Seriously, I'm not sure anymore. I've had a wireless router for a few years now, I also have a decent DSL connection, but I'm a geek. Only reason why I have a wireless router is:
My friend needed money fast, so he solid it to me on the cheap
I have a laptop
I have DSL
I'm a geek
I know I won't have a problem with the Wii's internet capabilities, but is Nintendo really banking on a substantial portion of their market having WiFi enabled houses? I still see WiFi as a specialty item, only used by geeks and business people. Am I wrong to think about it like this? Is the WiFi adoption rate actually very high?
I also know they will have a USB->Ethernet adaptor, but this will be less than convenient for most people, who don't keep their dsl/cable modems in their living room. Also, will it come with the system, or at least be cheap? I think it should be included with the system, if Nintendo really wants to get people on board with online play.
Super Smash Bros. has been confirmed for the Wii, the final title is "Super Smash Bros. Brawl", and will feature, among other things, Solid Snake. And from every press release I've seen, yes, it will be internet capable.
You're not going to get another revolutionary jump like the one 2D -> 3D graphics gave us, not anytime soon, anyway. Plus, I'm going to argue that revolutionary jumps don't provide, in the long term, the biggest fun factor. This is an era of polishing, taking revolutionary games that had promise, and making them even better. Nintendo is offering something about halfway in between, this go-around. The GameCube was a TOTAL polishing system. There was really nothing substantial that the gamecube could do that the N64 couldn't do (except graphically). The Wii is substanially different from the GameCube in that it has created a control system that is much better suited for 3D game movement than previous control systems. It will require a fairly large change in the way you play the games. Maybe not quite as different as adjusting from 2D dpad setups to 3D a-pad setups (Mario World -> Mario 64), but still substantial.
The NES was a revolutionary system, the SNES was a polishing system (it took 2D graphics and gameplay about as far as it could), the N64 was a revolutionary system, and the GameCube was a polishing system. The Wii falls more into the catagory of revolutionary, although the games LOOK similar to their GameCube counterparts. The thing that I think Sony is going to have problems with is that it's the only system, ever, which is the 2nd polishing system in a row. As much as their pushing various things, the only major difference between the PS2 and the PS3 is graphics. MS came on board in the middle of a polishing generation of consoles, so they're a bit more justified in doing a polishing system at this time.
I agree that it's time for a new revolution... but one isn't really on the horrizon. Nintendo is at least TRYING, I don't see anyone else doing this.
Oh, and don't give me that, "this generation is going to be about Online Play", because it's not. Online play will always be a secondary feature for consoles, as it should be. It it's no gameplay revolution, either, it just changes who you can play with at a given time.
Actually, it's Wii Sports thats getting all the attention, since you actually play the games like they're sports... unlike the "sports manager" games that tend to dominate sports these days.
Seriously, Nintendo has never had the sports crowd in their pocket, they know that attempting to go after the jock/frat crowd too much is likely to have a negative impact on the rest of their fan base (mostly people who hate that culture), so I think that's entirely reasonable.
Really, the horsepower will only be a hindrence for the biggest budget titles (Final Fantasy, etc.), as it costs so much to produce those great graphics. Also, remember that HD takes a good magnitude of additional horsepower, so the probability is that the poly-count will be about equal on SD/ED between Wii and 360/PS3 games. Basically, the only really noticable difference in graphics between the Wii and the 360/PS3 will be the lack of HD. A few may point to this as an achillies heal, but HD is still a luxury item, and a bit of a novelty at this point. It may be a little less so in 4 years, but Nintendo can come out with an HD-powered Wii, I think this is a much better business model then trying to be 4 years ahead of the curve (ie: Sony).
That's a shame... I didn't read that, but it's a shame. I think having smaller, more frequent (one year or year and a half) upgrades is a better model for Apple at this point, not because it does the OS any better, but it allows Apple to keep themselves, and their computer line, fresh in the headlines, and at the forefront of computer discussions, more often.
Selling a product line is sort of like making up an RPG (either video game or table top), you feed the player little bits of goodies just regularly enough to keep them interested. 36 months can be the difference between Apple being at the top of everyone's "should look into" list, to eveyone thinking that they've gone under again. Then again, maybe Steve thinks their doing well enough, and are stable enough, that they don't need this.
I don't think it'll happen, realistically. I think what's bound to happen, after 10.5, is that they're going to be planning OS X11 (sorry, I couldn't resist). They'll release OS 10.6 or 10.9 (whatever they want to call it), about 8 months before hand, around late 2008, which will include a lot of preliminary libraries for the OS, without the big overhaul changes. After OS 11 does come out, we'll be back to where we were arond OS 10.2 with Jaguar (first really solid version of OS X), and we'll see a number of smaller, point-sized upgrades for the next few years. I think it's a better business model. But I do agree that, at this point, OS X is, aside from some minor finder GUI issues (come on Apple, this isn't rocket science!), pretty much as good as it is going to get.
I doubt it. Apple's current model has one major advantage: Simplicity. You don't have to put a whole bunch of individual requirements for a piece of Mac software, all you have to do is say "Requires Mac OS 10.4 or later", and you have everything in the bag. One of the things that Steve and Apple are trying to stress is simplicity and eligance. It's probably the first bullet point in the creation of "The Apple Experience", which is, virtually, the thing that continues to keep them alive and well. It's in all their product lines, it's in their marketting, it's in the very definition of what Apple can offer you. It also gives developers a break. Instead of constantly having a new thing to learn (a new graphics architecture, new OS commands, etc.) the learning is all done at the same time in one big push, but then lets the developers sit back and... well... develop, for the rest of the OSs cycle. It's part of Apple's cyclical business model: There is a season for learning the new features of the OS (tis the season to be jolly), and there is a season for getting down to business. Don't expect that to change any time soon.
Oh, and it also makes the releases that they do do, much more substantial. Every time they release a new OS X version, it's almost as big a deal as Microsoft releasing a new OS, because they are able to introduce everything that they've come up with since the last OS version, where-as a lot of the core additions to Windows are updated throughout the particular OS version's lifetime.
Oh, BTW, there are a lot of sales to be had in the business world with slick Mac notebooks. That won't happen in significant numbers until Apple ships with Windows preinstalled.
That's a bad idea for Apple. They might get customers in the short term, but they might very well kill themselves in the long term. Bootcamp and these Windows installer programs are meant as a temporary stop-gap for people switching over to Mac OS X. Really, the OS is the reason people by a Mac, it's the heart of the "look and feel" of the Mac experience, which is Apple's selling point. The last thing Apple wants is a bunch of people buying their machines specifically to use windows, because it will slowly erode into the mindshare of people using OS X. After OS X is dead, people will wake up one day and say to themselves, "Oh, now Apple's just another PC company like Dell, just more expensive with nothing unique to offer, except for superficial case designs."
Currently, Apple has something REAL to offer people that is different and, IMHO, a whole lot better than the competition: OS X. The last thing they want to do is jeapordise their mindshare by selling it beside Windows. Because, let's face it, if you have both Windows and OS X on a business computer, the fucking IT people at your company will FORCE you to use Windows, because most engineering staff seem to be windows jerks. This is especially true at my company, where simply bringing in my mac laptop to work gets the evil eye from the head engineer (my former boss), and I work in video production!
Funny you should mention that. During the mid-90s, my father and I trained our dog to poop at the command "Gingrich!". Our neighbors musta thought we were some crazy neocons running around chanting, "Gingrich, Gingrich, Gingrich!...Good dog!!!"
Like most on here, this thing sounds like it will totally fall on its face, just like all the other "iPod killers". The thing is, will having a lot of high-profile iPod clones start to make the Zune look like just another bogus clone (which it really is)? I think it might. I think having all these new products screaming for attention are just going to make people put everything not iPod into the same catagory... that being the "ignore" list.
That's perfectly ligitimate, though. And I'm of the same background (Final Fantasy is my meat and potatoes). I'm pretty inclusive when I define genres of art. After all, I went to school for electro-acoustic music... some of my work, people would classify as "just noise", so I'm fairly open about these kinds of definitions.
I have no problem with works simply being defined as conclomerates of other types of medias. Many times, it's simply the combination of various mediums that makes a particular genre unique. Even if you simply define Video Games as "Interactive Film" (as many single-play RPG critics like to claim), you have added a fairly substantial and important change to the film genre, enough for it to be considered a new genre entirely, and I believe video games to be even more than film + interactivity.
LOL! That was great! Took me a second to realize what you were getting at, but this makes a fairly good point too. His post totally negates the very definition of postmodernism as an artistic direction. The fact that there are many other interactive art forms also kind of takes the wind out of the sale of his arguement.
I think I just felt something... Oh, wait, that was just John Cage rolling over in his grave.
The bottom line is, even if you believe that art is a communication from artist to audience (which is a fairly common definition, one that I tend to agree with), that doesn't mean that the audience has no control over the information he/she recieves. Even reading a novel at a different speed is interactive. It might not be a change in plotline, but it sure changes the overall effect of the literature. There is plenty of interactive music out there. The entire genre of the "installation" is interactive, and in a very similar way that many video games are. Interactivity hardly negates artistic communication.
Zelda: sure, I guess. It caters to one form of high-culture. After all, I'd consider Disney's Fantasia, and some of his other animated movies as fairly sophisticated. Zelda takes the Disney route... a study in innocence, simplicity, and ellegence. Unfortunately, you will have a hard time convincing most people in today's world that it qualifies, but I'll bite.
I'm a huge Final Fantasy nut, and although I find things here and there that are quite subtle and creatively rendered; as a whole, it's hard to call them high art or very sophisticated. A character here, and plot line there, sure. I think Kuja ranks with some of the most interestingly depected villains I've ever seen in narrative, for instance. But I will also attest to there being some catering to boob-obsessed 15-year-old boys (Tifa, among others), and some senseless, uncreative violence (though one of the lesser offenders in video games).
Can Pixar make a great animated film that's utterly devoid of innocence? Can Nintendo? I dunno, I'd like to see what they come up with.
This is a very short-sided and unsophisticated view of culture. For one thing, "The Highbrow People"? What Highbrow people? Are they a tribe somewhere, because I sure as hell haven't heard of them. I think you've equated "high brow" or "sophisticated" with one very specific, and very limited group of individuals: namely old, conservative, traditionalists. Most of the actual meat of each artistic community tends to scoff at these types people for being stuffy, and sees them as ignorant and uninspired. The fact that the current view of "high brow" culture is a bunch of old people sitting in an auditorium listening to opera is completely irrelivant. Opera, at one point, was a shocking and "low brow" endevour for the common person who couldn't appreciate completely instrumental music. Most sophisticated intellectuals, these days, don't tend to go for opera. Opera's a dieing genre, even among highbrow culture. Next year, who knows, it might be pushing buttons in front of a TV screen, watching the birth of a new art form right before your very eyes! The fact is, sophisticated intellectuals... ie: "high brow" cultures, are found everywhere, with interests in every artistic genre. Just talk to some of my friends back from my conservatory about "video game theory", I think you'll change your mind.
As for violence, let me give you a short lesson in music history:
Berlioz's "Symphonie Fantastic" depicts a guy on an opium trip.
Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" portrays a violent scene in which a virgin is ritually sacrificed.
John Adams' "Death of Klinghoffer" is an opera about a disabled jewish man who is murdered by Palestinian terrorists.
Violence, sex, drugs, even in fairly graphic forms, are all entrenched in high culture and low culture alike. The only thing that makes them more or less sophisticated is whether they are artistically rendered or not. About 95% of everything is uninspired, unartisticly rendered bullshit... video games are no more or no less.
I think you're missing the point as to why Myst is regarded as "highbrow". Myst is tradionally regarded as "highbrow" not because of its logic puzzles, but because of its high quality work in association to other art forms: graphic art, music, drama, and litterature. I'll admit, a lot of the stills from Myst are quite extrodinary, and very artistically rendered. They're maybe not quite art-house quality paintings, but they're creative and artistic renderings none-the-less. Similarly, the sound/music is quite well done (as a composer and sound designer, I can atest to this), the story is very very simple, but elligent, and even some of the acting (Atrus) has its charm.
Notice, however, that these are all other art forms. One could make an arguement that Myst is not sophisticated in its uniqueness as a "game", but for the inclusion of high quality painting, music, and drama. This is a common arguement, and a healthy one, because it attempts to define how a game can be high quality or sophisticated for "game's sake", but that doesn't make Myst any less of a quality work.
Bullshit. Complete bullshit. You act as if geeks are completely free of their own social hierarchy. No, there are philistines, and there are intellectuals within the geek population, just like any sub-culture. I've spent hours talking "video game theory" with various intellectuals... "geeks" if you will. So I don't buy this philistine ideal that games have no sophistication because they are "free of it". If you feel holier than thow because you believe geeks are free of sophistication... think again, all us evil intellectuals are here too, and we're here to stay. Geeks place other geeks (and non-geeks) into boxes just as much as anyone else does, maybe even moreso, because we're so damn jaded and have a bad inferiority complex.
I would say you are overlooking the intellectual potential of a new media form. This is not unexpected, many times it takes generations for a new genre to define its place in society. Heck, photography was looked at as the "poor mans painting" for decades before it began to gain respect for its unique characteristics within our culture. Now, I don't think there are many would point to art photography and say it is any lesser an art form than painting. Film struggled for years, and still is, partially due to its corperate persona, but most people have learned to respect film in its uniqueness. Video Games can express intelligent and creative thought just as much as the next medium, but the artistic theory behind it is still in its embrionic stages. This doesn't neccessarilly make it any less sophisticated, or less creative, it just makes it hard for society to define what IS sophisticated and creative game design.
Interestingly, I only became a gamer in my adult years (20+). As a lifelong artist and composer, I scoffed at video games as lesser entertainment, and have only recently begun to appreciate their inherent value. It's a newly budding art/entertainment form, and it's extremely interesting to watch its developement.
Make sure to keep your grandchildren from neglecting other forms of arts/entertainment, or social interaction, but be sure not to devalue the open-mindedness in observing the birth of a new genre. It's exciting, and it is creative history being made NOW. My generation and the next few generations own the beginnings of this form, its part of our current herritage. Just as the 1900s got to witness and revel in the birth of film, we get to watch the evolution of a new form. Don't stifle that intrest with staunch traditionalism and conservative creative values.
Even though I don't think we've reached a point of defining "sophistication" (or the loaded, "high-brow", as you prefer) in gaming yet, I think you can start to see the emergence of the symtoms of sophistication in the form of some of the debates in today's gaming culture. All sophisticated art forms are surrounded by fierce debates about what qualifies as "good work". Usually ideas get devided into different camps, and I think we are beginning to see the formation of these intellectual camps today. Almost all art forms have some sort of narrative contingency, and absolutist contingency. An example would be in music in the mid 19th century between Wagner (programmatic/narrative music) vs. Brahms (absolute music). One side always exclaims that to be "truly" great work in a particular art form, it has to be separated, completely, from all other forms of art/media. The Brahms camp felt that any narrative or "program" induced by a piece of music diluted the genre, and was therefor a lesser work.
Stop by any RPG forum, and you see this very same debate. You have the narrativist camp, which uses litterary and narrative frameworks as a way of defining quality of gaming works. Then you have the "interactivist" camp, which claims that any traditionally based, linear narrative dilutes the unique properties of the truly interactive medium.
These are the debates in which the definitions of sophisication arrise. The debate will NEVER be won, just as there are still are large amounts of both program and absolute music being composed today, but is healthy to the developement of the genre. So, for anyone who believes that either the Final Fantasy paradigm or the Elder Scrolls paradigm will become the dominant form, I hate to tell you this, but every other media genre has had the same debate, and never has either side ever won or lost.
Are there sophisticated games? I think there are some hints of sophistication here and there, I don't think there are any truly sophisticated works yet, however. Myst is the first thing that comes to mind. However, absolutists will point out that all of its qualitative characteristics are based on other art forms, namely computer graphic arts, music, acting, and litterature.
For the narrativist, the ideals of sophistication are already being reached, as Myst would probably be considered sophisticated, but due to its graphic art, music, and narrative work. For the absolutist, the question of what aspects makes the video game genre unique haven't quite been answered yet, so defining sophistication becomes a lot more difficult.
It all boils down to "theory". All art gaining momentum in its sophistication developes its own type of theory. Western music has Music Theory, drama has different schools, and movies have film theory. Now, I'm not in the gaming business, so I can't easily see if there is any video game theory developing, but I suspect there probably is. Once that becomes more readilly apparent, and more universally applicable, I think we will start to see a more apparent sophistication in gaming.
Yep. With Mario64, you had complete control over the camera, which means you could line up your jump precisely if you needed to.
...and then it would needlessly swivel around the moment you pressed a control button. Sorry, but no. You could position the camera while standing still MOST OF THE TIME, but the camera really had a mind of its own when you tried to move. I'm playing Mario 64 DS right now, and I'm noticing it again, and more than ever. The most obvious example is the falling bridge in the "Womp's Fortress" level. Sure, it's not the hardest thing in the world, but it illustrates my point quite well. You can spend all the time in the world lining the camera up perfectly behind you, but then you start running across the bridge, and the camera smoothly swivels around to your side during the bridge run, requiring you to move your thumb over on the A-Stick at precisely the same rate and time as the camera movement. This is not okay. Fortunately, that little bridge part is not too hard, the path is wide enough for some inconsistancy, and usually causes little headache. But later, especially in some of the Bowser levels, there are similar puzzles that are now far more difficult and far more of a headache to clear because of camera swiveling.
Also, while it was a fun idea and cameo to make Lakatu the "floating cameraman", they also forced themselves to treat the camera as an object, which could be hindered by walls and various obsticals. This sometimes became a real pain when you needed to line the camera up behind you if you're standing with your back to the wall. Some games I've played get around this by simply making walls transparent or mostly translucent if the camera moves behind them, thus allowing un-hindered 360 degree camera movement.
It really boils down to the purpose and the advantages of 3rd person views over first person views. In first person view, you are faced with a very small tunnel-vision perspective of any given scene, you have no paripheral vision, you're viewing angle is limited to about 45 degrees even though the human eye sees about 170 degrees including paripheral vision. Some games have tried to fake larger viewing angles with screen warping, but this usually causes the graphics to be extremely distorted, and since you're still only watching a screen that may take up 30 degrees of your vision, it's extremely unrealistic and jaring. The 3rd person view is a quick and easy (well, sort of) way of fixing some of this problem, by pulling back you can have a lot larger field of vision, and for control, you can see the feet of the character, so as to be able to (supposedly) make fine motor adjustments to be able to jump and land precisely. In real life, if I was to jump from platform to platform, I would subconciously move my concentration to my pariphery, where I could actually see my foot position, and be able to land precisely where I want to, in a first person game, I can't do that, so this is where 3rd person view actually becomes MORE realistic, and more like real-life control. The problem is, 3rd person has a floating camera, and you must act as videographer as well as game player, to be able to be able to control your character correctly. Most games try to ease this job by trying to predict what the best camera position is at a given time and let you relinquish some of the control, other's require you to act as videographer 100% of the time, while others give you no camera control, and require you to put your trust in the game's decision of what the "best" camera angle is, all the time. Mario 64 does a balancing act between these two extremes. And, most of the time, it does a decent job, but there is still something missing in the camera control, and it still has its faults.
Interestingly, I've found that platformer with the most precise movement to be an FPAdventure: Metroid Prime. Even though you can't see my feet, you quickly adjust to you're feet being about 3 feet "in front of" the screen, and are able to make pretty precis
Smash Bros. Melee is basically a 2D platformer fighting game. The movement control systems stem directly from platformer: running, jumping many times your height, with ledges and "platforms" to land on. The action stems, more-or-less, from a Street Fighter style fighting game (without the combos). It's the most popular game on the GCN, and quite possibly the most anticipated title on the Wii. Sure, the graphics are 100% 3D, but who cares? The result is a great 2D platformer/fighter hybrid. I think games like this, Viewtiful Joe, New Super Mario Bros., and the like will become the future of 2D gaming: 3D graphics that are used to create side-scrollers. I think this technique is only just starting to be realized, and I think will only grow and mature in the coming years. Thank you Nintendo DS!
-- Eric
I really never have stood behind the iPhone idea, I think it might be kind of interesting, but it seems very unlikely, since Apple tends to concentrate on simple, elligant, and effective devices that do one thing, and one thing well. I think any increase in Apple's involvement in phones will be through their continued partnership with Motorola.
On the flip-side, it's hard for me to believe that the WWDC will go by without any iPod announcement. It's been nearly 9 months since any change in the iPod lineup, which they tend to stagger the releases of the line at about 6-9 month intervals. It's been about a year since the Nano's introduction, and it's doing so well, it's almost more appropriate to say that "hotcakes are selling like iPod Nanos". I think it's very unlikely that we'll get through the WWDC without at least some minor change in the iPod lineup. I predict an increase of memory to the Nanos, possibly some redesigning of the iPod Shuffle, something like that. I don't think we'll see any major changes, but we'll see some incremental increases in the product line.
iTMS will probably be a large focus of WWDC as well. Apple's finally going to have competition, in the form of Microsoft no less. I think it would be very stupid for Apple to not have some fairly major announcements up its sleeve (black turtleneck, of course) regarding their iPod / iTMS / iTunes infostructure. I think we'll see the official announcement of the beginning of feature film distrobution, and some new distrobution methods. Disney's already on board (who didn't see that one coming), we're just waiting for the official announcement, and this seems like a good time to do it. Apple's going to have to pour a lot more into their iTMS division from now on, seeing that they're going to have some pretty stiff competition, which will probably be fairly rigged.
I'm just surprised at these particular announcements, because they're all aimed at the mac elite crowd. This is the time where, more than ever, Apple must continue to appeal itself to the masses, this is not the time to clam up and preech to the choir, so-to-speak. We're likely to see a lot more concentration on mass marketting. XServe means nothing to most of their audience. I think all these announcements seem like reasonable assumptions, but I think we're more likely to see some more, all-encompassing announcements as well. Now, REALLY would be the time to release that iMini Media Center, start building some livingroom-based services.
Slashdot Mirror
I know I won't have a problem with the Wii's internet capabilities, but is Nintendo really banking on a substantial portion of their market having WiFi enabled houses? I still see WiFi as a specialty item, only used by geeks and business people. Am I wrong to think about it like this? Is the WiFi adoption rate actually very high?
I also know they will have a USB->Ethernet adaptor, but this will be less than convenient for most people, who don't keep their dsl/cable modems in their living room. Also, will it come with the system, or at least be cheap? I think it should be included with the system, if Nintendo really wants to get people on board with online play.
Super Smash Bros. has been confirmed for the Wii, the final title is "Super Smash Bros. Brawl", and will feature, among other things, Solid Snake. And from every press release I've seen, yes, it will be internet capable.
You're not going to get another revolutionary jump like the one 2D -> 3D graphics gave us, not anytime soon, anyway. Plus, I'm going to argue that revolutionary jumps don't provide, in the long term, the biggest fun factor. This is an era of polishing, taking revolutionary games that had promise, and making them even better. Nintendo is offering something about halfway in between, this go-around. The GameCube was a TOTAL polishing system. There was really nothing substantial that the gamecube could do that the N64 couldn't do (except graphically). The Wii is substanially different from the GameCube in that it has created a control system that is much better suited for 3D game movement than previous control systems. It will require a fairly large change in the way you play the games. Maybe not quite as different as adjusting from 2D dpad setups to 3D a-pad setups (Mario World -> Mario 64), but still substantial.
The NES was a revolutionary system, the SNES was a polishing system (it took 2D graphics and gameplay about as far as it could), the N64 was a revolutionary system, and the GameCube was a polishing system. The Wii falls more into the catagory of revolutionary, although the games LOOK similar to their GameCube counterparts. The thing that I think Sony is going to have problems with is that it's the only system, ever, which is the 2nd polishing system in a row. As much as their pushing various things, the only major difference between the PS2 and the PS3 is graphics. MS came on board in the middle of a polishing generation of consoles, so they're a bit more justified in doing a polishing system at this time.
I agree that it's time for a new revolution... but one isn't really on the horrizon. Nintendo is at least TRYING, I don't see anyone else doing this.
Oh, and don't give me that, "this generation is going to be about Online Play", because it's not. Online play will always be a secondary feature for consoles, as it should be. It it's no gameplay revolution, either, it just changes who you can play with at a given time.
Actually, it's Wii Sports thats getting all the attention, since you actually play the games like they're sports... unlike the "sports manager" games that tend to dominate sports these days.
Seriously, Nintendo has never had the sports crowd in their pocket, they know that attempting to go after the jock/frat crowd too much is likely to have a negative impact on the rest of their fan base (mostly people who hate that culture), so I think that's entirely reasonable.
Wanna totally screw over Square?
Go for a Halloween release ;)
Seriously, FFXII is probably a bigger release to worry about than the PS3 launch.
Really, the horsepower will only be a hindrence for the biggest budget titles (Final Fantasy, etc.), as it costs so much to produce those great graphics. Also, remember that HD takes a good magnitude of additional horsepower, so the probability is that the poly-count will be about equal on SD/ED between Wii and 360/PS3 games. Basically, the only really noticable difference in graphics between the Wii and the 360/PS3 will be the lack of HD. A few may point to this as an achillies heal, but HD is still a luxury item, and a bit of a novelty at this point. It may be a little less so in 4 years, but Nintendo can come out with an HD-powered Wii, I think this is a much better business model then trying to be 4 years ahead of the curve (ie: Sony).
That's a shame... I didn't read that, but it's a shame. I think having smaller, more frequent (one year or year and a half) upgrades is a better model for Apple at this point, not because it does the OS any better, but it allows Apple to keep themselves, and their computer line, fresh in the headlines, and at the forefront of computer discussions, more often.
Selling a product line is sort of like making up an RPG (either video game or table top), you feed the player little bits of goodies just regularly enough to keep them interested. 36 months can be the difference between Apple being at the top of everyone's "should look into" list, to eveyone thinking that they've gone under again. Then again, maybe Steve thinks their doing well enough, and are stable enough, that they don't need this.
I don't think it'll happen, realistically. I think what's bound to happen, after 10.5, is that they're going to be planning OS X11 (sorry, I couldn't resist). They'll release OS 10.6 or 10.9 (whatever they want to call it), about 8 months before hand, around late 2008, which will include a lot of preliminary libraries for the OS, without the big overhaul changes. After OS 11 does come out, we'll be back to where we were arond OS 10.2 with Jaguar (first really solid version of OS X), and we'll see a number of smaller, point-sized upgrades for the next few years. I think it's a better business model. But I do agree that, at this point, OS X is, aside from some minor finder GUI issues (come on Apple, this isn't rocket science!), pretty much as good as it is going to get.
I doubt it. Apple's current model has one major advantage: Simplicity. You don't have to put a whole bunch of individual requirements for a piece of Mac software, all you have to do is say "Requires Mac OS 10.4 or later", and you have everything in the bag. One of the things that Steve and Apple are trying to stress is simplicity and eligance. It's probably the first bullet point in the creation of "The Apple Experience", which is, virtually, the thing that continues to keep them alive and well. It's in all their product lines, it's in their marketting, it's in the very definition of what Apple can offer you. It also gives developers a break. Instead of constantly having a new thing to learn (a new graphics architecture, new OS commands, etc.) the learning is all done at the same time in one big push, but then lets the developers sit back and... well... develop, for the rest of the OSs cycle. It's part of Apple's cyclical business model: There is a season for learning the new features of the OS (tis the season to be jolly), and there is a season for getting down to business. Don't expect that to change any time soon.
Oh, and it also makes the releases that they do do, much more substantial. Every time they release a new OS X version, it's almost as big a deal as Microsoft releasing a new OS, because they are able to introduce everything that they've come up with since the last OS version, where-as a lot of the core additions to Windows are updated throughout the particular OS version's lifetime.
That's a bad idea for Apple. They might get customers in the short term, but they might very well kill themselves in the long term. Bootcamp and these Windows installer programs are meant as a temporary stop-gap for people switching over to Mac OS X. Really, the OS is the reason people by a Mac, it's the heart of the "look and feel" of the Mac experience, which is Apple's selling point. The last thing Apple wants is a bunch of people buying their machines specifically to use windows, because it will slowly erode into the mindshare of people using OS X. After OS X is dead, people will wake up one day and say to themselves, "Oh, now Apple's just another PC company like Dell, just more expensive with nothing unique to offer, except for superficial case designs."
Currently, Apple has something REAL to offer people that is different and, IMHO, a whole lot better than the competition: OS X. The last thing they want to do is jeapordise their mindshare by selling it beside Windows. Because, let's face it, if you have both Windows and OS X on a business computer, the fucking IT people at your company will FORCE you to use Windows, because most engineering staff seem to be windows jerks. This is especially true at my company, where simply bringing in my mac laptop to work gets the evil eye from the head engineer (my former boss), and I work in video production!
Well, haaa! I'm in the Land of the Midnight Sun, I stole your fucking sun!
...
please take it back...
Funny you should mention that. During the mid-90s, my father and I trained our dog to poop at the command "Gingrich!". Our neighbors musta thought we were some crazy neocons running around chanting, "Gingrich, Gingrich, Gingrich! ...Good dog!!!"
Like most on here, this thing sounds like it will totally fall on its face, just like all the other "iPod killers". The thing is, will having a lot of high-profile iPod clones start to make the Zune look like just another bogus clone (which it really is)? I think it might. I think having all these new products screaming for attention are just going to make people put everything not iPod into the same catagory... that being the "ignore" list.
That's perfectly ligitimate, though. And I'm of the same background (Final Fantasy is my meat and potatoes). I'm pretty inclusive when I define genres of art. After all, I went to school for electro-acoustic music... some of my work, people would classify as "just noise", so I'm fairly open about these kinds of definitions.
I have no problem with works simply being defined as conclomerates of other types of medias. Many times, it's simply the combination of various mediums that makes a particular genre unique. Even if you simply define Video Games as "Interactive Film" (as many single-play RPG critics like to claim), you have added a fairly substantial and important change to the film genre, enough for it to be considered a new genre entirely, and I believe video games to be even more than film + interactivity.
LOL! That was great! Took me a second to realize what you were getting at, but this makes a fairly good point too. His post totally negates the very definition of postmodernism as an artistic direction. The fact that there are many other interactive art forms also kind of takes the wind out of the sale of his arguement.
I think I just felt something... Oh, wait, that was just John Cage rolling over in his grave.
The bottom line is, even if you believe that art is a communication from artist to audience (which is a fairly common definition, one that I tend to agree with), that doesn't mean that the audience has no control over the information he/she recieves. Even reading a novel at a different speed is interactive. It might not be a change in plotline, but it sure changes the overall effect of the literature. There is plenty of interactive music out there. The entire genre of the "installation" is interactive, and in a very similar way that many video games are. Interactivity hardly negates artistic communication.
Zelda: sure, I guess. It caters to one form of high-culture. After all, I'd consider Disney's Fantasia, and some of his other animated movies as fairly sophisticated. Zelda takes the Disney route... a study in innocence, simplicity, and ellegence. Unfortunately, you will have a hard time convincing most people in today's world that it qualifies, but I'll bite.
I'm a huge Final Fantasy nut, and although I find things here and there that are quite subtle and creatively rendered; as a whole, it's hard to call them high art or very sophisticated. A character here, and plot line there, sure. I think Kuja ranks with some of the most interestingly depected villains I've ever seen in narrative, for instance. But I will also attest to there being some catering to boob-obsessed 15-year-old boys (Tifa, among others), and some senseless, uncreative violence (though one of the lesser offenders in video games).
Can Pixar make a great animated film that's utterly devoid of innocence? Can Nintendo? I dunno, I'd like to see what they come up with.
This is a very short-sided and unsophisticated view of culture. For one thing, "The Highbrow People"? What Highbrow people? Are they a tribe somewhere, because I sure as hell haven't heard of them. I think you've equated "high brow" or "sophisticated" with one very specific, and very limited group of individuals: namely old, conservative, traditionalists. Most of the actual meat of each artistic community tends to scoff at these types people for being stuffy, and sees them as ignorant and uninspired. The fact that the current view of "high brow" culture is a bunch of old people sitting in an auditorium listening to opera is completely irrelivant. Opera, at one point, was a shocking and "low brow" endevour for the common person who couldn't appreciate completely instrumental music. Most sophisticated intellectuals, these days, don't tend to go for opera. Opera's a dieing genre, even among highbrow culture. Next year, who knows, it might be pushing buttons in front of a TV screen, watching the birth of a new art form right before your very eyes! The fact is, sophisticated intellectuals... ie: "high brow" cultures, are found everywhere, with interests in every artistic genre. Just talk to some of my friends back from my conservatory about "video game theory", I think you'll change your mind.
As for violence, let me give you a short lesson in music history:
Violence, sex, drugs, even in fairly graphic forms, are all entrenched in high culture and low culture alike. The only thing that makes them more or less sophisticated is whether they are artistically rendered or not. About 95% of everything is uninspired, unartisticly rendered bullshit... video games are no more or no less.
I think you're missing the point as to why Myst is regarded as "highbrow". Myst is tradionally regarded as "highbrow" not because of its logic puzzles, but because of its high quality work in association to other art forms: graphic art, music, drama, and litterature. I'll admit, a lot of the stills from Myst are quite extrodinary, and very artistically rendered. They're maybe not quite art-house quality paintings, but they're creative and artistic renderings none-the-less. Similarly, the sound/music is quite well done (as a composer and sound designer, I can atest to this), the story is very very simple, but elligent, and even some of the acting (Atrus) has its charm.
Notice, however, that these are all other art forms. One could make an arguement that Myst is not sophisticated in its uniqueness as a "game", but for the inclusion of high quality painting, music, and drama. This is a common arguement, and a healthy one, because it attempts to define how a game can be high quality or sophisticated for "game's sake", but that doesn't make Myst any less of a quality work.
Bullshit. Complete bullshit. You act as if geeks are completely free of their own social hierarchy. No, there are philistines, and there are intellectuals within the geek population, just like any sub-culture. I've spent hours talking "video game theory" with various intellectuals... "geeks" if you will. So I don't buy this philistine ideal that games have no sophistication because they are "free of it". If you feel holier than thow because you believe geeks are free of sophistication... think again, all us evil intellectuals are here too, and we're here to stay. Geeks place other geeks (and non-geeks) into boxes just as much as anyone else does, maybe even moreso, because we're so damn jaded and have a bad inferiority complex.
I would say you are overlooking the intellectual potential of a new media form. This is not unexpected, many times it takes generations for a new genre to define its place in society. Heck, photography was looked at as the "poor mans painting" for decades before it began to gain respect for its unique characteristics within our culture. Now, I don't think there are many would point to art photography and say it is any lesser an art form than painting. Film struggled for years, and still is, partially due to its corperate persona, but most people have learned to respect film in its uniqueness. Video Games can express intelligent and creative thought just as much as the next medium, but the artistic theory behind it is still in its embrionic stages. This doesn't neccessarilly make it any less sophisticated, or less creative, it just makes it hard for society to define what IS sophisticated and creative game design.
Interestingly, I only became a gamer in my adult years (20+). As a lifelong artist and composer, I scoffed at video games as lesser entertainment, and have only recently begun to appreciate their inherent value. It's a newly budding art/entertainment form, and it's extremely interesting to watch its developement.
Make sure to keep your grandchildren from neglecting other forms of arts/entertainment, or social interaction, but be sure not to devalue the open-mindedness in observing the birth of a new genre. It's exciting, and it is creative history being made NOW. My generation and the next few generations own the beginnings of this form, its part of our current herritage. Just as the 1900s got to witness and revel in the birth of film, we get to watch the evolution of a new form. Don't stifle that intrest with staunch traditionalism and conservative creative values.
Even though I don't think we've reached a point of defining "sophistication" (or the loaded, "high-brow", as you prefer) in gaming yet, I think you can start to see the emergence of the symtoms of sophistication in the form of some of the debates in today's gaming culture. All sophisticated art forms are surrounded by fierce debates about what qualifies as "good work". Usually ideas get devided into different camps, and I think we are beginning to see the formation of these intellectual camps today. Almost all art forms have some sort of narrative contingency, and absolutist contingency. An example would be in music in the mid 19th century between Wagner (programmatic/narrative music) vs. Brahms (absolute music). One side always exclaims that to be "truly" great work in a particular art form, it has to be separated, completely, from all other forms of art/media. The Brahms camp felt that any narrative or "program" induced by a piece of music diluted the genre, and was therefor a lesser work.
Stop by any RPG forum, and you see this very same debate. You have the narrativist camp, which uses litterary and narrative frameworks as a way of defining quality of gaming works. Then you have the "interactivist" camp, which claims that any traditionally based, linear narrative dilutes the unique properties of the truly interactive medium.
These are the debates in which the definitions of sophisication arrise. The debate will NEVER be won, just as there are still are large amounts of both program and absolute music being composed today, but is healthy to the developement of the genre. So, for anyone who believes that either the Final Fantasy paradigm or the Elder Scrolls paradigm will become the dominant form, I hate to tell you this, but every other media genre has had the same debate, and never has either side ever won or lost.
Are there sophisticated games? I think there are some hints of sophistication here and there, I don't think there are any truly sophisticated works yet, however. Myst is the first thing that comes to mind. However, absolutists will point out that all of its qualitative characteristics are based on other art forms, namely computer graphic arts, music, acting, and litterature.
For the narrativist, the ideals of sophistication are already being reached, as Myst would probably be considered sophisticated, but due to its graphic art, music, and narrative work. For the absolutist, the question of what aspects makes the video game genre unique haven't quite been answered yet, so defining sophistication becomes a lot more difficult.
It all boils down to "theory". All art gaining momentum in its sophistication developes its own type of theory. Western music has Music Theory, drama has different schools, and movies have film theory. Now, I'm not in the gaming business, so I can't easily see if there is any video game theory developing, but I suspect there probably is. Once that becomes more readilly apparent, and more universally applicable, I think we will start to see a more apparent sophistication in gaming.
That's because the word "Housitors" rapes the ears.
...and then it would needlessly swivel around the moment you pressed a control button. Sorry, but no. You could position the camera while standing still MOST OF THE TIME, but the camera really had a mind of its own when you tried to move. I'm playing Mario 64 DS right now, and I'm noticing it again, and more than ever. The most obvious example is the falling bridge in the "Womp's Fortress" level. Sure, it's not the hardest thing in the world, but it illustrates my point quite well. You can spend all the time in the world lining the camera up perfectly behind you, but then you start running across the bridge, and the camera smoothly swivels around to your side during the bridge run, requiring you to move your thumb over on the A-Stick at precisely the same rate and time as the camera movement. This is not okay. Fortunately, that little bridge part is not too hard, the path is wide enough for some inconsistancy, and usually causes little headache. But later, especially in some of the Bowser levels, there are similar puzzles that are now far more difficult and far more of a headache to clear because of camera swiveling.
Also, while it was a fun idea and cameo to make Lakatu the "floating cameraman", they also forced themselves to treat the camera as an object, which could be hindered by walls and various obsticals. This sometimes became a real pain when you needed to line the camera up behind you if you're standing with your back to the wall. Some games I've played get around this by simply making walls transparent or mostly translucent if the camera moves behind them, thus allowing un-hindered 360 degree camera movement.
It really boils down to the purpose and the advantages of 3rd person views over first person views. In first person view, you are faced with a very small tunnel-vision perspective of any given scene, you have no paripheral vision, you're viewing angle is limited to about 45 degrees even though the human eye sees about 170 degrees including paripheral vision. Some games have tried to fake larger viewing angles with screen warping, but this usually causes the graphics to be extremely distorted, and since you're still only watching a screen that may take up 30 degrees of your vision, it's extremely unrealistic and jaring. The 3rd person view is a quick and easy (well, sort of) way of fixing some of this problem, by pulling back you can have a lot larger field of vision, and for control, you can see the feet of the character, so as to be able to (supposedly) make fine motor adjustments to be able to jump and land precisely. In real life, if I was to jump from platform to platform, I would subconciously move my concentration to my pariphery, where I could actually see my foot position, and be able to land precisely where I want to, in a first person game, I can't do that, so this is where 3rd person view actually becomes MORE realistic, and more like real-life control. The problem is, 3rd person has a floating camera, and you must act as videographer as well as game player, to be able to be able to control your character correctly. Most games try to ease this job by trying to predict what the best camera position is at a given time and let you relinquish some of the control, other's require you to act as videographer 100% of the time, while others give you no camera control, and require you to put your trust in the game's decision of what the "best" camera angle is, all the time. Mario 64 does a balancing act between these two extremes. And, most of the time, it does a decent job, but there is still something missing in the camera control, and it still has its faults.
Interestingly, I've found that platformer with the most precise movement to be an FPAdventure: Metroid Prime. Even though you can't see my feet, you quickly adjust to you're feet being about 3 feet "in front of" the screen, and are able to make pretty precis
Smash Bros. Melee is basically a 2D platformer fighting game. The movement control systems stem directly from platformer: running, jumping many times your height, with ledges and "platforms" to land on. The action stems, more-or-less, from a Street Fighter style fighting game (without the combos). It's the most popular game on the GCN, and quite possibly the most anticipated title on the Wii. Sure, the graphics are 100% 3D, but who cares? The result is a great 2D platformer/fighter hybrid. I think games like this, Viewtiful Joe, New Super Mario Bros., and the like will become the future of 2D gaming: 3D graphics that are used to create side-scrollers. I think this technique is only just starting to be realized, and I think will only grow and mature in the coming years. Thank you Nintendo DS! -- Eric
...yeah, when they run out, they just print up more of it!
I really never have stood behind the iPhone idea, I think it might be kind of interesting, but it seems very unlikely, since Apple tends to concentrate on simple, elligant, and effective devices that do one thing, and one thing well. I think any increase in Apple's involvement in phones will be through their continued partnership with Motorola.
On the flip-side, it's hard for me to believe that the WWDC will go by without any iPod announcement. It's been nearly 9 months since any change in the iPod lineup, which they tend to stagger the releases of the line at about 6-9 month intervals. It's been about a year since the Nano's introduction, and it's doing so well, it's almost more appropriate to say that "hotcakes are selling like iPod Nanos". I think it's very unlikely that we'll get through the WWDC without at least some minor change in the iPod lineup. I predict an increase of memory to the Nanos, possibly some redesigning of the iPod Shuffle, something like that. I don't think we'll see any major changes, but we'll see some incremental increases in the product line.
iTMS will probably be a large focus of WWDC as well. Apple's finally going to have competition, in the form of Microsoft no less. I think it would be very stupid for Apple to not have some fairly major announcements up its sleeve (black turtleneck, of course) regarding their iPod / iTMS / iTunes infostructure. I think we'll see the official announcement of the beginning of feature film distrobution, and some new distrobution methods. Disney's already on board (who didn't see that one coming), we're just waiting for the official announcement, and this seems like a good time to do it. Apple's going to have to pour a lot more into their iTMS division from now on, seeing that they're going to have some pretty stiff competition, which will probably be fairly rigged.
I'm just surprised at these particular announcements, because they're all aimed at the mac elite crowd. This is the time where, more than ever, Apple must continue to appeal itself to the masses, this is not the time to clam up and preech to the choir, so-to-speak. We're likely to see a lot more concentration on mass marketting. XServe means nothing to most of their audience. I think all these announcements seem like reasonable assumptions, but I think we're more likely to see some more, all-encompassing announcements as well. Now, REALLY would be the time to release that iMini Media Center, start building some livingroom-based services.