It sounds to me like scientists are over-thinking the problem. These are all basic design problems a designer with good typography skills can resolve. The solution certainly isn't to reinvent how we write.
I see three glaring problems making text difficult to read, especially online.
1) Text blocks are too wide. This is the biggest problem I see. It's difficult to follow progress when you're reading 10pt text running all the way across the screen. One of the biggest things I hate about websites is when they stretch EVERYTHING including text. Open the window too wide and you get these ridiculously long lines of text. Slashdot is guilty of this.
The solution to this is to restrict the width of any copy, even if the page itself can stretch. A line of text shouldn't really be run any longer than roughly 10 long words. I'd say a good example of line width can be found in paperback novels.
2) Not enough leading. Leading is the space between lines. This alone solves the problem mentioned where a reader starts getting distracted by words above and below the sentence currently being read. Again, this is basic design and it's something completely disregarded on the internet where lines of text are crammed together.
The solution here is especially simple. Increase linespace, and I suggest being fairly liberal with spacing.
3) Poor font selection and small point size. The standard browser fonts are somewhat readable. Serif fonts, like Times New Roman, are more legible than san-serif fonts like Verdana and Arial. This is a minor problem but serif fonts are recognized more quiclky. But I'd say font selection is dependent on the overall design of the site. A bigger problem is when someone uses some wacky font that's difficult to read, although this is more of an issue in Flash where fonts can be embedded.
The bigger problem is font size. After all these years with dramatic increases in screen resolutions why are we still reading text online in 10 point? We should be at least at 12 point, and ideally 14pt or higher. There's no need to go huge, but it's time we start utilizing these screen resolutions more effectively. There's no need to cram a novel onto a single page. When a reader encounters a screen crammed with type, psychologically they're overwhelmed and less likely to actually bother reading anything. If course, with all the advertising appearing on some websites it's getting increasingly difficult to design a page that's actually easy to read.
If these scientists want to address online text legibility take a few basic typography courses.
I don't see why they couldn't continue with their observations on the game industry while developing games themselves. In fact, it might give them additional insight that we wouldn't normally be exposed to. I don't think they were every objective anyway, so it's not like we're losing anything.
I do agree, however, that it could become an issue. If they become too popular for their own good, particularly as developers, they may be more reluctant to step on toes and burn bridges. Either that or the game doesn't do well and they become overly bitter. But I suppose this comes down to their personalities and how they handle their popularity.
I can appreciate the need to respect other cultures. I wouldn't want someone's stinky feet anywhere near my face, but I don't find it necessarily offensive. However, people need to realize that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily doesn't hold the same beliefs as they do. This should be especially clear when someone is on the internet.
Some group of people may be offended by feet, porkchops, pentagrams or santa claus but they can't possibly expect other people to share these feelings. So to lash out against the rest of the world because a person is incapable of taking something in stride, or at least jumping to another website to me just demonstrates poor coping skills.
If the majority of the world found something offensive and problematic, then I could see justification for having something banned. And actually, if they want to ban this stuff within their own country, well, they're free to do so. But to sue YouTube is ridiculous. And I don't want to find one day that my own freedoms are being limited in an attempt to avoid offending some minority group.
Without question, everyone deserves to be treated fairly. However that equality means that inevitably someone is going to be offended from time to time. It's either this or we start banning anything and everything to ensure no one is offended.
I found some of the insight into the Japanese gaming industry to be interesting. Particularly how they develop games out there. It explains why interfaces in Japanese games, and electronics in general, tend to be so convoluted and controls in some cases unnecessarily complex. Its would help explain why Japanese consoles tend to be harder to develop for.
I also find it interesting that Nakazato finds Japan game developers tend to be behind in terms of technology and innovation. I guess it depends on what is defined as innovation. Many argue a unique controller is innovative. Others argue that more sophisticated, realistic gameplay supported by advanced graphics is innovation. Both are valid in their own right.
I could argue that many Wii and some DS games are glorified, repackaged flash games. I could also argue that advanced graphics add nothing at all to gameplay and in fact draw away resources that could be used to produce a better game. But that isn't always true in either case. Both have their place.
But I do agree than in general Western games, well PC games in particular, have always been sophisticated, at least on the back-end. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that those games are move fun. And Americans generally only have access to the best Japanese games, so we don't see all the drivel flooding the Japanese market.
That statement doesn't make much sense to me because I found with LOTRO that the only way to earn a reasonable amount of XP is to do quests. Although, I will add that approaching level 16 I've had the impression that I seem to be getting a more usable amount of XP from fighting random mobs, compared to early levels where it felt like I was earning nothing.
I can appreciate the emphasis on quests, but the biggest issue I have with that is the absurd amount of traveling required. It gets exhausting having to run a long distance to find some guy who either has just been killed or is too strong for me to take on myself. It's either that or having the aggravation of spending a good half an hour just trying to find some contact.
It's a great looking game. There's a real sense of place. It helps that it's based on lore that's familiar, so all the locations mean something. It also makes the store more compelling. Unfortunately, ultimately it's just another MMO. And as that aspect of the game became more prominent I lost my interest.
Some people are drawn to the game because they prefer the more realistic look to the cartoony style of WoW. LOTRO has some of the most impressive vistas I've seen in almost any game; there's a real sense of scale. But beyond that I sometimes feel there's something missing. I realize the developers need to be faithful to the source material. But I can't get past the nagging feeling that something about the game feels uninspired. And I think it comes down to the realistic look. It's the same reason I didn't like the visuals for DDO or EQ2. It's also why I don't like Oblivion at all even though it can look impressive at times.
Even though World of Warcraft has less sophisticated graphics I much prefer that game visually because it has such a strong, distinct sense of style. Furthermore, I think that game is still easier to pick up and play than LOTRO. WoW has tons of grinding but in the brief time I played I didn't feel like I was being dragged around all over the place like I am in LOTRO. I do much prefer crafting in LOTRO.
So ultimately, my point is that while LOTRO is very good, and in some aspects perhaps superior to WoW, it's not good enough to unseat WoW from it's dominant position.
When I was living in Taiwan, which isn't China but it's close enough, I encountered this sort of thing constantly. It permeates Chinese culture in ways few can imagine. Hell, I think it's just a fact of life all throughout Asia, it's almost the same in Korea, and common Japan, although it's a little more subtle there. It really is just a way of life.
Some shop opens up somewhere selling a particular kind of desert and becomes successful. Within 6 months there are maybe a dozen to be found within that city. Someone designs a particularly striking advertisement and it's only a matter of time because imitators appear. A news agency updates their look and almost over night everyone else does to.
You see it in small things too. My wife corresponds with an online community of Taiwanese living in the States. She has a blog, as many do. She has a fairly distinctive writing style which suits her personality. Inevitably someone came along and started copying her writing style. It got to a point where this particular girl started writing about the very same things my wife had written about previously.
China adds yet another dimension to this absurdity. Most people there are poor. We hear all this talk about the booming economy, the burgeoning middle class and all that. But the fact is that most Chinese are poor. And I mean living in poverty to a point that the so-called poor in the US haven't experienced. What does this mean? They can't afford all the shiny, impressive and absurdly expensive products made by foreign companies. So what have some enterprising Chinese done? They've made cheap, inexpensive knockoffs. Most are pure garbage, but they cost next to nothing and provide some level of the functionality found in the expensive foreign product. Some people may even be fooled into thinking they've purchased the real thing.
This sort of thing used to really frustrate me. Especially when it affect my work directly. At the time I'd think about how great it was that no one could get away with this sort of thing in the US.
But then I realized two things. First, it does happen in the US. Companies here just happen to be more careful about how they go about it. Look at Hollywood, and worse, look at the game industry. It's only logical that when people see something that has led to success they try to emulate it. The easiest way to enjoy some of that success is to resort to copying.
This leads me to the second thing I realized. I've come to think this is a good thing, within limits of course. There's a point at which a company or an individual has just gone too far and measures need to be taken.
Nevertheless, this sort of thing keeps innovators on their toes. It forces them to be competitive. Like I mentioned earlier, copying is a way of life in Asia. It means that people aren't sitting trying to figure out how to go about suing the offending party. They aren't whining to the government that someone has just ripped them off. Instead, their moving on to something else. In some cases, as it was with us, the frame of mind is one of trying to raise the bar further, to stand out from the imitators.
The other advantage here is that the imitators are slowly improving their own skill sets. They're being exposed to new ideas and learning from them, even if they don't realize it at the time. But it's something, over a long period of time that I believe leads to real progress.
The reality is that in most cases the imitations will never be anywhere near as good as the originals. So the ones actually producing something unique will always have the advantage. So as long as they don't get lazy they should be fine. If their in a situation where they're being seriously threatened by those copying it's almost certain they're doing something wrong.
I'm not suggesting a free-for-all where people can copy with impunity. Patents and copyrights are reasonable to a certain extent. I just feel that in some cases things have gotten out of hand. A real free market shouldn't have the absurd level of protectionism some companies seem to expect.
The article is somewhat interesting, but I'm left with the impression they did nothing more than browse a few Wikipedia entries. And even then they overlooked significant details and didn't even include some important systems, like the numerous versions of the original Gameboy among others.
Regarding the apparent preference towards the PSP, I have a DS Lite myself, but having played the PSP a bit I'd say it's immediately more impressive. It feels like a true jump in technology over past portable devices, more so than the DS. The DS requires some play before the inventiveness of the system becomes apparent.
But what really gets me is I can have a device so small it fits in my pocket but more powerful than a PC I owned 15 years ago.
I got Pokemon Pearl simply because I liked the guy on the cover better.
The only difference that I know of is that each offers some different monsters, I'm assuming late in the game. Otherwise, I doubt you'd ever notice the difference. And with the trading functionality I assume you could acquire anything with a single copy of the game.
I got it on Sunday and found the game to be readily available. Given how hard it was promoted in many stores I was expecting it to be harder to find.
Not that anyone asked for them, but here are my initial impressions on the game...
The last Pokemon game I played which was Pokemon Blue for the old Gameboy Pocket and this game despite being significantly more complex is very reminiscent that game. I have to say I don't agree with the complaints that the game should have been more innovative. Sometimes I don't want a game to be innovative. I want a game to adhere to a tried and true formula which I know I will enjoy. I don't want to feel alienated because the developers decided to completely revamp gameplay. I wouldn't want Pokemon Diamond/Pearl to be some stylus-based puzzle game.
Perhaps if I had played all the Gameboy Color and GBA version I would be asking for something different myself. But there are already plenty of other Pokemon games with differing gameplay styles on the DS.
I like the game. It's got nice vibrant graphics. When traveling around the world environments are subtly done in 3D; it all looks like it's sprite-based, but the environments are all 3D. Another neat thing is that a player can cross the entire world seamlessly. The outside world isn't broken into sections. Interiors and caverns, of course are the exception.
The Pokemon, in fights, don't really look any different than what I've seen of the GBA Pokemon games. The lack of character animations is a slight disappointment. But I can appreciate the amount of production involved in dealing with over 400 Pokemon, especially since some aren't much more than blobs.
The background music is decent. But Pokemon sounds leave a lot to be desired. Most consist of odd digital squawks. When I first encountered some of those sounds I couldn't help but momentarily wonder if those audio clips weren't corrupt.
Fights are entertaining but can get tedious sometimes, especially since Pokemon can be taken down more easily than a player character in most conventional RPGs. Walking through tall grass or caverns can bring an absurdly high number of random encounters. Then there are the jerks who stand around waiting to challenge the player. I like the interface, especially during fights. It's colorful and easy to follow. There are some inconsistencies, however, particularly with the inventory. It's like a different team worked on that aspect of the game.
One thing I've noticed is that this game has longer save times than any other DS game I've played to date. In some cases it even warns that it has to save "a lot of data".
The minor issues aside I do enjoy the game. It does get addicting; I can't help but wonder why Nintendo hasn't considered an MMO version of the series.
I think the real problem Lord of the Rings Online is facing is due to the very nature of it's theme. Of course we've seen this all before, because nearly every single freaking fantasy-based RPG developed over the last few decades draws on the world Tolkien crafted. Compounding the problem is the fact that the gameplay mechanics of most of these RPGs is based on Dungeons and Dragons, or at least the closest approximation we can get with an automated system.
The fact is that the grind is the draw. It's a form on conditioning. Perform set actions repetitively to bring about a positive outcome, in this case character growth. This allows new areas, new equipment and new foes to be revealed. That in turn promotes further growth which brings about additional content. It's satisfying to see a character hit that next level. And when it comes down to it real live involves a lot of repetition so it's inevitable that the sort of game that gets closest to emulation life, in some regards anyway, would also involve a lot of that repetition. Some games simple manage to package it more nicely than others. The grind is obscured in a way that makes gameplay enjoyable.
So I don't see that as the major issue here. The problem I have with LOTR Online is that it's yet another fantasy game. It may be one of the originals, but at this point that's irrelevant. I've heard good things about it, but it just doesn't strike me as interesting. Inevitably it comes off as yet another World of Warcraft.
Other genres have been long overdo. The problem is that the ones that have appeared have generally been lackluster or a bit too esoteric to make the sort of impact World of Warcraft has.
LOTR Online may have an edge over WoW in terms of gameplay. Unfortunately, WoW is just too dominant to be so easily unseated from its position as number one. LOTR Online needs to offer something truly phenomenal and distinct beyond it's source material. Of course, this may be just the thing those bored with WoW are looking for. But if people are tired with WoW they might be tired of the fantasy genre in general, going back to my point above.
By this guy's rationale eyesight should be banned because the real world is out of control and you never know when your vision is going to be exposed to something questionable.
I find it funny that Adobe's CEO has the gall to call Microsoft monopolistic considering that Adobe essentially has a complete monopoly over the design industry. Microsoft's control over the PC market pales in comparison to Adobe's control of the design industry, the obvious distinction being that Microsoft's market is much larger.
I welcome the competition and although I'm not optimistic I would like to see Microsoft become a serious competitor in this market. I'd prefer it were someone else entering this market, I can't say I'm looking forward to bloated applications with cumbersome interfaces. Nevertheless it's been long overdo that something take Adobe down a few notches.
I'm sure Adobe's CEO is only upset that Adobe's purchase of Macromedia didn't ensure a complete lack of competition for a longer period of time.
What I find more troubling than this is that now Adobe completely controls the design industry. As a designer every application I use is developed by Adobe. Well, excluding Microsoft Office which is a necessity in my business.
Adobe is already showing what sort of company they are with the release of their very first suite since the acquisition of Macromedia. Their software has gotten significantly more expensive, it's overloaded with bloat and they've managed to outdo Microsoft with all the versions of their software. An Adobe representative, addressing criticisms of a $500 increase in one of the packages, essentially said that people will pay the extra money because they're Adobe. The gist of it is that we're paying more because we've got no choice. If I could find the link I'd post it here.
Unfortunately, designers by and large aren't particularly savvy. They're the kind of people to constantly criticize Microsoft just because it's trendy but then happily bend over for Adobe and Apple. So I doubt this will ever change.
People like to point out alternatives to Adobe products, but they forget some basic points. Compatibility is essential. I can't go off and use my own software only to not have clients or other designers not be able to handle my files. It's already bad enough with Adobe forcing companies to upgrade by limiting compatibility between versions. I may not have problems 90% of the time, but that 10% that trouble arises is a huge deal in my business. So I have to go with what everyone else is using.
And another fact is that despite the bloat present in current Adobe products their software is still reasonable well designed and works seamlessly. I can't say that about anything else I've tried. And most others are even worse with bloat trying to cram all these pointless features into the application. But the biggest problem I've encountered is that they all have poorly designed interfaces.
Despite it's problems Flash is an excellent tool. It runs well on most systems. There might be a person or two who's running a system that doesn't support it. But to criticize something because it doesn't support 1% or 2% of the market is a bit ridiculous to be honest. The fact is that on any platform that supports Flash it's a guarantee that in almost every single case the application is going to be identical. It's going to look the same and it's going to run exactly the same way. You can't really say the same thing about Java or anything else. I don't have to worry about supporting specific platforms. I build something once and I'm done.
I do welcome competitors, however. I'm not happy with the direction Adobe is heading in. and this nonsense of enforced advertising is just one of many problems. I fully expect this sort of thing to become prevalent whether we like it or not. Because, like I've already mentioned, Adobe now has a monopoly over the design industry. And every marketing company out there is without a doubt eager to cram advertising down our collective throats.
I realize some people love Oblivion but I think Oblivion epitomizes what's wrong with PC gaming. It's a fabulous tech demo but otherwise lacking real substance and style. Bethesda seemed to be so obsessed with creating a photo-realistic world that they've sucked the life and art out of the game. I have to admit that those landscapes look phenomenal. But then you walk up to any NPC and they look goofy. Monsters look like claymation and humans look like second-rate actors from some crappy fantasy movie.
I haven't seen a single NPC from Oblivion or any of the expansions that doesn't look goofy. They don't look like people who would inhabit a true fantasy world. They don't have battle-hardened bodies, some even have a chin fat like they've eaten one too many pop tarts. Many look like they probably Bethesda employees complete with the look of amusement at the fact that they're going to be featured in a game.
The tech demo feel never leaves me, what with the obsessive use of texture mapping. Almost everything in Oblivion has this lumpy wet look. It feels like it's there to impress the viewer as opposed to actually adding substance to the game.
Then there's the ridiculous gameplay mechanic of enemies scaling to the player's level. Doesn't that defeat the whole point of leveling up in an RPG? It seems like an ill-conceived solution to the leveling problems encountered in Morrowind. I'm inevitably left with the impression that the developers didn't spend much time thinking about gameplay.
Then there's the performance aspect. Oblivion is one of those games that can make a 1 to 2 year old machine feel obsolete. Buy a console and performance isn't even an issue. There's comfort in knowing that not only will the system handle any game designed for it but the games will almost certainly improve throughout that system's lifespan. Not so with PCs. I can't help but think this alienates many PC gamers. It alienates me and I much prefer PC gaming over console gaming.
But Bethesda like other PC developers are obsessed with pushing the limits of hardware. So gamers get stuck with the same old genres with not much to look for but increasingly realistic graphics with little style. World of Warcraft doesn't have anywhere near the graphical sophistication of Oblivion, but I think it's far more entertaining to look it because it has such a strong sense of character. I'd argue that a single screenshot of the most recent Final Fantasy game has more creative style than all of Oblivion, even if Oblivion is more impressive technically. But I just don't feel like there's a real sense of creativity.
I didn't really intend on getting on that sort of rant about Oblivion. But I think it illustrates what I expect from any new Fallout game. I expect Bethesda to apply the Oblivion approach to Fallout. It's going to be another lifeless tech demo that wont run well on anything but the latest hardware.
Lies you say... People like to throw around that term. I'd like you to cite one example where the administration knowingly deceived the American public. Just because you say he lied doesn't make it so.
It's possible, and likely, he was misinformed. But being misinformed doesn't constitute a lie. Not only that, many democrats were privy to the very same information the president was and they chose to support the war. Did they lie? The UN believed Saddam had had weapons of mass destruction. Did they lie? Europe also believed Saddam had those weapons. Did they lie? Saddam Hussein himself has used those weapons in the past. I guess that was made up.
And WMDs have been found in Iraq even if the media chooses not to report it. I'll concede they haven't been found in any significant quantities, so they don't really pose much of a thread. Not for a WMD anyway. But some have been found.
Bush undoubtedly had unpopular reasons for going into Iraq, but he didn't get this nation into a war because of lies.
You mean like in March of 1993 when Clinton had every single US attorney fired. That's 93 people for those counting. At the time the US attorney in Washington DC was investating the Ways and Means Chairman, the guy who was trying to push Clinton's economic program through congress. More importantly, allegations regarding the Whitewater scandal were coming to a head. The clearing of these attorneys allowed the Clintons to appoint a personal friend in Little Rock who conveniently never brought about any real indictments related to Whitewater and disregarded some information submitted regarding the case.
And you know what? It was his prerogative, just like it was the current administration's prerogative to fire those attorneys. It's my understanding that every administration is free to replace US attorneys at their choosing. I suppose Clinton was a bit smarter with timing having gotten rid of those attorneys shortly after haven been elected to office.
The problem is Clinton did the same thing, in some ways worse. But people are quicker to justify the action. When Bush does it, there must be some sinister conspiracy worthy of on-going investigations. The media and democrats are spun into a frenzy over this. Instead of focusing on serious problems it seems like there's this obsession with undermining the president just for the sake of putting him down.
I don't like Bush at all. But this has just gotten ridiculous. There's this immature fixation on Bush like he's the source of pure evil. He, and not only he but any republican does something democrats have been doing for years and there's this crazy uproar. And in some cases the uproar is justifiable. My problem is the polarized, all-or-nothing view some people have of the world, and worse the double-standard. When my guy does something it's justifiable, when your guy does it, he's got ulterior motives and is abusing his power.
I've never seen the 20gb model in any store. I don't think retailers are big on giving consumers choices. Even if they carried both versions store employees would inevitably direct customers to purchase the more expensive version. I wouldn't be surprised is Sony released the lesser version simply an attempt to alleviate the shock of a $600 price tag.
Clearly, it didn't made a difference considering whenever anyone thinks of the PS3 price tag they only think of $600. The recent announcement of the Xbox360 Elite makes it easier to justify carrying only the expensive version.
Either way, I expect this to make no difference whatsoever. As I've mentioned, everyone already sees only one price tag for the console. What will make a difference is the library of games available and eventual price drops and those had better come sooner than later.
You might be right. I can't speak for everyone in China. In Taiwan, and other regions, however, no one uses Pinyin or any other romanized systems, not even with mobile phones.
There seem to be a few misunderstandings here regarding Chinese text entry. First, because this is China and the official language is Mandarin Chinese. This means there are 37 distinct syllables, not the hundreds some have claimed. The distinction is that in addition to those there are 5 tones. This doesn't mean there are that many syllables times the number of tones. Think of tones as accents. Additionally, certain syllables only appear in certain places in a word. So it isn't quite an overwhelming task to type Chinese on a computer as you'd think.
The keyboards used in China, Taiwan, Singapore and even Japan are almost always QWERTY, but that's irrelevent. Virtually nobody except Westerners use that to type. Printed on Chinese keyboards are 4 sets of characters. The first set is our alphabet, and the next 3 sets include characters for different text entry methods.
I don't know about China, but in Taiwan one of the sets is Zhuyin fuhao. That system, as I've seen mentioned here, is a set of simple characters, each corresponding to a distinct sound, 21 consonants and 16 syllables. It's the closest thing to a Chinese alphabet in existence. It's only really used for educational purposes, but I don't see why it isn't widely adopted in the same way the Japanese use hiragana or katakana.
Anyway, that system is comparable to Pin Yin, which is more or less a romanized version of the same thing and it's what is used for signage in China, and now in Taiwan as well. This is the method a westerner is more likely to use to type Chinese.
The funny thing about Chinese is that the same word could have many different meanings each of which has a distinct character. So you type the word, including the appropriate tones and up comes a list with all the corresponding characters. Then one character is chosen from a list. It's kind of like predictive text. In same cases, when a set of characters produce a meaning, upon entering the first character the user is given a list of additional characters. It's all done, obviously to speed up the typing process.
So, this input method can be sufficiently quick. Comparable to typing English. However, there are other entry methods, based on different factors which can be more precise and significantly quicker. I have no idea how to use any of those, but it's my impression that typing in those methods can be quite faster than most people typing in English.
Of course, this begs the question, why did Google bother coming up with their own system? Things are always a bit of a mess with all the options out there.
As for the possibility of code being plagiarized. I'm really not surprised at all. This is one of the consequences of outsourcing. The company might have a policy against this sort of thing, but the programmer clearly didn't care. He probably thought he could save himself a bit of trouble and ultimately saw nothing wrong with it. I've experienced similar things first hand. Unless you have a team you trust there needs to be a lot of oversight and careful management
The hard fix: replace UMD with DS-like memory cards. Explore possibility of introducing touch-screen technology.
To be honest, the system isn't bad. But I don't like the UMD drive at all. I never felt like the lack of a touch-screen was a problem, but it would certainly enhance the system.
Although the design and build quality is quite high, there's this feeling of fragility I have every time I handle the system. I'm afraid of banging it against something, let along dropping it. . I think the overly-complex loading system for those discs is the culprit. I have experienced first hand that flexing the device can cause the discs to eject.
The easy fix: more unique games.
This is an obvious solution. I do find it interesting, however, that the PSP has a surprising number of good games. Looking specifically at RPGs, for example, the PSP has a better selection of highly rated games than the DS. The problem I find is when I walk into most stores. Most DS games are easily found anywhere. However, in most stores the selection for PSP is crap. Most is it is the usual garbage and a few EA games and a handful of PS2 ports with a few UMD movies thrown in to fill up the shelf.
This poses a problem for the PSP because the consumer's impression is inevitably affected by what they see on the shelves. Look at the PSP rack and it's a dreary collection of sports and violent shooters. Because of the more adult themes of the games inevitably the color scheme is monochromatic. Look over at the DS section, sitting right beside it and everything is bright and colorful. It looks like plenty of fun to be had.
I precently got a DS, but I have to admit the PSP is an impressive system. The price drop makes it more attractive, but I don't like the UMD format at all and I'm not too interested in many of the games available. There's too much of an emphasis on 3D for my taste.
The Wii control scheme is certainly superior to any control pad. However, it's still far from the precision and control of a keyboard/mouse combination.
The Wii still doesn't allow someone to turn with the speed of a PC user and it doesn't allow for precise, quick targeting. The layout of the remote, and all the variables with the screen's size and the distance to that screen hinders accuracy.
And that's not to mention that the targetting accuracy varies from game to game. I've had the on-screen crosshairs jittering on the Wii's system menus making it somewhat difficult to quickly select some of the smaller buttons. But then I'll play a game like Wario and the crosshairs are stable and fairly accurate but then there's a slight lag in responsiveness.
I'm sure we'll eventually see something better than the mouse/keyboard combination but the Wii controller isn't it.
At it's core, the original concept for the Zune wasn't a bad one. It's the implementation of those ideas that have brought about failure.
First, design and develop the product from scratch. One of the reasons the iPod is a success is because Apple is involved in every aspect of that device's development. First, Apple has a clear design concept. Keep things simple. It drives the look and feel of both the hardware and software. Secondly, everything is done within a single company and there is obviously open communication between the various departments responsible for it's development. This ensures the software works seamlessly with the hardware. It's why the device is so easy to use. I'm convinced this is why a true competitor to the iPod doesn't yet exist.
So this was Microsoft's first problem. They took an existing Toshiba MP3 player, gave it a new shell and had to develop software around that. They should have set up a partnership with a manufacturer and had them build a device around their own specs. That's obviously a lot more expensive, but if they want to seriously compete with the iPod they can't compromise.
As I've mentioned, Microsoft limited by the fact that they were working around an existing device. But I think they made a few design mistakes. I actually thought the brown version wasn't too bad. But I do agree, brown isn't usually on the top of anyone's list for colors they'd like to see electronics come in.
I imagine the decision was made to go with unconventional colors to steer away from everyone trying to knock off the iPod's color scheme. I do tend to find it annoying that everyone just copies what Apple does. Apple's products look nice, but there's untold potential for different and equally attractive designs.
In general I thought the Zune was attractive. But it doesn't quite have the elegance of an iPod. Interestingly, although it isn't really much larger than an iPod. But it looks gigantic whereas the iPod looks smaller than it is.
And of course, another big flaw in the Zune is limited functionality. Well, it's more of a problem that Microsoft promoted the hell out of some features, like WIFI, but then crippled the hell out of them with DRM crap.
Contrary to what Apple's marketing department claims, Apple doesn't really innovate. They don't try to implement all the latest features into their products. However, I think that's what makes them so successful. What features their products do have work extremely well and are easy to use. Apple knows how to keep things simple.
Given how Microsoft does things I don't think this is a problem they'll ever be able to overcome.
My understanding of Wikipedia is that because submissions and edits are open to everyone that ultimately the users themselves are responsible for ensuring accuracy. Once a sufficiently large and varied group of people are visiting the site there will inevitably be enough informed people available to spot problems in articles. It's sort of like a libertarian version of an encyclopedia. Nothing is perfect, and perhaps that fraud should have been spotted sooner, but the fact remains that the problem was eventually identified.
What I find more concerning than obvious errors, defacing and blatant bias is a more subtle bias creeping into such encyclopedias. Once the submitters and editors are reduced to a select few it creates a potential for that sort of situation. It's already a problem elsewhere. We've already got people who dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as extremists regardless of facts. That's an important, because you'll have people who are convinced they're being unbiased but in reality are merely pushing one idea or another. It's already a problem with many blogs; people who are presenting opinion and rumor as fact. Someone runs a story they've found on another blog, which they're presenting as concrete fact. Follow that link and it turns out they've linked the story from a third blog. Dig far enough and it turns out the story is all rumor, speculation and hearsay. All they care about it that it's consistent with their own opinions. The mainstream media is already bad enough, but at least they pretend to engage in fact-checking.
So that's my concern with a more closed encyclopedia. It may start with devotion to fact and impartiality, but it can easily degrade into anything but. And as many others have mentioned here, just because someone has impressive credentials doesn't necessarily make them better informed about a subject than a regular person.
When I was working for someone else I tried to keep work and personal life separate. It isn't easy, because sometimes in my thoughts I'd be preoccupied with work. Like it or not, sometimes it's just not possible to completely stop thinking about work once I leave the office. That can certain sour personal life.
Having started my own business I find but worlds overlapping. In great in some ways and bad in others. If I have personal matters to attend to in the middle of the day, or I just want to take a break, I can. I'm free to give myself as much vacation time as I like. I can work on my own schedule, although I do still try to adhere to a regular work day.
The catch is, however, that I'm thinking about work a lot more often now. I have the added stress of trying to build a successful business. I have no one to answer to but myself, but it's very difficult nonetheless. There's a reason most people don't go into business for themselves, despite some benefits in doing so.
Ultimately, if you want a successful business you're almost definitely going to end up working a lot harder than you would for another employer. The advantage is that you will reap the benefits directly.
I've ultimately come to the conclusion that to be successful you have to work hard. Being able to get out at 5pm every day sounds nice, but chances are your career won't be going anywhere in such an environment. I've seen plenty of mid-level managers who sit on their asses all day doing nothing, but they aren't really decision makers, they're just filtering someone else's orders. I know numerous people in important positions and running their own companies who work longer hours than any employee working for them. Clearly, things aren't so black and white. There are people who can smooth-talk their way to the top. And there are those who work themselves to death and get nowhere. But I'm not talking about the exceptions here. The fact is, if you want to get ahead you're going to have to put a lot of effort into it.
Obviously, it's important to strike a good balance between work and personal life. I've been in situations where I was working 7 days a week, and getting out of work at 10pm almost every single day, for months on end. It can be soul-crushing. It ultimately comes down to where your priorities lie. If you feel that your personal life is more important than anything else that's fine. If you're more eager to be successful you have to understand that it may require some sacrificing, at least until you reach a point where you're in a comfortable enough situation that you can start taking it easy.
Rest assured, they'll find a way to tax MMOs seperately from income. It's the same way an LLC has to pay a business entity of tax (This basically is a taxation on the fact that the company exists) in addition to paying income tax and property tax.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds to me like scientists are over-thinking the problem. These are all basic design problems a designer with good typography skills can resolve. The solution certainly isn't to reinvent how we write.
I see three glaring problems making text difficult to read, especially online.
1) Text blocks are too wide. This is the biggest problem I see. It's difficult to follow progress when you're reading 10pt text running all the way across the screen. One of the biggest things I hate about websites is when they stretch EVERYTHING including text. Open the window too wide and you get these ridiculously long lines of text. Slashdot is guilty of this.
The solution to this is to restrict the width of any copy, even if the page itself can stretch. A line of text shouldn't really be run any longer than roughly 10 long words. I'd say a good example of line width can be found in paperback novels.
2) Not enough leading. Leading is the space between lines. This alone solves the problem mentioned where a reader starts getting distracted by words above and below the sentence currently being read. Again, this is basic design and it's something completely disregarded on the internet where lines of text are crammed together.
The solution here is especially simple. Increase linespace, and I suggest being fairly liberal with spacing.
3) Poor font selection and small point size. The standard browser fonts are somewhat readable. Serif fonts, like Times New Roman, are more legible than san-serif fonts like Verdana and Arial. This is a minor problem but serif fonts are recognized more quiclky. But I'd say font selection is dependent on the overall design of the site. A bigger problem is when someone uses some wacky font that's difficult to read, although this is more of an issue in Flash where fonts can be embedded.
The bigger problem is font size. After all these years with dramatic increases in screen resolutions why are we still reading text online in 10 point? We should be at least at 12 point, and ideally 14pt or higher. There's no need to go huge, but it's time we start utilizing these screen resolutions more effectively. There's no need to cram a novel onto a single page. When a reader encounters a screen crammed with type, psychologically they're overwhelmed and less likely to actually bother reading anything. If course, with all the advertising appearing on some websites it's getting increasingly difficult to design a page that's actually easy to read.
If these scientists want to address online text legibility take a few basic typography courses.
I don't see why they couldn't continue with their observations on the game industry while developing games themselves. In fact, it might give them additional insight that we wouldn't normally be exposed to. I don't think they were every objective anyway, so it's not like we're losing anything.
I do agree, however, that it could become an issue. If they become too popular for their own good, particularly as developers, they may be more reluctant to step on toes and burn bridges. Either that or the game doesn't do well and they become overly bitter. But I suppose this comes down to their personalities and how they handle their popularity.
I can appreciate the need to respect other cultures. I wouldn't want someone's stinky feet anywhere near my face, but I don't find it necessarily offensive. However, people need to realize that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily doesn't hold the same beliefs as they do. This should be especially clear when someone is on the internet.
Some group of people may be offended by feet, porkchops, pentagrams or santa claus but they can't possibly expect other people to share these feelings. So to lash out against the rest of the world because a person is incapable of taking something in stride, or at least jumping to another website to me just demonstrates poor coping skills.
If the majority of the world found something offensive and problematic, then I could see justification for having something banned. And actually, if they want to ban this stuff within their own country, well, they're free to do so. But to sue YouTube is ridiculous. And I don't want to find one day that my own freedoms are being limited in an attempt to avoid offending some minority group.
Without question, everyone deserves to be treated fairly. However that equality means that inevitably someone is going to be offended from time to time. It's either this or we start banning anything and everything to ensure no one is offended.
I found some of the insight into the Japanese gaming industry to be interesting. Particularly how they develop games out there. It explains why interfaces in Japanese games, and electronics in general, tend to be so convoluted and controls in some cases unnecessarily complex. Its would help explain why Japanese consoles tend to be harder to develop for.
I also find it interesting that Nakazato finds Japan game developers tend to be behind in terms of technology and innovation. I guess it depends on what is defined as innovation. Many argue a unique controller is innovative. Others argue that more sophisticated, realistic gameplay supported by advanced graphics is innovation. Both are valid in their own right.
I could argue that many Wii and some DS games are glorified, repackaged flash games. I could also argue that advanced graphics add nothing at all to gameplay and in fact draw away resources that could be used to produce a better game. But that isn't always true in either case. Both have their place.
But I do agree than in general Western games, well PC games in particular, have always been sophisticated, at least on the back-end. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that those games are move fun. And Americans generally only have access to the best Japanese games, so we don't see all the drivel flooding the Japanese market.
That statement doesn't make much sense to me because I found with LOTRO that the only way to earn a reasonable amount of XP is to do quests. Although, I will add that approaching level 16 I've had the impression that I seem to be getting a more usable amount of XP from fighting random mobs, compared to early levels where it felt like I was earning nothing.
I can appreciate the emphasis on quests, but the biggest issue I have with that is the absurd amount of traveling required. It gets exhausting having to run a long distance to find some guy who either has just been killed or is too strong for me to take on myself. It's either that or having the aggravation of spending a good half an hour just trying to find some contact.
It's a great looking game. There's a real sense of place. It helps that it's based on lore that's familiar, so all the locations mean something. It also makes the store more compelling. Unfortunately, ultimately it's just another MMO. And as that aspect of the game became more prominent I lost my interest.
Some people are drawn to the game because they prefer the more realistic look to the cartoony style of WoW. LOTRO has some of the most impressive vistas I've seen in almost any game; there's a real sense of scale. But beyond that I sometimes feel there's something missing. I realize the developers need to be faithful to the source material. But I can't get past the nagging feeling that something about the game feels uninspired. And I think it comes down to the realistic look. It's the same reason I didn't like the visuals for DDO or EQ2. It's also why I don't like Oblivion at all even though it can look impressive at times.
Even though World of Warcraft has less sophisticated graphics I much prefer that game visually because it has such a strong, distinct sense of style. Furthermore, I think that game is still easier to pick up and play than LOTRO. WoW has tons of grinding but in the brief time I played I didn't feel like I was being dragged around all over the place like I am in LOTRO. I do much prefer crafting in LOTRO.
So ultimately, my point is that while LOTRO is very good, and in some aspects perhaps superior to WoW, it's not good enough to unseat WoW from it's dominant position.
When I was living in Taiwan, which isn't China but it's close enough, I encountered this sort of thing constantly. It permeates Chinese culture in ways few can imagine. Hell, I think it's just a fact of life all throughout Asia, it's almost the same in Korea, and common Japan, although it's a little more subtle there. It really is just a way of life.
Some shop opens up somewhere selling a particular kind of desert and becomes successful. Within 6 months there are maybe a dozen to be found within that city. Someone designs a particularly striking advertisement and it's only a matter of time because imitators appear. A news agency updates their look and almost over night everyone else does to.
You see it in small things too. My wife corresponds with an online community of Taiwanese living in the States. She has a blog, as many do. She has a fairly distinctive writing style which suits her personality. Inevitably someone came along and started copying her writing style. It got to a point where this particular girl started writing about the very same things my wife had written about previously.
China adds yet another dimension to this absurdity. Most people there are poor. We hear all this talk about the booming economy, the burgeoning middle class and all that. But the fact is that most Chinese are poor. And I mean living in poverty to a point that the so-called poor in the US haven't experienced. What does this mean? They can't afford all the shiny, impressive and absurdly expensive products made by foreign companies. So what have some enterprising Chinese done? They've made cheap, inexpensive knockoffs. Most are pure garbage, but they cost next to nothing and provide some level of the functionality found in the expensive foreign product. Some people may even be fooled into thinking they've purchased the real thing.
This sort of thing used to really frustrate me. Especially when it affect my work directly. At the time I'd think about how great it was that no one could get away with this sort of thing in the US.
But then I realized two things. First, it does happen in the US. Companies here just happen to be more careful about how they go about it. Look at Hollywood, and worse, look at the game industry. It's only logical that when people see something that has led to success they try to emulate it. The easiest way to enjoy some of that success is to resort to copying.
This leads me to the second thing I realized. I've come to think this is a good thing, within limits of course. There's a point at which a company or an individual has just gone too far and measures need to be taken.
Nevertheless, this sort of thing keeps innovators on their toes. It forces them to be competitive. Like I mentioned earlier, copying is a way of life in Asia. It means that people aren't sitting trying to figure out how to go about suing the offending party. They aren't whining to the government that someone has just ripped them off. Instead, their moving on to something else. In some cases, as it was with us, the frame of mind is one of trying to raise the bar further, to stand out from the imitators.
The other advantage here is that the imitators are slowly improving their own skill sets. They're being exposed to new ideas and learning from them, even if they don't realize it at the time. But it's something, over a long period of time that I believe leads to real progress.
The reality is that in most cases the imitations will never be anywhere near as good as the originals. So the ones actually producing something unique will always have the advantage. So as long as they don't get lazy they should be fine. If their in a situation where they're being seriously threatened by those copying it's almost certain they're doing something wrong.
I'm not suggesting a free-for-all where people can copy with impunity. Patents and copyrights are reasonable to a certain extent. I just feel that in some cases things have gotten out of hand. A real free market shouldn't have the absurd level of protectionism some companies seem to expect.
The article is somewhat interesting, but I'm left with the impression they did nothing more than browse a few Wikipedia entries. And even then they overlooked significant details and didn't even include some important systems, like the numerous versions of the original Gameboy among others.
Regarding the apparent preference towards the PSP, I have a DS Lite myself, but having played the PSP a bit I'd say it's immediately more impressive. It feels like a true jump in technology over past portable devices, more so than the DS. The DS requires some play before the inventiveness of the system becomes apparent.
But what really gets me is I can have a device so small it fits in my pocket but more powerful than a PC I owned 15 years ago.
I got Pokemon Pearl simply because I liked the guy on the cover better.
The only difference that I know of is that each offers some different monsters, I'm assuming late in the game. Otherwise, I doubt you'd ever notice the difference. And with the trading functionality I assume you could acquire anything with a single copy of the game.
I got it on Sunday and found the game to be readily available. Given how hard it was promoted in many stores I was expecting it to be harder to find.
Not that anyone asked for them, but here are my initial impressions on the game...
The last Pokemon game I played which was Pokemon Blue for the old Gameboy Pocket and this game despite being significantly more complex is very reminiscent that game. I have to say I don't agree with the complaints that the game should have been more innovative. Sometimes I don't want a game to be innovative. I want a game to adhere to a tried and true formula which I know I will enjoy. I don't want to feel alienated because the developers decided to completely revamp gameplay. I wouldn't want Pokemon Diamond/Pearl to be some stylus-based puzzle game.
Perhaps if I had played all the Gameboy Color and GBA version I would be asking for something different myself. But there are already plenty of other Pokemon games with differing gameplay styles on the DS.
I like the game. It's got nice vibrant graphics. When traveling around the world environments are subtly done in 3D; it all looks like it's sprite-based, but the environments are all 3D. Another neat thing is that a player can cross the entire world seamlessly. The outside world isn't broken into sections. Interiors and caverns, of course are the exception.
The Pokemon, in fights, don't really look any different than what I've seen of the GBA Pokemon games. The lack of character animations is a slight disappointment. But I can appreciate the amount of production involved in dealing with over 400 Pokemon, especially since some aren't much more than blobs.
The background music is decent. But Pokemon sounds leave a lot to be desired. Most consist of odd digital squawks. When I first encountered some of those sounds I couldn't help but momentarily wonder if those audio clips weren't corrupt.
Fights are entertaining but can get tedious sometimes, especially since Pokemon can be taken down more easily than a player character in most conventional RPGs. Walking through tall grass or caverns can bring an absurdly high number of random encounters. Then there are the jerks who stand around waiting to challenge the player. I like the interface, especially during fights. It's colorful and easy to follow. There are some inconsistencies, however, particularly with the inventory. It's like a different team worked on that aspect of the game.
One thing I've noticed is that this game has longer save times than any other DS game I've played to date. In some cases it even warns that it has to save "a lot of data".
The minor issues aside I do enjoy the game. It does get addicting; I can't help but wonder why Nintendo hasn't considered an MMO version of the series.
I think the real problem Lord of the Rings Online is facing is due to the very nature of it's theme. Of course we've seen this all before, because nearly every single freaking fantasy-based RPG developed over the last few decades draws on the world Tolkien crafted. Compounding the problem is the fact that the gameplay mechanics of most of these RPGs is based on Dungeons and Dragons, or at least the closest approximation we can get with an automated system.
The fact is that the grind is the draw. It's a form on conditioning. Perform set actions repetitively to bring about a positive outcome, in this case character growth. This allows new areas, new equipment and new foes to be revealed. That in turn promotes further growth which brings about additional content. It's satisfying to see a character hit that next level. And when it comes down to it real live involves a lot of repetition so it's inevitable that the sort of game that gets closest to emulation life, in some regards anyway, would also involve a lot of that repetition. Some games simple manage to package it more nicely than others. The grind is obscured in a way that makes gameplay enjoyable.
So I don't see that as the major issue here. The problem I have with LOTR Online is that it's yet another fantasy game. It may be one of the originals, but at this point that's irrelevant. I've heard good things about it, but it just doesn't strike me as interesting. Inevitably it comes off as yet another World of Warcraft.
Other genres have been long overdo. The problem is that the ones that have appeared have generally been lackluster or a bit too esoteric to make the sort of impact World of Warcraft has.
LOTR Online may have an edge over WoW in terms of gameplay. Unfortunately, WoW is just too dominant to be so easily unseated from its position as number one. LOTR Online needs to offer something truly phenomenal and distinct beyond it's source material. Of course, this may be just the thing those bored with WoW are looking for. But if people are tired with WoW they might be tired of the fantasy genre in general, going back to my point above.
By this guy's rationale eyesight should be banned because the real world is out of control and you never know when your vision is going to be exposed to something questionable.
I find it funny that Adobe's CEO has the gall to call Microsoft monopolistic considering that Adobe essentially has a complete monopoly over the design industry. Microsoft's control over the PC market pales in comparison to Adobe's control of the design industry, the obvious distinction being that Microsoft's market is much larger.
I welcome the competition and although I'm not optimistic I would like to see Microsoft become a serious competitor in this market. I'd prefer it were someone else entering this market, I can't say I'm looking forward to bloated applications with cumbersome interfaces. Nevertheless it's been long overdo that something take Adobe down a few notches.
I'm sure Adobe's CEO is only upset that Adobe's purchase of Macromedia didn't ensure a complete lack of competition for a longer period of time.
What I find more troubling than this is that now Adobe completely controls the design industry. As a designer every application I use is developed by Adobe. Well, excluding Microsoft Office which is a necessity in my business.
Adobe is already showing what sort of company they are with the release of their very first suite since the acquisition of Macromedia. Their software has gotten significantly more expensive, it's overloaded with bloat and they've managed to outdo Microsoft with all the versions of their software. An Adobe representative, addressing criticisms of a $500 increase in one of the packages, essentially said that people will pay the extra money because they're Adobe. The gist of it is that we're paying more because we've got no choice. If I could find the link I'd post it here.
Unfortunately, designers by and large aren't particularly savvy. They're the kind of people to constantly criticize Microsoft just because it's trendy but then happily bend over for Adobe and Apple. So I doubt this will ever change.
People like to point out alternatives to Adobe products, but they forget some basic points. Compatibility is essential. I can't go off and use my own software only to not have clients or other designers not be able to handle my files. It's already bad enough with Adobe forcing companies to upgrade by limiting compatibility between versions. I may not have problems 90% of the time, but that 10% that trouble arises is a huge deal in my business. So I have to go with what everyone else is using.
And another fact is that despite the bloat present in current Adobe products their software is still reasonable well designed and works seamlessly. I can't say that about anything else I've tried. And most others are even worse with bloat trying to cram all these pointless features into the application. But the biggest problem I've encountered is that they all have poorly designed interfaces.
Despite it's problems Flash is an excellent tool. It runs well on most systems. There might be a person or two who's running a system that doesn't support it. But to criticize something because it doesn't support 1% or 2% of the market is a bit ridiculous to be honest. The fact is that on any platform that supports Flash it's a guarantee that in almost every single case the application is going to be identical. It's going to look the same and it's going to run exactly the same way. You can't really say the same thing about Java or anything else. I don't have to worry about supporting specific platforms. I build something once and I'm done.
I do welcome competitors, however. I'm not happy with the direction Adobe is heading in. and this nonsense of enforced advertising is just one of many problems. I fully expect this sort of thing to become prevalent whether we like it or not. Because, like I've already mentioned, Adobe now has a monopoly over the design industry. And every marketing company out there is without a doubt eager to cram advertising down our collective throats.
I realize some people love Oblivion but I think Oblivion epitomizes what's wrong with PC gaming. It's a fabulous tech demo but otherwise lacking real substance and style. Bethesda seemed to be so obsessed with creating a photo-realistic world that they've sucked the life and art out of the game. I have to admit that those landscapes look phenomenal. But then you walk up to any NPC and they look goofy. Monsters look like claymation and humans look like second-rate actors from some crappy fantasy movie.
I haven't seen a single NPC from Oblivion or any of the expansions that doesn't look goofy. They don't look like people who would inhabit a true fantasy world. They don't have battle-hardened bodies, some even have a chin fat like they've eaten one too many pop tarts. Many look like they probably Bethesda employees complete with the look of amusement at the fact that they're going to be featured in a game.
The tech demo feel never leaves me, what with the obsessive use of texture mapping. Almost everything in Oblivion has this lumpy wet look. It feels like it's there to impress the viewer as opposed to actually adding substance to the game.
Then there's the ridiculous gameplay mechanic of enemies scaling to the player's level. Doesn't that defeat the whole point of leveling up in an RPG? It seems like an ill-conceived solution to the leveling problems encountered in Morrowind. I'm inevitably left with the impression that the developers didn't spend much time thinking about gameplay.
Then there's the performance aspect. Oblivion is one of those games that can make a 1 to 2 year old machine feel obsolete. Buy a console and performance isn't even an issue. There's comfort in knowing that not only will the system handle any game designed for it but the games will almost certainly improve throughout that system's lifespan. Not so with PCs. I can't help but think this alienates many PC gamers. It alienates me and I much prefer PC gaming over console gaming.
But Bethesda like other PC developers are obsessed with pushing the limits of hardware. So gamers get stuck with the same old genres with not much to look for but increasingly realistic graphics with little style. World of Warcraft doesn't have anywhere near the graphical sophistication of Oblivion, but I think it's far more entertaining to look it because it has such a strong sense of character. I'd argue that a single screenshot of the most recent Final Fantasy game has more creative style than all of Oblivion, even if Oblivion is more impressive technically. But I just don't feel like there's a real sense of creativity.
I didn't really intend on getting on that sort of rant about Oblivion. But I think it illustrates what I expect from any new Fallout game. I expect Bethesda to apply the Oblivion approach to Fallout. It's going to be another lifeless tech demo that wont run well on anything but the latest hardware.
Lies you say... People like to throw around that term. I'd like you to cite one example where the administration knowingly deceived the American public. Just because you say he lied doesn't make it so.
It's possible, and likely, he was misinformed. But being misinformed doesn't constitute a lie. Not only that, many democrats were privy to the very same information the president was and they chose to support the war. Did they lie? The UN believed Saddam had had weapons of mass destruction. Did they lie? Europe also believed Saddam had those weapons. Did they lie? Saddam Hussein himself has used those weapons in the past. I guess that was made up.
And WMDs have been found in Iraq even if the media chooses not to report it. I'll concede they haven't been found in any significant quantities, so they don't really pose much of a thread. Not for a WMD anyway. But some have been found.
Bush undoubtedly had unpopular reasons for going into Iraq, but he didn't get this nation into a war because of lies.
Rampage?
You mean like in March of 1993 when Clinton had every single US attorney fired. That's 93 people for those counting. At the time the US attorney in Washington DC was investating the Ways and Means Chairman, the guy who was trying to push Clinton's economic program through congress. More importantly, allegations regarding the Whitewater scandal were coming to a head. The clearing of these attorneys allowed the Clintons to appoint a personal friend in Little Rock who conveniently never brought about any real indictments related to Whitewater and disregarded some information submitted regarding the case.
And you know what? It was his prerogative, just like it was the current administration's prerogative to fire those attorneys. It's my understanding that every administration is free to replace US attorneys at their choosing. I suppose Clinton was a bit smarter with timing having gotten rid of those attorneys shortly after haven been elected to office.
The problem is Clinton did the same thing, in some ways worse. But people are quicker to justify the action. When Bush does it, there must be some sinister conspiracy worthy of on-going investigations. The media and democrats are spun into a frenzy over this. Instead of focusing on serious problems it seems like there's this obsession with undermining the president just for the sake of putting him down.
I don't like Bush at all. But this has just gotten ridiculous. There's this immature fixation on Bush like he's the source of pure evil. He, and not only he but any republican does something democrats have been doing for years and there's this crazy uproar. And in some cases the uproar is justifiable. My problem is the polarized, all-or-nothing view some people have of the world, and worse the double-standard. When my guy does something it's justifiable, when your guy does it, he's got ulterior motives and is abusing his power.
I've never seen the 20gb model in any store. I don't think retailers are big on giving consumers choices. Even if they carried both versions store employees would inevitably direct customers to purchase the more expensive version. I wouldn't be surprised is Sony released the lesser version simply an attempt to alleviate the shock of a $600 price tag.
Clearly, it didn't made a difference considering whenever anyone thinks of the PS3 price tag they only think of $600. The recent announcement of the Xbox360 Elite makes it easier to justify carrying only the expensive version.
Either way, I expect this to make no difference whatsoever. As I've mentioned, everyone already sees only one price tag for the console. What will make a difference is the library of games available and eventual price drops and those had better come sooner than later.
You might be right. I can't speak for everyone in China. In Taiwan, and other regions, however, no one uses Pinyin or any other romanized systems, not even with mobile phones.
There seem to be a few misunderstandings here regarding Chinese text entry. First, because this is China and the official language is Mandarin Chinese. This means there are 37 distinct syllables, not the hundreds some have claimed. The distinction is that in addition to those there are 5 tones. This doesn't mean there are that many syllables times the number of tones. Think of tones as accents. Additionally, certain syllables only appear in certain places in a word. So it isn't quite an overwhelming task to type Chinese on a computer as you'd think.
The keyboards used in China, Taiwan, Singapore and even Japan are almost always QWERTY, but that's irrelevent. Virtually nobody except Westerners use that to type. Printed on Chinese keyboards are 4 sets of characters. The first set is our alphabet, and the next 3 sets include characters for different text entry methods.
I don't know about China, but in Taiwan one of the sets is Zhuyin fuhao. That system, as I've seen mentioned here, is a set of simple characters, each corresponding to a distinct sound, 21 consonants and 16 syllables. It's the closest thing to a Chinese alphabet in existence. It's only really used for educational purposes, but I don't see why it isn't widely adopted in the same way the Japanese use hiragana or katakana.
Anyway, that system is comparable to Pin Yin, which is more or less a romanized version of the same thing and it's what is used for signage in China, and now in Taiwan as well. This is the method a westerner is more likely to use to type Chinese.
The funny thing about Chinese is that the same word could have many different meanings each of which has a distinct character. So you type the word, including the appropriate tones and up comes a list with all the corresponding characters. Then one character is chosen from a list. It's kind of like predictive text. In same cases, when a set of characters produce a meaning, upon entering the first character the user is given a list of additional characters. It's all done, obviously to speed up the typing process.
So, this input method can be sufficiently quick. Comparable to typing English. However, there are other entry methods, based on different factors which can be more precise and significantly quicker. I have no idea how to use any of those, but it's my impression that typing in those methods can be quite faster than most people typing in English.
Of course, this begs the question, why did Google bother coming up with their own system? Things are always a bit of a mess with all the options out there.
As for the possibility of code being plagiarized. I'm really not surprised at all. This is one of the consequences of outsourcing. The company might have a policy against this sort of thing, but the programmer clearly didn't care. He probably thought he could save himself a bit of trouble and ultimately saw nothing wrong with it. I've experienced similar things first hand. Unless you have a team you trust there needs to be a lot of oversight and careful management
The hard fix: replace UMD with DS-like memory cards. Explore possibility of introducing touch-screen technology.
To be honest, the system isn't bad. But I don't like the UMD drive at all. I never felt like the lack of a touch-screen was a problem, but it would certainly enhance the system.
Although the design and build quality is quite high, there's this feeling of fragility I have every time I handle the system. I'm afraid of banging it against something, let along dropping it. . I think the overly-complex loading system for those discs is the culprit. I have experienced first hand that flexing the device can cause the discs to eject.
The easy fix: more unique games.
This is an obvious solution. I do find it interesting, however, that the PSP has a surprising number of good games. Looking specifically at RPGs, for example, the PSP has a better selection of highly rated games than the DS. The problem I find is when I walk into most stores. Most DS games are easily found anywhere. However, in most stores the selection for PSP is crap. Most is it is the usual garbage and a few EA games and a handful of PS2 ports with a few UMD movies thrown in to fill up the shelf.
This poses a problem for the PSP because the consumer's impression is inevitably affected by what they see on the shelves. Look at the PSP rack and it's a dreary collection of sports and violent shooters. Because of the more adult themes of the games inevitably the color scheme is monochromatic. Look over at the DS section, sitting right beside it and everything is bright and colorful. It looks like plenty of fun to be had.
I precently got a DS, but I have to admit the PSP is an impressive system. The price drop makes it more attractive, but I don't like the UMD format at all and I'm not too interested in many of the games available. There's too much of an emphasis on 3D for my taste.
The Wii control scheme is certainly superior to any control pad. However, it's still far from the precision and control of a keyboard/mouse combination.
The Wii still doesn't allow someone to turn with the speed of a PC user and it doesn't allow for precise, quick targeting. The layout of the remote, and all the variables with the screen's size and the distance to that screen hinders accuracy.
And that's not to mention that the targetting accuracy varies from game to game. I've had the on-screen crosshairs jittering on the Wii's system menus making it somewhat difficult to quickly select some of the smaller buttons. But then I'll play a game like Wario and the crosshairs are stable and fairly accurate but then there's a slight lag in responsiveness.
I'm sure we'll eventually see something better than the mouse/keyboard combination but the Wii controller isn't it.
At it's core, the original concept for the Zune wasn't a bad one. It's the implementation of those ideas that have brought about failure.
First, design and develop the product from scratch. One of the reasons the iPod is a success is because Apple is involved in every aspect of that device's development. First, Apple has a clear design concept. Keep things simple. It drives the look and feel of both the hardware and software. Secondly, everything is done within a single company and there is obviously open communication between the various departments responsible for it's development. This ensures the software works seamlessly with the hardware. It's why the device is so easy to use. I'm convinced this is why a true competitor to the iPod doesn't yet exist.
So this was Microsoft's first problem. They took an existing Toshiba MP3 player, gave it a new shell and had to develop software around that. They should have set up a partnership with a manufacturer and had them build a device around their own specs. That's obviously a lot more expensive, but if they want to seriously compete with the iPod they can't compromise.
As I've mentioned, Microsoft limited by the fact that they were working around an existing device. But I think they made a few design mistakes. I actually thought the brown version wasn't too bad. But I do agree, brown isn't usually on the top of anyone's list for colors they'd like to see electronics come in.
I imagine the decision was made to go with unconventional colors to steer away from everyone trying to knock off the iPod's color scheme. I do tend to find it annoying that everyone just copies what Apple does. Apple's products look nice, but there's untold potential for different and equally attractive designs.
In general I thought the Zune was attractive. But it doesn't quite have the elegance of an iPod. Interestingly, although it isn't really much larger than an iPod. But it looks gigantic whereas the iPod looks smaller than it is.
And of course, another big flaw in the Zune is limited functionality. Well, it's more of a problem that Microsoft promoted the hell out of some features, like WIFI, but then crippled the hell out of them with DRM crap.
Contrary to what Apple's marketing department claims, Apple doesn't really innovate. They don't try to implement all the latest features into their products. However, I think that's what makes them so successful. What features their products do have work extremely well and are easy to use. Apple knows how to keep things simple.
Given how Microsoft does things I don't think this is a problem they'll ever be able to overcome.
My understanding of Wikipedia is that because submissions and edits are open to everyone that ultimately the users themselves are responsible for ensuring accuracy. Once a sufficiently large and varied group of people are visiting the site there will inevitably be enough informed people available to spot problems in articles. It's sort of like a libertarian version of an encyclopedia. Nothing is perfect, and perhaps that fraud should have been spotted sooner, but the fact remains that the problem was eventually identified.
What I find more concerning than obvious errors, defacing and blatant bias is a more subtle bias creeping into such encyclopedias. Once the submitters and editors are reduced to a select few it creates a potential for that sort of situation. It's already a problem elsewhere. We've already got people who dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as extremists regardless of facts. That's an important, because you'll have people who are convinced they're being unbiased but in reality are merely pushing one idea or another. It's already a problem with many blogs; people who are presenting opinion and rumor as fact. Someone runs a story they've found on another blog, which they're presenting as concrete fact. Follow that link and it turns out they've linked the story from a third blog. Dig far enough and it turns out the story is all rumor, speculation and hearsay. All they care about it that it's consistent with their own opinions. The mainstream media is already bad enough, but at least they pretend to engage in fact-checking.
So that's my concern with a more closed encyclopedia. It may start with devotion to fact and impartiality, but it can easily degrade into anything but. And as many others have mentioned here, just because someone has impressive credentials doesn't necessarily make them better informed about a subject than a regular person.
When I was working for someone else I tried to keep work and personal life separate. It isn't easy, because sometimes in my thoughts I'd be preoccupied with work. Like it or not, sometimes it's just not possible to completely stop thinking about work once I leave the office. That can certain sour personal life.
Having started my own business I find but worlds overlapping. In great in some ways and bad in others. If I have personal matters to attend to in the middle of the day, or I just want to take a break, I can. I'm free to give myself as much vacation time as I like. I can work on my own schedule, although I do still try to adhere to a regular work day.
The catch is, however, that I'm thinking about work a lot more often now. I have the added stress of trying to build a successful business. I have no one to answer to but myself, but it's very difficult nonetheless. There's a reason most people don't go into business for themselves, despite some benefits in doing so.
Ultimately, if you want a successful business you're almost definitely going to end up working a lot harder than you would for another employer. The advantage is that you will reap the benefits directly.
I've ultimately come to the conclusion that to be successful you have to work hard. Being able to get out at 5pm every day sounds nice, but chances are your career won't be going anywhere in such an environment. I've seen plenty of mid-level managers who sit on their asses all day doing nothing, but they aren't really decision makers, they're just filtering someone else's orders. I know numerous people in important positions and running their own companies who work longer hours than any employee working for them. Clearly, things aren't so black and white. There are people who can smooth-talk their way to the top. And there are those who work themselves to death and get nowhere. But I'm not talking about the exceptions here. The fact is, if you want to get ahead you're going to have to put a lot of effort into it.
Obviously, it's important to strike a good balance between work and personal life. I've been in situations where I was working 7 days a week, and getting out of work at 10pm almost every single day, for months on end. It can be soul-crushing. It ultimately comes down to where your priorities lie. If you feel that your personal life is more important than anything else that's fine. If you're more eager to be successful you have to understand that it may require some sacrificing, at least until you reach a point where you're in a comfortable enough situation that you can start taking it easy.
Rest assured, they'll find a way to tax MMOs seperately from income. It's the same way an LLC has to pay a business entity of tax (This basically is a taxation on the fact that the company exists) in addition to paying income tax and property tax.