Yep... Voltron sure had a deep storyline... Every episode had the same exact formula. Evil giant robot attacks, the team tries to take it on individually and fails. They unite, and with their giant sword take out the bad guy in a dramatic swipe.
Then lets not forget the complete and utter pointlessness of robots who can transform into vehicles.
Reading your post you'd think the Japanese have cornered the market on robots. Oddly enough, of the top of my head I can think of some significant robots in American media. There's the mech Ripley used in Aliens. Then there are the Terminators. Then there are all the comic books and sci fi novels. The Japanese have borrowed a lot from the US. And I suppose things have come full circle where Americans are being influenced by Japanese media.
They certainly refined things to a point we haven't really seen in American media, but that doesn't somehow make them superior or better suited to depict these robots. Anime is certainly superior than most US cartoons, but by no means is it as deep as the anime fans would like to lead people to believe. And Japanese live action is in general quite lame. Of course, there are exceptions, but then there are exceptions everywhere.
Even without manipulation on the part of developers, I still have a hard time completely believing reviews. The simple reason for this is that most reviewers don't have to pay for and live with the product they're reviewing. These publications get these games for free and they often come extras to make the package more enticing. Granted, unlike many other products these guys still have to actually play through the game.
It's like those supposed long-term reviews of cars. Except that the car is constantly being driven by a different person. So if the car ends up having some problem nobody notices it because no one has to depend on the car for the duration of the review. And on top of that in their case the dealer always agrees to repair everything and replace anything free of charge. So in the end they produce an overly positive review which is worthless.
Needless to say, gaming publications aren't quite on the same level. However, when it comes down to it the $50-$60 didn't come out of their own pocket. They're not stuck with a disappointing game. That in and of itself ensures an overly favorable impression of the game. Given everything developers supply reviewers with I have a hard time believing they will ever be as critical as they should be. Even if it isn't blatant the influence exists.
One thing that bothers me is the decision to go with a glass screen. These screens, to me, are nothing more than a fad that help make the display look more impressive on the showroom floor. Once someone has to actually use them day-to-day glass screens are a huge distraction because of all the reflections and glare. This iMac is going to inspire a deluge of crappy glass-covered displays.
Seeing these new Macs, however, I can't help but wonder why in the hell PC makers don't actually start putting some damn effort into the manufacture and design of their machines. Instead they go for quick, cheap gimmicks like Dell and the goofy interchangeable color covers for their laptops. Even worse are the third party case manufacturers.
There are a million ideas out there for very elegant designs that could be just as impressive, if not more so, than anything Apple has designed. But instead what are we going to see? Dozens of crappy clones of the Apple design. Either that or half-hearted attempts that scream of cost-cutting over thoughtful design. Even Nintendo couldn't help but cloning the MacBook design with the DS and to a lesser extent the Wii.
Apple has nice design, but they are far from being the pinnacle of high design. If only other companies weren't cheap and unimaginative.
Copps noted, though, that his own broadband connection in Washington, DC was "nothing compared to Seoul.
I'd like to know what this guy means by "nothing compared to Seoul. Because from personal experience broadband there is crap to what I've seen in the US. Given that most innovation on the web is coming from US companies I find it hard to believe that our service is as bad as claimed. Why bother with all the content heavy sites if service is supposedly subpar for most people.
I'll grant that South Korea has many more service providers and in most cases monthly fees are also lower. But mind you that the average income there is also significantly lower than it is in the US.
And there's something else to consider. The barrier to entry for service providers is lower in many countries than it is in the US. This means there's less government red-tape to get through to establish service. And there's far lower resistance from residents regarding the installation of equipment. They certainly aren't concerned about environmental impact like people are in the US. Basically, like essentially everywhere else in Asia, if something needs to be built it gets built.
For at least 30 years my state has been trying to complete this stretch of highway. Even though much of the land has been acquired for the project the wealthy residents of time and again blocked all construction. They don't want their idyllic world disrupted. So instead, what would be a 20 minute trip takes over an hour. The currently used two lane road sees heavy traffic which spills over onto some side roads. On particularly busy stretches accidents are quite frequent. The highway would improve quality of life for everyone and help businesses all the way up the road, but it's blocked nevertheless. So instead the state throws money away on useless improvements for the existing roadway.
Recently there was a big debate regarding power lines passing through the same area. It would help lower rates for residents and increase reliability of power delivery but nobody wants them in their neighborhood. I think the power lines will take a wildly circuitous route and a big portion of it will be underground. Electricity is already expensive and this has only helped to raise rates further.
In Asia we wouldn't even see resistance to such projects. If a company needed to put up a communications tower, for example, they'd just put it up and that would be the end of it. In the US it would be blocked and the end result would be people complaining about spotty service.
This is one of many examples of the difficulties faced in the US. I'm not suggesting companies be allowed to build with impunity; I certainly don't believe they should be given free rein to do whatever they want. My point is that what problems there are aren't so simple. These providers are the source of some of our problems, but not EVERYTHING is their fault.
And Canada, Norway and Sweden may have lower population densities than the US but that population is also condensed into a smaller area of the country making their populations easier to service. In the US you've got population centers hundreds, if not thousands of miles apart.
I wonder if anyone's taken a look at sites like this one: SpeedTest
The stats provided on that site are quite interesting. According to my results my service is faster than over 92% of the world. I'd like to think that's not too bad. Japan is the only country I see in Asia with significantly faster speeds. Korea, seems to consistently lag behind the US.
Sometimes I can't help but wonder if these guys aren't just looking for a reason to bash the US.
Second, I could be mistaken, but I believe that there is only one engine mount that needs to be fabricated. Other than that, yes it is a bolt up. Bellhousing is common so are engine mounts, etc. Again, I never said anything about runinng the ECM, however I will dispute the engine block and transmission. They WERE essentially the same (this goes for the Audi TT 1, not the newer redesigned one). The 4 cylinder engine that VW developed way back when is essentially unchanged all the way through 2004. Sure they added a turbo and some more sensors and increased displacement, but if you were to look at shortblocks, to an untrained eye you'd have a hard time telling the difference.
I have to admit. That is cool. I can see the rationale behind that. Why change what works? It keeps costs down.
The Japanese have the habit making these odd changes in the middle of a production run. I suppose it's they're address potential issues on a regular basis. On the other hand it means you've got to be particularly careful when selecting parts.
Furthermore, every single part in my VW has a part number.
That's not unique to VW. Practically every automaker today has a part number for every last component in their cars. Among other things I can find out which components are shared with previous generations of my Honda, other Honda models and even Japanese domestic models by looking at part numbers. The same applies to my father's Buick.
Secondly, an Audi TT engine isn't just going to "bolt" into a 1979 Rabbit. Today's Rabbit follows a very similar layout to a '79 Rabbit and a TT is essentially a Golf/Rabbit with different body panels. I'll grant you that, but internally the cars are quite different. Nevermind that the chassis has been revised numerous times to meet exceedingly strict safety standards. There are changing emissions regulations which have necessitated the addition of various components and movement of others. Then there's the modernization of a multitude of other components, like the braking system and it's anti-lock brakes. Then there's the ECU and all the electrical wiring the old Rabbit didn't have. And then on the simplest level there's the fact that the '79 engine block and transmission are considerably different from what's used today.
I know some guys tend to stretch the meaning of "bolt-on" modifications but this is really pushing it. There are guys who do engine swaps between cars based on the same platform and for the same year and even then they can't just drop in the new engine. If any automakers allow for easy swapping of components I'd argue it's the Americans. And that's only because they have the habit of releasing the same exact vehicle under multiple brands with minor cosmetic differences.
I expect to see a similar outcome from a "standardized" OS. The system may be based on a standard base, but every model and generation will be different to the point that they won't work with anyone else. There's the risk, of course, of this sort of technology locking out the owner from being able to do anything to the car. With a sophisticated system it could check to see if modifications have been made, for example, and perhaps render the vehicle inoperable because it's been deemed a violation of the warranty. On the other hand, these systems may make the car easier to hack and allow the owner more control in adjusting how the car operates.
I think we're a long way off from professional gaming. I don't think they're at a point yet where they can be enjoyed from the sidelines like any real life sport. There's a dynamic that's missing.
I think real sports are able to transcend the game itself. There are countless minute variables that affect the game and players. The players have real emotion. They suffer from exhaustion, injury, frustration. There's the interplay between players. There's weather, wind, the grass itself. There's a whole world outside of that particular game. At the same time nearly all sports are relatively easy to relate to and it's simple enough to follow what's happening.
By chance I happened to catch that pro gaming event on CBS and I watched gamers compete in all three of the listed games. All I took from the boxing game was how EA did a fairly good job of texturing but how animations were awkward and jerky.
I've played World of Warcraft and bit and watching those guys compete I had no idea what the hell was going all. All I saw where characters running around towards and away from each other, lights flashing, numbers floating up from these character's heads and the camera wilding spinning around at times. I'd see these numbers popping up but no change in the HP bars at the bottom of the screen. All this would be punctuated by the view of some guy being defeated.
The Guitar Hero competition was exceedingly embarrassing to watch. These two dorks were up there with plastic toy guitars but somehow managed to convince themselves they were rock n roll gods. And as if it weren't lame enough one guy decides he's going to be cool and smash his guitar. I can't imagine very many people think that's cool enough.
Now, this isn't to take anything away from these games. Guitar Hero 2 is an awesome game. But it's an awesome game played in a living room with friends. Not on stage or worse, televised.
Most games today just don't translate well to television. They're difficult to follow, there's no realistic way for a produce to properly convey the action and be able to choose quickly enough what events should be focused on. And games are still too scripted and actions too limited for them to work as a spectator sport on a large scale. Even car racing games, which are closest to the real thing are still lacking.
I also think that when we finally have a game that can be successfully turned into a spectator sport they're going to have to adhere to a very rigid set of rules to ensure consistency. We can't have it like it is now where with each new version and update things change drastically. Well, it can be done, but then you're looking at exhausting extensive resources to ensure proper balance.
When it came down to it the game struck me as advertising punctuated by a bunch of guys playing games that were no fun to watch at best and downright embarrassing at worst.
PC games have been cheaper than console games for years. Wasn't it the N64 that had games in the $60 and $70 range? PC games have undercut their console counterparts by $10 to $15. Then there was the Neo Geo with games costing a few hundred dollars, although that was a bit of a fluke. Wii games aren't as expensive as the competition, but I still feel that at $50 some of those games are a bit overpriced. An equivalent game for the PC would be $40 at most.
What makes console games more expensive is licensing costs, something that PC developers don't have to contend with. Although, perhaps that may change with Microsoft's push of Games for Windows. However, it hasn't yet. I can easily find newly released games for $45. I haven't seen console games have any such discount.
It could be that PC gamers are more discriminating, but I suppose it's more likely that there are fewer of them. So they need to provide more incentives to get people to buy in significant numbers. Inevitably, however, I go back to licensing costs unique to consoles because if PC developers weren't turning a profit at current prices they wouldn't still be developing games. Or PC games would cost as much as console games do.
This guy is more or less spot on. The US has been severely hindered by garbage mobile service providers. It doesn't help that Americans are generally unaware of what's available overseas so they're easily swayed by the lamest bells and whistles. It also doesn't help that mobile phones are still seen as a fashionable product. Of course overseas there are still those looking for the latest phones, but not to the ridiculous extent seen in the US. Walk by any mobile phone store in the US and you'll see a crowd of people looking to replace a phone that's barely a year old.
Foreign markets have matured to the point that people are looking for basic phones that perform only basic functions while still looking nice. In the US you've got the self-important business people trying to look like they're vital to the company's success. So they have to get a Blackberry, even if they don't use 90% of it's function. Then you've got the Nextel/Boost Mobile crowd and their obnoxious walkie-talkie feature. I guess speaking loudly on the phone wasn't annoying enough. They need to advertise to the entire world that they're on the phone. Then you've got Verizon advertising crap like V.Cast which is little more than advertising the consumer has to pay to view.
Of course, the extent to which carriers cripple their phones is the worst. I recall years ago trying to get a data cable for my Motorola phone only to discover that Motorola started selling them in the US market at the insistence of AT&T Wireless and others. Obviously, they wanted to force me to pay to go through their own network. Then there's the absurdity of phones being locked to a single carrier. The whole point of a SIM card is that it enables me to easily switch carriers. But then these providers go and block me from that functionality.
I recall living in Taiwan back in 2000 to 2002 and hearing about the implementation of 3G. I recall companies bidding on frequencies but the implementation being slow because the system was such an over complicated mess. Even in Japan where it was being developed and tested they were running into issues. Otherwise 3G would have been fully implemented quite some time ago. Instead 2.5G was developed for the interim but since then, and I think already several years ago 3G was finally fully implemented. Here we are in the US with a system I don't think has moved much beyond 2G. And of course, once 3G comes along the carriers are going to scam even more money out of us. The same way the cable company screws consumers by charging more for digital cable. As mentioned in the article, I can get a superior service overseas for less money than it costs in the US. Well, in Asia, because in Europe everything still manages to be expensive.
The iPhone is somewhat unique even when compared to what's available overseas. Not for it's functionality but for it's distinct lack of buttons. Aesthetically speaking, however while featuring an nice design it offers nothing special. Hell, I bought a cheap NEC candybar phone almost two years ago that looks essentially like a small version of the iPhone. It has a black face with a metallic border and back. It's got individual buttons and a standard screen, but I've had people comment that it looks like the iPhone. And NEC managed to make the battery cover the same metal color as the rest of the back cover. So my point is that if we had available in the US what other markets have nobody would have even batted an eye over the iPhone, except maybe for Apple fanatics.
What I don't understand is why the service providers haven't been investigated for their underhanded practices. I'm convinced they're getting away with quite a lot.
I agree that most advertisers have been pushing the lifestyle message. However, I completely disagree that they're trying to convey a "feel good" message. Most aren't trying to make us feel good, they're trying to make us feel inadequate so that we rush out to buy their products. And most advertising isn't anything but obnoxious insistent. Marketing people are constantly trying to devise ways to cram more advertising down our throats, what makes you think it would be any different in games?
What these companies are waiting for is a critical mass of consumers willing to at least tolerate advertising in games. Once that happens then we're really going to see a flood of shit. And rest assured it isn't going to consist of anything subtle, inoffensive and in keeping with the theme of the game. Advertisers aren't exactly known for subtlety.
You mention that BF2142 is an example of advertising applied tastefully. Explain to me how advertising somehow fits in a world that's ravaged by war and an ice age. The few remaining superpowers are battling over what few resources are left but Jeep has decided there was a big enough market to advertise for an SUV, and then place billboards on the battlefield no less. I guess they're nothing if not persistent. Then there are the billboards for movies like Ghost Rider. The game is based over 130 years in the future and they're still anticipating the release of this movie. And apparently DVDs, Bluray and UMDs are still being used. In an energy-starved, war-torn and frozen future.
So much for advertising fitting with the theme of the game.
First of all, I can't help but think the companies releasing these studies aren't doing much more than ensuring future business for themselves.
What exactly constitutes exposure to advertising? Let's take any EA game plastered with marketing crap. Even menu screens are promoting one product for another. Let's take one of the FIFA games. I decide I want to customize my players so I spend a few minutes equipping my players with some sneakers. Those sneakers happen to be Adidas or Nike sneakers. Does this count as exposure? Suppose I'm camping a spot in an FPS and there just so happens to be a billboard facing my direction. Does that count as exposure?
The point is that the marketing company could care less. What they want are metrics that look good. They don't care how effective the marketing actually is, nor is there any real way of knowing. But on paper it looks good and so developers fall for it. Not that they care, because it's extra advertising income for them.
Less-cluttered ads are three times as effective at garnering gamer notice than ads that are either cluttered or within cluttered environments.
I find this particularly troubling. Does this mean we're going to get less realistic environments? We can't have overly detailed environments if there's a risk of advertising blending into the background. I predict, however, we're going to end up with the gaming equivalent of pop up banners. Advertisers will just have these big crap banners floating around in mid air. And I expect the quality of these ads to be utter crap. In all the years of advertising on the web 95% of it still looks like garbage. We're going to be stuck with LowerMyBills banners in our games.
I also think it's naive to think that the cost of our games will drop once advertising is introduced. Developers and publishers aren't looking to introduce advertising in order to make the same amount of money they make now. This will be like cable and satellite television. You'll pay as much, if not more than you pay now AND you get the added bonus of advertising. Advertising will only become more intrusive and unlike browsers there will be no way to block any of it. And lets not forget that our games are going to be sanitized and inoffensive, in order to appease advertisers. And games will be compromised in order to appeal to desired demographics.
The problem with the PS3 is not price. The iPhone costs as much as a PS3 and people are happily spending money on that. I'd argue that the PS3 provides more value for the money. Well, except for one big problem. There are few good games available for the PS3 and virtually no great games. That is why the PS3 isn't selling. I guarantee if the library of games were stronger we'd see far fewer people complaining about price.
Actually... There was almost exactly two year separation between the release Final Fantasy 7 and 8. However, there was a 3 year separation between Final Fantasy 10 and 12. FF11 was also released in 2003, but since it's a MMO I consider it a separate entity. Given the production values of Final Fantasy games, and the tendency for delays we'll be lucky if we see the game by 2010.
Needless to say, it's in Sony's best interest to have the game released sooner than later.
Isn't it just possible that EA offered this guy a higher salary than he was earning at Microsoft? Maybe he gets to work from home. Maybe he just doesn't like the weather in Redmond. Just because a guy leaves a company doesn't inherently mean anything significant. If the success of the Xbox360 is dependent on whether or not Peter Moore remains at Microsoft then they've got some serious issues.
I have been thinking about getting a PSP for some time. I have a DS and while I think it's great there are some things that have always bothered me. As much as I like sprite-based 2D games I can't get past the fact that 3D graphics on the DS are generally crap. The games for the DS that are good are great, but some genres in particular are quite lacking. And to this day I still don't like the two screens. The functionality it allows for in some games is great, but it still feels gimmicky. I would much prefer it had a single large screen, and coupled with the touch-screen functionality it would be truly great.
This updated PSP makes the console particularly appealing. Of course, this is still Sony we're talking about. So I still have some reservations.
Ted Stevens should certainly be held responsible for this. But if we're going to start seeing claims that republicans under "clouds" I think it would only be fair, and unbiased, to start running stories on democrats under similar situations. Because this problem of family members getting cushy jobs in government is a common problem in both parties.
Even worse than that, a shocking number of close relatives to politicians are lobbyists. I heard the figures the other day, but I don't recall them now. But this problem goes right across party lines.
The problem is inevitably that people call out the republicans for this sort of thing, but then are always making excuses when the democrats do the same. Case in point: Dianne Feinstein's husband is a defense contractor. In early 2003 his company won a contract that could earn the company $3.1 billion over the following 8 years. I certain heard nothing about this. But people did go nuts over the thing with Cheney and the company he was no longer working for.
Even worse, I've seen numerous blogs trying to excuse democrats or come up with ways to somehow explain away the problem. But when a republican gets accused of the same damn thing suddenly their actions are inexcusable. The guy might as well be Satan incarnate.
Look, I think the republicans need to be held to task for all of this. It all is inexcusable and frankly I think many of them are scumbags trying to profit from their position in as many ways as possible. But enough with this double standards bullshit. The democrats are just as guilty as the republicans and it's time we say unbiased coverage of both parties.
The biggest problem I have with GIMP is it's interface. It's clear the application was designed by programmers and not designers. I feel like they've tried to cram too much onto the screen and they suffer from a similar problem I was with Microsoft applications. They try to offer too many ways to do things and get too technical with details. I don't need 10 different sliders for customizing a brush. If I want a custom brush I should be able to just create the graphic as I would anything else then just drag it into a custom brush box and be done with it.
Photoshop is getting progressively more bloated but I still find it more fluid than anything else. I'm not constantly hindered by the application.
The solution isn't to do more coding. The data they gather may result in solutions that only complicate the issue. What they should do is sit down with a small team of designers. Include people with experience in photo-editing, website layouts and interface design. Ideally, find people that have little to no experience with GIMP. Work with this team to develop an interface. And most importantly, keep things simple.
Inevitably, most applications end up being overly complex because of some overwhelming desire to cram in every last feature the developer can dream up. There also seems to be little planning. Build a set of guidelines and adhere to them. And one last thing, be sure that all essential function can be activated via the keyboard. When I'm doing time-consuming production I don't want to hunt around for small icons, or be constantly switching between the mouse and keyboard.
The PS3 still has a chance to be successful. In the end it may not be the dominant system, but it can still do quite well. However, it has one giant obstacle to overcome, even larger than it's price tag. And that's a lack of games.
The PS3 is suffering from the same problem as the PSP, most games available for the system are crap. There are quite a few that are decent, for the PSP anyway, but virtually none that truly stand out. The cost of the console and questionable media format are mostly secondary factors driving people away from the system.
It's crucial, of course, that Sony and third party developers are devoted to the console in the long run. I'm impressed by the broad appeal of the Wii. I've met people who I'd never expect to be interested in game consoles telling me they own one. However, I'm also discovered a recurring pattern amongst these people. Many of them own one game: Wii Sports. If they own a second game it's almost always Wii Play, and that's because the game comes with a second controller. Unless there's a somewhat informed gamer in the household I don't see these people buying anything else. And when they do own additional games everyone uniformly considers Wii Sports the most fun. That's the thing with casual and non-gamers. They aren't the most loyal of consumers, at least not in this segment. They're not going to be buying 10 games or more a year.
So this is where the PS3 still has a viable future. Provided, of course companies start releasing some great games for the console. If the PS3 had phenomenal games people wouldn't be complaining about cost and Bluray. People have no problem paying for an iPhone which other than having a unique interface and the Apple brand image doesn't really do anything the competitors can't do. And on top of that it costs as much as a PS3!
will have a brushed aluminum enclosure with measure just 2-inch thick
The current iMac already has an enclosure 2 inches thick. And most of the internals aren't housed near the bottom of the current iMac, they're spread out all over the unit behind the display. So it's not like the new iMac is going to be this huge leap of packaging over the current model.
Regarding the brushed-metal look, although I'm sure it will look nice I think it's starting to get a bit old. I can't say I like Apple going back and forth between two design styles they've been using for quite some time now. For me personally both styles are getting a bit tired. I realize they want to maintain a brand identity but I'd prefer they choose one of the styles and evolve that look as opposed to going back and forth between the two. I'll reserve judgement until I see the design but I will be disappointed if the new iMac ends up looking exactly like an Apple display or the Mac Pro.
My hope is that the iPhone would bring into the limelight how restrictive all mobile phone service providers are. They do nothing but restrict progress and rip off the consumer. I think they're responsible for why phones in the US market lag behind the rest of the world in terms of technology. If US consumers had access to what's available elsewhere I think people would generally be less impressed by the iPhone.
To me the activities the US carriers engage in is just as bad if not worse than DRM. It's a big problem and unfortunately I don't see many people calling attention to it.
I thought the story for Transformers was pure dreck. Most of it made little sense. It felt like the story was written by a 13 year old. It's sad when a cartoon makes more sense than a live action movie. Huge portions were pointless and completely irrelevant to the main storyline. It was pure Michael Bay crapola. He even managed to squeeze in hints of a goofy love story.
That said, anything with the Transformers was awesome. It was immensely entertaining watching them transform and battle. It was good enough that I came away satisfied despite all the crap.
I generally liked the robot designs, although not so much Megatron. And the small Transformer was obnoxious. Why they couldn't have Rumble or something is beyond me. My main problem with all the Transformers is that they were far too complicated. They all had these tiny moving parts and coupled with Michael Bay's penchant for twitchy cameras it made it difficult to sometimes follow the action. There were times where I couldn't tell if I was watching an arm, a leg or a head. And when the robots were intertwined it was even worse. This was particularly bad for the Decepticons because they were so monochromatic.
I thought it was funny when the small robot, made up of a good deal of very resilient steel of some sort transforms into a small stereo and this woman carries him around like it's no big deal.
The Popular Science article does little more than serve as an advertisement for this movie. "The Best Special Effects Ever?" That's what they imply every time they have an article on some new effects-laden movie. I agree, the effects were very good, except when an actor occassionally wasn't looking in right the quite direction or really acting at the right moment. But they were great.
However, for me, the best special effects are those that don't remind me they're special effects. And for that I'd probably have to go back to the earlier Star Wars movies, or perhaps 2001. Nevertheless, I did enjoy Transformers. I do think the story would have been far better had they just followed the story in the cartoons more closely.
These formats may merit investigation. On the other hand, I'm finding this trend a bit troubling. Now every time some industry agrees on a standard is the EU going to initiate investigations looking into so-called uncompetitive practices? And what exactly will they do if they deem that the companies in question to have engaged in such activities? Are we going to end up with products with no consistent standards merely to appease the EU?
As usual I'm left with the impression that the EU is doing nothing more than engaging in protectionism. European had no part in these formats and it doesn't sit well with them. We've got two distinct formats, backed by different companies, fighting for market dominance. There are plenty of technology companies in Europe. If the EU is concerned about foreign dominance in this market why don't they back the development of their own HD format?
If they're going to spend their resources investigating these new formats it should be directed towards DRM.
To this day Super Mario Bros 2 is my favorite of the entire series. I don't know what it is. The game just seemed even more surreal than any of the others. The enemies seems more inventive too. The others are all great, but there's something I just like about that particular version.
I'm a bit underwhelmed by Pac Man CE, particularly graphics wise. So they put the effort into making the states rendered in nice high resolution and they couldn't be bothered to have done the same with Pac Man and the ghosts? I don't see the nostalgia in keeping them pixelated like that. And there have been numerous inventive Pac Man clones through the years, especially on the PC.
The interesting thing about many of these old games is how awkward their control schemes feel. Most anyway, Super Mario Bros and a handful of others still feel very fluid and natural to this day. But most take some getting used to. Some games I had fond memories of I found myself disappointed by because of the controls to the point where I couldn't be bothered to play them very long. One particularly aggravating example is Bionic Commando.
Interestingly, I've never had a problem graphics-wise. I maintain that 2D sprites age better than 3D graphics, especially those aiming for realism. However, given my experience with emulation, I have a hard time spending money buying Virtual Console games. To be honest, I prefer the approach seen on Xbox Live where developers take an old game and update the graphics and gameplay. It would be interesting to see this done with some of those old Nintendo games.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep... Voltron sure had a deep storyline... Every episode had the same exact formula. Evil giant robot attacks, the team tries to take it on individually and fails. They unite, and with their giant sword take out the bad guy in a dramatic swipe.
Then lets not forget the complete and utter pointlessness of robots who can transform into vehicles.
Reading your post you'd think the Japanese have cornered the market on robots. Oddly enough, of the top of my head I can think of some significant robots in American media. There's the mech Ripley used in Aliens. Then there are the Terminators. Then there are all the comic books and sci fi novels. The Japanese have borrowed a lot from the US. And I suppose things have come full circle where Americans are being influenced by Japanese media.
They certainly refined things to a point we haven't really seen in American media, but that doesn't somehow make them superior or better suited to depict these robots. Anime is certainly superior than most US cartoons, but by no means is it as deep as the anime fans would like to lead people to believe. And Japanese live action is in general quite lame. Of course, there are exceptions, but then there are exceptions everywhere.
Even without manipulation on the part of developers, I still have a hard time completely believing reviews. The simple reason for this is that most reviewers don't have to pay for and live with the product they're reviewing. These publications get these games for free and they often come extras to make the package more enticing. Granted, unlike many other products these guys still have to actually play through the game.
It's like those supposed long-term reviews of cars. Except that the car is constantly being driven by a different person. So if the car ends up having some problem nobody notices it because no one has to depend on the car for the duration of the review. And on top of that in their case the dealer always agrees to repair everything and replace anything free of charge. So in the end they produce an overly positive review which is worthless.
Needless to say, gaming publications aren't quite on the same level. However, when it comes down to it the $50-$60 didn't come out of their own pocket. They're not stuck with a disappointing game. That in and of itself ensures an overly favorable impression of the game. Given everything developers supply reviewers with I have a hard time believing they will ever be as critical as they should be. Even if it isn't blatant the influence exists.
It's Philips with one "L", by the way.
One thing that bothers me is the decision to go with a glass screen. These screens, to me, are nothing more than a fad that help make the display look more impressive on the showroom floor. Once someone has to actually use them day-to-day glass screens are a huge distraction because of all the reflections and glare. This iMac is going to inspire a deluge of crappy glass-covered displays.
Seeing these new Macs, however, I can't help but wonder why in the hell PC makers don't actually start putting some damn effort into the manufacture and design of their machines. Instead they go for quick, cheap gimmicks like Dell and the goofy interchangeable color covers for their laptops. Even worse are the third party case manufacturers.
There are a million ideas out there for very elegant designs that could be just as impressive, if not more so, than anything Apple has designed. But instead what are we going to see? Dozens of crappy clones of the Apple design. Either that or half-hearted attempts that scream of cost-cutting over thoughtful design. Even Nintendo couldn't help but cloning the MacBook design with the DS and to a lesser extent the Wii.
Apple has nice design, but they are far from being the pinnacle of high design. If only other companies weren't cheap and unimaginative.
I'd like to know what this guy means by "nothing compared to Seoul. Because from personal experience broadband there is crap to what I've seen in the US. Given that most innovation on the web is coming from US companies I find it hard to believe that our service is as bad as claimed. Why bother with all the content heavy sites if service is supposedly subpar for most people.
I'll grant that South Korea has many more service providers and in most cases monthly fees are also lower. But mind you that the average income there is also significantly lower than it is in the US.
And there's something else to consider. The barrier to entry for service providers is lower in many countries than it is in the US. This means there's less government red-tape to get through to establish service. And there's far lower resistance from residents regarding the installation of equipment. They certainly aren't concerned about environmental impact like people are in the US. Basically, like essentially everywhere else in Asia, if something needs to be built it gets built.
For at least 30 years my state has been trying to complete this stretch of highway. Even though much of the land has been acquired for the project the wealthy residents of time and again blocked all construction. They don't want their idyllic world disrupted. So instead, what would be a 20 minute trip takes over an hour. The currently used two lane road sees heavy traffic which spills over onto some side roads. On particularly busy stretches accidents are quite frequent. The highway would improve quality of life for everyone and help businesses all the way up the road, but it's blocked nevertheless. So instead the state throws money away on useless improvements for the existing roadway.
Recently there was a big debate regarding power lines passing through the same area. It would help lower rates for residents and increase reliability of power delivery but nobody wants them in their neighborhood. I think the power lines will take a wildly circuitous route and a big portion of it will be underground. Electricity is already expensive and this has only helped to raise rates further.
In Asia we wouldn't even see resistance to such projects. If a company needed to put up a communications tower, for example, they'd just put it up and that would be the end of it. In the US it would be blocked and the end result would be people complaining about spotty service.
This is one of many examples of the difficulties faced in the US. I'm not suggesting companies be allowed to build with impunity; I certainly don't believe they should be given free rein to do whatever they want. My point is that what problems there are aren't so simple. These providers are the source of some of our problems, but not EVERYTHING is their fault.
And Canada, Norway and Sweden may have lower population densities than the US but that population is also condensed into a smaller area of the country making their populations easier to service. In the US you've got population centers hundreds, if not thousands of miles apart.
I wonder if anyone's taken a look at sites like this one: SpeedTest
The stats provided on that site are quite interesting. According to my results my service is faster than over 92% of the world. I'd like to think that's not too bad. Japan is the only country I see in Asia with significantly faster speeds. Korea, seems to consistently lag behind the US.
Sometimes I can't help but wonder if these guys aren't just looking for a reason to bash the US.
That's a nice quote, but there are some delayed games that still manage to be bad forever. Look at Daikatana.
I have to admit. That is cool. I can see the rationale behind that. Why change what works? It keeps costs down.
The Japanese have the habit making these odd changes in the middle of a production run. I suppose it's they're address potential issues on a regular basis. On the other hand it means you've got to be particularly careful when selecting parts.
That's not unique to VW. Practically every automaker today has a part number for every last component in their cars. Among other things I can find out which components are shared with previous generations of my Honda, other Honda models and even Japanese domestic models by looking at part numbers. The same applies to my father's Buick.
Secondly, an Audi TT engine isn't just going to "bolt" into a 1979 Rabbit. Today's Rabbit follows a very similar layout to a '79 Rabbit and a TT is essentially a Golf/Rabbit with different body panels. I'll grant you that, but internally the cars are quite different. Nevermind that the chassis has been revised numerous times to meet exceedingly strict safety standards. There are changing emissions regulations which have necessitated the addition of various components and movement of others. Then there's the modernization of a multitude of other components, like the braking system and it's anti-lock brakes. Then there's the ECU and all the electrical wiring the old Rabbit didn't have. And then on the simplest level there's the fact that the '79 engine block and transmission are considerably different from what's used today.
I know some guys tend to stretch the meaning of "bolt-on" modifications but this is really pushing it. There are guys who do engine swaps between cars based on the same platform and for the same year and even then they can't just drop in the new engine. If any automakers allow for easy swapping of components I'd argue it's the Americans. And that's only because they have the habit of releasing the same exact vehicle under multiple brands with minor cosmetic differences.
I expect to see a similar outcome from a "standardized" OS. The system may be based on a standard base, but every model and generation will be different to the point that they won't work with anyone else. There's the risk, of course, of this sort of technology locking out the owner from being able to do anything to the car. With a sophisticated system it could check to see if modifications have been made, for example, and perhaps render the vehicle inoperable because it's been deemed a violation of the warranty. On the other hand, these systems may make the car easier to hack and allow the owner more control in adjusting how the car operates.
I think we're a long way off from professional gaming. I don't think they're at a point yet where they can be enjoyed from the sidelines like any real life sport. There's a dynamic that's missing.
I think real sports are able to transcend the game itself. There are countless minute variables that affect the game and players. The players have real emotion. They suffer from exhaustion, injury, frustration. There's the interplay between players. There's weather, wind, the grass itself. There's a whole world outside of that particular game. At the same time nearly all sports are relatively easy to relate to and it's simple enough to follow what's happening.
By chance I happened to catch that pro gaming event on CBS and I watched gamers compete in all three of the listed games. All I took from the boxing game was how EA did a fairly good job of texturing but how animations were awkward and jerky.
I've played World of Warcraft and bit and watching those guys compete I had no idea what the hell was going all. All I saw where characters running around towards and away from each other, lights flashing, numbers floating up from these character's heads and the camera wilding spinning around at times. I'd see these numbers popping up but no change in the HP bars at the bottom of the screen. All this would be punctuated by the view of some guy being defeated.
The Guitar Hero competition was exceedingly embarrassing to watch. These two dorks were up there with plastic toy guitars but somehow managed to convince themselves they were rock n roll gods. And as if it weren't lame enough one guy decides he's going to be cool and smash his guitar. I can't imagine very many people think that's cool enough.
Now, this isn't to take anything away from these games. Guitar Hero 2 is an awesome game. But it's an awesome game played in a living room with friends. Not on stage or worse, televised.
Most games today just don't translate well to television. They're difficult to follow, there's no realistic way for a produce to properly convey the action and be able to choose quickly enough what events should be focused on. And games are still too scripted and actions too limited for them to work as a spectator sport on a large scale. Even car racing games, which are closest to the real thing are still lacking.
I also think that when we finally have a game that can be successfully turned into a spectator sport they're going to have to adhere to a very rigid set of rules to ensure consistency. We can't have it like it is now where with each new version and update things change drastically. Well, it can be done, but then you're looking at exhausting extensive resources to ensure proper balance.
When it came down to it the game struck me as advertising punctuated by a bunch of guys playing games that were no fun to watch at best and downright embarrassing at worst.
PC games have been cheaper than console games for years. Wasn't it the N64 that had games in the $60 and $70 range? PC games have undercut their console counterparts by $10 to $15. Then there was the Neo Geo with games costing a few hundred dollars, although that was a bit of a fluke. Wii games aren't as expensive as the competition, but I still feel that at $50 some of those games are a bit overpriced. An equivalent game for the PC would be $40 at most.
What makes console games more expensive is licensing costs, something that PC developers don't have to contend with. Although, perhaps that may change with Microsoft's push of Games for Windows. However, it hasn't yet. I can easily find newly released games for $45. I haven't seen console games have any such discount.
It could be that PC gamers are more discriminating, but I suppose it's more likely that there are fewer of them. So they need to provide more incentives to get people to buy in significant numbers. Inevitably, however, I go back to licensing costs unique to consoles because if PC developers weren't turning a profit at current prices they wouldn't still be developing games. Or PC games would cost as much as console games do.
This guy is more or less spot on. The US has been severely hindered by garbage mobile service providers. It doesn't help that Americans are generally unaware of what's available overseas so they're easily swayed by the lamest bells and whistles. It also doesn't help that mobile phones are still seen as a fashionable product. Of course overseas there are still those looking for the latest phones, but not to the ridiculous extent seen in the US. Walk by any mobile phone store in the US and you'll see a crowd of people looking to replace a phone that's barely a year old.
Foreign markets have matured to the point that people are looking for basic phones that perform only basic functions while still looking nice. In the US you've got the self-important business people trying to look like they're vital to the company's success. So they have to get a Blackberry, even if they don't use 90% of it's function. Then you've got the Nextel/Boost Mobile crowd and their obnoxious walkie-talkie feature. I guess speaking loudly on the phone wasn't annoying enough. They need to advertise to the entire world that they're on the phone. Then you've got Verizon advertising crap like V.Cast which is little more than advertising the consumer has to pay to view.
Of course, the extent to which carriers cripple their phones is the worst. I recall years ago trying to get a data cable for my Motorola phone only to discover that Motorola started selling them in the US market at the insistence of AT&T Wireless and others. Obviously, they wanted to force me to pay to go through their own network. Then there's the absurdity of phones being locked to a single carrier. The whole point of a SIM card is that it enables me to easily switch carriers. But then these providers go and block me from that functionality.
I recall living in Taiwan back in 2000 to 2002 and hearing about the implementation of 3G. I recall companies bidding on frequencies but the implementation being slow because the system was such an over complicated mess. Even in Japan where it was being developed and tested they were running into issues. Otherwise 3G would have been fully implemented quite some time ago. Instead 2.5G was developed for the interim but since then, and I think already several years ago 3G was finally fully implemented. Here we are in the US with a system I don't think has moved much beyond 2G. And of course, once 3G comes along the carriers are going to scam even more money out of us. The same way the cable company screws consumers by charging more for digital cable. As mentioned in the article, I can get a superior service overseas for less money than it costs in the US. Well, in Asia, because in Europe everything still manages to be expensive.
The iPhone is somewhat unique even when compared to what's available overseas. Not for it's functionality but for it's distinct lack of buttons. Aesthetically speaking, however while featuring an nice design it offers nothing special. Hell, I bought a cheap NEC candybar phone almost two years ago that looks essentially like a small version of the iPhone. It has a black face with a metallic border and back. It's got individual buttons and a standard screen, but I've had people comment that it looks like the iPhone. And NEC managed to make the battery cover the same metal color as the rest of the back cover. So my point is that if we had available in the US what other markets have nobody would have even batted an eye over the iPhone, except maybe for Apple fanatics.
What I don't understand is why the service providers haven't been investigated for their underhanded practices. I'm convinced they're getting away with quite a lot.
I agree that most advertisers have been pushing the lifestyle message. However, I completely disagree that they're trying to convey a "feel good" message. Most aren't trying to make us feel good, they're trying to make us feel inadequate so that we rush out to buy their products. And most advertising isn't anything but obnoxious insistent. Marketing people are constantly trying to devise ways to cram more advertising down our throats, what makes you think it would be any different in games?
What these companies are waiting for is a critical mass of consumers willing to at least tolerate advertising in games. Once that happens then we're really going to see a flood of shit. And rest assured it isn't going to consist of anything subtle, inoffensive and in keeping with the theme of the game. Advertisers aren't exactly known for subtlety.
You mention that BF2142 is an example of advertising applied tastefully. Explain to me how advertising somehow fits in a world that's ravaged by war and an ice age. The few remaining superpowers are battling over what few resources are left but Jeep has decided there was a big enough market to advertise for an SUV, and then place billboards on the battlefield no less. I guess they're nothing if not persistent. Then there are the billboards for movies like Ghost Rider. The game is based over 130 years in the future and they're still anticipating the release of this movie. And apparently DVDs, Bluray and UMDs are still being used. In an energy-starved, war-torn and frozen future.
So much for advertising fitting with the theme of the game.
What exactly constitutes exposure to advertising? Let's take any EA game plastered with marketing crap. Even menu screens are promoting one product for another. Let's take one of the FIFA games. I decide I want to customize my players so I spend a few minutes equipping my players with some sneakers. Those sneakers happen to be Adidas or Nike sneakers. Does this count as exposure? Suppose I'm camping a spot in an FPS and there just so happens to be a billboard facing my direction. Does that count as exposure?
The point is that the marketing company could care less. What they want are metrics that look good. They don't care how effective the marketing actually is, nor is there any real way of knowing. But on paper it looks good and so developers fall for it. Not that they care, because it's extra advertising income for them.
I find this particularly troubling. Does this mean we're going to get less realistic environments? We can't have overly detailed environments if there's a risk of advertising blending into the background. I predict, however, we're going to end up with the gaming equivalent of pop up banners. Advertisers will just have these big crap banners floating around in mid air. And I expect the quality of these ads to be utter crap. In all the years of advertising on the web 95% of it still looks like garbage. We're going to be stuck with LowerMyBills banners in our games.
I also think it's naive to think that the cost of our games will drop once advertising is introduced. Developers and publishers aren't looking to introduce advertising in order to make the same amount of money they make now. This will be like cable and satellite television. You'll pay as much, if not more than you pay now AND you get the added bonus of advertising. Advertising will only become more intrusive and unlike browsers there will be no way to block any of it. And lets not forget that our games are going to be sanitized and inoffensive, in order to appease advertisers. And games will be compromised in order to appeal to desired demographics.
The problem with the PS3 is not price. The iPhone costs as much as a PS3 and people are happily spending money on that. I'd argue that the PS3 provides more value for the money. Well, except for one big problem. There are few good games available for the PS3 and virtually no great games. That is why the PS3 isn't selling. I guarantee if the library of games were stronger we'd see far fewer people complaining about price.
Actually... There was almost exactly two year separation between the release Final Fantasy 7 and 8. However, there was a 3 year separation between Final Fantasy 10 and 12. FF11 was also released in 2003, but since it's a MMO I consider it a separate entity. Given the production values of Final Fantasy games, and the tendency for delays we'll be lucky if we see the game by 2010.
Needless to say, it's in Sony's best interest to have the game released sooner than later.
Isn't it just possible that EA offered this guy a higher salary than he was earning at Microsoft? Maybe he gets to work from home. Maybe he just doesn't like the weather in Redmond. Just because a guy leaves a company doesn't inherently mean anything significant. If the success of the Xbox360 is dependent on whether or not Peter Moore remains at Microsoft then they've got some serious issues.
I have been thinking about getting a PSP for some time. I have a DS and while I think it's great there are some things that have always bothered me. As much as I like sprite-based 2D games I can't get past the fact that 3D graphics on the DS are generally crap. The games for the DS that are good are great, but some genres in particular are quite lacking. And to this day I still don't like the two screens. The functionality it allows for in some games is great, but it still feels gimmicky. I would much prefer it had a single large screen, and coupled with the touch-screen functionality it would be truly great.
This updated PSP makes the console particularly appealing. Of course, this is still Sony we're talking about. So I still have some reservations.
Ted Stevens should certainly be held responsible for this. But if we're going to start seeing claims that republicans under "clouds" I think it would only be fair, and unbiased, to start running stories on democrats under similar situations. Because this problem of family members getting cushy jobs in government is a common problem in both parties.
Even worse than that, a shocking number of close relatives to politicians are lobbyists. I heard the figures the other day, but I don't recall them now. But this problem goes right across party lines.
The problem is inevitably that people call out the republicans for this sort of thing, but then are always making excuses when the democrats do the same. Case in point: Dianne Feinstein's husband is a defense contractor. In early 2003 his company won a contract that could earn the company $3.1 billion over the following 8 years. I certain heard nothing about this. But people did go nuts over the thing with Cheney and the company he was no longer working for.
Even worse, I've seen numerous blogs trying to excuse democrats or come up with ways to somehow explain away the problem. But when a republican gets accused of the same damn thing suddenly their actions are inexcusable. The guy might as well be Satan incarnate.
Look, I think the republicans need to be held to task for all of this. It all is inexcusable and frankly I think many of them are scumbags trying to profit from their position in as many ways as possible. But enough with this double standards bullshit. The democrats are just as guilty as the republicans and it's time we say unbiased coverage of both parties.
The biggest problem I have with GIMP is it's interface. It's clear the application was designed by programmers and not designers. I feel like they've tried to cram too much onto the screen and they suffer from a similar problem I was with Microsoft applications. They try to offer too many ways to do things and get too technical with details. I don't need 10 different sliders for customizing a brush. If I want a custom brush I should be able to just create the graphic as I would anything else then just drag it into a custom brush box and be done with it.
Photoshop is getting progressively more bloated but I still find it more fluid than anything else. I'm not constantly hindered by the application.
The solution isn't to do more coding. The data they gather may result in solutions that only complicate the issue. What they should do is sit down with a small team of designers. Include people with experience in photo-editing, website layouts and interface design. Ideally, find people that have little to no experience with GIMP. Work with this team to develop an interface. And most importantly, keep things simple.
Inevitably, most applications end up being overly complex because of some overwhelming desire to cram in every last feature the developer can dream up. There also seems to be little planning. Build a set of guidelines and adhere to them. And one last thing, be sure that all essential function can be activated via the keyboard. When I'm doing time-consuming production I don't want to hunt around for small icons, or be constantly switching between the mouse and keyboard.
The PS3 still has a chance to be successful. In the end it may not be the dominant system, but it can still do quite well. However, it has one giant obstacle to overcome, even larger than it's price tag. And that's a lack of games.
The PS3 is suffering from the same problem as the PSP, most games available for the system are crap. There are quite a few that are decent, for the PSP anyway, but virtually none that truly stand out. The cost of the console and questionable media format are mostly secondary factors driving people away from the system.
It's crucial, of course, that Sony and third party developers are devoted to the console in the long run. I'm impressed by the broad appeal of the Wii. I've met people who I'd never expect to be interested in game consoles telling me they own one. However, I'm also discovered a recurring pattern amongst these people. Many of them own one game: Wii Sports. If they own a second game it's almost always Wii Play, and that's because the game comes with a second controller. Unless there's a somewhat informed gamer in the household I don't see these people buying anything else. And when they do own additional games everyone uniformly considers Wii Sports the most fun. That's the thing with casual and non-gamers. They aren't the most loyal of consumers, at least not in this segment. They're not going to be buying 10 games or more a year.
So this is where the PS3 still has a viable future. Provided, of course companies start releasing some great games for the console. If the PS3 had phenomenal games people wouldn't be complaining about cost and Bluray. People have no problem paying for an iPhone which other than having a unique interface and the Apple brand image doesn't really do anything the competitors can't do. And on top of that it costs as much as a PS3!
The current iMac already has an enclosure 2 inches thick. And most of the internals aren't housed near the bottom of the current iMac, they're spread out all over the unit behind the display. So it's not like the new iMac is going to be this huge leap of packaging over the current model.
Regarding the brushed-metal look, although I'm sure it will look nice I think it's starting to get a bit old. I can't say I like Apple going back and forth between two design styles they've been using for quite some time now. For me personally both styles are getting a bit tired. I realize they want to maintain a brand identity but I'd prefer they choose one of the styles and evolve that look as opposed to going back and forth between the two. I'll reserve judgement until I see the design but I will be disappointed if the new iMac ends up looking exactly like an Apple display or the Mac Pro.
My hope is that the iPhone would bring into the limelight how restrictive all mobile phone service providers are. They do nothing but restrict progress and rip off the consumer. I think they're responsible for why phones in the US market lag behind the rest of the world in terms of technology. If US consumers had access to what's available elsewhere I think people would generally be less impressed by the iPhone.
To me the activities the US carriers engage in is just as bad if not worse than DRM. It's a big problem and unfortunately I don't see many people calling attention to it.
I thought the story for Transformers was pure dreck. Most of it made little sense. It felt like the story was written by a 13 year old. It's sad when a cartoon makes more sense than a live action movie. Huge portions were pointless and completely irrelevant to the main storyline. It was pure Michael Bay crapola. He even managed to squeeze in hints of a goofy love story.
That said, anything with the Transformers was awesome. It was immensely entertaining watching them transform and battle. It was good enough that I came away satisfied despite all the crap.
I generally liked the robot designs, although not so much Megatron. And the small Transformer was obnoxious. Why they couldn't have Rumble or something is beyond me. My main problem with all the Transformers is that they were far too complicated. They all had these tiny moving parts and coupled with Michael Bay's penchant for twitchy cameras it made it difficult to sometimes follow the action. There were times where I couldn't tell if I was watching an arm, a leg or a head. And when the robots were intertwined it was even worse. This was particularly bad for the Decepticons because they were so monochromatic.
I thought it was funny when the small robot, made up of a good deal of very resilient steel of some sort transforms into a small stereo and this woman carries him around like it's no big deal.
The Popular Science article does little more than serve as an advertisement for this movie. "The Best Special Effects Ever?" That's what they imply every time they have an article on some new effects-laden movie. I agree, the effects were very good, except when an actor occassionally wasn't looking in right the quite direction or really acting at the right moment. But they were great.
However, for me, the best special effects are those that don't remind me they're special effects. And for that I'd probably have to go back to the earlier Star Wars movies, or perhaps 2001. Nevertheless, I did enjoy Transformers. I do think the story would have been far better had they just followed the story in the cartoons more closely.
These formats may merit investigation. On the other hand, I'm finding this trend a bit troubling. Now every time some industry agrees on a standard is the EU going to initiate investigations looking into so-called uncompetitive practices? And what exactly will they do if they deem that the companies in question to have engaged in such activities? Are we going to end up with products with no consistent standards merely to appease the EU?
As usual I'm left with the impression that the EU is doing nothing more than engaging in protectionism. European had no part in these formats and it doesn't sit well with them. We've got two distinct formats, backed by different companies, fighting for market dominance. There are plenty of technology companies in Europe. If the EU is concerned about foreign dominance in this market why don't they back the development of their own HD format?
If they're going to spend their resources investigating these new formats it should be directed towards DRM.
To this day Super Mario Bros 2 is my favorite of the entire series. I don't know what it is. The game just seemed even more surreal than any of the others. The enemies seems more inventive too. The others are all great, but there's something I just like about that particular version.
I'm a bit underwhelmed by Pac Man CE, particularly graphics wise. So they put the effort into making the states rendered in nice high resolution and they couldn't be bothered to have done the same with Pac Man and the ghosts? I don't see the nostalgia in keeping them pixelated like that. And there have been numerous inventive Pac Man clones through the years, especially on the PC.
The interesting thing about many of these old games is how awkward their control schemes feel. Most anyway, Super Mario Bros and a handful of others still feel very fluid and natural to this day. But most take some getting used to. Some games I had fond memories of I found myself disappointed by because of the controls to the point where I couldn't be bothered to play them very long. One particularly aggravating example is Bionic Commando.
Interestingly, I've never had a problem graphics-wise. I maintain that 2D sprites age better than 3D graphics, especially those aiming for realism. However, given my experience with emulation, I have a hard time spending money buying Virtual Console games. To be honest, I prefer the approach seen on Xbox Live where developers take an old game and update the graphics and gameplay. It would be interesting to see this done with some of those old Nintendo games.