical because it basically used coersion tactics to trick people into doing things they wouldn't normally do, and later feeling extremely guilty about it. My uncle was a test subject in the experiment, and he was never quite the same afterwards. It's not like he's brain damaged or anything, but his perceptions about who he is have forever been altered because of it.
Why do we insist on trying to repeat the same, ethically disfunctional experiment over and over? I'd like to see what Frued would say about THAT.
Are you kidding me? For months, every time a press person would ask a Sony exec about their new game console, the exec would snarf and say something along the lines of, "It's not a game console, its an entertainment center!" I (and many others) took that (and I think rightfully so) to mean that "game consoles are for kids, what we're doing here is FAR above that". I don't think you have to read too much into it to get that out of it, they practically said it themselves. If that isn't a slap in the face of the gaming community, I don't know what is. If you didn't see that, then you're wearing blinders. I used to be a huge Playstation fan... look where I am now? You think this newly found cynicism agianst Sony, by myself and a large percentage of the formerly pro-Sony community comes just because they priced a game system too high? No. It's because they've completely dissowned their fanbase. Funny that the company who seems to respect the gaming community the most is the one that's been trying the hardest to reach out to non-gamers.
IE: Sony has an interesting way of trying to directly target gamers, and only gamers, while disrespecting and ignoring them completely. Nintendo has an interesting way of reaching out to non-gamers without appearing "holier than thow" in the eyes of the gaming community. A company's perception of itself and its consumers has a large roll in dictating the quality of material they produce. Sony has shown that they think they know what's best for us, and to hell what we think. And from what I've seen, the resulting product is as shallow as the typical American ethos: all glitz and glam, stupid, boring, and full of shit.
Actually FFXIIs load times are probably the best on the system. They seem to have taken a hint from many other games, including Metroid Prime, and do a preload of adjacent rooms while the processor is free, and also keeps the previous room in the buffer (monsters appear at the door if you go back and forth). You want ass load times? Try Suikoden V, great game, but each new area can be as short as one hallway wide, and the load time is always between 8-15secs. Probably just as bad is Dragon Quest 8, another great game, but it has a 5-10sec load every time you bring up the menu screen, and then another 5-10secs when you go into various alternate sections of the menu system, and then another 5-10secs to get back to the game.
It's really not so much the system's capability that defines load times, but how good the game is designed to accomidate for them. There's no question that the GameCube is far faster at retrieving data off the disc, but a lot of the faster speeds you're seeing are due to suggestions/requirements by Nintendo as to how to compansate for loading. Metroid Prime is a great example: large complex rooms are separated by small, simple corridors in which the processor has extra time to load the next room into memory. This way, the game never stops, the player is always doing SOMETHING, and furthermore, it helps to broaden out the level areas, and give some variety in room size and makeup. Many times these corridors are also sparcely populated, or include hidden power pickups as well. Also, since adjacent rooms load in the background, the game is always ready for where the player is going to be. The result is a game that never stops, and the maximum wait time for openning a door is something like 2-3secs tops if you've rushed through a large room before the processor had a chance to finish preloading the adjacent room.
FF12 did some of this by preloading adjacent rooms... it's one of the first games I've seen on the PS2 that does this, and it resulted in one of the fastest loading games on the system. Most RPGs on the PS2 are absolutely aweful in loadtimes: Xenosaga, Suikoden V, Dragon Quest, Star Ocean, Wild Arms 4, all obnoxious load times (and some obnoxious games, but I won't go there).
BTW: fuck HDs, why not simply have a gig onboard cache that would be used to store all possible data that will be needed in the next 20 seconds (like adjacent rooms or areas). That can practically be done now, but many programmers are too lazy to do anything with it... there is just no excuse for not doing things like this in Suikoden V and Dragon Quest.
This is probably the number 1 reason I like about Nintendo, beyond their high quality hardware and software, they have high standards about how clean games must be before they run on their systems. They realize that every game that goes out on their systems reflects on their image, and they take it upon themselves to make sure developers don't screw it up. Sony seem to project an image of non-involvement when it comes to their systems... as long as the developers pay their licensing fees and don't inherently crash the system every 5 minutes, they can do whatever they want. It's like the difference between Apple and Microsoft in terms of interface design, but that's a different post altogether.
Well, seeing as though PS2 load times are UNGODLY, compared to other modern systems (GameCube, in particular, which has loading down to a T), the claim "shorter than PS2 games", alone, does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.
But the difference here is that it is by no means a major selling point, or something very much hyped by Nintendo. The fact is, all the concentration in both marketting, and I'm guessing, to a certain degree, in design, was in game oriented development. The problem is that Sony is trying to sell there system as "Not just a video game console", which is sort of a slap in the face of the gaming community. Also, one also has to wonder whether the high concentration in additional features could have taken away from other areas.
At least, publicly, Nintendo's approach has been: here's a great videogame console, and we put a lot of thought into making it fun and intuitive... and oh, btw, we're throwing in a web browser with it. Whereas Sony has been yelling and screaming, using the additional, non-game related features as an excuse whenever people heckle them about the price, as in:
Press: What are you doing selling a $600 game console?
Sony: Damnit, it's not JUST a game console, it does other things too like play HD video and can surf the web.
It's all in the presentation, and Sony leaves you with an uneasy feeling that game-related content (including pricing it like a game console) was sacrificed a bit to make room for this other stuff. THAT'S what concerns us.
Broken d-pad
They "broke" the d-pad into four buttons, and broken it is indeed! It's hard to press a diagonal.
I have my issues with the PS controller as well, but this is not one of them. I would go as far as to say that it's the most usable D-Pad ever made. You're much less likely to accidently hit up/down when pressing left/right, and vice-versa. That is one design I'd like to see on all controllers. Nintendo's D-Pad's are alright, Sega's are terrible, and I haven't played enough games that use the XBox/360 d-pad to really decide one way or the other. Probably the second best d-pad to the PS controller is the VCCs and the one on the Wiimote is surprisingly good for being so small. Bottom line is, d-pads are problematic, and much harder to get right than analog sticks. Pretty much every analog stick I've played with (except the crummy as hell, but obviously prototypical, N64 stick) has been good to excellent, with the GameCube's sticks probably toping it off—the Nunchuck and VCCs sticks would be right there too, but the absense of any testured surface on its top makes it a little harder to grip.
One thing that I think recent controllers should have taught us is that simply color coding, naming, or giving shapes to buttons is not enough. You're not looking at the controller, and frankly, mixing up "left" & "right" is really simple on a cross-shaped button layout. The PS controller makes this even worse by making the right and left circle and square, which are similar looking at a glance (and almost impossible to tell with small icons on the screen) and both reddish in color. I cannot tell you how many times I've mixed up those two.
I think Nintendo had the right idea with tactile button differences. Sure, it might look a little goofy, but it really works well to distinguish functionality. It also makes the buttons prioritized, functionally: A and B are primary and secondary, due to their more traditional positioning and shape, and the jelly-bean X and Y buttons are auxillary, due to their slightly more complex and less obvious shape and positioning. I also think having 3 shoulder buttons was a GREAT move, as the primary Left and Right become distinguished by the fact that one shares a spot with a secondary shoulder button. Humans have problems with immediately distinishing sides of a mirrored image, so anything that creates some aesymmetry really helps. With the Nunchuck, the natural hand position, for most people, places the index finger underneath the L trigger, the fact that one has to move their finger to get to "C" trigger makes the differences immediately obvious. People might not remember the names of these buttons, but they sure know how they feel, and once they learn what each button does, calling up the correct muscle action to perform an action is instantaneous.
Probably the most agreggious button programming scheme is the context-sensitive setup in the Metal Gear Solid series. Litterally half you're concentration goes to thinking, "okay, so now, what buttons do I have to press to be able to perform the correct action?" The game also requires incredible precision to be able to keep from doing certain actions, such as going from crouch to prone. Just when you think you've figured it out, you enter close combat, and the whole layout changes, without warning, to accomidate for a totally different style of play... and at the worst possible time too, when you should be doing quick and concise actions. The game is great, but the control setup is extraordinarilly terrible. Kojima has some great ideas, but he could learn a great deal from Miyamodo's emphasis on intuitive and simple control schemes. Miyamodo really is the king of intuitive control schemes: if a game's control scheme is too complicated... he changes it, or if need be, he changes the game.
What we need is a device that's sorta like a flying Segway... it detects changes in stability and corrects for them. Seriously, having propultion from one's leg area seems like a pretty good way to go, as jet engine mounted anywhere else could risk serious injury. Plus, there's no way that a human could survive a horizontal, runway landing. Any individually mounted jet-pack would have to take off and land virtically. So, the closest thing I can think of is something like a flying segway that attaches to your legs and feet, and keeps you standing upright the entire time via smaller side-to-side thrusters, like a Harrier. Now, VTOL aircraft are incredibly innefficient, so I'm not sure how feasible this is.
good point. I didn't think about it like that... but unfortunately, neither is most of the game playing population. Wouldn't it be better for their hardware sales to release a few MUST HAVES on SNES and N64 in attempts to get people to buy the VCC early on?
But it always revolutionizes the industry and the way people think of their gadgets. MP3 players would have stayed exactly that, fancy gadgets that everyone loves to show off, but still keep a DiscMan in their back pocket. Now, not only do people "enjoy" using their portable music players, they don't even really give it a second thought.
Blackberries and cellphones have become used out of neccessity and habit, but they're still aggrivating as all getup, and don't really much inspire people to pick up and use at any time they just "feel like it". I can't remember a time when Apple has had anything less than the most intuitive and unified software design (from a UI standpoint), the only one who can probably compete is Adobe.
The thing that kills Apple, though, is not that their scheme of user-friendliness loses to competitors more power-monger oriented design philophies... it's that Apple's competitors come to realize that Apple is right, and inject a bit of Apple's philosophy into their products. Do you really think people would have continued using DOS into the mid-90s if Microsoft hadn't developed Windows? No, we'd all be using Macs right now.
Apple may be too late into the game of cellphones, though, it'll be a tough battle. On the other hand, compatibility isn't nearly as much of a factor in the cellphone market as it is in the computer market or the game console market. People aren't really concerned about whether their cellphones are going to run the latest and greatest... they buy them to use the software that comes pre-installed, for the most part. This gives Apple, or any upstart in the industry, an advantage (or, more precisely, less of a dissadvantage). This time around, cellphone companies have been TRYING to develop friendly interface designs, and have been at least partially successful, unlike the mp3 market, where companies didn't give a shit until far after the iPod was released and already kicking their asses. Apple are really going to have to offer some huge advantages... and I think there's plenty of room. For one thing, they're good at tying infrastructure and software together: creating services (like iTMS) that are an integral part of the user's experience of a piece of software or hardware. That really hasn't worked for cellphone providers yet, noone's been able to setup and market and "services" yet. iTMS is a huge start, right there, with music, movies and games already going strong, they have a service unlike anything any other cellphone provider can provide. And there are many more similar possibilities like this. Expect "services" to be the number 1 selling point of Apple cellphones if/when they're released.
Bingo... the underlying layers are really not important in this. As long as Apple can create a small, Quartz or Quartz-like graphics engine, they'll be able utilize their existing skills to come up with an "OS X-esque" but mobile-oriented user interface. It's Quartz that sells OS X, not Darwin.
Slashdot Mirror
I always love the "small government" arguement. Everyone bitches about a smaller government, but the fact is, they only want it downsized in certain areas.
I want to see a smaller government too: I want to see the military budget cut down to size, more incentives to jump-start a PRIVATE space program (so the tax payers don't have to pay for it), and I want the government to stay out of the bedroom and stop making judgements about people's sexual preferences. I also want to see drugs legalized and taxed: both cutting the prison populations down, putting the pushers out of business, and getting more government funding in the process. That's MY smaller government for ya, and I tell ya, with a smaller military budget and prison costs, it's probably a lot cheaper than the smaller government you're thinking of.
The same people who typically bitch about smaller government (republicans), are always the biggest government spenders, and what's worse is, in stead of spending on things that just might help people, they use our money to bring down God's wrath upon those they don't agree with. The only "small government" people who aren't fucking hypocrits are Libertarians... which, while I don't completely agree with them, at least aren't stumbing over their proverbs.
Well, there are two problems with this, though.
First, the number of people executed is currently only a fraction compared to those who get a life sentance without parole, anyway... by a power of magnitude. So, obviously, we actually can accomidate for a completely execution-free system, because we're practically doing it now.
Secondly, it costs MORE for the state to put a person through the death sentance procedings than to keep them in jail for life without parole. It's something in the neighborhood of 2-millon dollars, on average. Now, one could argue that this is largely due to the anti-death penalty constituency, and there for, if we just would shut up, this arguement would go away. But the fact is, there will ALWAYS be a large number of anti-death penalty people, and the ACLU, throwing hundreds of thousands per-case on lawyers, so from a pragmatic standpoint, it's not worth the money.
My biggest problem with the death penalty is not so much it's act, but the REAL intentions of most of the people involved. It is an act of revenge, the convenience arguement is usual just a cover for people's subconcious desires to "see the bad people burn". It's human, it's inescapable, I know; but vengence always hinders proper acts of justice, and we need to fight off these darker desires as much as we possibly can.
If we lived in a country/world where it was much ACTUALLY more efficient to use the death penalty, and were we were a people who's logic was no longer clouded by vengence... then the death penality would probably be much more applicable. But until then, we should realize that we may be simply playing into the hands of a childish, barberous need for revenge, and play it safe.
Still mostly behind-the-scenes fixes to keep the OS running normally (security features, WiFi udpates)... And most of those things you mentioned aren't even OS upgrades, they're software upgrades that can be gotten without upgrading the OS. The bottom line is that Microsoft is still struggling to solve basic underlying system problems, and they've been having to concentrate on those so much that they haven't even had the time to update the UI, and fix its general clunkiness. And don't tell me that's because it doesn't need touching up... OOOhhh, it needs some work, real bad!
Apple basically came to a stable system framework with OS10.2 (which is when I got onboard), and their updates usually revolve around extremely rare bug occurrences and new hardware that hadn't been considered, and their upgrades create whole new developement structures (like the Core implementations), and UI implementations, of which they've actually had the TIME to do.
That's because as an OS matures, the amount of new features and functionality that is required or even thought up, becomes less. Bugs get ironed out until there are litteraly no more bugs. OS X has been maturing and developing in both features and fixes since its conception. Of course, the computer industry never stands still, so an OS will always have to accomidate for new hardware, standards, and security concerns.
But here's an example:
MacOS 10.2 needed a better way of navigating individual windows, so designers created Exposé for 10.3... problem solved. From then on, there's no reason to spend a lot of time and energy into window navigation features. Little by little, every need gets satisfied, and there's less and less big new features to create.
I'm not saying that OS X is perfect, or even close to perfect; I hope it continues to grow and evolve as long as it exists. For one thing, it bewilders me why the designers have never bothered to standardize the window design in the Finder... which is still a bit clumsy. For the most part, Apple is pretty solid on creating very concise UI standards that are based on fundimental principals of grapic design and interface philosophy... but the finder is one area that they've stumbled a bit, and even though its probably more functional than OS9s, it's not as air-tight in regards to keeping with a standard Look & Feel. The original intent of brushed metal, for one, was a standardized Look & Feel for applications that simulate physical hardware: calcultors, CD players, Movie players, etc, so why it shows up in file navigation systems and web browsers is beyond me.
So, OS X has some improvements to make, but from a functional standpoint, they're small knit-picks.
Didn't you know?
Well, life's a bitch, ain't it?
In a word "yes", unquestionably, not that that's all that hard. FFX was surprisingly good for a JPRG, but JRPGs have unbelievably crappy acting, and I'm not so sure why, maybe because voice acting, all together, is a fairly new thing to video games?
But FF12's voice acting is quite impressive. Every character's voice not only depicts their general architype, but fits the scene (as if the actors actually knew what was going on in the story this time around), and some of it is just incredibly good. Balthier is pretty much everyone's highlite: a pirate, but incredibly sauve and sophisticated, with great dialog, without being TOO pretentious (his character is SUPPOSED to be a bit pretentious, and it comes off really well). Some complained about Fran, probably because they were expecting a "sexy kitten" voice... but I think her voice fits her character PERFECTLY: she's cold, confident, and introverted, while remaining slightly mysterious, but not melodramatically so.
Actually, probably the weakest link is Vaan, who seems to me to be a bit too decisive in his speech, even when it doesn't make much sense that he would be. It also sounds like his voice actor was sitting a little too close to the mic, his vocal production is a bit dryer and more forward feeling than the others, it's just a little off. But his character plays a fairly minor roll in the tale, and thankfully, unlike most other FF male leads, the other characters don't automatically look to him as a leader, he's not really even the "leader" type. So his acting is by no means, terrible, and combined with perfectly fitting dialog, and the fact that his personality is neither obnoxious, nor super-humanly charasmatic, makes for a comparitively stellar performance. Interestingly, he does a very good job coming across as the "older brother" personality, unlike Titus, who was undeniably the whiny, pampered, only child (I know the type, I am one). Even though Vaan has no real siblings, he's basically been raised along side Kytes, who's 12 or so, and he very much plays the roll of big brother, and his experience as a roll model really comes across in his personality, unlike every other game in the series, in which the main character is always a lone wolf.
Panello is interesting. At first glance, she appears to be another decendant from the long line of "teeny boppers" (Realm, Yuffie, Selphie, and Rikku), but her looks betray her personality. She's not childish and giggly—although you often see her and Vaan goofing off in the background of cut scenes (which is actually a breath of fresh air, and handled very well)—and even though she's still a teenager, you can get a sense of "who she is" and who she will be when she's older, unlike the others who always play the part of the "eternal teenager". In fact, she's fairly subdued and matriarchal, filling the roll older sister or even mother roll to Kytes at the time of the game's beginning. In fact, she's a fairly normal person... and while this doesn't make for jaw-droppingly dramatic scenes, it's refreshing, and her voice actress plays the part perfectly.
Actually, where the game shines is in its side characters, who supply the game with the dramatic pyrotechnics. While Al-Cid or Cid (yes, there are two Cids... completely unrelated, too) would be utterly obnoxious as main characters, their occational appearances are always a welcome addition, and serve to spice up the dialog and action.
Bottom line is the voice actors in FFX, as well as many other JRPGs, feel like they're trying too hard all the time to be cute, charasmatic, angsty, or melodramatic... if anything, FF12 is underplayed, the characters are much more human and normal, even though their rolls are extra-ordinary (Condemned Princess, Forsaken Knight, Pirate with a shaky past, a bunny-girl, and two orphans). Most JRPG characters take their rolls too seriously... you feel as if at all times, you're supposed to be thinking, "that's the clown" (Wakka), "that's the badass" (Auron), "that's the cutsie girl" (Rikku), "that'
Well, see it from my point of view... how the hell am I not supposed to be pissed off at your post? You've basically called me a "casual gamer", in so many words, by default. You attest that there are SOME non-casual gamers in the Wii camp, but you wouldn't consider them as hardcore as those not in the Wii camp. WTF? I had a PS2, I had a gamecube, and until the last 5 incredible months of the PS2 lifespan, I'd say that the GameCube had far better games, and quite a bit of them were just as involved as the most non-casual PS2 games. I want to see MORE involvement in games, if anything... but I can't help but see the PS3 community as the shallow, casual gamers, who simply buy expensive consoles and TVs to show off to their friends, and who play bloody games as a way of nursing their threatened masculinity. THAT'S the casual gamer for you... and the world is full of them.
How the hell is a 72 hour adventure game (Zelda: TP), more casual than Gears of War? It may be "nicer", it might be less violent, but it's fucking involved. It takes a lot of concentration, a lot of time and effort. I could give you a handfull of other top-selling GameCube games that were within the same margin of involvement. Nintendo isn't out to simply play to the tune of the casual gamer, they're out to turn the casual gamer into a more involved gamer. They've got the quick hooks to reel in the masses, and the more in-depth gameplay to keep them there. Basically, if you can pull off a 50+ hour game, of any type, you're NOT a casual gamer. I've played dozens of 40+ hour games, but the first time I went through one (Final Fantasy 6), I was hooked.
Most of the Wii owners I know are long time gamers, some of them are blood and guts freaks like you, some of them are sick and tired of attention to superficial graphics and gore and want to actually PLAY A GOOD GAME, like me. I've wound up putting my money on Nintendo because of personal philosophy, not by how many hours or how involved I am in the games I play; and from what I've seen, a large percentage of the Slashdot community has a lot of the same feelings. I'd like to see the console gaming industry, as a whole, move more towards the way that Nintendo is trying to establish it, and less away from the styles layed out by PC gaming. Yes, this is going to conflict with your personal opinion. I'd like to see thought and artistry grow in the gaming world... and I seriously think that pushing superficial graphical pyrotechnics (the PS3), as simply pushing the game industry toward the mindless blockbuster side of hollywood. Sure, Nintendo may be pushing the industry closer to Pixar, but at that doesn't play into the hands of the right-wing propoganda, meatheaded mindlessness of a lot of the gaming industry.
I take my games VERY seriously... the next few decades will define an entire entertainment genre, and whether it will progress into something greater, or whether it will simply become a mindless toy for angsty 16 year olds. I'd rather see ANYTHING happen to it besides that.
Sure, his opinion matters just as much as anyone elses, but yours doesn't, AC...
...so get an account or bugger off.
Now, I can not attest to knowing anything about this ordeal, but it has been interesting to follow how the forum is handling it. I've noted that most of the posts on this forum largely fall into two catagories: flippint remarks, usually involving common cliches and tidbits from geek pop culture thrown in for good measure; and then fairly serious posts by people who actually READ THE ARTICLE, most of which exhonerate Mr. Jobs. Now, I expected quite a few posts that would attempt to clear him and settle the unrest it has caused... but I expected more in opposition by people who actually have something worthwhile to say.
You do have a point, sales do give the directors/artists a clue as to what is popularly liked and disliked about their work, as do reviews. I used to not care about load times, but now I'm starting to realize that at a less conscious level, they're negetively effecting my experience as a whole. This is why there's not quite as much public outcry for better load times, most of the time people just don't notice, but it may give an overall less possitive feeling about the game. It's unfortunate, because it takes longer for game designers to come to the realization that it IS a pretty big issue. Graphics are right there in front of you. Since the beginning of video games, graphics have been one of the most closely scruitinized aspects of gaming, where waiting arond wasn't even an issue until the playstation, and for most of the early games of that generation, the content was simple enough that load times weren't that bad.
Now, they're bad. It sorta snuck up on us while we were busy counting polygons. I see more and more ingenious solutions to solving load time issues, and I hope that trend continues until we're back up to not having to wait between areas. Now you're starting to see more public awareness on the matter: recently a Tony Hawk TV commercial used "no load times" as one of the major selling points of the game. It showed a guy on a skateboard on a city block, and then he crashes into an invisible bearier, looks up, and watches a progress bar ticking off in the air... you may have seen it.
Hopefully this generation is more responsible with load time issues than the last.
Now that's a load of bull. I was following you, to a point, up until you started talking about Nintendo as if they only made games for kids. If by kids, you mean anyone not between the ages of 13 and 18, who have an irrational intrigue for blowing people's heads off, then I'll give it to you. I'm sorry, I don't buy it. You're falling for the same "us and them" propoganda the permiates the rest gaming community. The gaming community isn't simply made up of "casual gamers" and "hardcore gamers"... people who separate it into two psychographics are doing it simply to separate themselves from everyone else who has a difference of opinion. The fact is, there are MANY different types of gamers. Only some like to blow people's heads off... and I have a very low opinion of that psychographic. You act as if people who like Nintendo's output are somehow less connected, less informed, or less interested in gaming than everyone else. But it's just that we have different taste. Zelda and Metroid are two of my favorite series, they offer something a bit above and beyond your standard "shoot the bad guys in the head" games. I've been gaming since the NES, and I have an appreciation for the development the guys at the gaming division have taken over the years.
Nintendo is TRYING to make games that will appeal to casual gamers and serious gamers alike. That's not an unreasonable goal, and I don't think the two are at all mutually exclusive: a good gaming experiece shouldn't matter whether or not you're familliar with gaming or not. Similarly, Inside Man wasn't any less a good movie if you weren't familliar with Spike Lee's previous outtings or not. Pink Floyd appealled itself to non-musicians, and music connoseurs alike. Nintendo is attempting to do that, and from what I'm seeing by the various reviews... they do a DAMN good job of it. I don't feel any lesser that I'm enjoying something that a soccer-mom is also enjoying, why should it bother you? Are you so insecure in your personal philosophy that you have to actively dissassociate yourself with anything that anyone different than you may be enjoying? Cuz that's really sad.
Let me put this in a language that you're probably better familliar with:
Real gamers don't give a shit about who's enjoying the game, or even, what audience the game was made for. This is why I have trouble considering most FPS fans to be "gamers", as I've seen many of them pass through that stage on the way to adult hood, only to disown the entire genre in their mid 20s. People who follow Nintendos outtings have been around the block a few times. Think about that the next time you open your mouth.
While I agree that content trumps loading times, significant load times can substantially mar an otherwise exceptional gaming experience. If the game's goal is immersion (which is most games), significant loading can jolt you out of the experience. Suikoden V could have competed in the "game of the year" catagory, but its load times significantly altered the gameplay experience: you didn't feel the desire to walk around and explore quite so much, all you wanted to do was get to the next place and get the loading times over with. Now, I know this is an extreme (10 second load times every 5 seconds, in spots), but to a lesser degree, it effects quite a few games.
I hate it when people talk about entertainment products, as if the companies are doing as little as humanly possible. Behind those games are designers with a sense of personal pride, and intrigue. The first and foremost audience for their work is themselves. Even if you're put on a shitty project like making a blockbuster movie spinoff, the designers are trying to make the best thing they can with the resources they have. Usually there's one guy at the top directing the project, like in the film industry, and his sensabilities will be the most prevolent in the game's design. He doesn't want to see ungodly load times as much as Spike Lee doesn't want to see bad acting. What I'm trying to say is that they're not doing JUST the bear minimum of what people will allow.
In the film industry, we've been able to partially bypass the notion of corporate-created-material, by putting names and faces to directors and producers, and saying "this is their movie"... and to a large extent, we're correct in doing so. Thankfully, we're starting to see that more and more in the game industry, with directors and design teams being at the foremost attention of gamers: Kojima, Will Wright, Miyamodo, Clover Studios. I'm thrilled to see this transition, as credit for games is given to individuals and design teams.
I bet someone could develop one hell of a real-time-strategy game with google earth. Oh wait...we already do, it's called real life, but the only players are Bush and Chaney
Who didn't see this one coming? A plane that is only a viable solution for no more than a handfull of routes worldwide, and based on the now long-dead "Mega-Hub" system (which has since given way to the "micro-hub" system). Now couple that with the fact that it requires a specialized jetway to accomidate for the double-decker seating arrangement. Finally, add to that that the last real-life emergency exit test couldn't break 45 minutes for getting everyone out of the plane... the FAA requires 5 minutes; even the 747-400 can pull that off.
Here's the funniest part. Boeing decided to play it safe for a while, and then later announced a redesign of the 747, stretching the double-decker section to about half to 2/3rds the way down the plane, surpassing the capacity of the A380 with an already tried-and-true airframe design. Since then (something like 8 months ago), I've heard that many of the A380 orders have been canceled and shifted to Boeing's design. In the mean-time, Boeing creates one of the most revolutionary mid-large sized jets (the Dreamliner), which is proving to be a huge success (order-wise).
Airbus, your days are numbered, you've screwed up BIG TIME, and I mean "PlayStation 3" BIG TIME.
You're right, they did make top-quality electronics... 15 years ago. Seriously, ever since the Discman came out, it's all been downhill. Panasonic started making better portable CD players, Sharp kicked their asses in the MiniDisc world (a format of Sony's own design), and TVs... jesus christ, the TVs! Bottom line is, now, all they stand for is high prices, that's all I see in my mind. They're not the worst stuff in the world, but there's likely other large brands that are just as good or better for 70% the price $ony's been dorkin' us. I no longer see them as a top-quality product company, I see them as a run-of-the-mill electronics company like Panasonic, Magnovox, JVC, or anyone else, that are simply coasting on the acclaim of yesteryear.
Bottom line is, you can't find a product that Sony makes, where there's not another brand that will sell you something better for cheaper. You're not gonna get crap from Sony, but don't expect the world, either. That should be their new slogan.
Seriously, I don't see how this is any different from the original experiment, other than the possibility that the data is completely scued due to people's realization that the characters aren't real (although I think the response would probably be similar). The original experiment was deemed unethical because it basically used coersion tactics to trick people into doing things they wouldn't normally do, and later feeling extremely guilty about it. My uncle was a test subject in the experiment, and he was never quite the same afterwards. It's not like he's brain damaged or anything, but his perceptions about who he is have forever been altered because of it.
Why do we insist on trying to repeat the same, ethically disfunctional experiment over and over? I'd like to see what Frued would say about THAT.
Are you kidding me? For months, every time a press person would ask a Sony exec about their new game console, the exec would snarf and say something along the lines of, "It's not a game console, its an entertainment center!" I (and many others) took that (and I think rightfully so) to mean that "game consoles are for kids, what we're doing here is FAR above that". I don't think you have to read too much into it to get that out of it, they practically said it themselves. If that isn't a slap in the face of the gaming community, I don't know what is. If you didn't see that, then you're wearing blinders. I used to be a huge Playstation fan... look where I am now? You think this newly found cynicism agianst Sony, by myself and a large percentage of the formerly pro-Sony community comes just because they priced a game system too high? No. It's because they've completely dissowned their fanbase. Funny that the company who seems to respect the gaming community the most is the one that's been trying the hardest to reach out to non-gamers.
IE: Sony has an interesting way of trying to directly target gamers, and only gamers, while disrespecting and ignoring them completely. Nintendo has an interesting way of reaching out to non-gamers without appearing "holier than thow" in the eyes of the gaming community. A company's perception of itself and its consumers has a large roll in dictating the quality of material they produce. Sony has shown that they think they know what's best for us, and to hell what we think. And from what I've seen, the resulting product is as shallow as the typical American ethos: all glitz and glam, stupid, boring, and full of shit.
Actually FFXIIs load times are probably the best on the system. They seem to have taken a hint from many other games, including Metroid Prime, and do a preload of adjacent rooms while the processor is free, and also keeps the previous room in the buffer (monsters appear at the door if you go back and forth). You want ass load times? Try Suikoden V, great game, but each new area can be as short as one hallway wide, and the load time is always between 8-15secs. Probably just as bad is Dragon Quest 8, another great game, but it has a 5-10sec load every time you bring up the menu screen, and then another 5-10secs when you go into various alternate sections of the menu system, and then another 5-10secs to get back to the game.
It's really not so much the system's capability that defines load times, but how good the game is designed to accomidate for them. There's no question that the GameCube is far faster at retrieving data off the disc, but a lot of the faster speeds you're seeing are due to suggestions/requirements by Nintendo as to how to compansate for loading. Metroid Prime is a great example: large complex rooms are separated by small, simple corridors in which the processor has extra time to load the next room into memory. This way, the game never stops, the player is always doing SOMETHING, and furthermore, it helps to broaden out the level areas, and give some variety in room size and makeup. Many times these corridors are also sparcely populated, or include hidden power pickups as well. Also, since adjacent rooms load in the background, the game is always ready for where the player is going to be. The result is a game that never stops, and the maximum wait time for openning a door is something like 2-3secs tops if you've rushed through a large room before the processor had a chance to finish preloading the adjacent room.
FF12 did some of this by preloading adjacent rooms... it's one of the first games I've seen on the PS2 that does this, and it resulted in one of the fastest loading games on the system. Most RPGs on the PS2 are absolutely aweful in loadtimes: Xenosaga, Suikoden V, Dragon Quest, Star Ocean, Wild Arms 4, all obnoxious load times (and some obnoxious games, but I won't go there).
BTW: fuck HDs, why not simply have a gig onboard cache that would be used to store all possible data that will be needed in the next 20 seconds (like adjacent rooms or areas). That can practically be done now, but many programmers are too lazy to do anything with it... there is just no excuse for not doing things like this in Suikoden V and Dragon Quest.
This is probably the number 1 reason I like about Nintendo, beyond their high quality hardware and software, they have high standards about how clean games must be before they run on their systems. They realize that every game that goes out on their systems reflects on their image, and they take it upon themselves to make sure developers don't screw it up. Sony seem to project an image of non-involvement when it comes to their systems... as long as the developers pay their licensing fees and don't inherently crash the system every 5 minutes, they can do whatever they want. It's like the difference between Apple and Microsoft in terms of interface design, but that's a different post altogether.
Well, seeing as though PS2 load times are UNGODLY, compared to other modern systems (GameCube, in particular, which has loading down to a T), the claim "shorter than PS2 games", alone, does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.
But the difference here is that it is by no means a major selling point, or something very much hyped by Nintendo. The fact is, all the concentration in both marketting, and I'm guessing, to a certain degree, in design, was in game oriented development. The problem is that Sony is trying to sell there system as "Not just a video game console", which is sort of a slap in the face of the gaming community. Also, one also has to wonder whether the high concentration in additional features could have taken away from other areas.
At least, publicly, Nintendo's approach has been: here's a great videogame console, and we put a lot of thought into making it fun and intuitive... and oh, btw, we're throwing in a web browser with it. Whereas Sony has been yelling and screaming, using the additional, non-game related features as an excuse whenever people heckle them about the price, as in:
It's all in the presentation, and Sony leaves you with an uneasy feeling that game-related content (including pricing it like a game console) was sacrificed a bit to make room for this other stuff. THAT'S what concerns us.
I have my issues with the PS controller as well, but this is not one of them. I would go as far as to say that it's the most usable D-Pad ever made. You're much less likely to accidently hit up/down when pressing left/right, and vice-versa. That is one design I'd like to see on all controllers. Nintendo's D-Pad's are alright, Sega's are terrible, and I haven't played enough games that use the XBox/360 d-pad to really decide one way or the other. Probably the second best d-pad to the PS controller is the VCCs and the one on the Wiimote is surprisingly good for being so small. Bottom line is, d-pads are problematic, and much harder to get right than analog sticks. Pretty much every analog stick I've played with (except the crummy as hell, but obviously prototypical, N64 stick) has been good to excellent, with the GameCube's sticks probably toping it off—the Nunchuck and VCCs sticks would be right there too, but the absense of any testured surface on its top makes it a little harder to grip.
One thing that I think recent controllers should have taught us is that simply color coding, naming, or giving shapes to buttons is not enough. You're not looking at the controller, and frankly, mixing up "left" & "right" is really simple on a cross-shaped button layout. The PS controller makes this even worse by making the right and left circle and square, which are similar looking at a glance (and almost impossible to tell with small icons on the screen) and both reddish in color. I cannot tell you how many times I've mixed up those two.
I think Nintendo had the right idea with tactile button differences. Sure, it might look a little goofy, but it really works well to distinguish functionality. It also makes the buttons prioritized, functionally: A and B are primary and secondary, due to their more traditional positioning and shape, and the jelly-bean X and Y buttons are auxillary, due to their slightly more complex and less obvious shape and positioning. I also think having 3 shoulder buttons was a GREAT move, as the primary Left and Right become distinguished by the fact that one shares a spot with a secondary shoulder button. Humans have problems with immediately distinishing sides of a mirrored image, so anything that creates some aesymmetry really helps. With the Nunchuck, the natural hand position, for most people, places the index finger underneath the L trigger, the fact that one has to move their finger to get to "C" trigger makes the differences immediately obvious. People might not remember the names of these buttons, but they sure know how they feel, and once they learn what each button does, calling up the correct muscle action to perform an action is instantaneous.
Probably the most agreggious button programming scheme is the context-sensitive setup in the Metal Gear Solid series. Litterally half you're concentration goes to thinking, "okay, so now, what buttons do I have to press to be able to perform the correct action?" The game also requires incredible precision to be able to keep from doing certain actions, such as going from crouch to prone. Just when you think you've figured it out, you enter close combat, and the whole layout changes, without warning, to accomidate for a totally different style of play... and at the worst possible time too, when you should be doing quick and concise actions. The game is great, but the control setup is extraordinarilly terrible. Kojima has some great ideas, but he could learn a great deal from Miyamodo's emphasis on intuitive and simple control schemes. Miyamodo really is the king of intuitive control schemes: if a game's control scheme is too complicated... he changes it, or if need be, he changes the game.
What we need is a device that's sorta like a flying Segway... it detects changes in stability and corrects for them. Seriously, having propultion from one's leg area seems like a pretty good way to go, as jet engine mounted anywhere else could risk serious injury. Plus, there's no way that a human could survive a horizontal, runway landing. Any individually mounted jet-pack would have to take off and land virtically. So, the closest thing I can think of is something like a flying segway that attaches to your legs and feet, and keeps you standing upright the entire time via smaller side-to-side thrusters, like a Harrier. Now, VTOL aircraft are incredibly innefficient, so I'm not sure how feasible this is.
good point. I didn't think about it like that... but unfortunately, neither is most of the game playing population. Wouldn't it be better for their hardware sales to release a few MUST HAVES on SNES and N64 in attempts to get people to buy the VCC early on?
But it always revolutionizes the industry and the way people think of their gadgets. MP3 players would have stayed exactly that, fancy gadgets that everyone loves to show off, but still keep a DiscMan in their back pocket. Now, not only do people "enjoy" using their portable music players, they don't even really give it a second thought.
Blackberries and cellphones have become used out of neccessity and habit, but they're still aggrivating as all getup, and don't really much inspire people to pick up and use at any time they just "feel like it". I can't remember a time when Apple has had anything less than the most intuitive and unified software design (from a UI standpoint), the only one who can probably compete is Adobe.
The thing that kills Apple, though, is not that their scheme of user-friendliness loses to competitors more power-monger oriented design philophies... it's that Apple's competitors come to realize that Apple is right, and inject a bit of Apple's philosophy into their products. Do you really think people would have continued using DOS into the mid-90s if Microsoft hadn't developed Windows? No, we'd all be using Macs right now.
Apple may be too late into the game of cellphones, though, it'll be a tough battle. On the other hand, compatibility isn't nearly as much of a factor in the cellphone market as it is in the computer market or the game console market. People aren't really concerned about whether their cellphones are going to run the latest and greatest... they buy them to use the software that comes pre-installed, for the most part. This gives Apple, or any upstart in the industry, an advantage (or, more precisely, less of a dissadvantage). This time around, cellphone companies have been TRYING to develop friendly interface designs, and have been at least partially successful, unlike the mp3 market, where companies didn't give a shit until far after the iPod was released and already kicking their asses. Apple are really going to have to offer some huge advantages... and I think there's plenty of room. For one thing, they're good at tying infrastructure and software together: creating services (like iTMS) that are an integral part of the user's experience of a piece of software or hardware. That really hasn't worked for cellphone providers yet, noone's been able to setup and market and "services" yet. iTMS is a huge start, right there, with music, movies and games already going strong, they have a service unlike anything any other cellphone provider can provide. And there are many more similar possibilities like this. Expect "services" to be the number 1 selling point of Apple cellphones if/when they're released.
Bingo... the underlying layers are really not important in this. As long as Apple can create a small, Quartz or Quartz-like graphics engine, they'll be able utilize their existing skills to come up with an "OS X-esque" but mobile-oriented user interface. It's Quartz that sells OS X, not Darwin.