I posted this response because there were a number of negative comments connected to this very story. However, I made it a separate post because whenever any discussion arises which involves technology and Taiwan inevitably someone has something negative to say about the country.
And I agree with you about service and their crap manuals. It goes back to how little they're willing to invest in these materials. Unfortunately they see these things as extraneous. As for service, it really depends, but too many people apply a local mindset internationally which inevitably results in complete failure. The best part is when a company tries to pass itself off as international with a nonsensical English name and by appending the word "international" somewhere in that name but instead comes off as more local than ever.
That's one good thing, I have to admit, about marketing departments. They know how to sell the company. In Taiwan nearly all companies are run by engineers who have the final say in what the company does. Marketing is definitely one thing they don't understand.
You're right about the confusion with Taiwan and Thailand. My wife encounters it all the time.
It's extremely unfortunate that Taiwan still has this reputation as a backwards nation and demonstrates the ignorance Americans have regarding the nation.
Unfortunately it's really the fault of the Taiwanese government and it's companies. The government has done a piss poor job of promoting the nation. They have an agency dedicated to promoting Taiwan's industry, the Taiwan External Trade Development Council (TAITRA) which I've had the misfortune of dealing with on a few occasions; it's run by inept bureaucrats who lack imagination and commonsense.
The second problem is that Taiwanese people and companies in particular are exceedingly cheap. It's not so much that they cut corners like the Chinese do, but rather that they're not willing to spend a dollar more than is necessary to produce an acceptable product. This means their identity and branding is utter crap. It may seem insignificant but it basically insures that few people overseas every recognize the quality of their products. Related to that is quality product design which is sorely lacking.
Taiwan and South Koreans have comparable economies, and in fact, Taiwan has a slight edge in quite a few areas. It just that the Koreans were smart enough to invest in the right areas which has enabled their success internationally. Although, Korean companies did have the benefit of enjoying extensive government support which gave them the capital and flexibility to expand. Taiwanese companies have by and large been left to fend for themselves.
Another disadvantage Taiwan has is that they're lumped together with China. China produces crap so by default it's expected that Taiwan does too. Of course, it doesn't help that cheap goods were once all manufactured in Taiwan but then that stuff was once made in Japan as well and they've long since gotten over that stigma.
Taiwan has a strong economy; it doesn't have the growth China has, but it's far more stable and nowhere near as cutthroat an environment. It's got a stable government, the political infighting is no worse than anything seen in the US. There is some corruptions, but not really much worse than the US. It's nowhere near on the level of China or the rest of south east Asia. Again, it's comparable to South Korea.
The workforce is well-educated and they're hard workers. English has been mandatory in schools for a few years now. Even without the English curriculum many people can speak it. In fact, it's quite easy to get around on English alone, although being able to speak Chinese is always an advantage. Still, you'll encounter far more people speaking English in Taiwan than you'll ever find in Japan. Go into a McDonald's in Tokyo, ask for a Big Mac and they wont know what in the hell you're talking about. It's happened to me. Go into a shop even outside the big cities in Taiwan and it's quite possible to come across someone who speaks English quite well.
Taipei has an extensive subway system that's clean and punctual. It puts the New York system to shame. They now have a high speed rail line, thanks to Japan. This is especially beneficial considering that the major technology companies base their facilities in big science parks in Western Taiwan a good distance from Taipei.
Taiwan certainly has a higher cost of living than south east Asia and China, but I think the value afforded given their experience in technology makes it worthwhile. If they lose out on this opportunity I wont be surprised to learn it's because they've failed to market themselves properly. One thing that's always impressed me there is that when they need to get something done they just do it and they do it at a good clip. They don't get mired down in legal crap like we see in the United States and projects don't run excessively late and over-budget either.
On another note, Taiwan is extremely scenic with panoramas I'd argue are on par with anything found in places like Hawaii, especially in the east and south of Taiwan. If I had the opportunity to move back I'd take it.
This kind of comes off as a bit of an advertisement but that's because I'm tired seeing Taiwan maligned by people who don't really know what they're talking about.
While I agree there are issues with the entire electoral process in the US keep in mind that Canada has a population of barely over 33 million while the US population has 10 times that; California alone has 36 million.
One thing I forgot to add was that the NES really pulled the console market out of it's slump after the video game crash. It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen.
The SNES, at least in part, just rode on the NES' coattails.
I'd argue that the NES is the best console so far. Since we haven't reached the end of time claiming it's the best of all time is a bit stupid.
Anyway, the NES really established the modern console era. Atari, Coleco and others were certainly immensely important but I believe the NES had a more profound impact on gaming. The graphics were a significant leap from what had been previously available and the system introduced the control pad, something still in use today. And I'd argue it is a more universal controller than the Wii remote.
Then there were the games. There are the obvious ones, like Super Mario Bros, Metroid and Zelda. But many other popular games and genres saw their big start with the NES; Metal Gear, Final Fantasy and Mega Man are three that come to mind.
The SNES was a great system, but it really was just a NES with nicer graphics. The SNES also had some of its thunder stolen by the Genesis. It never dominated the market like the NES did.
Although, if you had asked me at the time I would have said the Sega Master System was the better console. That's what I owned and I still have an affinity for the console. Unfortunately, the NES got all the best games.
There's no real correlation between the number of receptors in the human eye and the resolution of a printed page or computer screen. The eye isn't capable of seeing as high as particular resolution because it only has so many receptors. Depth perception, subtle eye movement and the brain all work to produce a result that's greater than the sum of the parts. Without a doubt the human eye is capable of distinguishing far higher resolutions.
I have first-hand experience of this given that I'm in design. I can't think of a single person who hasn't been able to spot the difference between 150dpi, 300dpi and well beyond that.
Newspapers are often as low as 75dpi, magazines get up to 130dpi and brochures are in the range of 175dpi for a quality brochure. It's not as simple as that because the dots overlap in halftone printing, but regardless, it's a fairly low resolution. However, the brain compensates for this and produces fairly clear images. However, put any of these printed materials side-by-side and the difference is immediately obvious. There presses capable of significantly higher dpi and the difference is dramatic. The reason we have relatively low resolution printing is because it's obviously sufficient for most applications and it's relatively cheap.
Most often the limitation encountered isn't what the eye can perceive but shortcomings in the printing and the paper itself. Ink tends to bleed as it's absorbed by paper. It produces a softer image at the expensive of resolution. It's usually insignificant, but the difference is noticeable. Take a brochure printed on uncoated paper and another printed on glossy and the difference will be immediately clear.
Anyone who has a good inkjet printer should be able to test this. Find a high quality photo and try printing it at different dpi. The differences should be obvious.
Congestion pricing already exists in several countries in Europe. On the surface it seems like a good way to change driver habits to easy congestion. Except that it doesn't actually address anything. It merely shifts the burden and provides the government with yet another way to tax us.
The rationale is that those who don't need to be out during rush hour will avoid going out. Except that how many people are really going out for reasons other than to get to work? Stores generally only open at 10am, after rush hour has come and gone. So people aren't going out to shop. The fact that the highways are clear on holidays makes it quite obvious that the vast majority of the people on the roads are driving to work.
Working from home is all well and good, but many people, myself included can't realistically do that, nor would I want to. So is the government going to provide some kind of refund for commuters? If so, now the system has gotten significantly more complicated.
But the government just can't keep their hands of a potential revenue source. Let's take my state, Connecticut. When I was a kid we had tolls on I95. There was a movement to eliminate them and they finally disappeared after a bad crash at one toll booth. So in exchange we got gasoline taxes and property taxes increased considerably.
Traffic congestion has become a more serious issue in the intervening years. And now the specter of tolls has reared its ugly head. Studies have been conducted into the feasibility of bringing them back. And politicians try to tout them as a solution to our traffic problems.
States need to manage their money more wisely, first of all. Our roadways need to be modernized and expanding to accommodate increased traffic. But more importantly, public transportation needs to be turned into a viable alternative. It needs to start by addressing corruption and poor management. The government-subsidized commuter rail company around here, is utter garbage.
The trains are a mess, first of all. It's a generally unpleasant experience. First of all, their definition of on-time means 5 minutes late. The times they list in their schedules mean nothing and commuters are often confused as train schedules overlap because of tardiness. Secondly, the trains themselves tend to be a mess; apparently nobody bothers keeping them clean.
There are no turnstiles are anything. Because of union demands we've still got conductors walking around punching tickets. What does this mean? On busy trains they have no hope of reaching ever rider before the train has gone past several stations. These means that someone going several stops will often get a free ride.
Then there's this whole mess of replacing old train cars. Years ago it was announced that they were replacing them all. I've yet to ride in one of the new trains. They exist, but rare. The best part, however, is that despite the old cars being electric the new cars are all being pulled by diesel locomotives. So we've essentially regressed.
Amtrak spent hundreds of millions of dollars and was a good 5+ years late to upgrade the same rail system for that so-called high speed train, the Acela. Except that it crawls through a good portion of this state and when it's at speed it barely keeps up with cars on the highway. And the best part is that every few months one of the trains gets hung up on some power lines and pulls them down causing massive delays.
And the cherry on top of this turd is that the MTA is constantly trying to raise fares.
So the point of my tirade is that the government seems to be trying to force commuters into alternatives that don't really exist.
That would be nice, but the lack of real competition in television and movie phones doesn't make me particularly optimistic. The mobile phone carriers all charge virtually identical prices. Satellite and cable companies nickel and dime for every little thing.
The problem is that consumers just accept this. They'll complain, but they keep right on paying these companies. So if consumers accept this bandwidth cap all providers will start doing it.
With this general trend to charge people for every little thing how can they not do it? I guess I'm just a pessimist.
Given the rhetoric of some politicians you'd think the health care industry would be trying as hard as it could to encourage people to support the existing system. Instead they seem bent on driving everyone to embrace socialized health care.
Perhaps to an idiot religion is anti-science. And there certainly are many idiots out there trying to push creationism and intelligent design as fact.
It would be completely inappropriate to make a blanket statement about some minority group based on the actions of a few individuals so why is it acceptable to do this with Christians?
There's no reason whatsoever why a person can't be religious and completely believe in science. There's nothing in the bible that contradicts science. Most scholars have accepted the bible to be figurative. Because a few idiots have decided to believe in a literal interpretation doesn't mean all Christians believe that. Not to mention that the Pope has accept evolution as a fact.
What we have going on in the United States is a vocal minority trying to make themselves relevant. The creationists have seen their institution being undermined, so what's their solution? To undermine the institution they see as one of their biggest threats, science.
As for the atheists who are condescending in their view of anyone who believes in a higher power; you can make all the rationalizations you want about how there is no God. But the fact is that although I can't prove there is a God, it is impossible for you to prove he/she/it does not exist. I myself prefer to err on the side that something does exist.
You're right about television overseas. It's the same thing elsewhere in Asia, hell, it's the same thing in South America. Spanish soap operas follow essentially the same format as Chinese, Japanese and Korean soap operas with a complete storyline running some 20+ episodes. I know Portugal has similar programming so I assume the rest of Europe is the same.
Another type of show I've seen everywhere else in the world except the US is the live variety show. It's especially popular in Asia. It basically consists of a bunch of celebrities sitting around talking about nonsense. It's not really like anything available in the US because the guests are there for the entire show, they discuss a variety of topics and it's usually comedic in nature. The guests tend to be selected on current popularity but it isn't like the US where they're obviously promoting a movie or something.
An important thing is that these shows are never prerecorded. That means if you miss an episode and don't catch the rerun later than night you're probably never going to see it again. Unless someone posts it on youtube.
I found American television extremely annoying because of it's episodic nature. And I think it's sort of a mandate dictated by the networks. I recall a few years ago how Teen Titans from having a continuous storyline to a more episodic format at the insistence of the network because they wanted the flexibility to air episodes out of order.
What I can't fathom is how in the hell American soap operas have been able to maintain 30 year runs. Doesn't anyone get tired of watching the same old crap without resolution?
I'm surprised to hear that DVD recorders are apparently popular overseas because I don't have any friend in Asia or family in Europe who owns one. Honestly, I don't think they care about television enough to bother. In Taiwan people just go out and buy VCDs or DVDs of a series that's ended. And more often than not they'll buy an illegal copy. So why waste time and money with DVD recorders?
Ahh, but you still have the problem of pronunciation, which Americans find impossible.
So you say. But when I was living overseas and studying Chinese I was told that being the difficulty in grasping tones Americans were quite good with pronunciation. Brits and Australians, on the other hand, were another story altogether. And that's when they bothered to learn.
In fact, while I was living out there I heard about a survey that found Americans were rated to be the best tourists in the World. Why? Because they were actually interested in learning about the local culture and language and they were more generous than others.
There's no reason whatsoever why a game can't be made into a movie. The problem isn't the medium at all it's the writing and directing. Uwe Boll's movies are crap for the simple reason that he's inept. Chances are that any movie he'd make would be bad regardless of the source material.
That aside, let's take any story-driven game. Regardless of how a player is allowed to complete the game a fairly linear story is told. Mass Effect, Halo 3, Bioshock, Half Life 2 all provide straight-forward stories. How the story is told may differ from a movie, but otherwise there's a progression to the plot that is essentially the same as most movies and novels. A setting is established, a conflict is presented, there's a gradual buildup, a climax and resolution.
Really, the only games that are difficult to base a game on are those with randomly generated content and perhaps MMOs. However, even with MMOs there's generally a rich enough setting and back story that a creative writer has plenty to work with.
If anything I'd argue it's easier to base a movie on a game than a novel. Remove the gameplay and enough story is provided to easily fit a standard-length movie. I'd argue it's far more difficult to effectively condense a 300+ page novel into a two hour film.
The challenge in basing a movie on a game is the often weak and generic source material. Also, often just enough content is provided to meet the needs of the game essentially forcing a movie writer to expand on it. But again, it goes back to creativity and skill. A great writer and director could make a movie based on anything with compelling results. Of course, once a movie studio gets involved all that goes out the window. But again, the problem isn't the medium.
My first gaming experience was on the PCjr. I remember sitting in the car with my mother while my father was at the IBM store picking up the computer.
I remember the computer came with some sort of hangman game. My father got a Pacman clone shortly after we got the compuwe. We had a 300 baud modem and now I can't recall now how I figured out how to log onto a BBS, but I downloaded a Space Invaders clone called Space Commanders.
At about that time we got our first commercial game, King's Quest. That was a great game and problem one that I have the most fond memories of. Then there were those old computer magazines which included the code for all kinds of BASIC games.
I guess that's technically more than my first gaming experience. But these experiences all blend together to me. It was more the experience of having a computer than playing any one game.
It was cool having a computer capable of 16 colors and 3-voice audio when the Apple 2's at school were stuck in monochrome and were barely capable of much more than beeps and buzzes.
Of course the Amigas and Ataris changed that. I remember flipping through magazines and seeing the impressive, colorful images those computers were capable of. And it was frustrating to have a computer capable of producing graphics essentially identical to EGA but not being compatible with it at all. Of course most developers weren't going to bother with developing for the PCjr/Tandy, so I was often stuck with 4-color CGA.
The problem I've observed with too many parents is that they try to hard to be their children's buddy or they don't want to come off as uncool. So they wont even venture to ask about a game at the risk of coming off as a prude. Too many parents also apparently can't be bothered to look into what their kids are playing.
Earlier in the year when the media has spun itself into a frenzy, yet again, over violence in games they ran a story about a mother who was shocked to discover that the game she had purchased for her son, Grand Theft Auto, was violent. As if the name wasn't enough of a tip off to questionable subject matter she didn't even have the wherewithal to flip over the damn box and look at the rating or at least see what she could glean from the screenshots. Then again I've seen parents getting games for children which considerably more graphic imagery on the packaging. And I've seen parents taking small children to see fairly intense movies.
Too many parents can't be bothered to see what their kids are up to. The excuse I often hear is that they can't observe their kids 24 hours a day, so why even bother? They absolve themselves of responsibility and then expect the government to take over for them. And this is where the problem arises. They want to government to oversee everything so that they don't have to worry about anything.
Parents aren't supposed to by cool; they aren't supposed to be buddies. They need to be responsible for what their kids do and what they're exposed to.
Now this is a game I'd say was directly inspired by Blade runner. As if the theme wasn't obvious enough the main character's alias was "Blade". The store could have had a bit more substance, but I recall really enjoying the game. It could have also done without those arcade sequences.
It always gets me how if the United States were to do this people would be quick to cry censorship and how we're being oppressed. And in most cases, rightfully so. I don't want or need to live in a nanny state.
But then another country, usually some European nation, Japan or China comes along and proposes to do the same exact thing and suddenly people are quick to defend them.
To be honest, I don't think this is going to be noticed the way it might be in the US. Many countries in Asia are already nanny states and the people fully accept it. The attitude is reflected in public announcements and warning signs. They're worded like a parent talking down to a child. And in fact, many politicians have voiced that thought of the government being a parent overseeing the well-being of the people. So legislation of this type isn't really all that big a leap.
I agree that Internet Explorer's compatibility problems are an issue. But this isn't something the government should be involved in. The solution should come from the free market. Microsoft is free to do whatever they want with their software. If they don't want to support web standards its their prerogative. It's not like Windows prevents anyone from installing another browser.
Basically, developers should stop supporting IE. Don't bother with the extra trouble of getting a site to support IE properly. In fact, the market is already addressing the problem. More and more people are dropping IE for other browsers.
Microsoft will eventually face the consequences of their decisions. Those consequences may be slow in coming, but they are coming. No need for government officials to stick their noses where they don't belong.
Retailers are free to charge whatever they like. However, the claim that retailers are somehow not making money on a product sold at MSRP is complete and utter bullshit.
First of all, companies trying to sell products all have to pay for shelf space, at least in the US. This is something I was educated about first hand by software developer. It's not for nothing Adobe and Microsoft get all the attention they do on the shelf. They have to pay for that space. It's not likely a second tier item will ever be featured prominently. To get that kind of presence in big retailers all over the United States is very expensive.
Now, the tables might turn when a product becomes a big fad with consumers clamoring over the item, like the Wii. Nintendo has had a long history of manipulating retailers. They were brutal during the NES era in particular because there was no real competition. However, retailers put up with it because they were making loads of money.
Manufacturer's suggested retail price is set so that the retailers earns a comfortable sum of money for each sale. That price takes into account manufacturing cost, obviously, packaging and shipping expenses, and potential expenses on the retailer's end. What's left over is profit for the various parties involved. I'd argue that most of the time that profit is quite generous. When reading about how Sony, for example, is losing money on every PS3 sold bear in mind that it's Sony losing that money, not the retailer.
No retailer in their right mind would carry a product they'd lose money on. What would be the point? Sony, on the other hand, has a reason to do so. They're trying to build a brand, they're trying to generate interest in the console.
Retailers love to spread that old lie that they're barely making a profit on a product. Like somehow the MSRP is how much it cost to make the thing. And shockingly, people fall for it.
Those bundles exist to take advantage of these people. This is a clever way of turning extra profit on that one consumer. If they had just purchased the console they could have then gone to any one of a dozen other stores to buy additional games and controllers. There's no need to rely on customer loyalty.
And once emotions take control people are willing to go to excessive lengths to get whatever they want. If these people were to slow down a bit and think about their situation they'd realize that they'd save a good bit of money and unnecessary hassle if they just were patient and waited a few months. It's not like the Wii is going to disappear next year.
I saw this kid playing it at some game store and it seemed like a neat game. What really struck me, however, was all the clacking that came from the controller itself. For me it hurts immersion when the controller is making the same kinds of noises as a cheap keyboard.
Am I missing here? What kind of advantage does a kite provide over sails which I'd say are a proven technology. To me it seems that 500 year old technology is superior to what this company has developed.
I can think of a few distinct advantages over the kite. First, the sails are attached to the ship. There isn't this thing blowing around in the sky which might change direction unpredictably when the winds change. Or worse, make a dive for the ocean. Second, the kite is completely useless in headwinds. One advantage the caravel had over other sailing vessels of the time was it's ability to sail into headwinds. It had to zig zag across the ocean to make forward progress, but it wasn't left at the mercy of the weather to the extent older ships had been.
I'll concede sails would require added weight and complexity to accommodate the masts and all the rigging, but I'm convinced it would be more beneficial than a stupid kite.
By no means do I suggest they shouldn't offer the technology. It would be nice if this spurred some other companies to offer something more compelling.
They've ramped production from 500 thousand / month at release to 1.8 million / month now. That's a pretty sizable production increase. More importantly, I'm not hearing news about DOA units, so they've (so far) avoided compromises in quality while more than tripling production.
I just wanted to point out that quality doesn't drop merely because production levels have increased. Defects are more prevalent at initial ramp up, when the equipment first starts manufacturing a product. Once that ramp up phase is complete manufacturing defects are very low, unless there's some kind of design flaw within the product itself.
As molds and other tools see use they do suffer from wear and tear. More stringent quality control ensures these parts are replaced sooner than later, but this is something that would be experienced regardless of production quantity.
Of course, this is dependent on manufacturing being solely machine-based. If there's a lot of manual labor involved I could see the potential for problems, but I highly doubt a modern electronic device, especially a Japan one is touched by many human hands.
So there's no reason at all for quality to suffer merely because Nintendo is manufacturing additional consoles.
This sort of thing seems to me yet another effort to force games to be more culturally relevant than they currently are. Gaming will become an important part of society of its own accord. I don't think people sat around trying to figure out how to shoehorn philosophy into a book or a movie. An writer simply had a story to tell and chose a particular medium to convey it.
Ultimately any form of entertainment is escapism in one way or another. I suppose gaming will enable interaction like we haven't seen before because it allows a player to become a part of the story. But moral or philosophical questions should come as a natural part of the story, not as some lame, tacked-on mechanic.
I did feel a bit guilty one time when I accidentally killed a kitty in World of Warcraft, but I can't say I was emotionally attached to the game. Once, probably more than once, in Morrowind I've gone through and completely wiped out every last individual in some town. Then there were those captives in Blackthorn who begged for help but instead got a shotgun blast to the head. In Fable I kept my character good, but I did explore try exploring both extremes.
I'd like to think I'm not a violent person in real life. I generally try to be a decent guy. While I normally play a character in a way consistent with my personality it ultimately depends on my mood. So how exactly do my actions in a game have any bearing on what kind of person I am in real life.
Ultimately, any such feature would be nothing but a glorified method of keeping score. Players would just try maxing out both good and evil scores. If a game developer wants emotional impact they need to write better stories and remain faithful to that story in the game design.
I happened to catch parts of the documentary. I've seen no advertising whatsoever for this program so I just happened to stumble onto it while flipping through channels one evening. That's kind of annoying considering all the constant advertising bombardment for Everest and other tripe.
In general I found the documentary to be quite interesting. However, I couldn't help but come away with the feeling that the writers were desperate to make gaming culturally relevant. All the profound statements really got annoying after a while. I didn't care much for the editing either. Otherwise, I did enjoy it, what I little I managed to catch anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I posted this response because there were a number of negative comments connected to this very story. However, I made it a separate post because whenever any discussion arises which involves technology and Taiwan inevitably someone has something negative to say about the country.
And I agree with you about service and their crap manuals. It goes back to how little they're willing to invest in these materials. Unfortunately they see these things as extraneous. As for service, it really depends, but too many people apply a local mindset internationally which inevitably results in complete failure. The best part is when a company tries to pass itself off as international with a nonsensical English name and by appending the word "international" somewhere in that name but instead comes off as more local than ever.
That's one good thing, I have to admit, about marketing departments. They know how to sell the company. In Taiwan nearly all companies are run by engineers who have the final say in what the company does. Marketing is definitely one thing they don't understand.
You're right about the confusion with Taiwan and Thailand. My wife encounters it all the time.
"Hi, where are you from?"
"Taiwan"
"What, Thailand?"
"No TAIWAN!"
"Yeah, Bangkok is a nice city..."
It's extremely unfortunate that Taiwan still has this reputation as a backwards nation and demonstrates the ignorance Americans have regarding the nation.
Unfortunately it's really the fault of the Taiwanese government and it's companies. The government has done a piss poor job of promoting the nation. They have an agency dedicated to promoting Taiwan's industry, the Taiwan External Trade Development Council (TAITRA) which I've had the misfortune of dealing with on a few occasions; it's run by inept bureaucrats who lack imagination and commonsense.
The second problem is that Taiwanese people and companies in particular are exceedingly cheap. It's not so much that they cut corners like the Chinese do, but rather that they're not willing to spend a dollar more than is necessary to produce an acceptable product. This means their identity and branding is utter crap. It may seem insignificant but it basically insures that few people overseas every recognize the quality of their products. Related to that is quality product design which is sorely lacking.
Taiwan and South Koreans have comparable economies, and in fact, Taiwan has a slight edge in quite a few areas. It just that the Koreans were smart enough to invest in the right areas which has enabled their success internationally. Although, Korean companies did have the benefit of enjoying extensive government support which gave them the capital and flexibility to expand. Taiwanese companies have by and large been left to fend for themselves.
Another disadvantage Taiwan has is that they're lumped together with China. China produces crap so by default it's expected that Taiwan does too. Of course, it doesn't help that cheap goods were once all manufactured in Taiwan but then that stuff was once made in Japan as well and they've long since gotten over that stigma.
Taiwan has a strong economy; it doesn't have the growth China has, but it's far more stable and nowhere near as cutthroat an environment. It's got a stable government, the political infighting is no worse than anything seen in the US. There is some corruptions, but not really much worse than the US. It's nowhere near on the level of China or the rest of south east Asia. Again, it's comparable to South Korea.
The workforce is well-educated and they're hard workers. English has been mandatory in schools for a few years now. Even without the English curriculum many people can speak it. In fact, it's quite easy to get around on English alone, although being able to speak Chinese is always an advantage. Still, you'll encounter far more people speaking English in Taiwan than you'll ever find in Japan. Go into a McDonald's in Tokyo, ask for a Big Mac and they wont know what in the hell you're talking about. It's happened to me. Go into a shop even outside the big cities in Taiwan and it's quite possible to come across someone who speaks English quite well.
Taipei has an extensive subway system that's clean and punctual. It puts the New York system to shame. They now have a high speed rail line, thanks to Japan. This is especially beneficial considering that the major technology companies base their facilities in big science parks in Western Taiwan a good distance from Taipei.
Taiwan certainly has a higher cost of living than south east Asia and China, but I think the value afforded given their experience in technology makes it worthwhile. If they lose out on this opportunity I wont be surprised to learn it's because they've failed to market themselves properly. One thing that's always impressed me there is that when they need to get something done they just do it and they do it at a good clip. They don't get mired down in legal crap like we see in the United States and projects don't run excessively late and over-budget either.
On another note, Taiwan is extremely scenic with panoramas I'd argue are on par with anything found in places like Hawaii, especially in the east and south of Taiwan. If I had the opportunity to move back I'd take it.
This kind of comes off as a bit of an advertisement but that's because I'm tired seeing Taiwan maligned by people who don't really know what they're talking about.
While I agree there are issues with the entire electoral process in the US keep in mind that Canada has a population of barely over 33 million while the US population has 10 times that; California alone has 36 million.
One thing I forgot to add was that the NES really pulled the console market out of it's slump after the video game crash. It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen.
The SNES, at least in part, just rode on the NES' coattails.
I'd argue that the NES is the best console so far. Since we haven't reached the end of time claiming it's the best of all time is a bit stupid.
Anyway, the NES really established the modern console era. Atari, Coleco and others were certainly immensely important but I believe the NES had a more profound impact on gaming. The graphics were a significant leap from what had been previously available and the system introduced the control pad, something still in use today. And I'd argue it is a more universal controller than the Wii remote.
Then there were the games. There are the obvious ones, like Super Mario Bros, Metroid and Zelda. But many other popular games and genres saw their big start with the NES; Metal Gear, Final Fantasy and Mega Man are three that come to mind.
The SNES was a great system, but it really was just a NES with nicer graphics. The SNES also had some of its thunder stolen by the Genesis. It never dominated the market like the NES did.
Although, if you had asked me at the time I would have said the Sega Master System was the better console. That's what I owned and I still have an affinity for the console. Unfortunately, the NES got all the best games.
That's nonsense.
There's no real correlation between the number of receptors in the human eye and the resolution of a printed page or computer screen. The eye isn't capable of seeing as high as particular resolution because it only has so many receptors. Depth perception, subtle eye movement and the brain all work to produce a result that's greater than the sum of the parts. Without a doubt the human eye is capable of distinguishing far higher resolutions.
I have first-hand experience of this given that I'm in design. I can't think of a single person who hasn't been able to spot the difference between 150dpi, 300dpi and well beyond that.
Newspapers are often as low as 75dpi, magazines get up to 130dpi and brochures are in the range of 175dpi for a quality brochure. It's not as simple as that because the dots overlap in halftone printing, but regardless, it's a fairly low resolution. However, the brain compensates for this and produces fairly clear images. However, put any of these printed materials side-by-side and the difference is immediately obvious. There presses capable of significantly higher dpi and the difference is dramatic. The reason we have relatively low resolution printing is because it's obviously sufficient for most applications and it's relatively cheap.
Most often the limitation encountered isn't what the eye can perceive but shortcomings in the printing and the paper itself. Ink tends to bleed as it's absorbed by paper. It produces a softer image at the expensive of resolution. It's usually insignificant, but the difference is noticeable. Take a brochure printed on uncoated paper and another printed on glossy and the difference will be immediately clear.
Anyone who has a good inkjet printer should be able to test this. Find a high quality photo and try printing it at different dpi. The differences should be obvious.
Congestion pricing already exists in several countries in Europe. On the surface it seems like a good way to change driver habits to easy congestion. Except that it doesn't actually address anything. It merely shifts the burden and provides the government with yet another way to tax us.
The rationale is that those who don't need to be out during rush hour will avoid going out. Except that how many people are really going out for reasons other than to get to work? Stores generally only open at 10am, after rush hour has come and gone. So people aren't going out to shop. The fact that the highways are clear on holidays makes it quite obvious that the vast majority of the people on the roads are driving to work.
Working from home is all well and good, but many people, myself included can't realistically do that, nor would I want to. So is the government going to provide some kind of refund for commuters? If so, now the system has gotten significantly more complicated.
But the government just can't keep their hands of a potential revenue source. Let's take my state, Connecticut. When I was a kid we had tolls on I95. There was a movement to eliminate them and they finally disappeared after a bad crash at one toll booth. So in exchange we got gasoline taxes and property taxes increased considerably.
Traffic congestion has become a more serious issue in the intervening years. And now the specter of tolls has reared its ugly head. Studies have been conducted into the feasibility of bringing them back. And politicians try to tout them as a solution to our traffic problems.
States need to manage their money more wisely, first of all. Our roadways need to be modernized and expanding to accommodate increased traffic. But more importantly, public transportation needs to be turned into a viable alternative. It needs to start by addressing corruption and poor management. The government-subsidized commuter rail company around here, is utter garbage.
The trains are a mess, first of all. It's a generally unpleasant experience. First of all, their definition of on-time means 5 minutes late. The times they list in their schedules mean nothing and commuters are often confused as train schedules overlap because of tardiness. Secondly, the trains themselves tend to be a mess; apparently nobody bothers keeping them clean.
There are no turnstiles are anything. Because of union demands we've still got conductors walking around punching tickets. What does this mean? On busy trains they have no hope of reaching ever rider before the train has gone past several stations. These means that someone going several stops will often get a free ride.
Then there's this whole mess of replacing old train cars. Years ago it was announced that they were replacing them all. I've yet to ride in one of the new trains. They exist, but rare. The best part, however, is that despite the old cars being electric the new cars are all being pulled by diesel locomotives. So we've essentially regressed.
Amtrak spent hundreds of millions of dollars and was a good 5+ years late to upgrade the same rail system for that so-called high speed train, the Acela. Except that it crawls through a good portion of this state and when it's at speed it barely keeps up with cars on the highway. And the best part is that every few months one of the trains gets hung up on some power lines and pulls them down causing massive delays.
And the cherry on top of this turd is that the MTA is constantly trying to raise fares.
So the point of my tirade is that the government seems to be trying to force commuters into alternatives that don't really exist.
That would be nice, but the lack of real competition in television and movie phones doesn't make me particularly optimistic. The mobile phone carriers all charge virtually identical prices. Satellite and cable companies nickel and dime for every little thing.
The problem is that consumers just accept this. They'll complain, but they keep right on paying these companies. So if consumers accept this bandwidth cap all providers will start doing it.
With this general trend to charge people for every little thing how can they not do it? I guess I'm just a pessimist.
Given the rhetoric of some politicians you'd think the health care industry would be trying as hard as it could to encourage people to support the existing system. Instead they seem bent on driving everyone to embrace socialized health care.
Perhaps to an idiot religion is anti-science. And there certainly are many idiots out there trying to push creationism and intelligent design as fact.
It would be completely inappropriate to make a blanket statement about some minority group based on the actions of a few individuals so why is it acceptable to do this with Christians?
There's no reason whatsoever why a person can't be religious and completely believe in science. There's nothing in the bible that contradicts science. Most scholars have accepted the bible to be figurative. Because a few idiots have decided to believe in a literal interpretation doesn't mean all Christians believe that. Not to mention that the Pope has accept evolution as a fact.
What we have going on in the United States is a vocal minority trying to make themselves relevant. The creationists have seen their institution being undermined, so what's their solution? To undermine the institution they see as one of their biggest threats, science.
As for the atheists who are condescending in their view of anyone who believes in a higher power; you can make all the rationalizations you want about how there is no God. But the fact is that although I can't prove there is a God, it is impossible for you to prove he/she/it does not exist. I myself prefer to err on the side that something does exist.
Interesting you mention that because I've experienced the same exact sensations with a Mac Book Pro, and more than once.
You're right about television overseas. It's the same thing elsewhere in Asia, hell, it's the same thing in South America. Spanish soap operas follow essentially the same format as Chinese, Japanese and Korean soap operas with a complete storyline running some 20+ episodes. I know Portugal has similar programming so I assume the rest of Europe is the same.
Another type of show I've seen everywhere else in the world except the US is the live variety show. It's especially popular in Asia. It basically consists of a bunch of celebrities sitting around talking about nonsense. It's not really like anything available in the US because the guests are there for the entire show, they discuss a variety of topics and it's usually comedic in nature. The guests tend to be selected on current popularity but it isn't like the US where they're obviously promoting a movie or something.
An important thing is that these shows are never prerecorded. That means if you miss an episode and don't catch the rerun later than night you're probably never going to see it again. Unless someone posts it on youtube.
I found American television extremely annoying because of it's episodic nature. And I think it's sort of a mandate dictated by the networks. I recall a few years ago how Teen Titans from having a continuous storyline to a more episodic format at the insistence of the network because they wanted the flexibility to air episodes out of order.
What I can't fathom is how in the hell American soap operas have been able to maintain 30 year runs. Doesn't anyone get tired of watching the same old crap without resolution?
I'm surprised to hear that DVD recorders are apparently popular overseas because I don't have any friend in Asia or family in Europe who owns one. Honestly, I don't think they care about television enough to bother. In Taiwan people just go out and buy VCDs or DVDs of a series that's ended. And more often than not they'll buy an illegal copy. So why waste time and money with DVD recorders?
So you say. But when I was living overseas and studying Chinese I was told that being the difficulty in grasping tones Americans were quite good with pronunciation. Brits and Australians, on the other hand, were another story altogether. And that's when they bothered to learn.
In fact, while I was living out there I heard about a survey that found Americans were rated to be the best tourists in the World. Why? Because they were actually interested in learning about the local culture and language and they were more generous than others.
There's no reason whatsoever why a game can't be made into a movie. The problem isn't the medium at all it's the writing and directing. Uwe Boll's movies are crap for the simple reason that he's inept. Chances are that any movie he'd make would be bad regardless of the source material.
That aside, let's take any story-driven game. Regardless of how a player is allowed to complete the game a fairly linear story is told. Mass Effect, Halo 3, Bioshock, Half Life 2 all provide straight-forward stories. How the story is told may differ from a movie, but otherwise there's a progression to the plot that is essentially the same as most movies and novels. A setting is established, a conflict is presented, there's a gradual buildup, a climax and resolution.
Really, the only games that are difficult to base a game on are those with randomly generated content and perhaps MMOs. However, even with MMOs there's generally a rich enough setting and back story that a creative writer has plenty to work with.
If anything I'd argue it's easier to base a movie on a game than a novel. Remove the gameplay and enough story is provided to easily fit a standard-length movie. I'd argue it's far more difficult to effectively condense a 300+ page novel into a two hour film.
The challenge in basing a movie on a game is the often weak and generic source material. Also, often just enough content is provided to meet the needs of the game essentially forcing a movie writer to expand on it. But again, it goes back to creativity and skill. A great writer and director could make a movie based on anything with compelling results. Of course, once a movie studio gets involved all that goes out the window. But again, the problem isn't the medium.
My first gaming experience was on the PCjr. I remember sitting in the car with my mother while my father was at the IBM store picking up the computer.
I remember the computer came with some sort of hangman game. My father got a Pacman clone shortly after we got the compuwe. We had a 300 baud modem and now I can't recall now how I figured out how to log onto a BBS, but I downloaded a Space Invaders clone called Space Commanders.
At about that time we got our first commercial game, King's Quest. That was a great game and problem one that I have the most fond memories of. Then there were those old computer magazines which included the code for all kinds of BASIC games.
I guess that's technically more than my first gaming experience. But these experiences all blend together to me. It was more the experience of having a computer than playing any one game.
It was cool having a computer capable of 16 colors and 3-voice audio when the Apple 2's at school were stuck in monochrome and were barely capable of much more than beeps and buzzes.
Of course the Amigas and Ataris changed that. I remember flipping through magazines and seeing the impressive, colorful images those computers were capable of. And it was frustrating to have a computer capable of producing graphics essentially identical to EGA but not being compatible with it at all. Of course most developers weren't going to bother with developing for the PCjr/Tandy, so I was often stuck with 4-color CGA.
Regardless, those were good times...
The problem I've observed with too many parents is that they try to hard to be their children's buddy or they don't want to come off as uncool. So they wont even venture to ask about a game at the risk of coming off as a prude. Too many parents also apparently can't be bothered to look into what their kids are playing.
Earlier in the year when the media has spun itself into a frenzy, yet again, over violence in games they ran a story about a mother who was shocked to discover that the game she had purchased for her son, Grand Theft Auto, was violent. As if the name wasn't enough of a tip off to questionable subject matter she didn't even have the wherewithal to flip over the damn box and look at the rating or at least see what she could glean from the screenshots. Then again I've seen parents getting games for children which considerably more graphic imagery on the packaging. And I've seen parents taking small children to see fairly intense movies.
Too many parents can't be bothered to see what their kids are up to. The excuse I often hear is that they can't observe their kids 24 hours a day, so why even bother? They absolve themselves of responsibility and then expect the government to take over for them. And this is where the problem arises. They want to government to oversee everything so that they don't have to worry about anything.
Parents aren't supposed to by cool; they aren't supposed to be buddies. They need to be responsible for what their kids do and what they're exposed to.
Does anyone remember this game?
Now this is a game I'd say was directly inspired by Blade runner. As if the theme wasn't obvious enough the main character's alias was "Blade". The store could have had a bit more substance, but I recall really enjoying the game. It could have also done without those arcade sequences.
It always gets me how if the United States were to do this people would be quick to cry censorship and how we're being oppressed. And in most cases, rightfully so. I don't want or need to live in a nanny state.
But then another country, usually some European nation, Japan or China comes along and proposes to do the same exact thing and suddenly people are quick to defend them.
To be honest, I don't think this is going to be noticed the way it might be in the US. Many countries in Asia are already nanny states and the people fully accept it. The attitude is reflected in public announcements and warning signs. They're worded like a parent talking down to a child. And in fact, many politicians have voiced that thought of the government being a parent overseeing the well-being of the people. So legislation of this type isn't really all that big a leap.
I agree that Internet Explorer's compatibility problems are an issue. But this isn't something the government should be involved in. The solution should come from the free market. Microsoft is free to do whatever they want with their software. If they don't want to support web standards its their prerogative. It's not like Windows prevents anyone from installing another browser.
Basically, developers should stop supporting IE. Don't bother with the extra trouble of getting a site to support IE properly. In fact, the market is already addressing the problem. More and more people are dropping IE for other browsers.
Microsoft will eventually face the consequences of their decisions. Those consequences may be slow in coming, but they are coming. No need for government officials to stick their noses where they don't belong.
Retailers are free to charge whatever they like. However, the claim that retailers are somehow not making money on a product sold at MSRP is complete and utter bullshit.
First of all, companies trying to sell products all have to pay for shelf space, at least in the US. This is something I was educated about first hand by software developer. It's not for nothing Adobe and Microsoft get all the attention they do on the shelf. They have to pay for that space. It's not likely a second tier item will ever be featured prominently. To get that kind of presence in big retailers all over the United States is very expensive.
Now, the tables might turn when a product becomes a big fad with consumers clamoring over the item, like the Wii. Nintendo has had a long history of manipulating retailers. They were brutal during the NES era in particular because there was no real competition. However, retailers put up with it because they were making loads of money.
Manufacturer's suggested retail price is set so that the retailers earns a comfortable sum of money for each sale. That price takes into account manufacturing cost, obviously, packaging and shipping expenses, and potential expenses on the retailer's end. What's left over is profit for the various parties involved. I'd argue that most of the time that profit is quite generous. When reading about how Sony, for example, is losing money on every PS3 sold bear in mind that it's Sony losing that money, not the retailer.
No retailer in their right mind would carry a product they'd lose money on. What would be the point? Sony, on the other hand, has a reason to do so. They're trying to build a brand, they're trying to generate interest in the console.
Retailers love to spread that old lie that they're barely making a profit on a product. Like somehow the MSRP is how much it cost to make the thing. And shockingly, people fall for it.
Those bundles exist to take advantage of these people. This is a clever way of turning extra profit on that one consumer. If they had just purchased the console they could have then gone to any one of a dozen other stores to buy additional games and controllers. There's no need to rely on customer loyalty.
And once emotions take control people are willing to go to excessive lengths to get whatever they want. If these people were to slow down a bit and think about their situation they'd realize that they'd save a good bit of money and unnecessary hassle if they just were patient and waited a few months. It's not like the Wii is going to disappear next year.
I saw this kid playing it at some game store and it seemed like a neat game. What really struck me, however, was all the clacking that came from the controller itself. For me it hurts immersion when the controller is making the same kinds of noises as a cheap keyboard.
Am I missing here? What kind of advantage does a kite provide over sails which I'd say are a proven technology. To me it seems that 500 year old technology is superior to what this company has developed.
I can think of a few distinct advantages over the kite. First, the sails are attached to the ship. There isn't this thing blowing around in the sky which might change direction unpredictably when the winds change. Or worse, make a dive for the ocean. Second, the kite is completely useless in headwinds. One advantage the caravel had over other sailing vessels of the time was it's ability to sail into headwinds. It had to zig zag across the ocean to make forward progress, but it wasn't left at the mercy of the weather to the extent older ships had been.
I'll concede sails would require added weight and complexity to accommodate the masts and all the rigging, but I'm convinced it would be more beneficial than a stupid kite.
By no means do I suggest they shouldn't offer the technology. It would be nice if this spurred some other companies to offer something more compelling.
I just wanted to point out that quality doesn't drop merely because production levels have increased. Defects are more prevalent at initial ramp up, when the equipment first starts manufacturing a product. Once that ramp up phase is complete manufacturing defects are very low, unless there's some kind of design flaw within the product itself.
As molds and other tools see use they do suffer from wear and tear. More stringent quality control ensures these parts are replaced sooner than later, but this is something that would be experienced regardless of production quantity.
Of course, this is dependent on manufacturing being solely machine-based. If there's a lot of manual labor involved I could see the potential for problems, but I highly doubt a modern electronic device, especially a Japan one is touched by many human hands.
So there's no reason at all for quality to suffer merely because Nintendo is manufacturing additional consoles.
This sort of thing seems to me yet another effort to force games to be more culturally relevant than they currently are. Gaming will become an important part of society of its own accord. I don't think people sat around trying to figure out how to shoehorn philosophy into a book or a movie. An writer simply had a story to tell and chose a particular medium to convey it.
Ultimately any form of entertainment is escapism in one way or another. I suppose gaming will enable interaction like we haven't seen before because it allows a player to become a part of the story. But moral or philosophical questions should come as a natural part of the story, not as some lame, tacked-on mechanic.
I did feel a bit guilty one time when I accidentally killed a kitty in World of Warcraft, but I can't say I was emotionally attached to the game. Once, probably more than once, in Morrowind I've gone through and completely wiped out every last individual in some town. Then there were those captives in Blackthorn who begged for help but instead got a shotgun blast to the head. In Fable I kept my character good, but I did explore try exploring both extremes.
I'd like to think I'm not a violent person in real life. I generally try to be a decent guy. While I normally play a character in a way consistent with my personality it ultimately depends on my mood. So how exactly do my actions in a game have any bearing on what kind of person I am in real life.
Ultimately, any such feature would be nothing but a glorified method of keeping score. Players would just try maxing out both good and evil scores. If a game developer wants emotional impact they need to write better stories and remain faithful to that story in the game design.
I happened to catch parts of the documentary. I've seen no advertising whatsoever for this program so I just happened to stumble onto it while flipping through channels one evening. That's kind of annoying considering all the constant advertising bombardment for Everest and other tripe.
In general I found the documentary to be quite interesting. However, I couldn't help but come away with the feeling that the writers were desperate to make gaming culturally relevant. All the profound statements really got annoying after a while. I didn't care much for the editing either. Otherwise, I did enjoy it, what I little I managed to catch anyway.