First of all... Considering that most owners of that Audi had no problem figuring out which pedal was which I don't see how the automaker could be at fault. You can't realistically expect a company to accommodate every last individual.
Second, I don't see where you're coming from with this notion about individuals being marginalized. If anything, in the United States the individual is being valued more than at any point in the past. Not that there aren't problems, but I don't think the reality is anything like you're claiming. I agree with you about what's going on in China, but then we're not talking about China here.
Third, you don't think giving this guy 12 consoles is enough? What do you want Microsoft to do? Do you expect Bill Gates should personally show up at this guy's doorstep with a gold-plated Xbox360 Elite? Accepting returns and then either repairing or replacing consoles is an expensive proposition for Microsoft. They could have always taken to Sony approach to deny anything is wrong and then quietly address issues in updated versions.
Like I said, 11 consoles in a row with problems is not an insignificant number. I can't help but conclude that this guy is somehow mishandling these consoles. But because I haven't seen these units and how they've been used I can't make that assertion. It could very well be that Microsoft representatives and their technical staff have done a crap job of dealing with this matter. But again, considering that they've dealt with this guy so many times already I don't see how they haven't been very accommodating.
And he has a very effective way of resolving this issue. Give up on the Xbox360. Is the console worth this hassle? I think not. Focus on the PS3, which he already owns, or get a Wii. Put together a site or organize a group that helps people deal with these kinds of issues. There's plenty he could do that would be more helpful than this.
I don't want companies taking advantage of people, but you don't oppose a company by desperately trying to acquire their product.
I suppose this guy could have had a seriously bad string of luck. However, I would have given up on the console after the second, maybe third system failure.
I believe that some Xbox360s have had problems. I'll even believe the console has had a higher failure rate than the competitors. But 11 in a row? I can't see how this isn't anything but an issue with the user. The fact that Microsoft has replaced all these units implies to me that they're trying to avoid bad publicity.
This reminds me of the case in the 80s when certain Audis were supposedly spontaneously accelerating the second the owner put the car in drive. The same thing has happened with a few other cars. It turns out that what was really going on was that the owner unknowingly had the foot on the gas when they dropped it in drive. Think they've got their foot planted on the brake they keep mashing the pedal down. The source of the problem was that the pedals in cars prone to this were set a few inches to the left of those found in most cars. So people would instinctively put their foot where they expected the brake and ended up on the accelerator.
So I'm left concluding that this guy is doing something wrong. Maybe he's sticking his Xbox360 in a cabinet and keeping it closed. Maybe he lays stuff on the unit. I wouldn't be surprised. I've known people who've kept cloth draped over the vents in their monitor because they didn't want it to get dusty.
This could be a bad case of ineptitude on the part of Microsoft's service department, but this is a bit of a stretch.
Most electronics companies seem to develop the same old products until Apple comes along and produces a competing product with an elegant design and a streamlined interface. It's not so much that they innovate but that they take the most important features and make easy to use.
That said, if the US market had access to the kinds of phones available in Asia and Europe the impact the iPhone has made would be significantly smaller. There are some great-looking phones in the rest of the world with all kinds of functionality.
And design-wise, I bought a lower-end NEC phone a year and a half ago that has all the same design cues as this iPhone. Black face, metallic bevel, etc. My phone isn't touch screen and it has individual buttons, but the basic styling is similar. My point is that while the iPhone certainly looks very nice, it isn't the pinnacle of design. Again, I've seen phones overseas that are visually more impressive.
I think one of the biggest hindrances to progress in the US mobile phone market has been the service carriers. Verizon, AT&T/Cingular, Sprint and all the others have done nothing but screw the American public in numerous ways.
The good thing about the iPhone is that it should stimulate the mobile phone market and it reminds people of the limitations of the American mobile phone network.
This is all very troubling because it represents current trends in government and society. This enforcement in and of itself might not be a big deal. But it represents the warning signs of a nanny state where we wont be able to do anything deemed harmful to our well-being. Kind of like that Stallone movie Demolition Man.
The funny thing is that those enforcing these ratings apparently seem to be completely oblivious as to what is readily available elsewhere on the internet.
I still prefer CDs over MP3s. First, I don't like paying for something that I consider ephemeral. I still like to have something physical. It's convenient to purchase music online. Then I have the hassle of backing up this music if I reinstall my OS, or get a new machine. And that's assuming I'm allowed to make copies.
Second, it seems like I'm more restricted in how I can use my music when purchasing online. It seems easier for a company to control content that way. Sure, there are ways to defeat any copy-protection, but sometimes it's a hassle.
I'd rather buy a CD, convert the songs I want into MP3s and be done with it. That way I have the comfort of knowing I have a reliable, high quality backup which I can even stick in my sound system when I'm so inclined.
So going online I'd spending as much as I have with CDs, but I end with with nothing physical to show for it. No album art, no booklet, not CD, nothing. Just some crappy 600x600 jpg if I'm lucky and an MP3. Maybe I'll embrace that medium some day, but only when it's evolve far beyond its current form.
Quite frankly, I personally think games like Manhunt 2 are decadent garbage. That said, if someone wants to purchase and play these games they should be free to do so.
This sort of excessive regulation, to me, reflects the general decline and weakness of the West. We've got these nanny states run by people who increasingly believe it's their responsibility to control every aspect of our lives. More troubling is how citizens are themselves abdicating all responsibility, expecting their governments to do everything for them. What these people apparently fail to realize is that inevitable the system will eventually come around and start trampling on their freedoms; it's a very slippery slope.
Ultimately, it's the parents who should be responsible for what their children are doing. If a child who plays these ultra-violent games has violent tendencies I'll guarantee those issues stem from poor parenting and not the game. From personal experience this has always been the case. The fact that the child has access to such games is merely a symptom of that problem.
As long as humans have been around there has been violence. I'm not making excuses for that violence, but humanity has in general gotten along fine. Look at the level of violence depicted in a lot of anime that officials in the US feel the need to censor. Yet Japan maintains extremely low crime rates.
Sometimes I think trying to shield children by depicting an unrealistic, utopian fantasy is a big mistake. It renders them poorly equipped to deal with the harshness of the real world. I'm not advocating they participate in violent blood sports, but as always everything in moderation is best.
It would be embarrassing because they have vehemently denied there was a problem since the console launched.
Also, admitting that perhaps it has an issue might open themselves up to class action lawsuits (perhaps requiring that the change be made available to every console shipped free of charge), not to mention the bad publicity that would follow.
This is a problem I see in the US. Companies for some reason are averse to addressing issues in existing problems. Maybe it's a fear of being sued. So problems never get addressed and consumers are forced to wait for subsequent models to see any improvement. Inevitably this hurts the perception of quality.
It reminds me of a problem in my parent's old Ford Taurus. The thing had a water pump that had a tendency to fail after a relatively short period of time. Apparently this was a fairly common problem. However it wasn't addressed for years, along with a few other somewhat minor issues. I think Ford went through two or three generations before they finally addressed it. But then you have a company like Honda which will make updates and minor improvements within the 7-year lifespan of a single model. Like my car, two years into it's production run they addressed a few problems.
I also recall problems with the original Playstation. Sony denied there were any issues but then quietly fixed those problems in subsequent models. Nintendo redesigned the DS within a couple of years of it's inital release to address the problems people were having with the original version. I'd much rather see a company doing this. It shows they care about their product and they're continually thinking about how to improve it.
Those who have purchased earlier versions might lose out. But that's simply the nature of manufacturing. A company can't catch everything before their products go into production.
Fanboyism, as we see it today is closely tied to lifestyle and branding. Companies, more than every before, have developed identities and products around set lifestyles. These companies then expend massive resources trying to convey the message that a particular lifestyle is cool and necessary. Given that society has grown increasingly materialistic you get people gravitating towards a particular company which they believe defines who they are.
Of course, it also gets more complicated than that. There's a level of fanaticism that pervades society in general. Everything is black and white. You either like PCs or Macs. You either like the PS3 or a Wii. You're either a liberal or a conservative. A person can't really fall somewhere in the middle. They can't appreciate aspects of either side of the argument. If you're in the middle inevitable people on the fringes end up labeling you as the extremist.
Being completely devoted to a single company is as irrational as completely hating a company. A rational person might come to the conclusion they don't like Microsoft, for example. But they should still be able to acknowledge that Microsoft has done something of merit.
I have come to prefer Macs over PCs; I'm using one at the moment. However, many Mac fanatics are particularly absurd. There are people with Steve Job's portrait as their desktop background. I stumbled onto a site where those backgrounds were available and frankly it was pathetic how people were fawning over this guy.
A company doesn't adore you. It doesn't exist to make you happy. Nor does it hate you and try to make your life miserable. The people at these companies aren't looking to destroy the world. Fanboyism isn't really anything but a simplistic, polarized view of the world.
Although, I agree with you that late 80s and early 90s cars got excellent mileage. And there's a reason why. Those old Japanese cars were putting out 90hp. People today are obsessed with horsepower. They're barely skilled enough to drive what they currently own but they're always looking for more power. So you've got 2 liter engines putting out 200+ HP and V6s approaching 300hp. A US-based economy car nowadays automatically starts at 140hp. It's insane.
It's one of the reason for the popularity of hybrids. You get the small displacement engine, but the electric motor prevents the driver from feeling the small, under-powered engine. Well, and the second reason is as a status symbol. And that's why the Prius sells so well but other hybrids have struggled.
You can see the difference between the US and European market in performance figures. A car that does 0-60 in 6 to 7 seconds in Europe is considered very fast. In the US that's nothing where you've got relatively inexpensive cars getting to 60 in the low 5's.
For many Americans horsepower is somehow synonymous with overall performance. I've encountered people who are convinced an over-sized SUV performs just as well as a dedicated sports car. The only basis for this rational is that the large displacement engine provides a stronger shove due to torque compared to the economy car they used to drive.
By and large Americans are very ignorant drivers. A large percentage of drivers deserve to have their licenses revoked. The testing process should be significantly more demanding. Testing should be performed on enclosed courses where drivers are forced to perform a series of tasks. Although, I think driving on actual roads is a useful part of the testing process. I also think prospective drivers should be educated and test on basic technical details, brakes, wheels, identifying basic engine components, inspections, etc.
If you can't perform basic inspections and maintenance on your own car you shouldn't be driving. Look at a simple responsibility like keeping tires properly inflated. Almost every day I see cars with under-inflated tires. Or even ensuring that all signals and lights are functioning properly. Many drivers seem to be completely oblivious to what their own cars are doing.
Government inspections should also be more rigorous because it's ridiculous the mess some people are driving around in. That's yet another hazard the government does little about. My thinking is, if you can't keep the car in proper driving condition then you shouldn't driving. Driving is a privilege not a right. Of course, the US also suffers from a lack of a good public transportation system in many parts of the country.
On the subject of the smart car, it's a neat car but I wouldn't feel particularly safe in one despite innovative safety features. Not too long ago I happened to see a clip of some show where they crashed a smart car into a jersey barrier at 70mph. This was followed by another test with an older economy car crashing into the same type of barrier at the same speed. The smart car did definitely came out better, but not by much. My impression was that the hosts of this show glossed over the results because the smart car didn't fare as well as they had hoped. It was clear that the engine and dashboard was pushed into the driver's compartment. The lower half of the driver's body would have been destroyed.
It comes down to simple physics. It's an exceedingly small car and there's isn't much to crush before parts start intruding into the passenger compartment. What they've done with such a small car is indeed impressive. But many of the safety features in that car are present in countless other cars both large and small. Maybe the difference in Europe is more pronounced given that safety standards there aren't quite as stringent in the US.
There's no way in hell a BMW 328i gets mileage in the "high 30s". On BMWs own site they list mileage of 21/30 for the latest 328i. And that's assuming they're reporting the new estimates because a 3.4 liter V6 likely only has a mileage in the mid-20s at best. Furthermore a 328i only has 230hp, nowhere near the 267hp you claim.
To me this is no surprise whatsoever. I think what would surprise people even more is that a lot of companies in Japan, Europe and the United States still use manual labor. The problem seems to be that when someone mentions manual labor done in Asia people automatically assume people are being exploited. I agree it's a serious issue in China. However, this hasn't been the case in Taiwan for decades now. There are numerous laws in Taiwan protecting workers and they are enforced.
And in my experience they are very industrious workers. I've heard surveys quotes that Americans are among the most productive works in the World. They work hard, but honestly, I don't believe it. Either other nations don't bother doing adequate surveys or American companies inflate productivity. I did also hear another survey that said American workers were complainers, the French and British are worse. I believe that too. Taiwanese are much like the Japanese. There's a job to be done, they get in there and do it. And they do it quickly. They have an excellent work ethic, and take any job they do seriously. It's why you can walk into a Starbucks or McDonalds in Taiwan and the place is spotless and service excellent.
It also helps that managers at technology companies there tend to have engineering backgrounds. Unlike American companies where we get stuck with business and marketing idiots making important decisions. I can't count the times I've had to deal with guys here who don't know what they're talking about and end up making fools of themselves in meetings. Even worse, they don't care to learn because they think it's all beneath them. So they end up managing based on emotion, almost like children.
Not that there aren't problems there. I think Taiwanese in general are underpaid. And there's this ideal there too many people have that once you're in management you basically get to screw around all day. Some managers, especially in office environments, can get verbally abusive with employees. It's the sort of thing that no way in hell would ever fly in the US.
Anyway, I had the opportunity while working there to visit a few companies, and I got to see some cool stuff. Like I said, it's mostly manual labor. I was disappointed when I first saw that; I was hoping to see these giant robotic arms swinging around, going about their business. But it's not the case. It would just be too expensive to purchase and then set up this equipment. And then having to retool for other products would be another hassle.
I also did some work for a company that sold and installed semi-conductor manufacturing equipment. That was one business where companies didn't want employees directly handling the product. So business was good for this company.
Taiwan has two of the largest contract semi-conductor foundries in the world. Now that was impressive. The company I visited a few years ago had just recently completed this new facility in southern Taiwan. This was when companies were first starting to move over to 300mm wafers. So they installed this transport in the ceiling to transport these wafers around from machine to machine. The wafers are carried in this case which is something like 1.5ft all around. It has handles so it could be carried. And people did used to carry them around. But given that a case full of at least 10 wafers can be worth hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars they decided they didn't want to risk having people drop these. Hence the transport system. In fact, the facility had relatively few people there, most were responsible for ensuring everything was running properly or setting up new equipment. All in all, it was impressive.
This whole Gleemax thing is a blatant rip-off of Geekalize.com
Your claim is entirely possible. However, having browsed through Geekalize.com briefly I didn't really see anything I haven't seen on dozens of other sites already. It's entirely possible Wizards of the Coast had already been thinking of such a site; again, these kinds of sites are fairly common. They may have considered promoting themselves via existing sites, like Geekalize.com, perhaps even establishing a partnership. Ultimately, they concluded they'd be better off having their own site where they could exercise complete control over content. From your perspective, unfortunately, it seems like they ripped off your ideas.
Of course, this is why people shouldn't disclose too much and why they should be protected legally. I presume you're discussing the matter with lawyers. Bringing up the matter on sites like Slashdot may not be the best idea.
There's this website where this woman chronicles her motorcycle rides through the area around Chernobyl. The last time I visited the site was several years ago; it appears she's returned since then. It's very fascinating, and without a doubt, eerie. If I remember correctly she mentions having spotted wildlife on a few occassions.
It seems some other people share my feelings. I played City of Heroes for well over a year. I really liked it initially but it got increasingly bland. However, there were some things about City of Heroes that were great, and that's what kept me playing so long. It wasn't a yet another fantasy game, first of all. Character customization was excellent, but considering there are few items to acquire it isn't quite as big a feat. There was also a sense of awe early on, discovering new zones, looking up at these skyscrapers towering over the character. The travel powers were another great feature.
The one thing the game did well, which is really all the game had, was fighting. City of Heroes bordered on arcade-like gameplay, at least compared to any other MMO. Battles were very fast-paced and a single player of the proper class could handle a considerable number of foes. The battles were involving, a player really has to stay on his toes in tougher fights. And interaction between fighting characters was done well. It usually felt like hits were making contact. Compare that to even recent MMOs like LOTRO where characters often seem to be swinging at thin air. I don't think any MMO has had a fighting system anywhere near as good as CoH.
Unfortunately, the game suffers from overly obvious use of templates. Indoor missions, especially those in office buildings follow these maze-like paths that make little sense. For most zones, once you've seen a small sections you've pretty much seen it all. I tried following the various storylines but ultimately found them not to be very interesting. There's little substance. There's all this random fighting and little at stake. Compounding that problem was the fact that each issue didn't expand on the story but added a completely unrelated element. I realize some of these issues affect MMOs in general but CoH felt overly packaged.
So reading that some is actually considering a movie or television show based on this game I can't help but wonder why? I can only imagine it will be something like the comic books they were shipping every few months for anyone with a subscription to the game. I found the comic books to be a bit goofy. The stories were all disjointed and the characters weren't particularly interesting. I don't really see this being noticed given what's already out there in the superhero genre. I also don't see the game having enough brand awareness for this sort of venture to be worthwhile.
The people running these companies always espouse the advantages of the free market, how essential it is for their survival. And yet, these same jerks will be the first ones crying for government protection the second they start feeling threatened. All this serves to do is erode confidence in the free market system. Inevitably, once people start catching on to what's going on they start calling for excessive government control which can end up doing more harm than good. You'd think these idiots at these companies would be wary of that sort of backlash. Ultimately, it's not the system that's the problem but rather lobbyists, corrupt politicians, and an ignorant population.
That's the ultimate problem here. People don't know this is going on, first of all. I suppose the media doesn't deem it exciting enough to report this. But it wouldn't make a difference if they did because most people likely wouldn't care. Even worse, they probably wouldn't even see anything wrong with what AT&T wants to do.
People have gotten so used to paying for every little thing that they be able to justify AT&T's position. I suspect that's one of the underlying motivations for this trend. Companies are realizing just how tolerant consumers are of this nonsense. I've read that recent studies have found that consumers are growing increasingly comfortable with monthly payments. A company can raise rates on a regular basis and few complain.
People like to whine about gasoline prices, but Americans are still paying far less than most of the rest of the world. And it's still cheaper per gallon that a lot of other things they consume. They're getting screwed worse in other ways and don't even realize it or even care. It's frustrating sometimes to see all this ignorance and to see this disdain for the people on the part of the politicians.
I find this report a bit disingenuous because the implication is that this is unique Microsoft and Office. Not that I'm defending this at all, because it's extremely frustrating but I would say compatibility would be a much larger issue with Adobe and Quark software.
Given the industry they're in I tend to think compatibility with page layout applications is more important than compatibility with Office. I can only imagine the problems they'll encounter in upgrading to Adobe Creative Suite 3, assuming they do so at all. If other publications I've dealt with are any indication I wouldn't be surprised if they're still using Quark 3 and InDesign 1.
I think we're a long way off from seeing computer controlled characters that aren't merely following scripts. AI in gaming is in its infancy and in many cases is non-existent. I see the term applied to numerous games and inevitably come away underwhelmed by AI that isn't any more sophisticated than what I was seeing in Pac Man. Well, I'll concede AI is more sophisticated nowadays given the more complex nature of games and the fact that they're inhabiting a 3-dimensional space nowadays. Still, that isn't saying much.
Ultimately, development of AI is going to be dictated by budget. The first question is, does AI really make a game more entertaining? In some cases it does not. So why invest time and effort into overly sophisticated AI? This becomes an issue especially when massive resources have already been dumped into graphics and the gaming engine itself. It seems most developers can't even be bothered with a more sophisticated NPC AI in RPGs.
I remember years ago those applications that would attempt to mimic a psychologist by asking all sorts of questions and attempting to attempting to appropriately respond to the user's answers. It was a bit goofy, but in my opinion far more sophisticated than the responses NPCs in most RPGs spit out. And honestly, beyond the basic engine I don't see it requiring much work beyond some additional writing.
Beyond that, it's small touches that can make an NPC look alive. As another poster mentioned a big part of it animation. It would be interesting to look over at an NPC, have that NPC notice this and turn it's head to look at you. All this requires a considerable amount of production, because a single life-like movement isn't going to suffice.
What I'd really like to see is a game with AI that learns, be it an FPS or ideally something else. Essentially a game has a character that the player encounters on a regular basis. That AI learns from the player and improves itself. Ultimately these characters can be shared online and be pitted against other players. Then maybe we could possibly have truly challenging AI as opposed to AI that merely "cheats" with perfect aim and unrealistically quick reaction times.
Either it's very challenging or I'm just no aware of what's being done out there but I'm surprised more game developers haven't explored the possibilities of AI.
I don't see any reason for the Atari 2600 to even be on the list other than nostalgia. That wasn't a particularly good controller, I didn't even like it at the time. It was too stiff to allow for fine control, not that it mattered much for games back then.
The SNES controller I agree was quite good. But I tend to think the 6-button Genesis controller was superior. That controller fit the hands better and I've always had a tendency to prefer buttons on the face of the controller.
The simplicity of the original NES and Sega Master System controllers made them great. Except that the squared off edges could make them uncomfortable during extended use and they could benefit from being a bit thicker.
I never much liked the N64 controller; I think the Gamecube controller was superior. If this article discussed innovative controllers then perhaps the N64 controller deserved a mention, just like the Wii controller. But this is supposed to be a list about the best controllers.
The PS2 controller is very good. I think that one deserves to be near the top of the list. I liked it enough that I got a USB adapter to allow me to use one on the PC. The only criticism I have is that it has a few too many buttons. I specifically think the 4 shoulder buttons are a bit much.
The Xbox360 controller is also good, however, there's something about it I don't much like. It could be aesthetics.
I think the DS touch screen deserved mention. It allows for all kinds of functionality we haven't really seen in the past, at least not on consoles. I still find FPS games like Metroid Hunters a bit awkward to play, but otherwise it's great.
I don't like the cameras set up to observe the public, for obvious reasons. Even if they are initially used for benign reasons it provides a tool that can be easily exploited by a police state. On the other hand, if a police officer is already observing a crime or in the process of apprehending a suspect the camera is a valuable tool. It provides evidence in court that's difficult to refute and reduces the potential for police abuse because their actions are obviously being observed.
Concerns about police states aside there's a real and serious problem with crime in the United States, and presumably the UK given what I've read and heard. One of the biggest problems I see in the city where I live is that the authorities always react, they never prevent anything. They're always showing up after something has happened. Obviously, they can't predict crime, but there are steps that can be taken to reduce the chances of crimes being committed.
The biggest problem I see is with the lack of police presence. It's not that my city has an under-staffed police department. It's that whenever I do see a police officer he's speeding past. I can't count the times I've seen an excessive number of police flock to a relatively minor incident. Then there are times where a police officer will decide they no longer feel like waiting at a traffic light and just blow through it. But like I said, these are the few times I actually see them.
So what happens? I have no direct contact with these officers. And the only time I do my impression isn't always a favorable one. And I'm a law-abiding citizen who tends to be sympathetic with the sort of problems the police have to contend with. Now, compound that problem with the inner city mentality of us-versus-them. There's this attitude that the cops are out to get them. The culture perpetuates this idea, so you've got children being indoctrinated, indirectly, with the idea that the police is the enemy. Growing up I've known kids with exactly this sort of attitude.
So ultimately, what I think would go a long way to help reduce crime would be to have police officers patrolling on foot, perhaps in pairs and with a patrol car nearby to respond to emergencies. This has a few advantages. First, these officers linger in neighborhoods longer because they're walking. People are less apt to commit a crime with a police officer standing by. Secondly, because they're out in public they're a lot more likely to interact with citizens. This builds understanding and sympathy. Police officers are less likely to be arrogant and citizens will respond more favorably. As things stand right now the interaction between officers and citizens is too impersonal.
It tends to bother me when people automatically lash out at something intended to fight crime because of fears of freedoms being trampled. Apparently it's not a problem when criminals and troublemakers are trampling on people's freedoms. When I was working in Asia I could walk around at 3am without much concern. There's no way in hell I'd venture to do that in most American cities. I've had a gun pulled on me on the way home from the train station in the States. And this is in addition to the general bad attitude, disregard for public and private property I see day in and day out.
Think about it. Who really has to be concerned about these head cameras? I'd say the criminal element, because if you're going about your business doing nothing wrong then what do you have to worry about? I think there's a misplaced sense of priorities when people are more outraged about some cameras than they are by how much crime there is out there.
I'm not expecting much from Fable 2. Molyneux obviously has a history of promising too much and then not delivering on most of it. I'm convinced he'd like to do everything he describes the problem is that ultimately most of it just isn't feasible given a reasonable budget and schedule. Ultimately his games suffer from feature creep.
The first Fable is a good example of it. The game is actually quite decent. It's entertaining. However, the story is extremely simplistic. In general the game is much more simple than Molyneux would imply. It's got many of the features he originally promised; the lead character's visual appearance changes based on his alignment, he can get married, his actions sort of have an impact on the world and he ages. However, the implementation for all these features is severely lacking.
Aging doesn't really affect anything because the developers clearly didn't have the nerve to profoundly affect the main character in any way. It's fairly easy to move alignment back and forth between good and evil because the scripting for that aspect is so simplistic. It renders alignment meaningless. NPC interactions leading to marriage are even more superficial. With the necessary items a player can pretty much go from being a stranger to a spouse within a minute. Changes to the world consist of NPC responses to the character. For all the supposed character development the fact that I couldn't really customize the look of my own character was a disappointment. And on top of all that the storyline is very linear and uninspired.
It almost feels like they spent too much time brainstorming about what they could do and not enough time actually implementing those features. Many of the features in the first Fable feel like they were slapped on at the last minute just so they could live up to some of the promises. Graphics aside I can think of quite a few Gameboy Advance games with more depth than Fable.
The team would have been better served coming up with a handful of ideas and sticking to those insuring a higher level of refinement. As I've mentioned, despite those shortcomings the game was fun. Well, specifically, I found the fighting to be fun. And I thought the game had potential. Fable 2 may address many of these issues, but given Molyneux's record I'm not optimistic.
I'd like to see the PS3 succeed for one reason: competition. I don't mean that it necessarily has to dominate the market like the PS2 did, but it needs to sell well enough that it's considered a viable platform and regarded as an actual competitor.
We have the Xbox360, but I don't really consider it a true competitor to the Wii because those two systems aren't really seen as inhabiting the same market space. The primary problem is how poorly it's done in Japan. The fact that the system is virtually nonexistent in one of the biggest gaming markets in the world means it's always going to lose out when it comes to variety of games. Clearly, the Xbox360 has fared far better than the original Xbox, but I still see it as potentially ending up in the same situation as the Sega Genesis relative to the SNES.
The Xbox360 certainly is significant and it may turn out to be more of a challenge to Nintendo than we realize now, but it's going to require more than Halo 3 and other such games to accomplish that. But, like I've said, they've likely already lost the Japanese market. The saving grace is that Japanese companies keep developing games for the system.
The PS3 has the potential to be a competitor for both consoles because of the potential for such a variety of games, at least if it sees anything like the sort of development the PS2 has. The PS2 really had games of all types and some were truly innovative. Really the only thing it lacked was anything from Nintendo.
My point here is that if Nintendo returns to the sort of dominance it had in the past it will also revert to the same sort of tactics it used back then, back when they were the heavy-handed monopoly. If it weren't for Nintendo falling behind in the last two generations of consoles we probably wouldn't have seen the DS or the Wii.
In high school not only did I create my own levels and enemies for Wolfenstein 3D but I modeled my high school, recreating the tiles, lockers, classrooms and everything. And we played it in school. Later on I recreated my home and the neighboring homes in Quake. Those were the good old days, however, when administrators and teachers wouldn't freak out over nonsense.
As much as I think mods are a great thing for games I tend to have a problem with developers relying on player-created content. I'd much rather spend $50 on a complete game as opposed to a shell of a game and then waiting on people to create that content. I don't have the time or inclination to create anything myself. I just don't see it as productive, for me personally. And, unfortunately, the vast majority, upwards of 95% of player created content just isn't very polished. Some of it is passable, but much of it is quite bad, poorly balance, haphazard and quite lacking visually. In some cases I've had the game outright crash or not even start.
Morrowind and Neverwinter Nights had a few decent ones. Some of the Blizzard RTS's had good maps too, but map creation was fairly restricted. Red Orchestra for UT2004 is one of the very few mods I've ever seen that looked truly professional.
In the end I can't help but think that any potential content-creators who are truly skilled and have good game design sense are either developing their own games or are already working in the game industry. They're less likely to be developing mods.
I've found the more freedom there is in mod creation the harder to produce something truly polished. So if a developer is looking to allow player created content I think templates should be part of the package to better ensure that higher standards of quality are maintained.
I completely understand both Nintendo and Bungie's position. They're in the business of selling games and they need to come off as confident about what they do. Some of these guys have too big an ego and deserve to be taken down a few notches, but the fact remains that they do need to convey a certain level of confidence.
I'll start by pointing out that I'd choose almost any game Nintendo has produced over Halo or anything else Bungie has developed. That said, I don't think Nintendo is the pinnacle of innovation like some incessantly claim. I like Nintendo's games not because they're innovative but because they're fun as hell. Nintendo knows what's fun almost better than anyone else. They know how to make a game that's balanced and engaging.
But to call their games innovative is a stretch. The DS and Wii both have unique control devices, and I agree that some level of innovation was involved. However, I see both more as evolutions of the mouse and I think many of the games available for those platforms reflect that. Many of these feel like glorified Flash games.
In fact, one of the reasons I like Nintendo is because of a sense of familiarity. Super Mario Bros, Mario Kart, Pokemon, etc don't really provide any innovation over past games, but I like that. I know what to expect and I know it's going to be good. If we're going to start looking at innovative games I think the best console to look at is the PS2. That system has countless innovative games some of which have even spurred the development of new genres.
I think this is an important point because ultimately the implication behind Miyamoto's comment is that Halo is not innovative; it's a game anyone could make if they felt like it. Well, anyone could make that argument about anything Nintendo has made. Developing a good FPS isn't something that can just be cobbled together on a whim. Hell, Nintendo didn't even develop their own FPS, Metroid Prime. They had Retro Studios develop that game. So apparently, for one reason or another, they couldn't do it themselves even if they wanted to.
I myself don't think Halo is anything special, in terms of gameplay anyway. But I will give them credit where it's due. One thing they did well is presentation. The game is well-paced and presents a story that's involving. And it provides a pleasant contrast to most other FPSs which are mono-chromatic and bland, at least visually. Bungie offered an FPS that didn't involve blasting demons, gang members or nazis.
Perhaps anyone could make Halo, but the fact is that nobody else did. Just like anyone could make a Wiimote but nobody else did.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all... Considering that most owners of that Audi had no problem figuring out which pedal was which I don't see how the automaker could be at fault. You can't realistically expect a company to accommodate every last individual.
Second, I don't see where you're coming from with this notion about individuals being marginalized. If anything, in the United States the individual is being valued more than at any point in the past. Not that there aren't problems, but I don't think the reality is anything like you're claiming. I agree with you about what's going on in China, but then we're not talking about China here.
Third, you don't think giving this guy 12 consoles is enough? What do you want Microsoft to do? Do you expect Bill Gates should personally show up at this guy's doorstep with a gold-plated Xbox360 Elite? Accepting returns and then either repairing or replacing consoles is an expensive proposition for Microsoft. They could have always taken to Sony approach to deny anything is wrong and then quietly address issues in updated versions.
Like I said, 11 consoles in a row with problems is not an insignificant number. I can't help but conclude that this guy is somehow mishandling these consoles. But because I haven't seen these units and how they've been used I can't make that assertion. It could very well be that Microsoft representatives and their technical staff have done a crap job of dealing with this matter. But again, considering that they've dealt with this guy so many times already I don't see how they haven't been very accommodating.
And he has a very effective way of resolving this issue. Give up on the Xbox360. Is the console worth this hassle? I think not. Focus on the PS3, which he already owns, or get a Wii. Put together a site or organize a group that helps people deal with these kinds of issues. There's plenty he could do that would be more helpful than this.
I don't want companies taking advantage of people, but you don't oppose a company by desperately trying to acquire their product.
I suppose this guy could have had a seriously bad string of luck. However, I would have given up on the console after the second, maybe third system failure.
I believe that some Xbox360s have had problems. I'll even believe the console has had a higher failure rate than the competitors. But 11 in a row? I can't see how this isn't anything but an issue with the user. The fact that Microsoft has replaced all these units implies to me that they're trying to avoid bad publicity.
This reminds me of the case in the 80s when certain Audis were supposedly spontaneously accelerating the second the owner put the car in drive. The same thing has happened with a few other cars. It turns out that what was really going on was that the owner unknowingly had the foot on the gas when they dropped it in drive. Think they've got their foot planted on the brake they keep mashing the pedal down. The source of the problem was that the pedals in cars prone to this were set a few inches to the left of those found in most cars. So people would instinctively put their foot where they expected the brake and ended up on the accelerator.
So I'm left concluding that this guy is doing something wrong. Maybe he's sticking his Xbox360 in a cabinet and keeping it closed. Maybe he lays stuff on the unit. I wouldn't be surprised. I've known people who've kept cloth draped over the vents in their monitor because they didn't want it to get dusty.
This could be a bad case of ineptitude on the part of Microsoft's service department, but this is a bit of a stretch.
Most electronics companies seem to develop the same old products until Apple comes along and produces a competing product with an elegant design and a streamlined interface. It's not so much that they innovate but that they take the most important features and make easy to use.
That said, if the US market had access to the kinds of phones available in Asia and Europe the impact the iPhone has made would be significantly smaller. There are some great-looking phones in the rest of the world with all kinds of functionality.
And design-wise, I bought a lower-end NEC phone a year and a half ago that has all the same design cues as this iPhone. Black face, metallic bevel, etc. My phone isn't touch screen and it has individual buttons, but the basic styling is similar. My point is that while the iPhone certainly looks very nice, it isn't the pinnacle of design. Again, I've seen phones overseas that are visually more impressive.
I think one of the biggest hindrances to progress in the US mobile phone market has been the service carriers. Verizon, AT&T/Cingular, Sprint and all the others have done nothing but screw the American public in numerous ways.
The good thing about the iPhone is that it should stimulate the mobile phone market and it reminds people of the limitations of the American mobile phone network.
This is all very troubling because it represents current trends in government and society. This enforcement in and of itself might not be a big deal. But it represents the warning signs of a nanny state where we wont be able to do anything deemed harmful to our well-being. Kind of like that Stallone movie Demolition Man.
The funny thing is that those enforcing these ratings apparently seem to be completely oblivious as to what is readily available elsewhere on the internet.
I still prefer CDs over MP3s. First, I don't like paying for something that I consider ephemeral. I still like to have something physical. It's convenient to purchase music online. Then I have the hassle of backing up this music if I reinstall my OS, or get a new machine. And that's assuming I'm allowed to make copies.
Second, it seems like I'm more restricted in how I can use my music when purchasing online. It seems easier for a company to control content that way. Sure, there are ways to defeat any copy-protection, but sometimes it's a hassle.
I'd rather buy a CD, convert the songs I want into MP3s and be done with it. That way I have the comfort of knowing I have a reliable, high quality backup which I can even stick in my sound system when I'm so inclined.
So going online I'd spending as much as I have with CDs, but I end with with nothing physical to show for it. No album art, no booklet, not CD, nothing. Just some crappy 600x600 jpg if I'm lucky and an MP3. Maybe I'll embrace that medium some day, but only when it's evolve far beyond its current form.
Quite frankly, I personally think games like Manhunt 2 are decadent garbage. That said, if someone wants to purchase and play these games they should be free to do so.
This sort of excessive regulation, to me, reflects the general decline and weakness of the West. We've got these nanny states run by people who increasingly believe it's their responsibility to control every aspect of our lives. More troubling is how citizens are themselves abdicating all responsibility, expecting their governments to do everything for them. What these people apparently fail to realize is that inevitable the system will eventually come around and start trampling on their freedoms; it's a very slippery slope.
Ultimately, it's the parents who should be responsible for what their children are doing. If a child who plays these ultra-violent games has violent tendencies I'll guarantee those issues stem from poor parenting and not the game. From personal experience this has always been the case. The fact that the child has access to such games is merely a symptom of that problem.
As long as humans have been around there has been violence. I'm not making excuses for that violence, but humanity has in general gotten along fine. Look at the level of violence depicted in a lot of anime that officials in the US feel the need to censor. Yet Japan maintains extremely low crime rates.
Sometimes I think trying to shield children by depicting an unrealistic, utopian fantasy is a big mistake. It renders them poorly equipped to deal with the harshness of the real world. I'm not advocating they participate in violent blood sports, but as always everything in moderation is best.
This is a problem I see in the US. Companies for some reason are averse to addressing issues in existing problems. Maybe it's a fear of being sued. So problems never get addressed and consumers are forced to wait for subsequent models to see any improvement. Inevitably this hurts the perception of quality.
It reminds me of a problem in my parent's old Ford Taurus. The thing had a water pump that had a tendency to fail after a relatively short period of time. Apparently this was a fairly common problem. However it wasn't addressed for years, along with a few other somewhat minor issues. I think Ford went through two or three generations before they finally addressed it. But then you have a company like Honda which will make updates and minor improvements within the 7-year lifespan of a single model. Like my car, two years into it's production run they addressed a few problems.
I also recall problems with the original Playstation. Sony denied there were any issues but then quietly fixed those problems in subsequent models. Nintendo redesigned the DS within a couple of years of it's inital release to address the problems people were having with the original version. I'd much rather see a company doing this. It shows they care about their product and they're continually thinking about how to improve it.
Those who have purchased earlier versions might lose out. But that's simply the nature of manufacturing. A company can't catch everything before their products go into production.
Fanboyism, as we see it today is closely tied to lifestyle and branding. Companies, more than every before, have developed identities and products around set lifestyles. These companies then expend massive resources trying to convey the message that a particular lifestyle is cool and necessary. Given that society has grown increasingly materialistic you get people gravitating towards a particular company which they believe defines who they are.
Of course, it also gets more complicated than that. There's a level of fanaticism that pervades society in general. Everything is black and white. You either like PCs or Macs. You either like the PS3 or a Wii. You're either a liberal or a conservative. A person can't really fall somewhere in the middle. They can't appreciate aspects of either side of the argument. If you're in the middle inevitable people on the fringes end up labeling you as the extremist.
Being completely devoted to a single company is as irrational as completely hating a company. A rational person might come to the conclusion they don't like Microsoft, for example. But they should still be able to acknowledge that Microsoft has done something of merit.
I have come to prefer Macs over PCs; I'm using one at the moment. However, many Mac fanatics are particularly absurd. There are people with Steve Job's portrait as their desktop background. I stumbled onto a site where those backgrounds were available and frankly it was pathetic how people were fawning over this guy.
A company doesn't adore you. It doesn't exist to make you happy. Nor does it hate you and try to make your life miserable. The people at these companies aren't looking to destroy the world. Fanboyism isn't really anything but a simplistic, polarized view of the world.
Although, I agree with you that late 80s and early 90s cars got excellent mileage. And there's a reason why. Those old Japanese cars were putting out 90hp. People today are obsessed with horsepower. They're barely skilled enough to drive what they currently own but they're always looking for more power. So you've got 2 liter engines putting out 200+ HP and V6s approaching 300hp. A US-based economy car nowadays automatically starts at 140hp. It's insane.
It's one of the reason for the popularity of hybrids. You get the small displacement engine, but the electric motor prevents the driver from feeling the small, under-powered engine. Well, and the second reason is as a status symbol. And that's why the Prius sells so well but other hybrids have struggled.
You can see the difference between the US and European market in performance figures. A car that does 0-60 in 6 to 7 seconds in Europe is considered very fast. In the US that's nothing where you've got relatively inexpensive cars getting to 60 in the low 5's.
For many Americans horsepower is somehow synonymous with overall performance. I've encountered people who are convinced an over-sized SUV performs just as well as a dedicated sports car. The only basis for this rational is that the large displacement engine provides a stronger shove due to torque compared to the economy car they used to drive.
By and large Americans are very ignorant drivers. A large percentage of drivers deserve to have their licenses revoked. The testing process should be significantly more demanding. Testing should be performed on enclosed courses where drivers are forced to perform a series of tasks. Although, I think driving on actual roads is a useful part of the testing process. I also think prospective drivers should be educated and test on basic technical details, brakes, wheels, identifying basic engine components, inspections, etc.
If you can't perform basic inspections and maintenance on your own car you shouldn't be driving. Look at a simple responsibility like keeping tires properly inflated. Almost every day I see cars with under-inflated tires. Or even ensuring that all signals and lights are functioning properly. Many drivers seem to be completely oblivious to what their own cars are doing.
Government inspections should also be more rigorous because it's ridiculous the mess some people are driving around in. That's yet another hazard the government does little about. My thinking is, if you can't keep the car in proper driving condition then you shouldn't driving. Driving is a privilege not a right. Of course, the US also suffers from a lack of a good public transportation system in many parts of the country.
On the subject of the smart car, it's a neat car but I wouldn't feel particularly safe in one despite innovative safety features. Not too long ago I happened to see a clip of some show where they crashed a smart car into a jersey barrier at 70mph. This was followed by another test with an older economy car crashing into the same type of barrier at the same speed. The smart car did definitely came out better, but not by much. My impression was that the hosts of this show glossed over the results because the smart car didn't fare as well as they had hoped. It was clear that the engine and dashboard was pushed into the driver's compartment. The lower half of the driver's body would have been destroyed.
It comes down to simple physics. It's an exceedingly small car and there's isn't much to crush before parts start intruding into the passenger compartment. What they've done with such a small car is indeed impressive. But many of the safety features in that car are present in countless other cars both large and small. Maybe the difference in Europe is more pronounced given that safety standards there aren't quite as stringent in the US.
There's no way in hell a BMW 328i gets mileage in the "high 30s". On BMWs own site they list mileage of 21/30 for the latest 328i. And that's assuming they're reporting the new estimates because a 3.4 liter V6 likely only has a mileage in the mid-20s at best. Furthermore a 328i only has 230hp, nowhere near the 267hp you claim.
To me this is no surprise whatsoever. I think what would surprise people even more is that a lot of companies in Japan, Europe and the United States still use manual labor. The problem seems to be that when someone mentions manual labor done in Asia people automatically assume people are being exploited. I agree it's a serious issue in China. However, this hasn't been the case in Taiwan for decades now. There are numerous laws in Taiwan protecting workers and they are enforced.
And in my experience they are very industrious workers. I've heard surveys quotes that Americans are among the most productive works in the World. They work hard, but honestly, I don't believe it. Either other nations don't bother doing adequate surveys or American companies inflate productivity. I did also hear another survey that said American workers were complainers, the French and British are worse. I believe that too. Taiwanese are much like the Japanese. There's a job to be done, they get in there and do it. And they do it quickly. They have an excellent work ethic, and take any job they do seriously. It's why you can walk into a Starbucks or McDonalds in Taiwan and the place is spotless and service excellent.
It also helps that managers at technology companies there tend to have engineering backgrounds. Unlike American companies where we get stuck with business and marketing idiots making important decisions. I can't count the times I've had to deal with guys here who don't know what they're talking about and end up making fools of themselves in meetings. Even worse, they don't care to learn because they think it's all beneath them. So they end up managing based on emotion, almost like children.
Not that there aren't problems there. I think Taiwanese in general are underpaid. And there's this ideal there too many people have that once you're in management you basically get to screw around all day. Some managers, especially in office environments, can get verbally abusive with employees. It's the sort of thing that no way in hell would ever fly in the US.
Anyway, I had the opportunity while working there to visit a few companies, and I got to see some cool stuff. Like I said, it's mostly manual labor. I was disappointed when I first saw that; I was hoping to see these giant robotic arms swinging around, going about their business. But it's not the case. It would just be too expensive to purchase and then set up this equipment. And then having to retool for other products would be another hassle.
I also did some work for a company that sold and installed semi-conductor manufacturing equipment. That was one business where companies didn't want employees directly handling the product. So business was good for this company.
Taiwan has two of the largest contract semi-conductor foundries in the world. Now that was impressive. The company I visited a few years ago had just recently completed this new facility in southern Taiwan. This was when companies were first starting to move over to 300mm wafers. So they installed this transport in the ceiling to transport these wafers around from machine to machine. The wafers are carried in this case which is something like 1.5ft all around. It has handles so it could be carried. And people did used to carry them around. But given that a case full of at least 10 wafers can be worth hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars they decided they didn't want to risk having people drop these. Hence the transport system. In fact, the facility had relatively few people there, most were responsible for ensuring everything was running properly or setting up new equipment. All in all, it was impressive.
Your claim is entirely possible. However, having browsed through Geekalize.com briefly I didn't really see anything I haven't seen on dozens of other sites already. It's entirely possible Wizards of the Coast had already been thinking of such a site; again, these kinds of sites are fairly common. They may have considered promoting themselves via existing sites, like Geekalize.com, perhaps even establishing a partnership. Ultimately, they concluded they'd be better off having their own site where they could exercise complete control over content. From your perspective, unfortunately, it seems like they ripped off your ideas.
Of course, this is why people shouldn't disclose too much and why they should be protected legally. I presume you're discussing the matter with lawyers. Bringing up the matter on sites like Slashdot may not be the best idea.
There's this website where this woman chronicles her motorcycle rides through the area around Chernobyl. The last time I visited the site was several years ago; it appears she's returned since then. It's very fascinating, and without a doubt, eerie. If I remember correctly she mentions having spotted wildlife on a few occassions.
It seems some other people share my feelings. I played City of Heroes for well over a year. I really liked it initially but it got increasingly bland. However, there were some things about City of Heroes that were great, and that's what kept me playing so long. It wasn't a yet another fantasy game, first of all. Character customization was excellent, but considering there are few items to acquire it isn't quite as big a feat. There was also a sense of awe early on, discovering new zones, looking up at these skyscrapers towering over the character. The travel powers were another great feature.
The one thing the game did well, which is really all the game had, was fighting. City of Heroes bordered on arcade-like gameplay, at least compared to any other MMO. Battles were very fast-paced and a single player of the proper class could handle a considerable number of foes. The battles were involving, a player really has to stay on his toes in tougher fights. And interaction between fighting characters was done well. It usually felt like hits were making contact. Compare that to even recent MMOs like LOTRO where characters often seem to be swinging at thin air. I don't think any MMO has had a fighting system anywhere near as good as CoH.
Unfortunately, the game suffers from overly obvious use of templates. Indoor missions, especially those in office buildings follow these maze-like paths that make little sense. For most zones, once you've seen a small sections you've pretty much seen it all. I tried following the various storylines but ultimately found them not to be very interesting. There's little substance. There's all this random fighting and little at stake. Compounding that problem was the fact that each issue didn't expand on the story but added a completely unrelated element. I realize some of these issues affect MMOs in general but CoH felt overly packaged.
So reading that some is actually considering a movie or television show based on this game I can't help but wonder why? I can only imagine it will be something like the comic books they were shipping every few months for anyone with a subscription to the game. I found the comic books to be a bit goofy. The stories were all disjointed and the characters weren't particularly interesting. I don't really see this being noticed given what's already out there in the superhero genre. I also don't see the game having enough brand awareness for this sort of venture to be worthwhile.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this thing. It's kind of scary to see it in motion.
The people running these companies always espouse the advantages of the free market, how essential it is for their survival. And yet, these same jerks will be the first ones crying for government protection the second they start feeling threatened. All this serves to do is erode confidence in the free market system. Inevitably, once people start catching on to what's going on they start calling for excessive government control which can end up doing more harm than good. You'd think these idiots at these companies would be wary of that sort of backlash. Ultimately, it's not the system that's the problem but rather lobbyists, corrupt politicians, and an ignorant population.
That's the ultimate problem here. People don't know this is going on, first of all. I suppose the media doesn't deem it exciting enough to report this. But it wouldn't make a difference if they did because most people likely wouldn't care. Even worse, they probably wouldn't even see anything wrong with what AT&T wants to do.
People have gotten so used to paying for every little thing that they be able to justify AT&T's position. I suspect that's one of the underlying motivations for this trend. Companies are realizing just how tolerant consumers are of this nonsense. I've read that recent studies have found that consumers are growing increasingly comfortable with monthly payments. A company can raise rates on a regular basis and few complain.
People like to whine about gasoline prices, but Americans are still paying far less than most of the rest of the world. And it's still cheaper per gallon that a lot of other things they consume. They're getting screwed worse in other ways and don't even realize it or even care. It's frustrating sometimes to see all this ignorance and to see this disdain for the people on the part of the politicians.
I find this report a bit disingenuous because the implication is that this is unique Microsoft and Office. Not that I'm defending this at all, because it's extremely frustrating but I would say compatibility would be a much larger issue with Adobe and Quark software.
Given the industry they're in I tend to think compatibility with page layout applications is more important than compatibility with Office. I can only imagine the problems they'll encounter in upgrading to Adobe Creative Suite 3, assuming they do so at all. If other publications I've dealt with are any indication I wouldn't be surprised if they're still using Quark 3 and InDesign 1.
I think we're a long way off from seeing computer controlled characters that aren't merely following scripts. AI in gaming is in its infancy and in many cases is non-existent. I see the term applied to numerous games and inevitably come away underwhelmed by AI that isn't any more sophisticated than what I was seeing in Pac Man. Well, I'll concede AI is more sophisticated nowadays given the more complex nature of games and the fact that they're inhabiting a 3-dimensional space nowadays. Still, that isn't saying much.
Ultimately, development of AI is going to be dictated by budget. The first question is, does AI really make a game more entertaining? In some cases it does not. So why invest time and effort into overly sophisticated AI? This becomes an issue especially when massive resources have already been dumped into graphics and the gaming engine itself. It seems most developers can't even be bothered with a more sophisticated NPC AI in RPGs.
I remember years ago those applications that would attempt to mimic a psychologist by asking all sorts of questions and attempting to attempting to appropriately respond to the user's answers. It was a bit goofy, but in my opinion far more sophisticated than the responses NPCs in most RPGs spit out. And honestly, beyond the basic engine I don't see it requiring much work beyond some additional writing.
Beyond that, it's small touches that can make an NPC look alive. As another poster mentioned a big part of it animation. It would be interesting to look over at an NPC, have that NPC notice this and turn it's head to look at you. All this requires a considerable amount of production, because a single life-like movement isn't going to suffice.
What I'd really like to see is a game with AI that learns, be it an FPS or ideally something else. Essentially a game has a character that the player encounters on a regular basis. That AI learns from the player and improves itself. Ultimately these characters can be shared online and be pitted against other players. Then maybe we could possibly have truly challenging AI as opposed to AI that merely "cheats" with perfect aim and unrealistically quick reaction times.
Either it's very challenging or I'm just no aware of what's being done out there but I'm surprised more game developers haven't explored the possibilities of AI.
I don't see any reason for the Atari 2600 to even be on the list other than nostalgia. That wasn't a particularly good controller, I didn't even like it at the time. It was too stiff to allow for fine control, not that it mattered much for games back then.
The SNES controller I agree was quite good. But I tend to think the 6-button Genesis controller was superior. That controller fit the hands better and I've always had a tendency to prefer buttons on the face of the controller.
The simplicity of the original NES and Sega Master System controllers made them great. Except that the squared off edges could make them uncomfortable during extended use and they could benefit from being a bit thicker.
I never much liked the N64 controller; I think the Gamecube controller was superior. If this article discussed innovative controllers then perhaps the N64 controller deserved a mention, just like the Wii controller. But this is supposed to be a list about the best controllers.
The PS2 controller is very good. I think that one deserves to be near the top of the list. I liked it enough that I got a USB adapter to allow me to use one on the PC. The only criticism I have is that it has a few too many buttons. I specifically think the 4 shoulder buttons are a bit much.
The Xbox360 controller is also good, however, there's something about it I don't much like. It could be aesthetics.
I think the DS touch screen deserved mention. It allows for all kinds of functionality we haven't really seen in the past, at least not on consoles. I still find FPS games like Metroid Hunters a bit awkward to play, but otherwise it's great.
I don't like the cameras set up to observe the public, for obvious reasons. Even if they are initially used for benign reasons it provides a tool that can be easily exploited by a police state. On the other hand, if a police officer is already observing a crime or in the process of apprehending a suspect the camera is a valuable tool. It provides evidence in court that's difficult to refute and reduces the potential for police abuse because their actions are obviously being observed.
Concerns about police states aside there's a real and serious problem with crime in the United States, and presumably the UK given what I've read and heard. One of the biggest problems I see in the city where I live is that the authorities always react, they never prevent anything. They're always showing up after something has happened. Obviously, they can't predict crime, but there are steps that can be taken to reduce the chances of crimes being committed.
The biggest problem I see is with the lack of police presence. It's not that my city has an under-staffed police department. It's that whenever I do see a police officer he's speeding past. I can't count the times I've seen an excessive number of police flock to a relatively minor incident. Then there are times where a police officer will decide they no longer feel like waiting at a traffic light and just blow through it. But like I said, these are the few times I actually see them.
So what happens? I have no direct contact with these officers. And the only time I do my impression isn't always a favorable one. And I'm a law-abiding citizen who tends to be sympathetic with the sort of problems the police have to contend with. Now, compound that problem with the inner city mentality of us-versus-them. There's this attitude that the cops are out to get them. The culture perpetuates this idea, so you've got children being indoctrinated, indirectly, with the idea that the police is the enemy. Growing up I've known kids with exactly this sort of attitude.
So ultimately, what I think would go a long way to help reduce crime would be to have police officers patrolling on foot, perhaps in pairs and with a patrol car nearby to respond to emergencies. This has a few advantages. First, these officers linger in neighborhoods longer because they're walking. People are less apt to commit a crime with a police officer standing by. Secondly, because they're out in public they're a lot more likely to interact with citizens. This builds understanding and sympathy. Police officers are less likely to be arrogant and citizens will respond more favorably. As things stand right now the interaction between officers and citizens is too impersonal.
It tends to bother me when people automatically lash out at something intended to fight crime because of fears of freedoms being trampled. Apparently it's not a problem when criminals and troublemakers are trampling on people's freedoms. When I was working in Asia I could walk around at 3am without much concern. There's no way in hell I'd venture to do that in most American cities. I've had a gun pulled on me on the way home from the train station in the States. And this is in addition to the general bad attitude, disregard for public and private property I see day in and day out.
Think about it. Who really has to be concerned about these head cameras? I'd say the criminal element, because if you're going about your business doing nothing wrong then what do you have to worry about? I think there's a misplaced sense of priorities when people are more outraged about some cameras than they are by how much crime there is out there.
I'm not expecting much from Fable 2. Molyneux obviously has a history of promising too much and then not delivering on most of it. I'm convinced he'd like to do everything he describes the problem is that ultimately most of it just isn't feasible given a reasonable budget and schedule. Ultimately his games suffer from feature creep.
The first Fable is a good example of it. The game is actually quite decent. It's entertaining. However, the story is extremely simplistic. In general the game is much more simple than Molyneux would imply. It's got many of the features he originally promised; the lead character's visual appearance changes based on his alignment, he can get married, his actions sort of have an impact on the world and he ages. However, the implementation for all these features is severely lacking.
Aging doesn't really affect anything because the developers clearly didn't have the nerve to profoundly affect the main character in any way. It's fairly easy to move alignment back and forth between good and evil because the scripting for that aspect is so simplistic. It renders alignment meaningless. NPC interactions leading to marriage are even more superficial. With the necessary items a player can pretty much go from being a stranger to a spouse within a minute. Changes to the world consist of NPC responses to the character. For all the supposed character development the fact that I couldn't really customize the look of my own character was a disappointment. And on top of all that the storyline is very linear and uninspired.
It almost feels like they spent too much time brainstorming about what they could do and not enough time actually implementing those features. Many of the features in the first Fable feel like they were slapped on at the last minute just so they could live up to some of the promises. Graphics aside I can think of quite a few Gameboy Advance games with more depth than Fable.
The team would have been better served coming up with a handful of ideas and sticking to those insuring a higher level of refinement. As I've mentioned, despite those shortcomings the game was fun. Well, specifically, I found the fighting to be fun. And I thought the game had potential. Fable 2 may address many of these issues, but given Molyneux's record I'm not optimistic.
I'd like to see the PS3 succeed for one reason: competition. I don't mean that it necessarily has to dominate the market like the PS2 did, but it needs to sell well enough that it's considered a viable platform and regarded as an actual competitor.
We have the Xbox360, but I don't really consider it a true competitor to the Wii because those two systems aren't really seen as inhabiting the same market space. The primary problem is how poorly it's done in Japan. The fact that the system is virtually nonexistent in one of the biggest gaming markets in the world means it's always going to lose out when it comes to variety of games. Clearly, the Xbox360 has fared far better than the original Xbox, but I still see it as potentially ending up in the same situation as the Sega Genesis relative to the SNES.
The Xbox360 certainly is significant and it may turn out to be more of a challenge to Nintendo than we realize now, but it's going to require more than Halo 3 and other such games to accomplish that. But, like I've said, they've likely already lost the Japanese market. The saving grace is that Japanese companies keep developing games for the system.
The PS3 has the potential to be a competitor for both consoles because of the potential for such a variety of games, at least if it sees anything like the sort of development the PS2 has. The PS2 really had games of all types and some were truly innovative. Really the only thing it lacked was anything from Nintendo.
My point here is that if Nintendo returns to the sort of dominance it had in the past it will also revert to the same sort of tactics it used back then, back when they were the heavy-handed monopoly. If it weren't for Nintendo falling behind in the last two generations of consoles we probably wouldn't have seen the DS or the Wii.
It looks like someone atacked the spell checker.
In high school not only did I create my own levels and enemies for Wolfenstein 3D but I modeled my high school, recreating the tiles, lockers, classrooms and everything. And we played it in school. Later on I recreated my home and the neighboring homes in Quake. Those were the good old days, however, when administrators and teachers wouldn't freak out over nonsense.
As much as I think mods are a great thing for games I tend to have a problem with developers relying on player-created content. I'd much rather spend $50 on a complete game as opposed to a shell of a game and then waiting on people to create that content. I don't have the time or inclination to create anything myself. I just don't see it as productive, for me personally. And, unfortunately, the vast majority, upwards of 95% of player created content just isn't very polished. Some of it is passable, but much of it is quite bad, poorly balance, haphazard and quite lacking visually. In some cases I've had the game outright crash or not even start.
Morrowind and Neverwinter Nights had a few decent ones. Some of the Blizzard RTS's had good maps too, but map creation was fairly restricted. Red Orchestra for UT2004 is one of the very few mods I've ever seen that looked truly professional.
In the end I can't help but think that any potential content-creators who are truly skilled and have good game design sense are either developing their own games or are already working in the game industry. They're less likely to be developing mods.
I've found the more freedom there is in mod creation the harder to produce something truly polished. So if a developer is looking to allow player created content I think templates should be part of the package to better ensure that higher standards of quality are maintained.
I completely understand both Nintendo and Bungie's position. They're in the business of selling games and they need to come off as confident about what they do. Some of these guys have too big an ego and deserve to be taken down a few notches, but the fact remains that they do need to convey a certain level of confidence.
I'll start by pointing out that I'd choose almost any game Nintendo has produced over Halo or anything else Bungie has developed. That said, I don't think Nintendo is the pinnacle of innovation like some incessantly claim. I like Nintendo's games not because they're innovative but because they're fun as hell. Nintendo knows what's fun almost better than anyone else. They know how to make a game that's balanced and engaging.
But to call their games innovative is a stretch. The DS and Wii both have unique control devices, and I agree that some level of innovation was involved. However, I see both more as evolutions of the mouse and I think many of the games available for those platforms reflect that. Many of these feel like glorified Flash games.
In fact, one of the reasons I like Nintendo is because of a sense of familiarity. Super Mario Bros, Mario Kart, Pokemon, etc don't really provide any innovation over past games, but I like that. I know what to expect and I know it's going to be good. If we're going to start looking at innovative games I think the best console to look at is the PS2. That system has countless innovative games some of which have even spurred the development of new genres.
I think this is an important point because ultimately the implication behind Miyamoto's comment is that Halo is not innovative; it's a game anyone could make if they felt like it. Well, anyone could make that argument about anything Nintendo has made. Developing a good FPS isn't something that can just be cobbled together on a whim. Hell, Nintendo didn't even develop their own FPS, Metroid Prime. They had Retro Studios develop that game. So apparently, for one reason or another, they couldn't do it themselves even if they wanted to.
I myself don't think Halo is anything special, in terms of gameplay anyway. But I will give them credit where it's due. One thing they did well is presentation. The game is well-paced and presents a story that's involving. And it provides a pleasant contrast to most other FPSs which are mono-chromatic and bland, at least visually. Bungie offered an FPS that didn't involve blasting demons, gang members or nazis.
Perhaps anyone could make Halo, but the fact is that nobody else did. Just like anyone could make a Wiimote but nobody else did.