Like it or not, the PS3 is always going to compete in the same exact market as the Wii and Xbox360. No matter what features they include with the system, how powerful they make it, what claims they make consumers will always consider it first and foremost a game console.
Anyone who wants a system that does more will buy a PC. The PS3 is built around a gaming console so it will never function adequately as a PC. Not to mention it wouldn't be compatible with anything on a PC. Those interested in a home theater want dedicated hardware. They don't want audio/visual performance compromised. So ultimately, while for what the PS3 offers it might not be a bad price, it's perceived by everyone as a game console. And in that regard it is overpriced.
Nintendo has clearly learned from their attempts to turn the NES into a home computer. They've focused on the entertainment aspect and are emphasizing gameplay. Microsoft is in a far better position to bridge the gap between PCs and consoles given their extensive experience with operating systems. Even then, Microsoft hasn't forced an overpowered system on the consumer. They're a lot more subtle.
Eventually, PCs and consoles might unite as a home entertainment appliance but that day is still a ways away. Sony tried to do too much too soon and now have put themselves in a very difficult position.
It's like that paradox where any person can tell describe to you how a person can look. They can easily spot facsimile, be it CGI or an illustration. However, ask someone to sit down and draw a realistic, physically accurate picture of a person. Anyone who hasn't had formal training or doesn't have an innate talent for drawing won't get it right. Does it make them unqualified to identify a real human?
Just because someone is incapable of doing a better job doesn't mean they aren't capable of identifying what takes to do a good job. Someone can understand intellectually what is required to produce a good movie but be unable to apply that understanding in a practical manner. Those can be two very different things.
It sounds to me like someone is trying to justify their sloppiness.
Visit an organized, smoothly operating factory; everything is neat and clean. Go so a good mechanic; the shop is organized and neat. From personal experience I have yet to deal with a slob that is exceptionally productive.
This is yet another example of cause and effect getting mixed up. I tend to keep my work and living space neat. I have trouble focusing when things are too much of a mess. More importantly, if things are disorganized I end up wasting too much time trying to find what I need. However, when I get busy, when I'm under a tight deadline, I tend to leave things a mess. I have more important things to do than to worry about cleaning up.
If anything, a mess is counter-productive. Again, I submit an example from personal experience. My father tends to be very disorganized with his tools. His office and workshop are both a mess. Although he will always insist he can find anything he needs if no one disrupts his mess. But then he'll spend twice as long working on something because he can't find tool he needs. And I can't count the times he's spent ages looking for something buried under all his paperwork.
So it's not necessarily that slobs are more productive, but that these people are possibly too busy to clean up. The guy who's workspace is always excessively neat probably has too much free time on his hands. I certainly believe that, but it doesn't mean slobs are somehow more productive.
And the Hummer has an expected life of 300,000 miles? Oh, please. Look, my extended family has plenty of experience owning Toyotas and Nissans over the past two decades, and we have come to expect 200,000 miles or more.
Well, I can't speak for Hummers. I can't say I like them much myself. However, the 100,000 miles estimate isn't for the vehicle itself, but for the expected life-expectancy of the batteries.
Speaking of reliability, I have family members with GM cars, specifically Buick and Pontiac, which have well over 200,000 miles and are still running well. They aren't sticklers for maintenance either often going 10,000 to 15,000 miles between oil changes. There are quite a few vehicles nowadays with suggested oil change schedules in that range, but I'm talking about 10+ year old cars with 5,000 mile maintenance schedules.
These cars have had as few problems as any Japanese car I know. American automobiles had terrible reliability in the 70s and 80s but they've improved considerably. The problem is the occasional lemon and the fact that they haven't been able to change public perception.
I have a Honda myself. The real problem I see facing the American automakers is poor decision making. They seem incapable of producing the kinds of cars consumers are looking for. They also lack commitment to specific models. Instead of improving existing models and following a process of evolution they're quick to abandon what they have for something completely new. Then there's the ridiculous obsession with SUVs. They seem to exist in a vacuum. To this day they're stuck competing amongst each other instead of responding to foreign competition.
Ford introduces the new Mustang with 60's style design cues. Despite not helping Ford overall the car sells reasonably well in the short-term. Chrysler and GM see this and rush to produce their own muscle cars with classic muscle car design cues. This doesn't help these companies in any meaningful way, but they invest untold resources into these vehicles anyway. It's like they've oblivious to what the foreign competition is doing. Those are the cars the Americans should be thinking about.
The Americans have this expectation that a single vehicle will make enough of a dramatic impact that it will enable their companies to finally be successful. It's a stupid, short-sighted expectation. Something else I find funny is that the Americans need to move manufacturing overseas to be profitable while the Japanese and Europeans open new factories in the US and continue to be very successful. Of course, the Americans are crippled by unions. And that is a big hindrance to success on the part of the US automakers, but that's a whole other story. Suffice it to say that management can't be blamed for all the problems they're having.
Reliability, however, is no longer a problem with US cars. In fact, American cars have been consistently shown to be more reliable than European cars. European cars may be better designed than the American counterparts, but that doesn't make them more reliable.
I don't think hybrids are the wave of the future. They will never completely replace gasoline engines, another technology will arrive before that happens. I see hybrids merely as an overly complicated stopgap measure. They sell because it's a fad. Most people will never save enough in gasoline to make up the premium a hybrid costs over a standard model. And it's a fact that the manufacture and disposal of batteries is very polluting.
The US would be better served driving diesels. Either that or automakers should start offering the same small displacement engines offered in Europe: 1 and 1.2 liter engines. The problem is that the American public is obsessed with the size of it's automotive penis. They need to drive around in vehicles putting out 300hp and more. God forbid a car feels a little sluggish. Then there's the obsession with over-sized SUVs which is another aspect of the same problem.
I don't think the $60 price tag is anything new. I recall seeing PS2 and Xbox games in that price range.
The obvious reason why console games are expensive is because of console licensing costs. It's why the same game for PCs costs $10 to $15 less. PC games have been $45, at most $50, for years but console games seem to have been creeping up in price in that same time period. So the price difference clearly isn't due to increased development costs.
This is one of the reasons I never really got into console gaming. I don't like having to pay for these nonsense licenses nor do I like having to spend that much on games. Certainly consoles have some desirable games, but not desirable enough that I'm willing to spend that much more money on them. And if you think what we pay in the US is bad, you should see prices in Japan where your average game is at least $70, and I've seen some close to $80.
This is an interesting article and I generally agree with what has been written. However, they make a few statements I'm very skeptical about. I get the impression these guys are biased towards Apple.
Maintaining a PC costs professional users around five times as much as a Mac.
It's possible a PC may cost more than a Mac to maintain, but 5 times more? I work in design, so I've been around both Macs and PCs in a professional environment for quite a few years now. In that period of time our Macs have been replaced far more often than PCs. In the 8 years I worked with this one company Macs were replaced 5 times. They started with old Power PCs, moved on to first generation iMacs, hoping to save some money. Those were replaced in about a year by G3s, then came 2 generations of G4s and most recently Intel-based Macs.
In that same period of time the PCs have been replaced 2 to 3 times. The first upgrade in the same period of time was for IBM machines. Maybe 3 or 4 years later they were replaced by Dells and some of those were replaced by more recent Dell machines. Interestingly there are still a handful of those old Machines around the office being used, not on a regular basis, but they're around. The old Macs are all long gone.
I suppose on a per machine basis a Mac is cheaper. Macs aren't held onto as long and they aren't really upgraded. Many of the PCs in the office saw at least one OS upgrade, at first from Windows NT to 2000, and then to XP.
1. Apple extends support for older machines far longer with its operating system software. 2. Older Macs are faster running a newer version of Mac OS X; older PCs can't even run the latest Windows. 3. It is easier to support and maintain older Macs; older PCs rapidly become more expensive to maintain. 4. Older Macs retain a high resale value, older PCs actually have a negative value after the recycling fees.
In the design industry, which is one of the biggest users of Macs, this is quite common. Design companies replace their machines quite often. They often have no choice, and for exactly the problems that article claims afflict PCs.
Apple doesn't extent any support for old systems. It doesn't offer any support for any old products. Once an Apple product has been replaced by a new model you're out of luck. Of course, there's a good support community out there for older Apple devices, but Apple can't take credit for that. Anyone running OSX 10.3 or older wont be getting any updates any time soon.
Older Macs don't run more recent versions of Mac OSX very well. I've experienced this first hand. Even a 3 year old Mac can have difficulty running OSX 10.4 consistently well. A 3 or 4 year old PC can handle XP with no problems at all. Vista is the exception. But then Macs had similar problems when OSX was released.
And then there are the countless times I've been unable to run applications because they were coded for a more recent version of OSX than I was running. And I don't get backwards compatibility people claim Windows lacks and Macs support.
Even with the OS9 environment in OSX old applications don't necessarily run, and that's assuming that environment is even installed. In Windows I can even run many DOS-era applications.
Old Macs are difficult to maintain without the afore mentioned Apple community. Old PCs are exceedingly easy to maintain and similar support communities exist. And why is resale important? I can't think of anyone who's ever sold an old computer. I've seen a lot more interest in old PCs than old Macs which nobody wants if they're 4 or 5 years old. I believe, however, that PCs have a low resale value. PCs are much cheaper than Macs, why spend the money on an old PC when for not too much money a person can buy a new one.
The article also puts forward a few assumptions they can't really prove. One more absurd one being that most PC users will go out and buy a new PC instead of having the current one services. I'
The primary motivation behind creating most things that are commonly considered art - Mona Lisa, for example - was the artist's desire to get money for food. Besides, your assertation means that "art" is actually a nonsensical concept; it is not a quality of the thing in question, nor the effect it has on viewer, and in fact cannot be determined without cross-examining the creator.
First of all... It's been suggested that Da Vinci produced a number of variations of the Mona Lisa. Meaning an on-going creative process not purely motivated by income. Secondly, even if he were commissioned to produce the work, as many artists were, he was still commissioned to produce art. That's an important distinction. It's very different from a company making a decision to develop a movie or a game.
Secondly, I have no clue where you get the idea that I've said that art is a nonsensical concept. I have no idea what you're trying to say. Art is all about sharing a concept. Art can't really exist without a receiver to view and interpret the work. It's all about the effect it produces on the viewer, whether that be an emotional or intellectual response.
So basically, if I bury a Coke bottle on my backyard today, and an archeologist digs it up 2000 years from now, it has turned from junk to art in the meantime, without any human intervention?
Well, they do have the expression, "one man's junk is another man's art". Andy Warhol did create a painting that was nothing more than a Campbell's soup can. Then there's Duchamp who basically turned a urinal upside down and called it art.
The thing here is that those objects, like a coke bottle, in and of themselves are not art. But they've been reinterpreted in a way that makes them art. To use a game related example: pixel art has been appearing quite a bit in art the past few years. That doesn't mean that all those old games are inherently art because they introduced the style. Someone embraced that theme as a concept for art.
So I never said that there was no human intervention. In fact, quite the contrary. The reason I mentioned historical detachment is because of the change in context. If I show people a coke bottle, few will see it as a work of art. Everyone will see it as a consumer good. Unless one of two things happen. One, I take it and produce a work of art out of that coke bottle, which changes the function and context of that bottle. And two, someone finds it thousands of years from now, not seeing it in today's cultural context but possibly appreciating the bottle for it's contours or the quality of it's glass, and reinterprets it as art. Obviously human involvement and interpretation is essential.
Yeah, because no artist of old ever asked for money for their art.
Anyway, I'm starting to think that the word "art" shouldn't be used in discussion, since it has no commonly accepted meaning, and when pressed people come up with nonsensical elitistical crap like this.
I never said artists couldn't earn money on their art. My arguments had nothing to do with art, but rather the motivation behind the creative process. A game developer doesn't produce a game to create art. They're in the business of making money. An artist may be trying to earn a living, but first and foremost they're creating art. It may be art for profit, but it's art. The involvement of money has nothing to do with whether or not something is art and I never made that argument. I was merely discussing the creative process.
I don't understand how my points could be misconstrued as elitist. And I do think distinctions need to be made. Like it or not, not everything qualifies as art. I myself am a designer and I don't consider myself an artist at all, even though I may use artistic techniques in my work. I'm not going to designate something as art merely because it makes some people feel good or it makes them think what they do is somehow more relevant culturally.
Just because you obviously had difficulty understanding my point doesn't make what I said elitist.
I think there tends to be a confusion regarding whether or not something qualifies as art. Just because something is artistic doesn't mean it's art. Just because something exudes style doesn't mean it's art. It's the same reason design isn't really art.
People like to refer to Shadow of Colossus as an example of art. It presents a novel concept, has a unique storyline twist and is certainly artistic in it's art style. But it isn't really art. Why wouldn't God of War, for example, be considered art. That game has plenty of style. It has a story that's arguably more immersive, even if it's a bit contrived.
To me, something can only qualify as art if the primary motivation behind the creative process was to create art. Certainly there are special conditions, for example when we look back on the work of ancient civilizations. But I think in that case we're so removed from the culture that work is being viewed out of its original context, with a sense of detachment. In that case we're free to create our own impressions.
However, with nearly all games and movies what is the overriding motivation for creation? Money, perhaps to tell a story, to provide an entertaining experience. The creation of art isn't the driving force. Artistic concepts and creative design are simply a part of that process.
There are the rare occasion where a movie or game could become art in it's own right. But that's due to the artistic passion behind the creative process but more importantly to the fact that the subject or presentation is so compelling it's transcended the medium. But that's exceedingly rare. It's not something that can be made to happen. I can think of one game that may qualify, Out of this World.
Interestingly, although the story for that game was interesting. I think it was a number of other factors that make it qualify as art. There seems to be this notion, however, that somehow for a game or movie to qualify as art it requires a deep, complex story. There are art movies out there that consist of nothing but random images. Hell, there is art out there based on little more than mathematical computations.
Perhaps some people believe that if games are taken more seriously they can attract a higher caliber of writers. The problem is that from a business standpoint it's irrelevant. The most important aspect of any game is gameplay. Second to that is probably immersion which is why graphics and audio are important. Story may enhance the game, but it isn't really important because in most cases once gameplay and story can't really coexist. Gameplay has to be interrupted to tell the story. Probably the only exception is adventure games, and to a lesser extent RPGs. Unfortunately not many developers seem interested in creating adventure games.
That's an important point. A quality story can sell a movie, and can sell a book even more effectively. A good story might help a game, but it isn't really crucial. So why would developers bother spending money that could be invested elsewhere. And the reality is that there really aren't that many good writers. Like anything else, the best ones are likely to go where the money is and where there's a greater chance of prominence. So inevitably, many game stories come off as amateurish.
That's all irrelevant anyway. Games are an important part of culture. Games serve their own function and I don't think what works for movies or books will ever work as effectively in games. It's a different medium with a completely different kind of involvement on the part of the person being entertained.
I haven't seen anyone mention this yet, but 300 is based on a graphic novel. Which in turn was based on a movie. Which in turn was based on embellished stories regarding a historical event. It's not that the movie is game-like at all. It's that it's a stylized, simplified comic-book like story.
It looks to me like someone bought the Commodore name just to stick it onto a generic custom PC. They must have gotten a nice infusion of capital from investors to get things off the ground. Whether they manage to turn a profit is another story.
They've really overdone it with the logos all over the box. They even went and printed the logo on the underside of the case and molded the rubber feet in the shape of the logo. That's just tacky.
I like clean case designs, there are some horrendous ones out there, but this Commodore case doesn't look any better than a generic $50 computer case. If it needs a big vinyl sticker to look "gorgeous" we've got problems.
I don't really see how the Commodore name would appeal to anyone who might be interested in these machines. Kids are unlikely to know anything about the original Commodore. And those who did grow up with the original are unlikely to be interested by such a machine. And if they were, they're likely to build an equivalent machine themselves.
I can't really see this going anywhere. They aren't offering anything compelling. They've got nothing to distinguish themselves from competitors.
I have noticed for quite a few years now the PC gaming section shrinking. Honestly, I think the biggest fault for the decline of PC games rests with the developers. The first problem is the complete lack of variety among most PC games. There are three basic genres, FPS's, RTS's and RPG's. And with each of these genres there's even less variety.
What do we get for FPS's? We get gritty, monochromatic future worlds infested by demon aliens. Either that or it's a war game, either based in WW2, modern times and most recently the near future. How about RTS's? It's predominantly some Age of Empires/Civilization, Warcraft or Starcraft clone. The PC RPG genre is probably even worse. Virtually all PC RPGs are based in Tolkien, D&D type worlds. With the recent RPGs developers have gotten obsessed with trying to depict realistic-looking worlds so they've sucked all personality out of these games. They all end up looking identical with player characters all looking like actors in some third-rate fantasy movie.
There's a lack of variety in the console market, but nothing like PCs suffer from. Cross-platform games hurt the PC market further. Developers inevitable build a game around the lowest common denominator. This means PC versions of console games are usually subpar. PC gamers are stuck dealing with poorly designed, awkward interfaces and graphics that are inferior to those of most PC-only games. A PC essentially reveals the short-comings of a console, so why even play the game on a PC?
There is one problem unique to PCs. During the lifespan of a console a gamer never has to worry about compatibility. They don't have think about whether or not that console will be able to run a game developed five years down the road. In fact, that game will likely be far more impressive than anything released years earlier. Not so with PCs. New, mainstream PC games are constantly making a gamer feel inadequate. Especially with games nowadays. Buy a new PC today which will run anything at high detail and don't be surprised if even a year from now if you don't get acceptable frame rates at medium detail.
This is a problem I think is worsening with each passing year. Developers are building games to push the limits of the latest hardware available at the game's release. Sure, the game looks impressive but only for maybe 5%, at best 10% of the market. It creates a gaming environment that tends to alienate more casual gamers.
I recently bought Supreme Commander. It's a good game, but its performance demands are ridiculous. My PC more or less meets the "recommended" requirements but once my army has reached a significant size I start experiencing poor framerates. I find it very hard to believe they couldn't have coded the game more efficiently. So I end up not bothering. Why am I going to buy a recent game when it's unlikely to run well? I'll just wait to upgrade. And that in and of itself is another mess, trying to balance cost and performance, trying to ensure the longevity of new hardware. I'm sure this is a problem many PC gamers are constantly contending with. I have friends who've by and large given up on PC gaming for this reason.
What I don't understand is why PC game developers aren't pushing casual gaming more aggressively. In fact, there's virtually no marketing whatsoever for PC games. People promote the Wii as the ideal casual gaming platform. But they fail to realize that there's a $250 initial investment. That's a lot of money for a non-gamer to put down just because they thought Wii Sports was entertaining. PCs, however, are close to being truly ubiquitous. Who isn't familiar with a PC? It's far more approachable than any game console. And that same non-gamer is far more likely to spend $20 to $40 on a game that catches his or her eye.
The problem here is that the most prominent games in the PC market don't appeal to these people at all. There are plenty of great casual games out there but nobody knows they exist if they aren't specifically looking for them. It's a big opportunity that's being wasted.
Actually, that game seems to me like it's going to be a lot of fun. I think good 2D platform games have been neglected as a genre for far too long. Not every game needs to be full 3D. The graphics are a nice bonus.
Actually, I'm a bit surprised by the tepid response. The guys are doing something a little different that at first glance seems to be fun. I guess it's because it's a PS3 game. If the same game were intended for the Wii I can only imagine that people would be lauded it as yet another example of how Nintendo cares about gameplay.
I think the reason American students are falling behind in subjects like math and science is not because teachers aren't getting paid enough, or is it because of a lack of funding. The problems students are facing are far more elemental. They're not being taught basic responsibilities. They're not being taught a work ethic. And they're not being taught to respect anyone or anything.
Instead educators are trying to turn education into entertainment. Lessons are reduced to wacky fun facts. Everything has to be packaged into bite-sized chunks. It isn't just the curriculum. Compare what schools do in the US compared to schools in Asia, for example.
When I was living in Taiwan I observed that school and academics virtually encompassed a student's entire life. It's not like here when kids are looking to get out of school at a nice early hour to go play. First of all, students arrive at school at 8am, if not earlier. Again, unlike the US where some schools have delayed opening until 9am to let students sleep later.
More importantly were the responsibilities Taiwanese students are given. They spend the first half hour, maybe longer, cleaning the school. They actually have them sweeping the floors and cleaning bathrooms. They didn't necessarily do a good job but rest assured that they were much more reluctant to engage in vandalism knowing that they would be cleaning up the mess the following day.
Imagine the uproar if a school tried that sort of thing in the US. I'm sure lawyers would sweep in with their claims child labor laws were violated. But the fact is that this instilled a sense of responsibility in students.
And it's something that followed them through the school day. They often got out of school late in the day, 4pm or 5pm. And many, mainly those in high school would then go to cram schools in the evening to study for graduation exams.
The problem is, if the schools aren't reinforcing the value of education nobody else will. They sure aren't going to learn anything on the streets. Kids in the suburbs can be as bad as those in the cities. And I know people who've experienced these kinds of problems first hand. It's just that wealthy communities are better at sweeping problems under the rug. But there's a very big distinction. Regardles of what those kids in the suburbs do they're constantly exposed to people who are successful. Eventually it gets drilled into most of them that they need to take school more seriously. So it's the environment outside of school that is one of the biggest factors why many more kids in the suburbs go on to college and end up doing reasonably well.
The lack of interest in some subjects comes down to a lack of work ethic. No amount of money or salary increase is going to resolve these problems. The US already spends money on education than any other developed nation and students in those countries still outperform American students.
Part of that ethical code certainly is goofy. A robot is an object no different than a computer, a car, a chair or anything else. They could program a robot that mimics human emotions and design it to be cute and immensely likable, it's still on a basic level no different from a robotic arm being used in a factory. It's not a sentient being and as such a person should be free to do whatever they want with it. The day a robot crosses over from AI to real sentience then the issue will be debated considerably regardless of whatever rules are dreamt up today.
Despite this, in general I like what the South Korean government is doing. For a simple reason: they're looking ahead to the future. I think this shows a tendency no only in South Korea but Asia in general to be more forward thinking. They're focused on progress and innovation. On the other hand, in the US we have politicians pandering for votes and thus concerned about nonsense. There seems to be this pervasive fear of change. Because of this inability to embrace change people at all levels are going out of the way to hinder progress.
Compare the booming metropolises of Asia to general decline of those in the US. Look at all the committees that need to be organized, the endless conferences and meetings that are held just to put up a single building. And that's assuming some group or another doesn't find some way of blocking the project all together.
Obviously, this is somewhat of a generalization. But having observed this sort of thing first hand I'm convinced of this. The fact that the South Korean government is even thinking of the implications of a society where robots are pervasive demonstrates how forward-thinking they are, at least in certain areas.
In my experience the quality of reviews is inversely proportional to the number of advertisements in the magazine or on the website. I use reviews as a reference. I think it's a problem that reviewers are sometimes blatantly biased with overly positive reviews because they're so desperate for insider information. It's even worse when some like IGN, like to gloat about having gotten their hands on something weeks before any consumer.
Another problem is that these reviewers are rarely paying themselves for the product they're reviewing. That's important, because if something turns out to not be very good it's not their loss anyway. It makes them more tolerant of problems. The only time they do get critical is when the maker of the product is a relative unknown. It's like those reviews only exist to give the reader a pretense of impartiality.
For this reason I never let my opinion be swayed by any one review. And when it's a more significant item I do extensive research, going to as many sources as possible, including forums.
Games, however, are a relatively minor expense. Normally I've already made my decision about purchasing a game even before I've read a review. I know what I like and that's enough for me. I don't much care for the latest popular releases, the latest over-hyped games from EA and the like. No amount of reviews will change that for me because I already know I wont like the game. And I'm especially skeptical of those reviews anyway.
I do read reviews on a regular basis. They do provide a general sense of what to expect. But ultimately it's important to be able to think for yourself and not get suckered by marketing.
I'm also curious to know which of the lego systems they will be using. Given the popularity of Bionicle among many kids I wouldn't be suprised if someone was looking to base a MMO around that. Although, I don't much like Bionicle myself. Bit it would certainly be conducive to kind of gameplay present in most MMOs. I suppose the Puzzle Pirates approach requires much less of a commitment than a standard MMO would, but the Lego site, in some ways, isn't too far from offering that kind of experience right now. Unfortunately, I can't say I find Puzzle Pirates type games particularly compelling, but that's just me.
Given that it's the developer of the failed Auto Assault working on this I don't have particularly high hopes. It originally sounded like a neat idea but the end result was a bit half-hearted and a big disappointment. I suppose a game consistent of a collection of mini-games is a far cry from a full-fledged MMO.
There was a time when I would have been far more critical of a company like Google going to these lengths to dodge taxes. However, that was before I started my own business.
Now I get the enjoyment of having to deal with a mind-blowingly complex tax system, both on the State and Federal level. Complete, reliable information covering everything I need is difficult to find and even more difficult to wade through. So I had to get an accountant.
Then comes the joy of having hard-earned money go to the government. I can't find a better term for the way the government taxes us than extortion. In addition to the income tax I pay, in my state I have to pay additional taxes simply because my company exists. On top of that, I have to pay yearly property tax for office equipment I've already paid sales tax on. This isn't like a car, mind you, where I'm using public roads. This is taxes on stuff sitting in my office. And this is just a small piece of what goes to the government.
It's enough that I initially considered not even bothering to start a company. It's made me a lot more sympathetic to the actions companies like Google take. Some would argue I pay more because of what companies like Google do. But that's just nonsense. It wouldn't make a difference. The government is like a bad welfare case; they want every last penny they can get their hands on. It's this sort of nonsense that drives companies to move overseas where tax systems are far simpler and less of a burden.
This tax nonsense did change something else. It made me a lot more conscious about how the government is spending my tax money. It's made me more involved in what's going on. It made me realize that this is probably one of the reasons companies have more sway over government than regular people. Because most regular people just don't care. They'll complain, but they wont actually be driven to do anything about it. The impact they experience is relatively small and brief. But a company has to deal with it on a regular basis. I see this sort of thing all the time amongst people I know.
Of course if campaign contributions, legal bribes as I call them, were completely banned that would help immensely. But that's another subject.
I do think this tax nonsense is a lot more problematic for small companies than it is for large ones. I don't think it's right what Google is doing, at all. And I do think they could afford to be paying everything they should be paying. However, most in government don't care about the small guy, even when they pretend to be pandering to them.
It's this sort of garbage, in conjunction with atrocious service and poor prices why I buy most things, especially electronics online. I've always been wary about questionable tactics having had friends years ago working at places like CompUSA.
What I almost find more frustrating is terrible customer service. Store employees can't be bothered to show the slightest interest in serving the customer. They're often ignorant about what they're selling and many times I've seen these people lie in order to dupe someone into buying a product. What is even more absurd is when they actually try to argue with a customer who is actually well-informed.
It's really no surprise that places like CompUSA are closing and many of these stores are in disarray. Whenever I happen to go to one of these places I don't even see how they get enough business to even sustain that location.
You'd think it would be common sense to ensure that employees are informed and courteous, prices are fair and to just be honest. I just don't understand the mindset behind the people running these companies. Then they wonder why they're losing business to online retailers.
Of course Blizzard owns all the character data. How can this even be a question? Blizzard created every last shred of content in the game. They simply allow an end user to take their content, consisting of an avatar, equpiment and stats and mix and match it. Just because a player decided to invest months worth of play time doesn't qualify it as work nor does it qualify that content as belonging to anyone other than Blizzard.
If World of Warcraft were more like, Second Life, for example, you may have an argument. Players there are capable of actually creating their own content. I suppose it's kind of like using Photoshop or Flash. Adobe has provided a tool and anything created with these tools does belong to the creator.
For any MMO where players are simply borrowing content the developer has provided I see no possible way for a player to make a successful claim that any of it belongs to them. Especially when ownership is clearly spelled out in the license agreement. If someone does manage to convince a court that game content does belong to the player I predict the quick demise of MMOs as we know them. No one will want to invest millions in a game just to lose control over it once players start claiming everything as their own.
I'm just asking for trouble... But I'm convinced the EU keeps coming down on Microsoft for no other reason than because it's an American company who's dominant in a particular segment. If Microsoft were a European company not only would we not be seeing this legal action, we'd see Europe going out of it's way to protect Microsoft. They do it in other industries, why wouldn't they do the same here? Microsoft certainly is only one of quite a few American companies dealing with these sorts of problems in Europe.
In inevitably any nation is going to protect the interests of it's own companies, it's just that some nations take it to more of an extreme than other nations. Resentment towards American corporations is a lot stronger than many realize. I'm not going to get into details, but more than once I've experienced it first hand.
What in the hell is wrong with Microsoft charging whatever it wants for it's licenses? If companies aren't happy with the pricing they're free to go with a competitor or develop their own protocols. Perhaps the patents shouldn't have been awarded. If they lack sufficient innovation as is claimed why were the patents even awarded?
To be honest, I think this sort of action runs the risk of hindering innovation for one reason. The problem I see emerging however, is that once any company finds it's going to be too much of a challenge to be competitive all they have to do is claim the competitor is being anti-competitive.
I'm not saying all action against Microsoft is unjustified. It's absolutely necessary for the government to sometimes get involved. But I think there's a huge risk of companies using this sort of thing as a crutch. And when it comes to doing business internationally it's an even larger threat.
There seems to be this belief that HD games are somehow inherently more expensive to develop. PC's have supported "HD" for years and game development costs haven't spiraled out of control. Games are getting exceedingly expensive to develop because developers are becoming overly ambitious. Endless sequels are merely a symptom of a larger problem. Sequels exist as a means to reduce costs and to cash in on a popular franchise. This certainly isn't a recent thing: look at the endless Street Fighter clones.
By no means are developers ambitious in terms of unique gameplay. Rather, they're putting excessive amounts of effort into exploiting the latest graphics techniques, developing expansive storylines and introducing increasingly complex control systems. What I think they're trying to do is provide a more cinematic experience. They're trying to reproduce movies in a video game format. Hence the obsession with overly realistic graphics and the cinematic-type presentation. It's inevitable that games inspired by film will also command movie-sized budgets.
Needless to say, this doesn't necessarily translate into entertaining gameplay. I think many developers have lost sight of what constitutes good gameplay. However, I don't think they care. The average consumer is easily impressed by the cinematic patina contemporary games exude. Let's face reality, developers keep producing these games because they sell. The Wii demonstrates that there is a desire for something else. But Nintendo doesn't possess some sort of holy grail of unique gaming. The unique controller can only go so far. Many others have offered unique and compelling gameplay. PCs, outside of the FPS, RTS and RPG clones has offered tons of neat games for years.
Look at what indie developers are producing. And many of them are exploiting high resolutions to their fullest extent. Some of these games look phenomenal. Some have a unique visual style which enhances gameplay. I inevitably am drawn back to the Wii as compared to the other platforms. There is this prevailing opinion I see that expects the Wii to somehow solve all these problems. It won't. The system is hindered performance-wise and the controller while great for some games is nowhere near as flexible a device as some believe.
I predict that within a few years Nintendo will introduce an HD-capable Wii. I think it will be a smart move for Nintendo, but it will also mean anyone who currently owns a Wii and then gets the upgraded model will have likely spent $400-$500 on the two systems. Suddenly the pricing won't all that different from an Xbox360 or PS3.
I don't expect most large developers to change their ways. They may occasionally offer something different but the for the most part we'll see more of the same. Perhaps we'll see the game industry work more like the movie industry. Ultimately, the problem lies with the nature of business and the lack of consumers who can think independently.
Behind in what way? So France has a 35 hour work week. That's great, except that it's hurt the economy severely and has led to high unemployment. I have family members there constantly complaining about how the government and companies keep cutting back on benefits because they cant afford them. I have cousins moving elsewhere in Europe, specifically England and Ireland because they can't find work in France.
There's a myth perpetuated amongst many French that English companies treat their employees badly and that they work excessive overtime. The reality is that many French have moved to England to work. A significant portion of the work force in London is French. It's far easier to land a job there and they earn more than they would have back home.
The French government thought they were doing a great thing by forcing the 35 hour work week and forcing companies to maintain current salary levels. It's turned out to be a disaster. The govenment was looking to repeal the short work week and were blocked by unions. It was the same sort of nonsense where all those stupid students went nuts rioting because the government wanted to change policies for hiring college graduates. It would have helped more of them get work, but they're obsessed with an unrealistic desire for security. They'd rather sit around unemployed so that the few who land work can hold on to their jobs regardless of performance.
Europe in general has a struggling economy, although some nations are obviously doing better than others. From my own experience, I'm convinced that those nations where citizens work harder the economy and nation as a whole is a lot stronger. It's why Asia is an up-and-coming power and why the US in some ways is slipping.
I'm not saying 80+ hour work weeks are justfied. Not at all. My point is that Europe has really overdone it with the regulations.
Lower costs in China allow for a higher standard of living, while labour laws will force game studios to stick to rational work-weeks.
That's a funny statement to make. Virtually everyone I know who works in Asia, China, Taiwan and Japan, works insane hours. It's a way of life and they just accept it. Up until a few years ago in every second Saturday was a work day in Taiwan. Even for me, when I was out there getting out at 7pm or 8pm was early. And that was pretty much all year round; there were few lulls. And I worked at a fairly small company, because bigger ones were often worse. It gets to a point where you don't even think about it anymore. You've become a worker drone.
In Taiwan and China they do get maybe five days off for Chinese New Year, and maybe a holiday or to at some other time during the year, but that's it. Now, if you're in management, especially higher level management things change considerably. People in the US like to complain about their managers. But the most people here deal with is general stupidity. I've seen management in Asia treat employees like utter crap. They get fairly vicious and insulting with their employees. And many have the habit of not being in the office half the time. It's like the position exists simply to sustain their personal lives. It was frustrating trying to convince some of these guys to invest some money in improving the company when, as they say it, the money could go towards a nice new S-class Mercedes.
I'd like to know what labor standards actually exist in China, and if they do exist if anyone is actually enforcing them. I think what these guys are expecting is that they can lead a fairly cushy life running this company while having others do the "soul-crushing" dirty work. And because labor is cheap they can hire three or four developers for the cost of one in the US. It sounds good until you realize that you need to direct them a lot more closely than you would with a Western developer.
Corporate cultures are different there from the West. The employees expect managers to direct them in everything they do. Western employees tend to figure things out for themselves where possible. I even noticed this tendency with college graduates, in my case design graduates. We'd see their portfolios and they'd have impressive work. We'd bring them in and they were totally incapable of performing. They couldn't figure anything out. I eventually learned that it's because in school professors closely direct the student's work. So once they were left to fend for themselves they were lost. I think it's one reason they tend to copy ideas so much. For this reason we had a tendency to hire locals educated in the West.
Anyone who was really good had a tendency to move to the West where the working conditions were better, contrary to what these guys claim, and where they could earn more. Ultimately, you're going to sacrifice something. You either spend less money and have more hassles or you spend a bit more and ensure that things generally go well. I know people who've stopped outsourcing programming to China and India because of all the trouble they've had. Ultimately it was cheaper and easier to just hire programmers here. I will say one thing, people in Asia generally have a much better work ethic than many Americans. They don't have the excessive sense of entitlement that you see in this country.
I think the whole draw of an RPG, at least for me, is that I'm building a character. I like that sense of progress. I want to see my character's strength grow enabling him to slaughter foes who he initially had no hope of defeating. I like being able to explore, not have everything open to me within the first 30 minutes of gameplay but rather having a new region to explore made safer because of that character's progress.
Essentially, if I didn't want that sort of experience I wouldn't be playing an RPG. I'd be playing any one of a number of other games where my character remains unchanged from start to finish. I see an RPG, at it's essence to be a facsimile of real life. Obviously, it's not a literal depiction; it's not a simulation. However, such games are designed around character growth and evolution. An individual in real life doesn't reach a given and and find him or herself suddenly endowed with everything they will ever need to know. They aren't going to land the perfect job immediately out of college, earning untold fortunes. It may happen for someone, but that's the exception to the rule. Life is about growth, change and improvement, the basic elements found in most RPGs.
Perhaps too often these games devolve into a treadmill. But then developers are limited by how much variety they can put into a game. And regardless, life is essentially a treadmill: go to work, earn money, buy some stuff, earn experience, get a better job, buy better stuff. One could argue that they play games to escape from reality, but then that's a completely different debate.
MMOs are another story. In that case the developer has chosen to make the treadmill more tedious for a simple reason: to earn as much money as possible. That's the thing about subscription-based games. The trick there is to keep the carrot dangled just out of reach; keep the player interested enough that they keep playing. The thing is that people want a goal to reach for. Everyone is focused on the destination even though the journey is probably even more important. The thing is, without the end goal the journey becomes pointless. That's the problem with MMOs. It's an exercise in frustration because the game is based around making a player feel inadequate regardless of what level they are. There's no point at which a player can say they've made it. So the treadmill becomes painfully obvious.
I don't think Oblivion's system helps in any way. I don't like the idea that my enemies scale with me. I expect that as my character grows lower level enemies become insignificant. High level enemies pose a challenge because they are so powerful. The idea should be that the stakes are higher and greater forces are at play; battles become increasingly epic. If I get defeated at level 50 it's because I faced something truly powerful, not because of some unnatural mechanism. I don't want my level 2 foe to continue to be a challenge in the end game.
Reading the article I'm left with the impression the guy shouldn't be playing or developing RPGs.
The hype for this game is getting to be so ridiculous that I don't see how the game won't do anything but disappoint. It's being made to seem like the second coming. It certainly looks compelling, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be a glorfied RTS with unit customization.
The marketing team sure is working overtime to promote this one. Rest assured the game will sell strongly within the first few weeks of release on media attention alone.
Slashdot Mirror
...before the government starts taxing MMOs.
Like it or not, the PS3 is always going to compete in the same exact market as the Wii and Xbox360. No matter what features they include with the system, how powerful they make it, what claims they make consumers will always consider it first and foremost a game console.
Anyone who wants a system that does more will buy a PC. The PS3 is built around a gaming console so it will never function adequately as a PC. Not to mention it wouldn't be compatible with anything on a PC. Those interested in a home theater want dedicated hardware. They don't want audio/visual performance compromised. So ultimately, while for what the PS3 offers it might not be a bad price, it's perceived by everyone as a game console. And in that regard it is overpriced.
Nintendo has clearly learned from their attempts to turn the NES into a home computer. They've focused on the entertainment aspect and are emphasizing gameplay. Microsoft is in a far better position to bridge the gap between PCs and consoles given their extensive experience with operating systems. Even then, Microsoft hasn't forced an overpowered system on the consumer. They're a lot more subtle.
Eventually, PCs and consoles might unite as a home entertainment appliance but that day is still a ways away. Sony tried to do too much too soon and now have put themselves in a very difficult position.
It's like that paradox where any person can tell describe to you how a person can look. They can easily spot facsimile, be it CGI or an illustration. However, ask someone to sit down and draw a realistic, physically accurate picture of a person. Anyone who hasn't had formal training or doesn't have an innate talent for drawing won't get it right. Does it make them unqualified to identify a real human?
Just because someone is incapable of doing a better job doesn't mean they aren't capable of identifying what takes to do a good job. Someone can understand intellectually what is required to produce a good movie but be unable to apply that understanding in a practical manner. Those can be two very different things.
It sounds to me like someone is trying to justify their sloppiness.
Visit an organized, smoothly operating factory; everything is neat and clean. Go so a good mechanic; the shop is organized and neat. From personal experience I have yet to deal with a slob that is exceptionally productive.
This is yet another example of cause and effect getting mixed up. I tend to keep my work and living space neat. I have trouble focusing when things are too much of a mess. More importantly, if things are disorganized I end up wasting too much time trying to find what I need. However, when I get busy, when I'm under a tight deadline, I tend to leave things a mess. I have more important things to do than to worry about cleaning up.
If anything, a mess is counter-productive. Again, I submit an example from personal experience. My father tends to be very disorganized with his tools. His office and workshop are both a mess. Although he will always insist he can find anything he needs if no one disrupts his mess. But then he'll spend twice as long working on something because he can't find tool he needs. And I can't count the times he's spent ages looking for something buried under all his paperwork.
So it's not necessarily that slobs are more productive, but that these people are possibly too busy to clean up. The guy who's workspace is always excessively neat probably has too much free time on his hands. I certainly believe that, but it doesn't mean slobs are somehow more productive.
Well, I can't speak for Hummers. I can't say I like them much myself. However, the 100,000 miles estimate isn't for the vehicle itself, but for the expected life-expectancy of the batteries.
Speaking of reliability, I have family members with GM cars, specifically Buick and Pontiac, which have well over 200,000 miles and are still running well. They aren't sticklers for maintenance either often going 10,000 to 15,000 miles between oil changes. There are quite a few vehicles nowadays with suggested oil change schedules in that range, but I'm talking about 10+ year old cars with 5,000 mile maintenance schedules.
These cars have had as few problems as any Japanese car I know. American automobiles had terrible reliability in the 70s and 80s but they've improved considerably. The problem is the occasional lemon and the fact that they haven't been able to change public perception.
I have a Honda myself. The real problem I see facing the American automakers is poor decision making. They seem incapable of producing the kinds of cars consumers are looking for. They also lack commitment to specific models. Instead of improving existing models and following a process of evolution they're quick to abandon what they have for something completely new. Then there's the ridiculous obsession with SUVs. They seem to exist in a vacuum. To this day they're stuck competing amongst each other instead of responding to foreign competition.
Ford introduces the new Mustang with 60's style design cues. Despite not helping Ford overall the car sells reasonably well in the short-term. Chrysler and GM see this and rush to produce their own muscle cars with classic muscle car design cues. This doesn't help these companies in any meaningful way, but they invest untold resources into these vehicles anyway. It's like they've oblivious to what the foreign competition is doing. Those are the cars the Americans should be thinking about.
The Americans have this expectation that a single vehicle will make enough of a dramatic impact that it will enable their companies to finally be successful. It's a stupid, short-sighted expectation. Something else I find funny is that the Americans need to move manufacturing overseas to be profitable while the Japanese and Europeans open new factories in the US and continue to be very successful. Of course, the Americans are crippled by unions. And that is a big hindrance to success on the part of the US automakers, but that's a whole other story. Suffice it to say that management can't be blamed for all the problems they're having.
Reliability, however, is no longer a problem with US cars. In fact, American cars have been consistently shown to be more reliable than European cars. European cars may be better designed than the American counterparts, but that doesn't make them more reliable.
I don't think hybrids are the wave of the future. They will never completely replace gasoline engines, another technology will arrive before that happens. I see hybrids merely as an overly complicated stopgap measure. They sell because it's a fad. Most people will never save enough in gasoline to make up the premium a hybrid costs over a standard model. And it's a fact that the manufacture and disposal of batteries is very polluting.
The US would be better served driving diesels. Either that or automakers should start offering the same small displacement engines offered in Europe: 1 and 1.2 liter engines. The problem is that the American public is obsessed with the size of it's automotive penis. They need to drive around in vehicles putting out 300hp and more. God forbid a car feels a little sluggish. Then there's the obsession with over-sized SUVs which is another aspect of the same problem.
I don't think the $60 price tag is anything new. I recall seeing PS2 and Xbox games in that price range.
The obvious reason why console games are expensive is because of console licensing costs. It's why the same game for PCs costs $10 to $15 less. PC games have been $45, at most $50, for years but console games seem to have been creeping up in price in that same time period. So the price difference clearly isn't due to increased development costs.
This is one of the reasons I never really got into console gaming. I don't like having to pay for these nonsense licenses nor do I like having to spend that much on games. Certainly consoles have some desirable games, but not desirable enough that I'm willing to spend that much more money on them. And if you think what we pay in the US is bad, you should see prices in Japan where your average game is at least $70, and I've seen some close to $80.
It's possible a PC may cost more than a Mac to maintain, but 5 times more? I work in design, so I've been around both Macs and PCs in a professional environment for quite a few years now. In that period of time our Macs have been replaced far more often than PCs. In the 8 years I worked with this one company Macs were replaced 5 times. They started with old Power PCs, moved on to first generation iMacs, hoping to save some money. Those were replaced in about a year by G3s, then came 2 generations of G4s and most recently Intel-based Macs.
In that same period of time the PCs have been replaced 2 to 3 times. The first upgrade in the same period of time was for IBM machines. Maybe 3 or 4 years later they were replaced by Dells and some of those were replaced by more recent Dell machines. Interestingly there are still a handful of those old Machines around the office being used, not on a regular basis, but they're around. The old Macs are all long gone.
I suppose on a per machine basis a Mac is cheaper. Macs aren't held onto as long and they aren't really upgraded. Many of the PCs in the office saw at least one OS upgrade, at first from Windows NT to 2000, and then to XP.
In the design industry, which is one of the biggest users of Macs, this is quite common. Design companies replace their machines quite often. They often have no choice, and for exactly the problems that article claims afflict PCs.
Apple doesn't extent any support for old systems. It doesn't offer any support for any old products. Once an Apple product has been replaced by a new model you're out of luck. Of course, there's a good support community out there for older Apple devices, but Apple can't take credit for that. Anyone running OSX 10.3 or older wont be getting any updates any time soon.
Older Macs don't run more recent versions of Mac OSX very well. I've experienced this first hand. Even a 3 year old Mac can have difficulty running OSX 10.4 consistently well. A 3 or 4 year old PC can handle XP with no problems at all. Vista is the exception. But then Macs had similar problems when OSX was released.
And then there are the countless times I've been unable to run applications because they were coded for a more recent version of OSX than I was running. And I don't get backwards compatibility people claim Windows lacks and Macs support.
Even with the OS9 environment in OSX old applications don't necessarily run, and that's assuming that environment is even installed. In Windows I can even run many DOS-era applications.
Old Macs are difficult to maintain without the afore mentioned Apple community. Old PCs are exceedingly easy to maintain and similar support communities exist. And why is resale important? I can't think of anyone who's ever sold an old computer. I've seen a lot more interest in old PCs than old Macs which nobody wants if they're 4 or 5 years old. I believe, however, that PCs have a low resale value. PCs are much cheaper than Macs, why spend the money on an old PC when for not too much money a person can buy a new one.
The article also puts forward a few assumptions they can't really prove. One more absurd one being that most PC users will go out and buy a new PC instead of having the current one services. I'
First of all... It's been suggested that Da Vinci produced a number of variations of the Mona Lisa. Meaning an on-going creative process not purely motivated by income. Secondly, even if he were commissioned to produce the work, as many artists were, he was still commissioned to produce art. That's an important distinction. It's very different from a company making a decision to develop a movie or a game.
Secondly, I have no clue where you get the idea that I've said that art is a nonsensical concept. I have no idea what you're trying to say. Art is all about sharing a concept. Art can't really exist without a receiver to view and interpret the work. It's all about the effect it produces on the viewer, whether that be an emotional or intellectual response.
Well, they do have the expression, "one man's junk is another man's art". Andy Warhol did create a painting that was nothing more than a Campbell's soup can. Then there's Duchamp who basically turned a urinal upside down and called it art.
The thing here is that those objects, like a coke bottle, in and of themselves are not art. But they've been reinterpreted in a way that makes them art. To use a game related example: pixel art has been appearing quite a bit in art the past few years. That doesn't mean that all those old games are inherently art because they introduced the style. Someone embraced that theme as a concept for art.
So I never said that there was no human intervention. In fact, quite the contrary. The reason I mentioned historical detachment is because of the change in context. If I show people a coke bottle, few will see it as a work of art. Everyone will see it as a consumer good. Unless one of two things happen. One, I take it and produce a work of art out of that coke bottle, which changes the function and context of that bottle. And two, someone finds it thousands of years from now, not seeing it in today's cultural context but possibly appreciating the bottle for it's contours or the quality of it's glass, and reinterprets it as art. Obviously human involvement and interpretation is essential.
I never said artists couldn't earn money on their art. My arguments had nothing to do with art, but rather the motivation behind the creative process. A game developer doesn't produce a game to create art. They're in the business of making money. An artist may be trying to earn a living, but first and foremost they're creating art. It may be art for profit, but it's art. The involvement of money has nothing to do with whether or not something is art and I never made that argument. I was merely discussing the creative process.
I don't understand how my points could be misconstrued as elitist. And I do think distinctions need to be made. Like it or not, not everything qualifies as art. I myself am a designer and I don't consider myself an artist at all, even though I may use artistic techniques in my work. I'm not going to designate something as art merely because it makes some people feel good or it makes them think what they do is somehow more relevant culturally.
Just because you obviously had difficulty understanding my point doesn't make what I said elitist.
And "elitistical" isn't a word.
I think there tends to be a confusion regarding whether or not something qualifies as art. Just because something is artistic doesn't mean it's art. Just because something exudes style doesn't mean it's art. It's the same reason design isn't really art.
People like to refer to Shadow of Colossus as an example of art. It presents a novel concept, has a unique storyline twist and is certainly artistic in it's art style. But it isn't really art. Why wouldn't God of War, for example, be considered art. That game has plenty of style. It has a story that's arguably more immersive, even if it's a bit contrived.
To me, something can only qualify as art if the primary motivation behind the creative process was to create art. Certainly there are special conditions, for example when we look back on the work of ancient civilizations. But I think in that case we're so removed from the culture that work is being viewed out of its original context, with a sense of detachment. In that case we're free to create our own impressions.
However, with nearly all games and movies what is the overriding motivation for creation? Money, perhaps to tell a story, to provide an entertaining experience. The creation of art isn't the driving force. Artistic concepts and creative design are simply a part of that process.
There are the rare occasion where a movie or game could become art in it's own right. But that's due to the artistic passion behind the creative process but more importantly to the fact that the subject or presentation is so compelling it's transcended the medium. But that's exceedingly rare. It's not something that can be made to happen. I can think of one game that may qualify, Out of this World.
Interestingly, although the story for that game was interesting. I think it was a number of other factors that make it qualify as art. There seems to be this notion, however, that somehow for a game or movie to qualify as art it requires a deep, complex story. There are art movies out there that consist of nothing but random images. Hell, there is art out there based on little more than mathematical computations.
Perhaps some people believe that if games are taken more seriously they can attract a higher caliber of writers. The problem is that from a business standpoint it's irrelevant. The most important aspect of any game is gameplay. Second to that is probably immersion which is why graphics and audio are important. Story may enhance the game, but it isn't really important because in most cases once gameplay and story can't really coexist. Gameplay has to be interrupted to tell the story. Probably the only exception is adventure games, and to a lesser extent RPGs. Unfortunately not many developers seem interested in creating adventure games.
That's an important point. A quality story can sell a movie, and can sell a book even more effectively. A good story might help a game, but it isn't really crucial. So why would developers bother spending money that could be invested elsewhere. And the reality is that there really aren't that many good writers. Like anything else, the best ones are likely to go where the money is and where there's a greater chance of prominence. So inevitably, many game stories come off as amateurish.
That's all irrelevant anyway. Games are an important part of culture. Games serve their own function and I don't think what works for movies or books will ever work as effectively in games. It's a different medium with a completely different kind of involvement on the part of the person being entertained.
I haven't seen anyone mention this yet, but 300 is based on a graphic novel. Which in turn was based on a movie. Which in turn was based on embellished stories regarding a historical event. It's not that the movie is game-like at all. It's that it's a stylized, simplified comic-book like story.
It looks to me like someone bought the Commodore name just to stick it onto a generic custom PC. They must have gotten a nice infusion of capital from investors to get things off the ground. Whether they manage to turn a profit is another story.
They've really overdone it with the logos all over the box. They even went and printed the logo on the underside of the case and molded the rubber feet in the shape of the logo. That's just tacky.
I like clean case designs, there are some horrendous ones out there, but this Commodore case doesn't look any better than a generic $50 computer case. If it needs a big vinyl sticker to look "gorgeous" we've got problems.
I don't really see how the Commodore name would appeal to anyone who might be interested in these machines. Kids are unlikely to know anything about the original Commodore. And those who did grow up with the original are unlikely to be interested by such a machine. And if they were, they're likely to build an equivalent machine themselves.
I can't really see this going anywhere. They aren't offering anything compelling. They've got nothing to distinguish themselves from competitors.
I have noticed for quite a few years now the PC gaming section shrinking. Honestly, I think the biggest fault for the decline of PC games rests with the developers. The first problem is the complete lack of variety among most PC games. There are three basic genres, FPS's, RTS's and RPG's. And with each of these genres there's even less variety.
What do we get for FPS's? We get gritty, monochromatic future worlds infested by demon aliens. Either that or it's a war game, either based in WW2, modern times and most recently the near future. How about RTS's? It's predominantly some Age of Empires/Civilization, Warcraft or Starcraft clone. The PC RPG genre is probably even worse. Virtually all PC RPGs are based in Tolkien, D&D type worlds. With the recent RPGs developers have gotten obsessed with trying to depict realistic-looking worlds so they've sucked all personality out of these games. They all end up looking identical with player characters all looking like actors in some third-rate fantasy movie.
There's a lack of variety in the console market, but nothing like PCs suffer from. Cross-platform games hurt the PC market further. Developers inevitable build a game around the lowest common denominator. This means PC versions of console games are usually subpar. PC gamers are stuck dealing with poorly designed, awkward interfaces and graphics that are inferior to those of most PC-only games. A PC essentially reveals the short-comings of a console, so why even play the game on a PC?
There is one problem unique to PCs. During the lifespan of a console a gamer never has to worry about compatibility. They don't have think about whether or not that console will be able to run a game developed five years down the road. In fact, that game will likely be far more impressive than anything released years earlier. Not so with PCs. New, mainstream PC games are constantly making a gamer feel inadequate. Especially with games nowadays. Buy a new PC today which will run anything at high detail and don't be surprised if even a year from now if you don't get acceptable frame rates at medium detail.
This is a problem I think is worsening with each passing year. Developers are building games to push the limits of the latest hardware available at the game's release. Sure, the game looks impressive but only for maybe 5%, at best 10% of the market. It creates a gaming environment that tends to alienate more casual gamers.
I recently bought Supreme Commander. It's a good game, but its performance demands are ridiculous. My PC more or less meets the "recommended" requirements but once my army has reached a significant size I start experiencing poor framerates. I find it very hard to believe they couldn't have coded the game more efficiently. So I end up not bothering. Why am I going to buy a recent game when it's unlikely to run well? I'll just wait to upgrade. And that in and of itself is another mess, trying to balance cost and performance, trying to ensure the longevity of new hardware. I'm sure this is a problem many PC gamers are constantly contending with. I have friends who've by and large given up on PC gaming for this reason.
What I don't understand is why PC game developers aren't pushing casual gaming more aggressively. In fact, there's virtually no marketing whatsoever for PC games. People promote the Wii as the ideal casual gaming platform. But they fail to realize that there's a $250 initial investment. That's a lot of money for a non-gamer to put down just because they thought Wii Sports was entertaining. PCs, however, are close to being truly ubiquitous. Who isn't familiar with a PC? It's far more approachable than any game console. And that same non-gamer is far more likely to spend $20 to $40 on a game that catches his or her eye.
The problem here is that the most prominent games in the PC market don't appeal to these people at all. There are plenty of great casual games out there but nobody knows they exist if they aren't specifically looking for them. It's a big opportunity that's being wasted.
Actually, that game seems to me like it's going to be a lot of fun. I think good 2D platform games have been neglected as a genre for far too long. Not every game needs to be full 3D. The graphics are a nice bonus.
Actually, I'm a bit surprised by the tepid response. The guys are doing something a little different that at first glance seems to be fun. I guess it's because it's a PS3 game. If the same game were intended for the Wii I can only imagine that people would be lauded it as yet another example of how Nintendo cares about gameplay.
Education 8mar07
I think the reason American students are falling behind in subjects like math and science is not because teachers aren't getting paid enough, or is it because of a lack of funding. The problems students are facing are far more elemental. They're not being taught basic responsibilities. They're not being taught a work ethic. And they're not being taught to respect anyone or anything.
Instead educators are trying to turn education into entertainment. Lessons are reduced to wacky fun facts. Everything has to be packaged into bite-sized chunks. It isn't just the curriculum. Compare what schools do in the US compared to schools in Asia, for example.
When I was living in Taiwan I observed that school and academics virtually encompassed a student's entire life. It's not like here when kids are looking to get out of school at a nice early hour to go play. First of all, students arrive at school at 8am, if not earlier. Again, unlike the US where some schools have delayed opening until 9am to let students sleep later.
More importantly were the responsibilities Taiwanese students are given. They spend the first half hour, maybe longer, cleaning the school. They actually have them sweeping the floors and cleaning bathrooms. They didn't necessarily do a good job but rest assured that they were much more reluctant to engage in vandalism knowing that they would be cleaning up the mess the following day.
Imagine the uproar if a school tried that sort of thing in the US. I'm sure lawyers would sweep in with their claims child labor laws were violated. But the fact is that this instilled a sense of responsibility in students.
And it's something that followed them through the school day. They often got out of school late in the day, 4pm or 5pm. And many, mainly those in high school would then go to cram schools in the evening to study for graduation exams.
The problem is, if the schools aren't reinforcing the value of education nobody else will. They sure aren't going to learn anything on the streets. Kids in the suburbs can be as bad as those in the cities. And I know people who've experienced these kinds of problems first hand. It's just that wealthy communities are better at sweeping problems under the rug. But there's a very big distinction. Regardles of what those kids in the suburbs do they're constantly exposed to people who are successful. Eventually it gets drilled into most of them that they need to take school more seriously. So it's the environment outside of school that is one of the biggest factors why many more kids in the suburbs go on to college and end up doing reasonably well.
The lack of interest in some subjects comes down to a lack of work ethic. No amount of money or salary increase is going to resolve these problems. The US already spends money on education than any other developed nation and students in those countries still outperform American students.
Part of that ethical code certainly is goofy. A robot is an object no different than a computer, a car, a chair or anything else. They could program a robot that mimics human emotions and design it to be cute and immensely likable, it's still on a basic level no different from a robotic arm being used in a factory. It's not a sentient being and as such a person should be free to do whatever they want with it. The day a robot crosses over from AI to real sentience then the issue will be debated considerably regardless of whatever rules are dreamt up today.
Despite this, in general I like what the South Korean government is doing. For a simple reason: they're looking ahead to the future. I think this shows a tendency no only in South Korea but Asia in general to be more forward thinking. They're focused on progress and innovation. On the other hand, in the US we have politicians pandering for votes and thus concerned about nonsense. There seems to be this pervasive fear of change. Because of this inability to embrace change people at all levels are going out of the way to hinder progress.
Compare the booming metropolises of Asia to general decline of those in the US. Look at all the committees that need to be organized, the endless conferences and meetings that are held just to put up a single building. And that's assuming some group or another doesn't find some way of blocking the project all together.
Obviously, this is somewhat of a generalization. But having observed this sort of thing first hand I'm convinced of this. The fact that the South Korean government is even thinking of the implications of a society where robots are pervasive demonstrates how forward-thinking they are, at least in certain areas.
In my experience the quality of reviews is inversely proportional to the number of advertisements in the magazine or on the website. I use reviews as a reference. I think it's a problem that reviewers are sometimes blatantly biased with overly positive reviews because they're so desperate for insider information. It's even worse when some like IGN, like to gloat about having gotten their hands on something weeks before any consumer.
Another problem is that these reviewers are rarely paying themselves for the product they're reviewing. That's important, because if something turns out to not be very good it's not their loss anyway. It makes them more tolerant of problems. The only time they do get critical is when the maker of the product is a relative unknown. It's like those reviews only exist to give the reader a pretense of impartiality.
For this reason I never let my opinion be swayed by any one review. And when it's a more significant item I do extensive research, going to as many sources as possible, including forums.
Games, however, are a relatively minor expense. Normally I've already made my decision about purchasing a game even before I've read a review. I know what I like and that's enough for me. I don't much care for the latest popular releases, the latest over-hyped games from EA and the like. No amount of reviews will change that for me because I already know I wont like the game. And I'm especially skeptical of those reviews anyway.
I do read reviews on a regular basis. They do provide a general sense of what to expect. But ultimately it's important to be able to think for yourself and not get suckered by marketing.
I'm also curious to know which of the lego systems they will be using. Given the popularity of Bionicle among many kids I wouldn't be suprised if someone was looking to base a MMO around that. Although, I don't much like Bionicle myself. Bit it would certainly be conducive to kind of gameplay present in most MMOs. I suppose the Puzzle Pirates approach requires much less of a commitment than a standard MMO would, but the Lego site, in some ways, isn't too far from offering that kind of experience right now. Unfortunately, I can't say I find Puzzle Pirates type games particularly compelling, but that's just me.
Given that it's the developer of the failed Auto Assault working on this I don't have particularly high hopes. It originally sounded like a neat idea but the end result was a bit half-hearted and a big disappointment. I suppose a game consistent of a collection of mini-games is a far cry from a full-fledged MMO.
There was a time when I would have been far more critical of a company like Google going to these lengths to dodge taxes. However, that was before I started my own business.
Now I get the enjoyment of having to deal with a mind-blowingly complex tax system, both on the State and Federal level. Complete, reliable information covering everything I need is difficult to find and even more difficult to wade through. So I had to get an accountant.
Then comes the joy of having hard-earned money go to the government. I can't find a better term for the way the government taxes us than extortion. In addition to the income tax I pay, in my state I have to pay additional taxes simply because my company exists. On top of that, I have to pay yearly property tax for office equipment I've already paid sales tax on. This isn't like a car, mind you, where I'm using public roads. This is taxes on stuff sitting in my office. And this is just a small piece of what goes to the government.
It's enough that I initially considered not even bothering to start a company. It's made me a lot more sympathetic to the actions companies like Google take. Some would argue I pay more because of what companies like Google do. But that's just nonsense. It wouldn't make a difference. The government is like a bad welfare case; they want every last penny they can get their hands on. It's this sort of nonsense that drives companies to move overseas where tax systems are far simpler and less of a burden.
This tax nonsense did change something else. It made me a lot more conscious about how the government is spending my tax money. It's made me more involved in what's going on. It made me realize that this is probably one of the reasons companies have more sway over government than regular people. Because most regular people just don't care. They'll complain, but they wont actually be driven to do anything about it. The impact they experience is relatively small and brief. But a company has to deal with it on a regular basis. I see this sort of thing all the time amongst people I know.
Of course if campaign contributions, legal bribes as I call them, were completely banned that would help immensely. But that's another subject.
I do think this tax nonsense is a lot more problematic for small companies than it is for large ones. I don't think it's right what Google is doing, at all. And I do think they could afford to be paying everything they should be paying. However, most in government don't care about the small guy, even when they pretend to be pandering to them.
It's this sort of garbage, in conjunction with atrocious service and poor prices why I buy most things, especially electronics online. I've always been wary about questionable tactics having had friends years ago working at places like CompUSA.
What I almost find more frustrating is terrible customer service. Store employees can't be bothered to show the slightest interest in serving the customer. They're often ignorant about what they're selling and many times I've seen these people lie in order to dupe someone into buying a product. What is even more absurd is when they actually try to argue with a customer who is actually well-informed.
It's really no surprise that places like CompUSA are closing and many of these stores are in disarray. Whenever I happen to go to one of these places I don't even see how they get enough business to even sustain that location.
You'd think it would be common sense to ensure that employees are informed and courteous, prices are fair and to just be honest. I just don't understand the mindset behind the people running these companies. Then they wonder why they're losing business to online retailers.
Of course Blizzard owns all the character data. How can this even be a question? Blizzard created every last shred of content in the game. They simply allow an end user to take their content, consisting of an avatar, equpiment and stats and mix and match it. Just because a player decided to invest months worth of play time doesn't qualify it as work nor does it qualify that content as belonging to anyone other than Blizzard.
If World of Warcraft were more like, Second Life, for example, you may have an argument. Players there are capable of actually creating their own content. I suppose it's kind of like using Photoshop or Flash. Adobe has provided a tool and anything created with these tools does belong to the creator.
For any MMO where players are simply borrowing content the developer has provided I see no possible way for a player to make a successful claim that any of it belongs to them. Especially when ownership is clearly spelled out in the license agreement. If someone does manage to convince a court that game content does belong to the player I predict the quick demise of MMOs as we know them. No one will want to invest millions in a game just to lose control over it once players start claiming everything as their own.
I'm just asking for trouble... But I'm convinced the EU keeps coming down on Microsoft for no other reason than because it's an American company who's dominant in a particular segment. If Microsoft were a European company not only would we not be seeing this legal action, we'd see Europe going out of it's way to protect Microsoft. They do it in other industries, why wouldn't they do the same here? Microsoft certainly is only one of quite a few American companies dealing with these sorts of problems in Europe.
In inevitably any nation is going to protect the interests of it's own companies, it's just that some nations take it to more of an extreme than other nations. Resentment towards American corporations is a lot stronger than many realize. I'm not going to get into details, but more than once I've experienced it first hand.
What in the hell is wrong with Microsoft charging whatever it wants for it's licenses? If companies aren't happy with the pricing they're free to go with a competitor or develop their own protocols. Perhaps the patents shouldn't have been awarded. If they lack sufficient innovation as is claimed why were the patents even awarded?
To be honest, I think this sort of action runs the risk of hindering innovation for one reason. The problem I see emerging however, is that once any company finds it's going to be too much of a challenge to be competitive all they have to do is claim the competitor is being anti-competitive.
I'm not saying all action against Microsoft is unjustified. It's absolutely necessary for the government to sometimes get involved. But I think there's a huge risk of companies using this sort of thing as a crutch. And when it comes to doing business internationally it's an even larger threat.
There seems to be this belief that HD games are somehow inherently more expensive to develop. PC's have supported "HD" for years and game development costs haven't spiraled out of control. Games are getting exceedingly expensive to develop because developers are becoming overly ambitious. Endless sequels are merely a symptom of a larger problem. Sequels exist as a means to reduce costs and to cash in on a popular franchise. This certainly isn't a recent thing: look at the endless Street Fighter clones.
By no means are developers ambitious in terms of unique gameplay. Rather, they're putting excessive amounts of effort into exploiting the latest graphics techniques, developing expansive storylines and introducing increasingly complex control systems. What I think they're trying to do is provide a more cinematic experience. They're trying to reproduce movies in a video game format. Hence the obsession with overly realistic graphics and the cinematic-type presentation. It's inevitable that games inspired by film will also command movie-sized budgets.
Needless to say, this doesn't necessarily translate into entertaining gameplay. I think many developers have lost sight of what constitutes good gameplay. However, I don't think they care. The average consumer is easily impressed by the cinematic patina contemporary games exude. Let's face reality, developers keep producing these games because they sell. The Wii demonstrates that there is a desire for something else. But Nintendo doesn't possess some sort of holy grail of unique gaming. The unique controller can only go so far. Many others have offered unique and compelling gameplay. PCs, outside of the FPS, RTS and RPG clones has offered tons of neat games for years.
Look at what indie developers are producing. And many of them are exploiting high resolutions to their fullest extent. Some of these games look phenomenal. Some have a unique visual style which enhances gameplay. I inevitably am drawn back to the Wii as compared to the other platforms. There is this prevailing opinion I see that expects the Wii to somehow solve all these problems. It won't. The system is hindered performance-wise and the controller while great for some games is nowhere near as flexible a device as some believe.
I predict that within a few years Nintendo will introduce an HD-capable Wii. I think it will be a smart move for Nintendo, but it will also mean anyone who currently owns a Wii and then gets the upgraded model will have likely spent $400-$500 on the two systems. Suddenly the pricing won't all that different from an Xbox360 or PS3.
I don't expect most large developers to change their ways. They may occasionally offer something different but the for the most part we'll see more of the same. Perhaps we'll see the game industry work more like the movie industry. Ultimately, the problem lies with the nature of business and the lack of consumers who can think independently.
Behind in what way? So France has a 35 hour work week. That's great, except that it's hurt the economy severely and has led to high unemployment. I have family members there constantly complaining about how the government and companies keep cutting back on benefits because they cant afford them. I have cousins moving elsewhere in Europe, specifically England and Ireland because they can't find work in France.
There's a myth perpetuated amongst many French that English companies treat their employees badly and that they work excessive overtime. The reality is that many French have moved to England to work. A significant portion of the work force in London is French. It's far easier to land a job there and they earn more than they would have back home.
The French government thought they were doing a great thing by forcing the 35 hour work week and forcing companies to maintain current salary levels. It's turned out to be a disaster. The govenment was looking to repeal the short work week and were blocked by unions. It was the same sort of nonsense where all those stupid students went nuts rioting because the government wanted to change policies for hiring college graduates. It would have helped more of them get work, but they're obsessed with an unrealistic desire for security. They'd rather sit around unemployed so that the few who land work can hold on to their jobs regardless of performance.
Europe in general has a struggling economy, although some nations are obviously doing better than others. From my own experience, I'm convinced that those nations where citizens work harder the economy and nation as a whole is a lot stronger. It's why Asia is an up-and-coming power and why the US in some ways is slipping.
I'm not saying 80+ hour work weeks are justfied. Not at all. My point is that Europe has really overdone it with the regulations.
That's a funny statement to make. Virtually everyone I know who works in Asia, China, Taiwan and Japan, works insane hours. It's a way of life and they just accept it. Up until a few years ago in every second Saturday was a work day in Taiwan. Even for me, when I was out there getting out at 7pm or 8pm was early. And that was pretty much all year round; there were few lulls. And I worked at a fairly small company, because bigger ones were often worse. It gets to a point where you don't even think about it anymore. You've become a worker drone.
In Taiwan and China they do get maybe five days off for Chinese New Year, and maybe a holiday or to at some other time during the year, but that's it. Now, if you're in management, especially higher level management things change considerably. People in the US like to complain about their managers. But the most people here deal with is general stupidity. I've seen management in Asia treat employees like utter crap. They get fairly vicious and insulting with their employees. And many have the habit of not being in the office half the time. It's like the position exists simply to sustain their personal lives. It was frustrating trying to convince some of these guys to invest some money in improving the company when, as they say it, the money could go towards a nice new S-class Mercedes.
I'd like to know what labor standards actually exist in China, and if they do exist if anyone is actually enforcing them. I think what these guys are expecting is that they can lead a fairly cushy life running this company while having others do the "soul-crushing" dirty work. And because labor is cheap they can hire three or four developers for the cost of one in the US. It sounds good until you realize that you need to direct them a lot more closely than you would with a Western developer.
Corporate cultures are different there from the West. The employees expect managers to direct them in everything they do. Western employees tend to figure things out for themselves where possible. I even noticed this tendency with college graduates, in my case design graduates. We'd see their portfolios and they'd have impressive work. We'd bring them in and they were totally incapable of performing. They couldn't figure anything out. I eventually learned that it's because in school professors closely direct the student's work. So once they were left to fend for themselves they were lost. I think it's one reason they tend to copy ideas so much. For this reason we had a tendency to hire locals educated in the West.
Anyone who was really good had a tendency to move to the West where the working conditions were better, contrary to what these guys claim, and where they could earn more. Ultimately, you're going to sacrifice something. You either spend less money and have more hassles or you spend a bit more and ensure that things generally go well. I know people who've stopped outsourcing programming to China and India because of all the trouble they've had. Ultimately it was cheaper and easier to just hire programmers here. I will say one thing, people in Asia generally have a much better work ethic than many Americans. They don't have the excessive sense of entitlement that you see in this country.
I think the whole draw of an RPG, at least for me, is that I'm building a character. I like that sense of progress. I want to see my character's strength grow enabling him to slaughter foes who he initially had no hope of defeating. I like being able to explore, not have everything open to me within the first 30 minutes of gameplay but rather having a new region to explore made safer because of that character's progress.
Essentially, if I didn't want that sort of experience I wouldn't be playing an RPG. I'd be playing any one of a number of other games where my character remains unchanged from start to finish. I see an RPG, at it's essence to be a facsimile of real life. Obviously, it's not a literal depiction; it's not a simulation. However, such games are designed around character growth and evolution. An individual in real life doesn't reach a given and and find him or herself suddenly endowed with everything they will ever need to know. They aren't going to land the perfect job immediately out of college, earning untold fortunes. It may happen for someone, but that's the exception to the rule. Life is about growth, change and improvement, the basic elements found in most RPGs.
Perhaps too often these games devolve into a treadmill. But then developers are limited by how much variety they can put into a game. And regardless, life is essentially a treadmill: go to work, earn money, buy some stuff, earn experience, get a better job, buy better stuff. One could argue that they play games to escape from reality, but then that's a completely different debate.
MMOs are another story. In that case the developer has chosen to make the treadmill more tedious for a simple reason: to earn as much money as possible. That's the thing about subscription-based games. The trick there is to keep the carrot dangled just out of reach; keep the player interested enough that they keep playing. The thing is that people want a goal to reach for. Everyone is focused on the destination even though the journey is probably even more important. The thing is, without the end goal the journey becomes pointless. That's the problem with MMOs. It's an exercise in frustration because the game is based around making a player feel inadequate regardless of what level they are. There's no point at which a player can say they've made it. So the treadmill becomes painfully obvious.
I don't think Oblivion's system helps in any way. I don't like the idea that my enemies scale with me. I expect that as my character grows lower level enemies become insignificant. High level enemies pose a challenge because they are so powerful. The idea should be that the stakes are higher and greater forces are at play; battles become increasingly epic. If I get defeated at level 50 it's because I faced something truly powerful, not because of some unnatural mechanism. I don't want my level 2 foe to continue to be a challenge in the end game.
Reading the article I'm left with the impression the guy shouldn't be playing or developing RPGs.
The hype for this game is getting to be so ridiculous that I don't see how the game won't do anything but disappoint. It's being made to seem like the second coming. It certainly looks compelling, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be a glorfied RTS with unit customization.
The marketing team sure is working overtime to promote this one. Rest assured the game will sell strongly within the first few weeks of release on media attention alone.