I have a '99 Camry, which is, of course, before they started making iPod retrofits, steeringwheel controls, and all that jazz. I got a nice leather case by Vaja, with a rivet in the back, that hooks into a little belt clip. What I did is bought a second beltclip device, and mounted it on my dashboard in the center console, above the stereo. I ran a Blitzsafe connector (which delivers line level audio, as well as power) to the CD changer port on my stereo. So I basically have a quick little clip to hold my ipod (I went in and bent down the clip so I don't have to press the button to remove the iPod) on top of my dashboard, and I can bring it right up in front of me when operating it, so I can keep my eyes on the road. When I get out of the car, I can pull it clean off, in one swoop, and clip it back on my belt. So when I leave the car, it goes with me, and it's become second nature to do so.
For safety reasons, I wait until I'm at a red light, or when there's no traffic around me to switch tracks (and no, I don't use playlists, I hate playlists). If you change albums, I usually wait until an oportune time (like a red light), and navigate to the track I want before the previous track finishes, so all I have to do is hit "menu" "center button" to play the next track I want to hear, I don't even have to look to do that! Also, I listen to a lot of prog, which has 10-20 minute tracks, so I don't switch tracks very much, if at all...
The real killer is people who do custom mods that require that your iPod be docked into a stationary location, so you have to actually bend over and squint to operate it. I was blown away when I noticed how many people are doing this, it seems like the worst thing in the world to do. Go onto iLounge and they have a forum for car modding, and so many people have done this thing of putting a universal dock into their ash tray. I think the solution is to be able to move the iPod around at will, so you don't feel the need to bend down to operate it, or a passanger can operate it. In this way, it's probably even safer than a car stereo... and less prone to theft, as well.
Re:How about enlisting older tech for calibration.
on
More Wii-mote Info
·
· Score: 1
Then why all this stuff about it being like an "eye" and being able to scan the television set? From what it sounds like, the bar on the top of TV simply acts as a relitave locator, to detect it's motion and position, but that the "eye" on the front of it scans it's field of vision, ie: the TV. The difference I'm proposing is NOT a flash, like with a light gun, but a constant picture (which would work fine on any type of TV).
I think people, including myself, are still confused on what this thing actually does. We're hearing that it has an accellerometer, we're hearing that it has a locator beacon bar (that sits on the TV), and we hear that it has a light sensor on the front of the Wiimote. So, is there any calibration, at all, that needs to be done? Maybe I'm missing something.
Taking a shot at the Wii? WTF? I LOVE the Wii! I'm going to be there at 3am on launch day if I have to, to get one. I was not in any way, shape or form, trying to "take a shot at it", so settle down, please. I was speculating on the Wiimote being used to store a user profile, which has NOTHING to do with online use, what-so-ever. I would LOVE to have a user-profile saving ability on my console, in a way that I could save common preferences: default controller settings, sensitivity settings for the Wiimote, sound balance control, have a personal profile (with name and emblem). What does any of this have anything to do with an online account? Sure, it would be nice to hold my online settings as well, if I have any.
If I was taking a pot shot at anything, it was online play, or more, the requirement of online play. I'm really worried that games are going to become SO multiplayer oriented, that single-player games get phased out, which are the bulk of what I like to play. I think requiring a user to be online just to get their user-profile sends a message that offline gaming is dead. What I want a profile for is to be able to somehow go over to a friend's place, with his Wii, and transfer my individual settings, which is what would be great for a Wiimote to be able to do. I don't really care so much about online prefs, because, personally, I don't know if I'm going to be going online with my Wii all that much.
Why all of the aggression? Did I rape your dog or something?
How about enlisting older tech for calibration...
on
More Wii-mote Info
·
· Score: 1
People have been suggesting a calibration setup system similar to that of the DS: point at a bunch of cross hairs (or dots) on the screen and pulling the trigger. There's a problem with this, though. The DS calibration is made easy because you're actually touching the dot you're having to calibrate with, while you're not guarenteed precision while aiming at a TV 10ft. away. So, how about this? Just for calibration, enlist the old lightgun system of having the screen change to a pattern of colors, maybe a 2-dimensional gradient across the screen, with a series of deviding lines. All the system has to do is tell the user to user to wave the controller around the screen for a second or two, and then can use the scanning data to figure out where PRECISELY the TV is in proximity to the Wiimote. Additionally, any load screens (of which Nintendo is good at keeping to a minimum), can flash up another calibration screen every so often, to keep the system in check. So, I see absolutely no reason for a clunky point and shoot calibration system.
I know Nintendo is going for online functionality this time around, but they shouldn't be REQUIRING it. How many people have WiFi setup in their house? I know I do, but none of my friends do, quite a few of them don't even have internet. Remember, there are many people who buy consoles because they don't have computers. It's a good move for Nintendo to get into online play, but from every indication I've seen, they neither have the push or the technology to require it. They haven't bothed making it easy, and versitile enough for EVERY gamer to do. Having an online personal info account would pretty much require all users to be internet ready, and screw anyone who's not. This doesn't seem to fit with Nintendo's overall strategy. I haven't even heard whether this thing can use ethernet, all I've heard about is the WiFi. This is going to be a feature for a very small percentage of players. So no, I highly doubt that they'll have an online personal info account like the one you describe.
My theory is that Nintendo has been able to keep Mario popular, because he was NEVER built off of anything that was ever considered "cool". He's a slightly overweight, 40-something plumber from New York, wears blue-jeans, a bright red shirt, and 1930s style brimmed cap. On top of that, he has a high, squeaky male voice with an incredibly stylized italian-american "pizza boy" accent. His image is neither "cool", nor "totally uncool", it is timeless, as he could be from 1920, he could be from 1990. Nintendo just made him cool by building a little fascination around him, and games just zany enough to involve yourself in. They MADE that image cool, specifically because they seemed to be trying so little to be cool. He's not attached to any 1980s lingo, dress-wear, his image is as uncool now as it was in the 1980s.
Noone ever wants to BE Mario, they don't think he's "cool", but they find him funny and entertaining in a why that doesn't rely on patting themselves on the back for going along with the latest fad. He's sorta like Charlie Chaplan, except less jewish... and though Charlie Chaplan may not be the talk of the town, you can still get a good laugh out of watching his commedy.
Meanwhile, Sonic talks 90s style smack (supposedly), all the cartoons have him acting like the typical "cool boy". If he had been made 2003, you can be sure he'd probably say, "What? Dr. Robuttnick is back again? GAYYYYY!" But he's not (thank god), so his 1990s "coolness" comes across as "so yesterday" to today's teenagers.
Maskots that get old? Those are the ones that people go around dressing like, saying their catch phrases, and styling their hair like, because the moment the next big fad comes along, noone wants to be caught dead following "last years'" trend. You never see people dressing up like Mario, or quoting his latest phrase, the closest thing you'll see is 9-year-olds on Halloween, (I'll admit to doing this, back in '90, I dressed up as Luigi, complete with racoon tail, the year Mario 3 came out).
Actually, Prime came out before Zero Mission, it was released on the same day as Fusion, actually. Zero Mission came out about halfway between Prime 1 and Prime 2. Do check out Prime when you have the chance, though, seeing as though your other favorite games include Marathon, I think you'll really like it. It's some weird combination of Marathon and an action/adventure game, ala Zelda, with less emphasis on reflex-driven shooting, and more on problem solving and navigation. It brings back a lot of fond memories of the cool switch puzzles from Maratho 2, complete with bubbling lava and weird floating enemies... gosh, I never realized just how similar they are! Anyway, it is an EXTREMELY worthy sequal to the Metroid series, which includes some of my favorite games (Prime, Super Metroid and Zero Mission all being grade A+ games)... you HAVE played Super Metroid, haven't you? If you haven't, do yourself a favor and grab it on an emulator. As much as I love Zero Mission, it's still the bastard child of Super Metroid (even though, theoretically it's based on the original NES Metroid).
Oh, once you get a Wii... Prime 3: Corruption will be released on launch day. Start with Metroid Prime 1 first. You can skip Prime 2: Echos, if you want, but I'd go ahead and play the original Prime game before you play the new one, they are a series, with a connecting plot (Echos doesn't end with any new story information, though, it's sort of a side trip). Echos is to Prime 1 what Fusion is to Super Metroid, a very linear, though very difficult game with uninspired level design and areas.
Nah. What "video games" have become is a conglomerate of different entertainment forms: narrative, interactive, and competative. The beauty is that the construction of the game ties these elements together. Possibly the conception that "interactive visual novels" stop being games is more in the problem with the term "video GAME" then in the definition of this particular style of game you provide. Video games began as mere competative (usually with the computer) abstraction, which earned it the title: video "game". Partially, this term was coined by parents and detractors of the entertainment form, who thought it to be inferior ("games", traditionally, are commonly accepted as inferior forms of self-entertainment). This was a bit hasty naming, because the video game would evolve, into what it is today, a form of entertainment that is both narrative and interactive, and usually competative (again, most commonly with an AI).
Noone is to say what video games should be. I'm starting to see a lot of comments like "video games aren't supposed to be story telling", or "video games are all about the narrative". NO NO NO NO NO, video games are what video games, their designers, and their fans decide them to be. If they are meant as mere interactive abstraction, then so be it... if they are meant as an interactive narrative form, then that's fine as well. Almost all video games, now days, are a combination of both... and I would argue that the best ones do a good job in all their areas of focus. Video games bring about a synergy between narrative, and interactive elements, that is unique to its genre alone. This synergy should be exploited, not squashed by favoring one element over another. Blindly following history's example of what an art/entertainment form "should be" would leave us reading stone tablets, looking at cave paintings, and watching film with no sound. Nothing against these entertainment forms, but there's more out there to explore.
Heh, EV Nova is a great game. Of course, I started with the first game in the series, which had its moments. Override (effectively, EV2) seemed a bit lost, but Nova (EV3) takes the cake. Never really got into modding them though. The Vell-os mission is insanely cool though, you're just SO angry that you have to do the evil guys' dirty work, and if you don't, you'll die. Not like in some RPGs, where you know (out of character) that you're being used by the bad guys... no, this time your character KNOWS IT, and still can't do anything about it. I thought that was really well done.
BTW: I thought the Metroid game with the best storytelling (and probably gameplay) was probably Prime 1. It really reminded me of Marathon 2 (and 1, but I mostly played 2) in that you learned about the story by finding little inscriptions and accessing computer terminals, I've played very few games that do that, and do that that simply and effectively. One of the many reasons Prime 1 is my favorite game in the series. I couldn't really get into Fusion all that much, it was way too linear feeling, I much prefer Zero Mission, and of course Super Metroid. Can't wait for Corruption... even if Hunter was a disaster (made by a different company though), and Echos was kinda lame.
When film first came out, I know many people said "it will never take off, no one wants to watch pictures on a screen," but here we are today, with people on the Internet telling others to turn to film for storyline because it doesn't belong anywhere else than the two established mediums.
Heh, don't forget when the "Talkie" first appeared, all the critics shouted about how it was disgracefull, and that NOONE wanted to actually LISTEN to people speak, after all, film was a visual genre. Listening to people speak was meant for the theatre!
I think it's possible for a serious love story to work in a game. I don't think it's been done yet, but there is evidence here and there, once in a while I find emotionally charged character interaction sequences in games that lead me to believe that, eventually, someone WILL get it. Now, I also believe that very very few movies make for good, serious love stories, as well, so that one is an especially up-hill battle.
I think practically ANYTHING that can be done in movies can be done in games. The only thing that I cannot get my head my head around is a video game documentary, since documentaries, by nature, are an example of pure "capture" art (that is, they require an actual event to be captured onto film and played back later on), even literature doesn't have a parallel to the movie documentary. But anything where literature and cinema can cross, games have the potential of doing. For one thing, literature and cinema can be included in games (and often are).
I don't think that, from a narrative standpoint, any game has come close to the potential exhibited by literature and cinema, but it's a very new media, only 1/4 the age of cinema, and thousands of times newer than literature. But we've exhibited almost all fiction genre's portrayed in games, even if badly: Historical Fiction (Medal of Honor, Battlefield 1942, Brother's in Arms), Fantasy Historical Fiction (Metal Gear Solid, Shadow Hearts), Sci-fi/fantasy (every RPG, most FPSs), Action (all FPSs, a majority of games in general), Mystery (Myst, most adventure games), romance (Final Fantasy VIII), Horror (Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Eternal Darkness), Commedy (Sam & Max, Leasure Suit Larry, Earthbound), Courtroom Drama (Pheonix Wright), the list goes on and on. Now, not a single game on this list can compete with cinema in terms of narrative power, of course.
But think back to early cinema, even the best movies seem fairly simplistic and fairly shallow. I love Metropolis, for instance, but part of me realizes that it's a bit of a novelty. Fritz Lang was a creative geneus, but he was working in a fairly crude media for its day, and part of his geneus was in his ability to only concentrate on things that he could do solidly with it. Similarly, Zelda isn't a masterpiece in storytelling, but it's overall concentration on problem solving and it's success in portraying an atmosphere of innocence, make it a masterpiece in gaming, that I believe will be looked at, 100 years from now, in a similar way that Metropolis is looked at now. Sure, their target audiences are different, their themes and ideas are far removed, but their value, for what they're attempting to do in their day, will inspire for many generations, I believe.
Ah yes, modern RPGs couldn't be further from their origins. Playing with story, ie roleplaying, is largely missing from modern games. I don't believe that adding "plot" and "storyline" fixes the problem.
I'm not really sure that there's a problem to be fixed. The modern console RPG is a totally ligitimate form of entertainment, IMO, that some of us enjoy even more than tabletop games. Though, I will agree that they are far removed from their origins, they've become something else, entirely. And yes, they probably should loose the "RPG" title, but I have yet to hear another title that didn't sound either incredibly stupid, or incredibly smug (ie: "interactive story book").
I, personally, am perfectly happy playing through a pre-defined story. This is the way that narrative entertainment has been from the beginning of time, and it's been perfected throughout the ages. I'm not saying that there aren't other ways, but to say that it's a "problem" or in someway inferior, is just one ignorant opinion.
But I can understand that many people are looking to the table-top RPG, and are interested in trying to figure out a way of replicating, at least partially, that type of narrative experience in a video game. And I am currious as well. But until we can create AI that is nimble enough to create engaging narrative on the fly, we only have 3 options: create a pre-defined storyline in which the characters can play through, create a branching storyline in which the characters actions define the particular path, or completely give up on story altogether, and concentrate fully on the hack & slash model, which I don't believe to be any closer to the table-top RPG experience than the pre-defined story model.
Now, I highly disagree with you on the notion that tabletop RPGs are more about hack & slash than plot. If all you've played is D&D with GMs who're only interested in fighting, then I can understand how you might think that. I've played whole adventures which consist mostly of going around and talking to NPCs, or figuring out the history behind situations and creating a new dramatic plot as the game progresses. I had one GM who ran a 2nd edition campaign which focused, almost entirely, around the international politics of the region we were playing, it was one of the most fun and exciting tabletop experiences I've ever had. I've played Dark Conspiricy campaigns that revolved around ELABORATE narrative and interactive story-telling. A friend of mine created a tabletop called Aeon, and the beginning adventure involved no fighting at all, mostly a lot of detective work. Hell, there are thousands of people who play various LARPs, most of which contain only the very rarest instances of fighting. I played Vampire for a whole year, and there was only ONE mass battle, and everyone agreed that it was really pointless. No, the reason why the manuals of tabletops are filled only with stats is because storytelling doesn't need instruction. GOOD storytelling takes years and years of practice, thought, and study, but one book isn't going to be able to help much. Most GMs would rather spend their time on creating narrative then creating a system; so the game company supplies the system, and the GM supplies the narrative. In that case, one could argue that tabletop games revolve MORE around narrative then systematic action... but every player and GM has their preference on balancing these two interests.
I didn't used to have a problem with extended cutscenes and FMVs. I've played all of the Final Fantasy's, most of the major RPGs for the SNES, PS1/2, and GameCube, and few had me cringing on the cut scenes (FFX and Xenogears being exceptions)...
...and then I played Metal Gear Solid 3.
And now, I'm in agreement with you. There is such a thing as too much FMV. Don't get me wrong, as a whole, I loved MGS3, but having 20 minutes of FMVs, followed by a pointlessly easy motorcycle mini-game (lasting all of 7 minutes), followed by 20 minutes more of FMVs, is TOO MUCH.
I don't agree with you about plot, however. I think plot is almost a neccessity in games, at least for me anyway (with a few exceptions), but there are ways of disbursing it, and telling it within the gameplay that is much more effective and more interactive than cutscene cutscene cutscene!
Hey, the "SEGA!" screem was quite possibly some of the best marketting of our age. It was new, it was unique, it was edgy, it was memorable, and it was done using JUST the company's name! As an advertisement producer, myself, if I could figure out a memorable quip that simply used the company's name, I would use it in a heartbeat. I mean, people started saying it in public, it was so popular... kids would yell it at each other in jokes. One guy I know even yelled it in the middle of the movie theatre! It's like getting a free word of mouth campaign. It's no coincidence that this was used at the very height of their coorporate history, when the Genesis was selling like hotcakes. When I think back on what the Genesis had to offer, and what the SNES had to offer, it seems like a no brainer to go SNES, but Sega did inspire a lot of people with their marketing.
Now, the rest of their marketing was total bullshit. Though, not nearly as bad as Turbo Graphics' "Johny Turbo" TurboDuo comic book campaign (quite possibly one of the worst marketting campaigns in history).
I really don't think things are changing. Humans have always tried to tie different technologies together. How is the devices we're talking about any different from a Swiss Army Knife? I mean, Swiss Army Knives are nice, but if you really need to gut a big fish, I'll take a simple hunting knife any day.
Now, I must completley dissagree. I could care less whether NASA favors ellegence and simplicity over features and horsepower, in fact, it's probably better if they don't (the Space Shuttle is ugly and complicated, but it gets the job done), their work is completely utilitarian in nature, and therefor should concentrate on simply getting the job done.
Games are entertainment. "Toys" are simply a subset of entertainment, mostly used to describe items for children. Calling video games "toys" is like calling all albums "toys" because a few of them happen to contain recordings of "Peter and the Wolf". Video games are mainstream entertainment, just like film, litterature, and music. Our values in entertainment are very closely tied to what we value, as a whole, in our society. Some would argue that art is the only thing mankind has that afirms, and makes our existance relevant.
Although, no, I don't believe the PSPs design to be all that bad, per se, but the recent work by Nintendo seems to be more in tune with what I'd hope to see valued by the entertainment industry as a whole. So yes, we are talking about much more than simply "toys".
What about prog? I want to play a Rush game. I know I never really escaped the grunge era, but I would love to get my hands on a new single by Id Software.
HELL YEAH! I'm there. But in actuallity, there's probably a lot more similarites between video games and prog than there are between video games and grunge, on average. Many console games share, what I feel is, a similar creative philosophy to prog. Most Japanese RPGs contain a lot of prog in them (thanks to Uematsu's obsession with Yes, Genesis, and ELP). Hell, Blizzard gave a big thanks out to Rush during the credits of StarCraft. "Epic", "complex", "innovative", "intellectual", "dramatic" - these are all valued traits within the mainstream gaming world... where-as they're just viewed as simply being pretentious "prog" in the music world.
This never made sense to me.
Fuck Punk, Fuck Grunge, Fuck Emo, and Fuck "Indie Rock". Fuck all this stupid, philistine, anti-intellectual bullshit, I want my prog back!
"Our" president not only differs with most of the world, but most of America as well. I didn't vote for him, but more importantly, millions of Americans voted for him simply because he seemed "like a good guy you could sit and have a beer with," not because they agreed with him. Bush doesn't represent the majority, or even a plurality of people's opinions in this country (thank god), and he definitely represents VERY few of the view of American Slashdotters.
What baffles me is why so many people seem to care which handheld "wins" the console "wars." We are talking about toys here, people. There are more important things in life than which faceless corporation makes more money selling toys.
But it's more than that, though. It's about value judgements. Whether companies should strive for innovation, or simply tack on as many features as possible. The idea is that, the winning business philosophy will inspire other companies in other industries to follow. To me, the thing that the Nintendo DS and Wii represent are innovative design, while stressing simplicity and ellegence over raw horsepower and numerous (but possibly, lacklusterly implemented) features. Sony's gameplan, so to speak, seems to be one of blunt force, features features features (no matter how well their implemented), and fear of change.
The company that wins will help to define the general trend of consumer electronics in the coming years. I'd rather see innovation and ellegence take the lead over horsepower and features, which has seemed to be the leading trend up until now.
My philosophy is this: start out and make one device that does one thing very well. Then make another device that does something else very well, if they are successful, merge them into one device that does both things well... OR, start with one device that does one thing well, and once that's perfected, begin slowly adding on features, as long as the simplicity of the original device isn't compromised. Starting out by creating one device that does everything, almost always ends up becoming one device that does everything BADLY, innefficiently, and inelligantly.
Ahhh, but there is a fundimental difference between a Dell computer and a movie: One is meant as an artistic expression, the other is a TOOL. These are totally separate entities, and need to be treated, legally, as such. It gets tricky when art becomes traded as a commodity, but this still needs to be made clear. Now, owning a piece of art, you are completely entitled to cut up the work as much as possible, even re-show it as your own form of expression (found art, or colleges, for example), same thing with jeans. You can exhibit and re-sell a college as your own work of art (although the lines on this are kind of blury), but you can not alter a Monet, and resell it as a Monet. This is what CleanFlix are doing. They are releasing a work, under the title of the original, as being created by the original creators (not as a new work, mind you), but editting out certain parts they don't think should be in the orignal. It really belongs in the same catagory as musical "covers". I can't simply take a David Bowe tune, record my band playing it, and re-sell it... I have to buy the rights to do so, because I'm now making money off of David Bowe's name. I ran into this a few years back when I wanted to release an album of piano arrangements of game music. They're so heavilly altered that they're practically my own compositions now, but I can't use the names of the original artists and titles and sell the music as such, because I would be trying to make money off their popularity. On the flip side, there is enough resemblance to the original, that although I might be able to get away with selling it as my own original material, I would personally consider it highly unethical. In the end, I was never able to release the album. It's practically the same thing with CleanFlix, they must by the rights to do so before profitting off of someone else's name. I think that's totally fair.
Ever used a universal remote? They're a pain in the ass. Well, normal remotes are a pain in the ass too, but remotes that try to tie ALL functionality together are some of the most difficult UI devices ever invented. Now, there's the added fact that they're 3rd party devices, having to account for controlling all sorts of different devices. Even so, the fact remains that the TV remote was designed to be simple and quick to use, so you didn't have to get up from your chair to change the channel, adjust volume, etc. And yet we're stuck with devices with (sometimes) hundreds of buttons.
I suggest that Apple hasn't designed a device that has multi-functionality, NOT because of battery life, cost, or anything of the sort, but because they haven't yet figured out how to make one that wouldn't be a pain in the ass to use. Anything's possible, and someday, someone's brilliant UI designers (maybe Apple, almost certainly not Microsoft) will figure out a way of ellegently tieing the functionality of these devices together. One of the purposes of a handheld, besides it's portability, is to be quick and much easier to use than a computer. I don't think we have UI developement up to a level where we can make a multifunction device that's reasonably easy to use. Now, I agree, someday this WILL change, just by the nature of developement, someone will come up with an ellegent solution, but until then, I have two belt clips, one each side: one for my cell phone, and one for my iPod, and I have absolutely no problem with that.
Oh, and try to be a little nicer in you're posts. Saying things like, "I am glad most people don't believe what you are saying", for one thing, it is not true, and secondly, it will get you nowhere on/. I'm not in complete disagreement with you, after all. Let's try to keep the conversation reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a '99 Camry, which is, of course, before they started making iPod retrofits, steeringwheel controls, and all that jazz. I got a nice leather case by Vaja, with a rivet in the back, that hooks into a little belt clip. What I did is bought a second beltclip device, and mounted it on my dashboard in the center console, above the stereo. I ran a Blitzsafe connector (which delivers line level audio, as well as power) to the CD changer port on my stereo. So I basically have a quick little clip to hold my ipod (I went in and bent down the clip so I don't have to press the button to remove the iPod) on top of my dashboard, and I can bring it right up in front of me when operating it, so I can keep my eyes on the road. When I get out of the car, I can pull it clean off, in one swoop, and clip it back on my belt. So when I leave the car, it goes with me, and it's become second nature to do so.
For safety reasons, I wait until I'm at a red light, or when there's no traffic around me to switch tracks (and no, I don't use playlists, I hate playlists). If you change albums, I usually wait until an oportune time (like a red light), and navigate to the track I want before the previous track finishes, so all I have to do is hit "menu" "center button" to play the next track I want to hear, I don't even have to look to do that! Also, I listen to a lot of prog, which has 10-20 minute tracks, so I don't switch tracks very much, if at all...
The real killer is people who do custom mods that require that your iPod be docked into a stationary location, so you have to actually bend over and squint to operate it. I was blown away when I noticed how many people are doing this, it seems like the worst thing in the world to do. Go onto iLounge and they have a forum for car modding, and so many people have done this thing of putting a universal dock into their ash tray. I think the solution is to be able to move the iPod around at will, so you don't feel the need to bend down to operate it, or a passanger can operate it. In this way, it's probably even safer than a car stereo... and less prone to theft, as well.
masturbation
Then why all this stuff about it being like an "eye" and being able to scan the television set? From what it sounds like, the bar on the top of TV simply acts as a relitave locator, to detect it's motion and position, but that the "eye" on the front of it scans it's field of vision, ie: the TV. The difference I'm proposing is NOT a flash, like with a light gun, but a constant picture (which would work fine on any type of TV).
I think people, including myself, are still confused on what this thing actually does. We're hearing that it has an accellerometer, we're hearing that it has a locator beacon bar (that sits on the TV), and we hear that it has a light sensor on the front of the Wiimote. So, is there any calibration, at all, that needs to be done? Maybe I'm missing something.
Woh, woh, woh!
Taking a shot at the Wii? WTF? I LOVE the Wii! I'm going to be there at 3am on launch day if I have to, to get one. I was not in any way, shape or form, trying to "take a shot at it", so settle down, please. I was speculating on the Wiimote being used to store a user profile, which has NOTHING to do with online use, what-so-ever. I would LOVE to have a user-profile saving ability on my console, in a way that I could save common preferences: default controller settings, sensitivity settings for the Wiimote, sound balance control, have a personal profile (with name and emblem). What does any of this have anything to do with an online account? Sure, it would be nice to hold my online settings as well, if I have any.
If I was taking a pot shot at anything, it was online play, or more, the requirement of online play. I'm really worried that games are going to become SO multiplayer oriented, that single-player games get phased out, which are the bulk of what I like to play. I think requiring a user to be online just to get their user-profile sends a message that offline gaming is dead. What I want a profile for is to be able to somehow go over to a friend's place, with his Wii, and transfer my individual settings, which is what would be great for a Wiimote to be able to do. I don't really care so much about online prefs, because, personally, I don't know if I'm going to be going online with my Wii all that much.
Why all of the aggression? Did I rape your dog or something?
People have been suggesting a calibration setup system similar to that of the DS: point at a bunch of cross hairs (or dots) on the screen and pulling the trigger. There's a problem with this, though. The DS calibration is made easy because you're actually touching the dot you're having to calibrate with, while you're not guarenteed precision while aiming at a TV 10ft. away. So, how about this? Just for calibration, enlist the old lightgun system of having the screen change to a pattern of colors, maybe a 2-dimensional gradient across the screen, with a series of deviding lines. All the system has to do is tell the user to user to wave the controller around the screen for a second or two, and then can use the scanning data to figure out where PRECISELY the TV is in proximity to the Wiimote. Additionally, any load screens (of which Nintendo is good at keeping to a minimum), can flash up another calibration screen every so often, to keep the system in check. So, I see absolutely no reason for a clunky point and shoot calibration system.
I know Nintendo is going for online functionality this time around, but they shouldn't be REQUIRING it. How many people have WiFi setup in their house? I know I do, but none of my friends do, quite a few of them don't even have internet. Remember, there are many people who buy consoles because they don't have computers. It's a good move for Nintendo to get into online play, but from every indication I've seen, they neither have the push or the technology to require it. They haven't bothed making it easy, and versitile enough for EVERY gamer to do. Having an online personal info account would pretty much require all users to be internet ready, and screw anyone who's not. This doesn't seem to fit with Nintendo's overall strategy. I haven't even heard whether this thing can use ethernet, all I've heard about is the WiFi. This is going to be a feature for a very small percentage of players. So no, I highly doubt that they'll have an online personal info account like the one you describe.
My theory is that Nintendo has been able to keep Mario popular, because he was NEVER built off of anything that was ever considered "cool". He's a slightly overweight, 40-something plumber from New York, wears blue-jeans, a bright red shirt, and 1930s style brimmed cap. On top of that, he has a high, squeaky male voice with an incredibly stylized italian-american "pizza boy" accent. His image is neither "cool", nor "totally uncool", it is timeless, as he could be from 1920, he could be from 1990. Nintendo just made him cool by building a little fascination around him, and games just zany enough to involve yourself in. They MADE that image cool, specifically because they seemed to be trying so little to be cool. He's not attached to any 1980s lingo, dress-wear, his image is as uncool now as it was in the 1980s.
Noone ever wants to BE Mario, they don't think he's "cool", but they find him funny and entertaining in a why that doesn't rely on patting themselves on the back for going along with the latest fad. He's sorta like Charlie Chaplan, except less jewish... and though Charlie Chaplan may not be the talk of the town, you can still get a good laugh out of watching his commedy.
Meanwhile, Sonic talks 90s style smack (supposedly), all the cartoons have him acting like the typical "cool boy". If he had been made 2003, you can be sure he'd probably say, "What? Dr. Robuttnick is back again? GAYYYYY!" But he's not (thank god), so his 1990s "coolness" comes across as "so yesterday" to today's teenagers.
Maskots that get old? Those are the ones that people go around dressing like, saying their catch phrases, and styling their hair like, because the moment the next big fad comes along, noone wants to be caught dead following "last years'" trend. You never see people dressing up like Mario, or quoting his latest phrase, the closest thing you'll see is 9-year-olds on Halloween, (I'll admit to doing this, back in '90, I dressed up as Luigi, complete with racoon tail, the year Mario 3 came out).
Actually, Prime came out before Zero Mission, it was released on the same day as Fusion, actually. Zero Mission came out about halfway between Prime 1 and Prime 2. Do check out Prime when you have the chance, though, seeing as though your other favorite games include Marathon, I think you'll really like it. It's some weird combination of Marathon and an action/adventure game, ala Zelda, with less emphasis on reflex-driven shooting, and more on problem solving and navigation. It brings back a lot of fond memories of the cool switch puzzles from Maratho 2, complete with bubbling lava and weird floating enemies... gosh, I never realized just how similar they are! Anyway, it is an EXTREMELY worthy sequal to the Metroid series, which includes some of my favorite games (Prime, Super Metroid and Zero Mission all being grade A+ games)... you HAVE played Super Metroid, haven't you? If you haven't, do yourself a favor and grab it on an emulator. As much as I love Zero Mission, it's still the bastard child of Super Metroid (even though, theoretically it's based on the original NES Metroid).
Oh, once you get a Wii... Prime 3: Corruption will be released on launch day. Start with Metroid Prime 1 first. You can skip Prime 2: Echos, if you want, but I'd go ahead and play the original Prime game before you play the new one, they are a series, with a connecting plot (Echos doesn't end with any new story information, though, it's sort of a side trip). Echos is to Prime 1 what Fusion is to Super Metroid, a very linear, though very difficult game with uninspired level design and areas.
Nah. What "video games" have become is a conglomerate of different entertainment forms: narrative, interactive, and competative. The beauty is that the construction of the game ties these elements together. Possibly the conception that "interactive visual novels" stop being games is more in the problem with the term "video GAME" then in the definition of this particular style of game you provide. Video games began as mere competative (usually with the computer) abstraction, which earned it the title: video "game". Partially, this term was coined by parents and detractors of the entertainment form, who thought it to be inferior ("games", traditionally, are commonly accepted as inferior forms of self-entertainment). This was a bit hasty naming, because the video game would evolve, into what it is today, a form of entertainment that is both narrative and interactive, and usually competative (again, most commonly with an AI).
Noone is to say what video games should be. I'm starting to see a lot of comments like "video games aren't supposed to be story telling", or "video games are all about the narrative". NO NO NO NO NO, video games are what video games, their designers, and their fans decide them to be. If they are meant as mere interactive abstraction, then so be it... if they are meant as an interactive narrative form, then that's fine as well. Almost all video games, now days, are a combination of both... and I would argue that the best ones do a good job in all their areas of focus. Video games bring about a synergy between narrative, and interactive elements, that is unique to its genre alone. This synergy should be exploited, not squashed by favoring one element over another. Blindly following history's example of what an art/entertainment form "should be" would leave us reading stone tablets, looking at cave paintings, and watching film with no sound. Nothing against these entertainment forms, but there's more out there to explore.
Heh, EV Nova is a great game. Of course, I started with the first game in the series, which had its moments. Override (effectively, EV2) seemed a bit lost, but Nova (EV3) takes the cake. Never really got into modding them though. The Vell-os mission is insanely cool though, you're just SO angry that you have to do the evil guys' dirty work, and if you don't, you'll die. Not like in some RPGs, where you know (out of character) that you're being used by the bad guys... no, this time your character KNOWS IT, and still can't do anything about it. I thought that was really well done.
BTW: I thought the Metroid game with the best storytelling (and probably gameplay) was probably Prime 1. It really reminded me of Marathon 2 (and 1, but I mostly played 2) in that you learned about the story by finding little inscriptions and accessing computer terminals, I've played very few games that do that, and do that that simply and effectively. One of the many reasons Prime 1 is my favorite game in the series. I couldn't really get into Fusion all that much, it was way too linear feeling, I much prefer Zero Mission, and of course Super Metroid. Can't wait for Corruption... even if Hunter was a disaster (made by a different company though), and Echos was kinda lame.
I disagree.
I think it's possible for a serious love story to work in a game. I don't think it's been done yet, but there is evidence here and there, once in a while I find emotionally charged character interaction sequences in games that lead me to believe that, eventually, someone WILL get it. Now, I also believe that very very few movies make for good, serious love stories, as well, so that one is an especially up-hill battle.
I think practically ANYTHING that can be done in movies can be done in games. The only thing that I cannot get my head my head around is a video game documentary, since documentaries, by nature, are an example of pure "capture" art (that is, they require an actual event to be captured onto film and played back later on), even literature doesn't have a parallel to the movie documentary. But anything where literature and cinema can cross, games have the potential of doing. For one thing, literature and cinema can be included in games (and often are).
I don't think that, from a narrative standpoint, any game has come close to the potential exhibited by literature and cinema, but it's a very new media, only 1/4 the age of cinema, and thousands of times newer than literature. But we've exhibited almost all fiction genre's portrayed in games, even if badly: Historical Fiction (Medal of Honor, Battlefield 1942, Brother's in Arms), Fantasy Historical Fiction (Metal Gear Solid, Shadow Hearts), Sci-fi/fantasy (every RPG, most FPSs), Action (all FPSs, a majority of games in general), Mystery (Myst, most adventure games), romance (Final Fantasy VIII), Horror (Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Eternal Darkness), Commedy (Sam & Max, Leasure Suit Larry, Earthbound), Courtroom Drama (Pheonix Wright), the list goes on and on. Now, not a single game on this list can compete with cinema in terms of narrative power, of course.
But think back to early cinema, even the best movies seem fairly simplistic and fairly shallow. I love Metropolis, for instance, but part of me realizes that it's a bit of a novelty. Fritz Lang was a creative geneus, but he was working in a fairly crude media for its day, and part of his geneus was in his ability to only concentrate on things that he could do solidly with it. Similarly, Zelda isn't a masterpiece in storytelling, but it's overall concentration on problem solving and it's success in portraying an atmosphere of innocence, make it a masterpiece in gaming, that I believe will be looked at, 100 years from now, in a similar way that Metropolis is looked at now. Sure, their target audiences are different, their themes and ideas are far removed, but their value, for what they're attempting to do in their day, will inspire for many generations, I believe.
I'm not really sure that there's a problem to be fixed. The modern console RPG is a totally ligitimate form of entertainment, IMO, that some of us enjoy even more than tabletop games. Though, I will agree that they are far removed from their origins, they've become something else, entirely. And yes, they probably should loose the "RPG" title, but I have yet to hear another title that didn't sound either incredibly stupid, or incredibly smug (ie: "interactive story book").
I, personally, am perfectly happy playing through a pre-defined story. This is the way that narrative entertainment has been from the beginning of time, and it's been perfected throughout the ages. I'm not saying that there aren't other ways, but to say that it's a "problem" or in someway inferior, is just one ignorant opinion.
But I can understand that many people are looking to the table-top RPG, and are interested in trying to figure out a way of replicating, at least partially, that type of narrative experience in a video game. And I am currious as well. But until we can create AI that is nimble enough to create engaging narrative on the fly, we only have 3 options: create a pre-defined storyline in which the characters can play through, create a branching storyline in which the characters actions define the particular path, or completely give up on story altogether, and concentrate fully on the hack & slash model, which I don't believe to be any closer to the table-top RPG experience than the pre-defined story model.
Now, I highly disagree with you on the notion that tabletop RPGs are more about hack & slash than plot. If all you've played is D&D with GMs who're only interested in fighting, then I can understand how you might think that. I've played whole adventures which consist mostly of going around and talking to NPCs, or figuring out the history behind situations and creating a new dramatic plot as the game progresses. I had one GM who ran a 2nd edition campaign which focused, almost entirely, around the international politics of the region we were playing, it was one of the most fun and exciting tabletop experiences I've ever had. I've played Dark Conspiricy campaigns that revolved around ELABORATE narrative and interactive story-telling. A friend of mine created a tabletop called Aeon, and the beginning adventure involved no fighting at all, mostly a lot of detective work. Hell, there are thousands of people who play various LARPs, most of which contain only the very rarest instances of fighting. I played Vampire for a whole year, and there was only ONE mass battle, and everyone agreed that it was really pointless. No, the reason why the manuals of tabletops are filled only with stats is because storytelling doesn't need instruction. GOOD storytelling takes years and years of practice, thought, and study, but one book isn't going to be able to help much. Most GMs would rather spend their time on creating narrative then creating a system; so the game company supplies the system, and the GM supplies the narrative. In that case, one could argue that tabletop games revolve MORE around narrative then systematic action... but every player and GM has their preference on balancing these two interests.
I didn't used to have a problem with extended cutscenes and FMVs. I've played all of the Final Fantasy's, most of the major RPGs for the SNES, PS1/2, and GameCube, and few had me cringing on the cut scenes (FFX and Xenogears being exceptions)...
...and then I played Metal Gear Solid 3.
And now, I'm in agreement with you. There is such a thing as too much FMV. Don't get me wrong, as a whole, I loved MGS3, but having 20 minutes of FMVs, followed by a pointlessly easy motorcycle mini-game (lasting all of 7 minutes), followed by 20 minutes more of FMVs, is TOO MUCH.
I don't agree with you about plot, however. I think plot is almost a neccessity in games, at least for me anyway (with a few exceptions), but there are ways of disbursing it, and telling it within the gameplay that is much more effective and more interactive than cutscene cutscene cutscene!
Hey, the "SEGA!" screem was quite possibly some of the best marketting of our age. It was new, it was unique, it was edgy, it was memorable, and it was done using JUST the company's name! As an advertisement producer, myself, if I could figure out a memorable quip that simply used the company's name, I would use it in a heartbeat. I mean, people started saying it in public, it was so popular... kids would yell it at each other in jokes. One guy I know even yelled it in the middle of the movie theatre! It's like getting a free word of mouth campaign. It's no coincidence that this was used at the very height of their coorporate history, when the Genesis was selling like hotcakes. When I think back on what the Genesis had to offer, and what the SNES had to offer, it seems like a no brainer to go SNES, but Sega did inspire a lot of people with their marketing.
Now, the rest of their marketing was total bullshit. Though, not nearly as bad as Turbo Graphics' "Johny Turbo" TurboDuo comic book campaign (quite possibly one of the worst marketting campaigns in history).
I really don't think things are changing. Humans have always tried to tie different technologies together. How is the devices we're talking about any different from a Swiss Army Knife? I mean, Swiss Army Knives are nice, but if you really need to gut a big fish, I'll take a simple hunting knife any day.
Now, I must completley dissagree. I could care less whether NASA favors ellegence and simplicity over features and horsepower, in fact, it's probably better if they don't (the Space Shuttle is ugly and complicated, but it gets the job done), their work is completely utilitarian in nature, and therefor should concentrate on simply getting the job done.
Games are entertainment. "Toys" are simply a subset of entertainment, mostly used to describe items for children. Calling video games "toys" is like calling all albums "toys" because a few of them happen to contain recordings of "Peter and the Wolf". Video games are mainstream entertainment, just like film, litterature, and music. Our values in entertainment are very closely tied to what we value, as a whole, in our society. Some would argue that art is the only thing mankind has that afirms, and makes our existance relevant.
Although, no, I don't believe the PSPs design to be all that bad, per se, but the recent work by Nintendo seems to be more in tune with what I'd hope to see valued by the entertainment industry as a whole. So yes, we are talking about much more than simply "toys".
HELL YEAH! I'm there. But in actuallity, there's probably a lot more similarites between video games and prog than there are between video games and grunge, on average. Many console games share, what I feel is, a similar creative philosophy to prog. Most Japanese RPGs contain a lot of prog in them (thanks to Uematsu's obsession with Yes, Genesis, and ELP). Hell, Blizzard gave a big thanks out to Rush during the credits of StarCraft. "Epic", "complex", "innovative", "intellectual", "dramatic" - these are all valued traits within the mainstream gaming world... where-as they're just viewed as simply being pretentious "prog" in the music world.
This never made sense to me.
Fuck Punk, Fuck Grunge, Fuck Emo, and Fuck "Indie Rock". Fuck all this stupid, philistine, anti-intellectual bullshit, I want my prog back!
Slashdot has even more Trolls... noone ever complains that we're a Tolkein rippoff!
"Our" president not only differs with most of the world, but most of America as well. I didn't vote for him, but more importantly, millions of Americans voted for him simply because he seemed "like a good guy you could sit and have a beer with," not because they agreed with him. Bush doesn't represent the majority, or even a plurality of people's opinions in this country (thank god), and he definitely represents VERY few of the view of American Slashdotters.
But it's more than that, though. It's about value judgements. Whether companies should strive for innovation, or simply tack on as many features as possible. The idea is that, the winning business philosophy will inspire other companies in other industries to follow. To me, the thing that the Nintendo DS and Wii represent are innovative design, while stressing simplicity and ellegence over raw horsepower and numerous (but possibly, lacklusterly implemented) features. Sony's gameplan, so to speak, seems to be one of blunt force, features features features (no matter how well their implemented), and fear of change.
The company that wins will help to define the general trend of consumer electronics in the coming years. I'd rather see innovation and ellegence take the lead over horsepower and features, which has seemed to be the leading trend up until now.
My philosophy is this: start out and make one device that does one thing very well. Then make another device that does something else very well, if they are successful, merge them into one device that does both things well... OR, start with one device that does one thing well, and once that's perfected, begin slowly adding on features, as long as the simplicity of the original device isn't compromised. Starting out by creating one device that does everything, almost always ends up becoming one device that does everything BADLY, innefficiently, and inelligantly.
Rape? I prefer to think of it as "surprise sex".
Ahhh, but there is a fundimental difference between a Dell computer and a movie: One is meant as an artistic expression, the other is a TOOL. These are totally separate entities, and need to be treated, legally, as such. It gets tricky when art becomes traded as a commodity, but this still needs to be made clear. Now, owning a piece of art, you are completely entitled to cut up the work as much as possible, even re-show it as your own form of expression (found art, or colleges, for example), same thing with jeans. You can exhibit and re-sell a college as your own work of art (although the lines on this are kind of blury), but you can not alter a Monet, and resell it as a Monet. This is what CleanFlix are doing. They are releasing a work, under the title of the original, as being created by the original creators (not as a new work, mind you), but editting out certain parts they don't think should be in the orignal. It really belongs in the same catagory as musical "covers". I can't simply take a David Bowe tune, record my band playing it, and re-sell it... I have to buy the rights to do so, because I'm now making money off of David Bowe's name. I ran into this a few years back when I wanted to release an album of piano arrangements of game music. They're so heavilly altered that they're practically my own compositions now, but I can't use the names of the original artists and titles and sell the music as such, because I would be trying to make money off their popularity. On the flip side, there is enough resemblance to the original, that although I might be able to get away with selling it as my own original material, I would personally consider it highly unethical. In the end, I was never able to release the album. It's practically the same thing with CleanFlix, they must by the rights to do so before profitting off of someone else's name. I think that's totally fair.
Ever used a universal remote? They're a pain in the ass. Well, normal remotes are a pain in the ass too, but remotes that try to tie ALL functionality together are some of the most difficult UI devices ever invented. Now, there's the added fact that they're 3rd party devices, having to account for controlling all sorts of different devices. Even so, the fact remains that the TV remote was designed to be simple and quick to use, so you didn't have to get up from your chair to change the channel, adjust volume, etc. And yet we're stuck with devices with (sometimes) hundreds of buttons.
I suggest that Apple hasn't designed a device that has multi-functionality, NOT because of battery life, cost, or anything of the sort, but because they haven't yet figured out how to make one that wouldn't be a pain in the ass to use. Anything's possible, and someday, someone's brilliant UI designers (maybe Apple, almost certainly not Microsoft) will figure out a way of ellegently tieing the functionality of these devices together. One of the purposes of a handheld, besides it's portability, is to be quick and much easier to use than a computer. I don't think we have UI developement up to a level where we can make a multifunction device that's reasonably easy to use. Now, I agree, someday this WILL change, just by the nature of developement, someone will come up with an ellegent solution, but until then, I have two belt clips, one each side: one for my cell phone, and one for my iPod, and I have absolutely no problem with that.
Oh, and try to be a little nicer in you're posts. Saying things like, "I am glad most people don't believe what you are saying", for one thing, it is not true, and secondly, it will get you nowhere on /. I'm not in complete disagreement with you, after all. Let's try to keep the conversation reasonable.