I disagree with Miyamoto's statement that developers have come to a dead-end. Gaming is far from having it a dead-end.
Gaming may be a bit stagnant, but that's the fault of excessive budgets, marketing departments and the gamers themselves who seem to thrive on more of the same.
It definitely isn't because of technological limitations and an unconventional controller isn't going to change everything. The Wii controller allows for some new variations on gameplay but ultimately it's just another control device. What I've seen for the Wii thus far takes existing genres and merely provides a new control scheme. The DS is the same. It hasn't really innovated gameplay, it just introduced gameplay previously nonexistant in the console world. Many of those DS games feel like little more than glorified flash games.
Which brings me to something else... I don't think credit is being given where it's due. The true innovators have been Flash and indie game developers. They're the ones who've really introduced new concepts and have improved existing concepts. There's a lot of crap out there, but the good stuff truly stands out. And the relative simplicity and easy accessibility has allowed Flash games to be popular amongst non-gamers.
One device that has really enabled this kind of gameplay has been the mouse. It's more precise than almost anything else out there and it's very simply to use. Put a mouse in the most inept person's hand and they'll figure out how it works rather quickly. I doubt the Wii controller will even have that kind of ease of use.
This is not to discount Nintendo. They certainly know what they're doing. First of all, they were smart distinguish themselves from the competitors. And secondly, they wisely they've been focusing on gameplay. They brought that intuitive gameplay to consoles.
Whether it pays off in the long run remains to be seen. The average gamer may be drawn to Nintendo, but attractive non-gamers is far from certain. These are the kinds of people who I expect who would have more experience with PCs than they do with conoles. Spending $50 on a game is a far cry from spending $200+ on a console and then another $50 on a game. Additionally, given that there is so much gaming to be had online for free they may be even more reluctant to spend money especially if they realize they wont have much time to play anyway.
Japan doesn't make for a good comparison with the rest of the world simply because more age groups there are open to new technologies. You don't see middle-aged men anywhere in the world reading comic books on trains like you do in Japan. It's only natural that many more older people there would be buying these consoles. People elsewhere might find a particular game curious, but whether that's another to motivate them to actually go out and spend the money is another story.
Also, keep in mind that there are quite a few people out there who really do want more of the same old crap. I know quite a few people who will immediately dismiss a game if it doesn't have the latest graphics, isn't a FPS or doesn't have an adult theme. There is a reason American companies keep pumping out FPS and sports games, just like there's a reason Japanese companies keep pumping out RPGs and fighting games.
I think parents need to start being held accountable for their child's misbehaviour. This way the dilemma of how to punish the child is avoided and the source of the problem is addressed.
Given what I've seen, I have to say the single largest reason why kids are so screwed up is because of bad parenting.
I'd be happy to see the term podcast go. It was a stupid term to begin with, popularized because people started downloading media from the internet to their iPods.
The term is inaccurate, not to mention the implication is that internet-based media didn't exist before iPods. It's an internet broadcast. The only thing that qualifies as a podcast would be a broadcast using an iPod and a transmitter.
What exactly does a "hidden fee" mean? Once it's listed somewhere it's no longer hidden.
Just because this guy says that there wont be any "hidden" costs doesn't mean there wont be any nice overt ones.
Don't let your love for Nintendo blind you to the reality. Nintendo is still a business with the primary goal of making as much money as possible. You need to read between the lines. The guy clearly is clearly being misleading. I'm not saying Nintendo is any worse than the competition; I'm just saying that they're no different, especially when it comes to marketing.
Just because the ability to go online may be free doesn't mean the actual content will be.
And read this statement carefully: "We will offer online-enabled games that the consumers will not have to pay a subscription fee for."
What that implies to me is that any game with online-support will allow a gamer to play online without being charged. That's essentially the same model for every PC game with online play excluding MMOs.
That statement says nothing about whether or not downloadable games will be free and certainly doesn't mention anything about subscription-based games like MMOs.
I don't think Nintendo is doing anything wrong here; I just think people are reading too much into the statement.
What I find funny about the faked lunar landing conspiracies is that the arguments are all based what would have been glaring oversights on NASA's part.
So I'm supposed to believe that these guys were extremely meticulous in recreating a lunar environment they'd never even experienced, but were so inept they didn't notice inconsistent photos, improper lighting and various other problems.
It just goes to show that regardless of how overwhelming the evidence may be people will go right on believing whatever they want.
The author of this article seems to believe this is a new thing for Apple. I've been using Macs for years and they've always been afflicted with various problems. Mac users just seem to tolerate a lot from Apple.
What they adore is the brand; it fits this image of what they want to represent. And that's often important enough that they're willing to put up with a lot more than the average person would.
Dell computers might have as many problems. However, given the premium paid for a Mac over a Dell, or most PCs for that matter, I'd expect a higher degree of reliability.
I'd like to know exactly what the Wii can offer to this game over the PC version. As far as I can tell it offers nothing, at least not without fundamentally changing gameplay to accomodate the Wii controller. As far as I'm concerned, the mouse will be just as good, if not superior to the Wii, at least for Spore. The Wii certainly will have the advantage over other consoles, but I think people really have unrealistic expectations about that controller.
My main concern here is that this is going to be yet another game where quality has to be compromised on the PC in order to ensure it runs on consoles. There's something about PC versions of console games that is subpar. One big problem is poorly designed interfaces with badly scaled graphics, and graphics in general dont compare to PC-only games. There tends to be a sense of polish that console games lack.
Hopefully this will be a PC game first and wont suffer from those issues.
People here keep arguing that gaming is no different than playing sports, reading books or watching television. There are some fundamental differences.
Television is the most passive of these activities. The mind essentially shuts off watching television, which is probably why it isn't particularly addictive. There's no feedback and stimulus is minimal.
Gaming is another story. It provides positive feedback when the appropriate actions are taken. It can boost a player's confidence, enhance their ego, make them feel important, at least while they inhabit that game world. On the otherhand, gaming is still an extremely passive activity. During the initial learning period the mind is stimulated but there's a point when gameplay becomes repetitive and the mind essentially shuts down.
Obviously some games are better than others, RTS's require more mental involvement while MMORPGs are particularly mindless. Those games are all about repetitive, addictive gameplay that requires little thought. Sure there's some planning, especially for raids. But when it comes down to it raids consist of a lot of waiting punctuated by power spamming. Most players aren't doing much of anything. Needless to say humans tend to choose the path of least resistance. And the brain isn't going to do any more work than it needs to. And when it comes down to it, even when interacting with other gamers this is still an anti-social activity. An interface is being made with a computer, not a physical being.
This is where the fundamental difference lies between gaming and doing sports or reading books. Those activities require active participation to work. Sports require physical exertion, among other things. Reading requires an active mind to comprehend and visualize what's being read. I'll concede that reading is a solitary activity, but obviously sports require strong social interactions.
I'd much rather have my kids reading books and outside playing sports than indoors playing games all day. This leads me to one last point. Ultimately, gaming addiction among kids is the fault of the parents. If they cant identify that their kids are gaming too much they're being irresponsible.
The solution is simple. If your kid doesn't stop when you tell them to stop toss their computer in the trash. Then find constructive activities to fill their lives. It's as simple as that. The problem is too many people today what the government to be responsible for everything. Too many parents are too busy selfishly focusing on the materialistic aspect own lives to properly care for their kids. No wonder these kids have problems.
Now there's an ignorant statement if I've ever read one. Since when did storage medium directly affect the talent and output of a development team? That's like saying your daughter will be a better driver if you buy her a Lexus instead of a Honda.
Trust me, there are stupid people who actually believe that, not because of any additional safety features, but simply because it's a different car.
So it's not that large a leap to imagine people making these ridiculous promises about how better graphics are going to make games better. Unfortunately I think almost everyone in gaming, from developers, to gaming journalists to the gamers themselves are responsible for this. And it isn't just because of graphics; there's a belief that more realistic physics and improved AI are going to open up some unheard of vista in gaming.
Every new game is the best ever. What person today would dare say Space Invaders or Pacman is superior to nearly every game today? Virtually no one. Why? Because apparently, compared to today's games the graphics are terrible, the gameplay is highly repetative and there's no AI. However, in terms of sheer gameplay, which really should be the core of any game, those games blow away most games being pumped out today. And thats not to mention how conceptually they're far more creative than anything produced today.
Advanced graphics, AI and physics are great. They will have a big impact on gaming. Don't get me wrong. However, they will enhance only a certain segment of gaming and those elements certainly aren't the most essential components of fun gameplay. If those things were so important games like checkers, chess and countless card games wouldn't still be played today.
To be completely frank, I think this robot is a waste of effort. The thing is completely dependent on human input which means they might has well just have the actual guy sitting there in front of people. Even if they were recording a number of preset facial expressions it will never be truly convincing because it wont be able to call on the nuances of human emotion.
A robot doesn't look alive simply because its eyes wander around the room. If the intent is to guage human reaction to the thing I think they're going to find the response is exceedingly negative given how mishapen and disturbing the robot looks.
It's not like this is anything particularly unique either, it just happened that this guy used his own face as a model. Although, I suppose this guy's work isn't surprising given the amount of research and development Japanese put towards consumer products. I predict that will be the ultimate application we'll see for this work.
I'd be impressed if they were developing AI which mimicked human reactions. If the thing could learn by watching people and apply those observations for its own use in interactions.
I eagerly anticipate Spore, but I certainly don't think it revolutionize gaming. At best it will be the WoW of strategy games and at worst it will be overly ambitious and appeal primarily to a certain niche of gamers. Hopefully the game wont have excessively high system requirements, because if it does I think it will hinder sales.
I do, unfortunately, expect this game to spawn countless uninspired clones.
I think anyone who has been in Asia, and specifically Japan for any period of time will realize that the Japanese aren't more technically savvy than anyone else in the rest of the world. In fact, I'd argue that they're less savvy than many in the West.
Japanese don't like complicated technology. They want products they don't have to think about. Hence the popularity of the iPod, and Macs in general. What they do fawn over is new technology. It's common for people to throw out a phone after 6 months to upgrade to the latest and greatest.
Products like VCDs, Laserdiscs and Minidiscs took off not because they were necessarily better than existing technology. They were popular because it was something new and different. Japanese, once reknown for saving money now throw away money on new products like there's no tomorrow. Americans and likely westerners in general, tend to be more practical. If it something isn't overwhelmingly superior to existing technology people aren't really willing to spend the money on it. It's like those guys who go out and buy the most expensive SLR cameras they can find and get all the accessories available for it but then do nothing but take crappy family photos.
Part of the problem, however, is also management in America and the US market. There were countless games localized for the US because some idiot thought it would never sell otherwise. Look at all the lame, amateurish packaging we got in the US because god forbid the publishers retained the Japanese package art.
Then you've got industries here stifling progress in order to secure their own businesses. Phones in the US are consistently a year or more behind whats available in the rest of the world and always severely crippled. Why? Because US service carriers want to suck every last penny from their consumers. There's no way they'd ever allow a consumer to upload content directly to their own phone, or take that phone and just use it with any other service carrier. So why should a company bother importing a phone when the market will never allow it to become a viable product.
The idea that westerners are less sophisticated when it comes to technology is nonsense.
For all the promise about how open-ended Fable was supposed to have been the gameplay was extremely linear and the other features such as alignment had little bearing on anything in the game. I didn't like that I couldn't customize my hero; the selection of armors, and other accessories was limited. I also didn't like how scripted interactions with NPCs here. I could hit the same emotion 50 times over and within 30 seconds be able to have any character fall in love with my hero. The storyline also felt weak and all the side quests seemed intended to pad gameplay. In general the game was lacking.
That said, it was an entertaining game. I really liked the fighting system. I didn't mind that it was short; I didn't feel like I had to give up all my free time for several months just to complete the game.
It had a lot of potential. With Fable 2 they really need to make the game feel more substantial and in particular make player actions have real consequences. And they can't be afraid to make alignment and age actually mean something beyond changing external appearance.
I'm reading claims that this is some conspiracy between Microsoft and hardware companies to force people to upgrade.
I think what's really going on is that Microsoft is addressing the demands of the gaming industry with DirectX 10. The game industry is obsessed with realism. There's this overwhelming desire to make games look and feel real, with gameplay taking the backseat.
I also can't help but think that developers are getting every more sloppy because they're depending on consumers having sufficiently powerful machines. It almost feels like it's done intentionally. Release a game that struggles to run well even on some of the fastest machines out there and suddenly the game is used for performance benchmarks. It's free marketing. The game is mentioned in computer magazines everywhere. Now the consumer has a game that they absolutely need to get in order to test the limits of their machine.
DirectX 10 seems to offer a few neat features, specifically those dealing with physics. Unfortunately, DirectX 10 is simply perpetuating the poor habits of the gaming industry. It's ensuring we're going to be seeing contrived FPS games for years to come.
However, it's not going to stop anyone who wants to be more creative. Microsoft is simply responding to market demand.
The application should be clean and intuitive out of the box. It's good interface design.
Being extremely customizable is not always a good thing. Most people would never bother and some will probably be scared by excessively complicated customization.
I used to go out of my way to customize everything I can, and in some cases I still do so. I went as far as creating new visual themes for my Sony Ericsson phone. But more often than not it's a waste of time. Additionally, the vast majority of skins available for every application are unprofessional and sloppy.
Apple interfaces are successful not because of customization. In fact, you're usually stuck with what they give you. However, they clearly put a lot of thought into usability. Those interfaces work because they're clean. I don't necessarily like the visual style, but I appreciate the simplicity.
Four or five years ago I had the chance to visit one of the first few semiconductor foundries producing 12-inch wafers.
It was explained to me how yields are always pretty bad during the ramping up phase but once things get going the number of defects decrease dramatically. I don't recall the specific details or how long this phase lasts, but I'm not surprised that there would be problems leading up to actual production. That's kind of the point of this process, to identify as many problems as possible beforehand.
They may have problems early into the production run, but given the complexity of the PS3 I expect Sony will have numerous other issues to contend with beyond defective chips. I expect problems as bad, if not worse than the Xbox360's overheating power supply.
The only reason you'd need to upgrade your video card that often would be to play the latest games in full detail at the highest framerates.
If you're willing to compromise a video card will hold out fairly well for quite a bit longer, and you'll probably still see better graphics than you'd get on any console.
Nevertheless, a PC is significantly more expensive than a console, although the PS3 is doing a good job of changing that. The point is that a PC does far more than any console will ever do. And if all you're going to do with a PC is play games then you probably really are better off just buying a console. Needless to say, most people don't just use PCs for games.
I suppose Call of Duty 3 could be based in the Pacific Theater which has generally been unexplored territory as far as WW2 FPS go. But in the end I can't help but think enough already. How many more damn FPS games do we need, not to mention the overused WW2 setting.
These developers have about as much imagination as a pile of rocks. And whats worse they continue to promote each subsequent sequel like it's a great feat in gaming.
This explains why I have purchased a new game in close to a year and why I don't find much of anything compelling anymore.
Life in general manages to find some way to survive, regardless of how harsh the conditions it's exposed to may be.
Humanity is the same. The world may end up being completely unrecognizable to us, but I think humans will persist regardless of what ever trials they're exposed to. I think more of a concern is how specific nations and cultures will survive.
I don't subscribe to the overly simplistic, idealistic proposals some people put foward. Most of these just aren't realistic. We're dealing with human nature. If humans were perfect any form of government would work; if humans were perfect we wouldn't even need a government. But they aren't, this universe sometimes just isn't a pretty place. Regardless, I think humans will do whatever it takes to survive.
If we go extinct it's because of forces far beyond our control.
Maximum PC set up an Apple iMac to boot both OS X 10.4 and Windows XP, finally having a single platform with which to effectively compare the performance of both systems. I don't recall what issue it was, but it was fairly recent.
The results demonstrated that Windows XP was faster in virtually every test they conducted. So much for OSX's so-called performance advantage.
Considering that no one has seen the new OSX nor has a final version of Vista been benchmarked yet I don't understand the basis for such baseless claims of performance.
This is great. Companies spend millions to advertise on television, in magazines and numberous other places. But the idiot consumers actually pay these companies to advertise their products.
It's already bad enough with people walking around in $50 t-shirts with huge logos plastered all over them. Now we've got people paying money online for essentially no other reason than to help this company advertise.
The depth of corporate greed is easily outdone by the depth of consumer stupidity.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree with Miyamoto's statement that developers have come to a dead-end. Gaming is far from having it a dead-end.
Gaming may be a bit stagnant, but that's the fault of excessive budgets, marketing departments and the gamers themselves who seem to thrive on more of the same.
It definitely isn't because of technological limitations and an unconventional controller isn't going to change everything. The Wii controller allows for some new variations on gameplay but ultimately it's just another control device. What I've seen for the Wii thus far takes existing genres and merely provides a new control scheme. The DS is the same. It hasn't really innovated gameplay, it just introduced gameplay previously nonexistant in the console world. Many of those DS games feel like little more than glorified flash games.
Which brings me to something else... I don't think credit is being given where it's due. The true innovators have been Flash and indie game developers. They're the ones who've really introduced new concepts and have improved existing concepts. There's a lot of crap out there, but the good stuff truly stands out. And the relative simplicity and easy accessibility has allowed Flash games to be popular amongst non-gamers.
One device that has really enabled this kind of gameplay has been the mouse. It's more precise than almost anything else out there and it's very simply to use. Put a mouse in the most inept person's hand and they'll figure out how it works rather quickly. I doubt the Wii controller will even have that kind of ease of use.
This is not to discount Nintendo. They certainly know what they're doing. First of all, they were smart distinguish themselves from the competitors. And secondly, they wisely they've been focusing on gameplay. They brought that intuitive gameplay to consoles.
Whether it pays off in the long run remains to be seen. The average gamer may be drawn to Nintendo, but attractive non-gamers is far from certain. These are the kinds of people who I expect who would have more experience with PCs than they do with conoles. Spending $50 on a game is a far cry from spending $200+ on a console and then another $50 on a game. Additionally, given that there is so much gaming to be had online for free they may be even more reluctant to spend money especially if they realize they wont have much time to play anyway.
Japan doesn't make for a good comparison with the rest of the world simply because more age groups there are open to new technologies. You don't see middle-aged men anywhere in the world reading comic books on trains like you do in Japan. It's only natural that many more older people there would be buying these consoles. People elsewhere might find a particular game curious, but whether that's another to motivate them to actually go out and spend the money is another story.
Also, keep in mind that there are quite a few people out there who really do want more of the same old crap. I know quite a few people who will immediately dismiss a game if it doesn't have the latest graphics, isn't a FPS or doesn't have an adult theme. There is a reason American companies keep pumping out FPS and sports games, just like there's a reason Japanese companies keep pumping out RPGs and fighting games.
I think parents need to start being held accountable for their child's misbehaviour. This way the dilemma of how to punish the child is avoided and the source of the problem is addressed.
Given what I've seen, I have to say the single largest reason why kids are so screwed up is because of bad parenting.
I'd be happy to see the term podcast go. It was a stupid term to begin with, popularized because people started downloading media from the internet to their iPods.
The term is inaccurate, not to mention the implication is that internet-based media didn't exist before iPods. It's an internet broadcast. The only thing that qualifies as a podcast would be a broadcast using an iPod and a transmitter.
What exactly does a "hidden fee" mean? Once it's listed somewhere it's no longer hidden.
Just because this guy says that there wont be any "hidden" costs doesn't mean there wont be any nice overt ones.
Don't let your love for Nintendo blind you to the reality. Nintendo is still a business with the primary goal of making as much money as possible. You need to read between the lines. The guy clearly is clearly being misleading. I'm not saying Nintendo is any worse than the competition; I'm just saying that they're no different, especially when it comes to marketing.
Just because the ability to go online may be free doesn't mean the actual content will be.
And read this statement carefully: "We will offer online-enabled games that the consumers will not have to pay a subscription fee for."
What that implies to me is that any game with online-support will allow a gamer to play online without being charged. That's essentially the same model for every PC game with online play excluding MMOs.
That statement says nothing about whether or not downloadable games will be free and certainly doesn't mention anything about subscription-based games like MMOs.
I don't think Nintendo is doing anything wrong here; I just think people are reading too much into the statement.
What I find funny about the faked lunar landing conspiracies is that the arguments are all based what would have been glaring oversights on NASA's part.
So I'm supposed to believe that these guys were extremely meticulous in recreating a lunar environment they'd never even experienced, but were so inept they didn't notice inconsistent photos, improper lighting and various other problems.
It just goes to show that regardless of how overwhelming the evidence may be people will go right on believing whatever they want.
The author of this article seems to believe this is a new thing for Apple. I've been using Macs for years and they've always been afflicted with various problems. Mac users just seem to tolerate a lot from Apple.
What they adore is the brand; it fits this image of what they want to represent. And that's often important enough that they're willing to put up with a lot more than the average person would.
Dell computers might have as many problems. However, given the premium paid for a Mac over a Dell, or most PCs for that matter, I'd expect a higher degree of reliability.
I'd like to know exactly what the Wii can offer to this game over the PC version. As far as I can tell it offers nothing, at least not without fundamentally changing gameplay to accomodate the Wii controller. As far as I'm concerned, the mouse will be just as good, if not superior to the Wii, at least for Spore. The Wii certainly will have the advantage over other consoles, but I think people really have unrealistic expectations about that controller.
My main concern here is that this is going to be yet another game where quality has to be compromised on the PC in order to ensure it runs on consoles. There's something about PC versions of console games that is subpar. One big problem is poorly designed interfaces with badly scaled graphics, and graphics in general dont compare to PC-only games. There tends to be a sense of polish that console games lack.
Hopefully this will be a PC game first and wont suffer from those issues.
Yesterday we had an article about fighting game addiction. Today we have an article about guys who are essentially paid to encourage more gaming.
People here keep arguing that gaming is no different than playing sports, reading books or watching television. There are some fundamental differences.
Television is the most passive of these activities. The mind essentially shuts off watching television, which is probably why it isn't particularly addictive. There's no feedback and stimulus is minimal.
Gaming is another story. It provides positive feedback when the appropriate actions are taken. It can boost a player's confidence, enhance their ego, make them feel important, at least while they inhabit that game world. On the otherhand, gaming is still an extremely passive activity. During the initial learning period the mind is stimulated but there's a point when gameplay becomes repetitive and the mind essentially shuts down.
Obviously some games are better than others, RTS's require more mental involvement while MMORPGs are particularly mindless. Those games are all about repetitive, addictive gameplay that requires little thought. Sure there's some planning, especially for raids. But when it comes down to it raids consist of a lot of waiting punctuated by power spamming. Most players aren't doing much of anything. Needless to say humans tend to choose the path of least resistance. And the brain isn't going to do any more work than it needs to. And when it comes down to it, even when interacting with other gamers this is still an anti-social activity. An interface is being made with a computer, not a physical being.
This is where the fundamental difference lies between gaming and doing sports or reading books. Those activities require active participation to work. Sports require physical exertion, among other things. Reading requires an active mind to comprehend and visualize what's being read. I'll concede that reading is a solitary activity, but obviously sports require strong social interactions.
I'd much rather have my kids reading books and outside playing sports than indoors playing games all day. This leads me to one last point. Ultimately, gaming addiction among kids is the fault of the parents. If they cant identify that their kids are gaming too much they're being irresponsible.
The solution is simple. If your kid doesn't stop when you tell them to stop toss their computer in the trash. Then find constructive activities to fill their lives. It's as simple as that. The problem is too many people today what the government to be responsible for everything. Too many parents are too busy selfishly focusing on the materialistic aspect own lives to properly care for their kids. No wonder these kids have problems.
Now there's an ignorant statement if I've ever read one. Since when did storage medium directly affect the talent and output of a development team? That's like saying your daughter will be a better driver if you buy her a Lexus instead of a Honda.
Trust me, there are stupid people who actually believe that, not because of any additional safety features, but simply because it's a different car.
So it's not that large a leap to imagine people making these ridiculous promises about how better graphics are going to make games better. Unfortunately I think almost everyone in gaming, from developers, to gaming journalists to the gamers themselves are responsible for this. And it isn't just because of graphics; there's a belief that more realistic physics and improved AI are going to open up some unheard of vista in gaming.
Every new game is the best ever. What person today would dare say Space Invaders or Pacman is superior to nearly every game today? Virtually no one. Why? Because apparently, compared to today's games the graphics are terrible, the gameplay is highly repetative and there's no AI. However, in terms of sheer gameplay, which really should be the core of any game, those games blow away most games being pumped out today. And thats not to mention how conceptually they're far more creative than anything produced today.
Advanced graphics, AI and physics are great. They will have a big impact on gaming. Don't get me wrong. However, they will enhance only a certain segment of gaming and those elements certainly aren't the most essential components of fun gameplay. If those things were so important games like checkers, chess and countless card games wouldn't still be played today.
The question back then was, "How can we outdo the rest of the world?"
The question today is, "How can we maximize our ROI?"
Once money becomes the driving goal above all else quality and innovation suffers.
To be completely frank, I think this robot is a waste of effort. The thing is completely dependent on human input which means they might has well just have the actual guy sitting there in front of people. Even if they were recording a number of preset facial expressions it will never be truly convincing because it wont be able to call on the nuances of human emotion.
A robot doesn't look alive simply because its eyes wander around the room. If the intent is to guage human reaction to the thing I think they're going to find the response is exceedingly negative given how mishapen and disturbing the robot looks.
It's not like this is anything particularly unique either, it just happened that this guy used his own face as a model. Although, I suppose this guy's work isn't surprising given the amount of research and development Japanese put towards consumer products. I predict that will be the ultimate application we'll see for this work.
I'd be impressed if they were developing AI which mimicked human reactions. If the thing could learn by watching people and apply those observations for its own use in interactions.
I eagerly anticipate Spore, but I certainly don't think it revolutionize gaming. At best it will be the WoW of strategy games and at worst it will be overly ambitious and appeal primarily to a certain niche of gamers. Hopefully the game wont have excessively high system requirements, because if it does I think it will hinder sales.
I do, unfortunately, expect this game to spawn countless uninspired clones.
I think anyone who has been in Asia, and specifically Japan for any period of time will realize that the Japanese aren't more technically savvy than anyone else in the rest of the world. In fact, I'd argue that they're less savvy than many in the West.
Japanese don't like complicated technology. They want products they don't have to think about. Hence the popularity of the iPod, and Macs in general. What they do fawn over is new technology. It's common for people to throw out a phone after 6 months to upgrade to the latest and greatest.
Products like VCDs, Laserdiscs and Minidiscs took off not because they were necessarily better than existing technology. They were popular because it was something new and different. Japanese, once reknown for saving money now throw away money on new products like there's no tomorrow. Americans and likely westerners in general, tend to be more practical. If it something isn't overwhelmingly superior to existing technology people aren't really willing to spend the money on it. It's like those guys who go out and buy the most expensive SLR cameras they can find and get all the accessories available for it but then do nothing but take crappy family photos.
Part of the problem, however, is also management in America and the US market. There were countless games localized for the US because some idiot thought it would never sell otherwise. Look at all the lame, amateurish packaging we got in the US because god forbid the publishers retained the Japanese package art.
Then you've got industries here stifling progress in order to secure their own businesses. Phones in the US are consistently a year or more behind whats available in the rest of the world and always severely crippled. Why? Because US service carriers want to suck every last penny from their consumers. There's no way they'd ever allow a consumer to upload content directly to their own phone, or take that phone and just use it with any other service carrier. So why should a company bother importing a phone when the market will never allow it to become a viable product.
The idea that westerners are less sophisticated when it comes to technology is nonsense.
For all the promise about how open-ended Fable was supposed to have been the gameplay was extremely linear and the other features such as alignment had little bearing on anything in the game. I didn't like that I couldn't customize my hero; the selection of armors, and other accessories was limited. I also didn't like how scripted interactions with NPCs here. I could hit the same emotion 50 times over and within 30 seconds be able to have any character fall in love with my hero. The storyline also felt weak and all the side quests seemed intended to pad gameplay. In general the game was lacking.
That said, it was an entertaining game. I really liked the fighting system. I didn't mind that it was short; I didn't feel like I had to give up all my free time for several months just to complete the game.
It had a lot of potential. With Fable 2 they really need to make the game feel more substantial and in particular make player actions have real consequences. And they can't be afraid to make alignment and age actually mean something beyond changing external appearance.
I'm reading claims that this is some conspiracy between Microsoft and hardware companies to force people to upgrade.
I think what's really going on is that Microsoft is addressing the demands of the gaming industry with DirectX 10. The game industry is obsessed with realism. There's this overwhelming desire to make games look and feel real, with gameplay taking the backseat.
I also can't help but think that developers are getting every more sloppy because they're depending on consumers having sufficiently powerful machines. It almost feels like it's done intentionally. Release a game that struggles to run well even on some of the fastest machines out there and suddenly the game is used for performance benchmarks. It's free marketing. The game is mentioned in computer magazines everywhere. Now the consumer has a game that they absolutely need to get in order to test the limits of their machine.
DirectX 10 seems to offer a few neat features, specifically those dealing with physics. Unfortunately, DirectX 10 is simply perpetuating the poor habits of the gaming industry. It's ensuring we're going to be seeing contrived FPS games for years to come.
However, it's not going to stop anyone who wants to be more creative. Microsoft is simply responding to market demand.
The application should be clean and intuitive out of the box. It's good interface design.
Being extremely customizable is not always a good thing. Most people would never bother and some will probably be scared by excessively complicated customization.
I used to go out of my way to customize everything I can, and in some cases I still do so. I went as far as creating new visual themes for my Sony Ericsson phone. But more often than not it's a waste of time. Additionally, the vast majority of skins available for every application are unprofessional and sloppy.
Apple interfaces are successful not because of customization. In fact, you're usually stuck with what they give you. However, they clearly put a lot of thought into usability. Those interfaces work because they're clean. I don't necessarily like the visual style, but I appreciate the simplicity.
Four or five years ago I had the chance to visit one of the first few semiconductor foundries producing 12-inch wafers.
It was explained to me how yields are always pretty bad during the ramping up phase but once things get going the number of defects decrease dramatically. I don't recall the specific details or how long this phase lasts, but I'm not surprised that there would be problems leading up to actual production. That's kind of the point of this process, to identify as many problems as possible beforehand.
They may have problems early into the production run, but given the complexity of the PS3 I expect Sony will have numerous other issues to contend with beyond defective chips. I expect problems as bad, if not worse than the Xbox360's overheating power supply.
The only reason you'd need to upgrade your video card that often would be to play the latest games in full detail at the highest framerates.
If you're willing to compromise a video card will hold out fairly well for quite a bit longer, and you'll probably still see better graphics than you'd get on any console.
Nevertheless, a PC is significantly more expensive than a console, although the PS3 is doing a good job of changing that. The point is that a PC does far more than any console will ever do. And if all you're going to do with a PC is play games then you probably really are better off just buying a console. Needless to say, most people don't just use PCs for games.
These stories about the Xbox360's chances in Japan are like exhuming a body just to confirm that it's still dead.
All the defibrillation in the world won't bring that sucker back to life.
I suppose Call of Duty 3 could be based in the Pacific Theater which has generally been unexplored territory as far as WW2 FPS go. But in the end I can't help but think enough already. How many more damn FPS games do we need, not to mention the overused WW2 setting.
These developers have about as much imagination as a pile of rocks. And whats worse they continue to promote each subsequent sequel like it's a great feat in gaming.
This explains why I have purchased a new game in close to a year and why I don't find much of anything compelling anymore.
Life in general manages to find some way to survive, regardless of how harsh the conditions it's exposed to may be.
Humanity is the same. The world may end up being completely unrecognizable to us, but I think humans will persist regardless of what ever trials they're exposed to. I think more of a concern is how specific nations and cultures will survive.
I don't subscribe to the overly simplistic, idealistic proposals some people put foward. Most of these just aren't realistic. We're dealing with human nature. If humans were perfect any form of government would work; if humans were perfect we wouldn't even need a government. But they aren't, this universe sometimes just isn't a pretty place. Regardless, I think humans will do whatever it takes to survive.
If we go extinct it's because of forces far beyond our control.
So Mac OSX is faster than Windows XP?
Maximum PC set up an Apple iMac to boot both OS X 10.4 and Windows XP, finally having a single platform with which to effectively compare the performance of both systems. I don't recall what issue it was, but it was fairly recent.
The results demonstrated that Windows XP was faster in virtually every test they conducted. So much for OSX's so-called performance advantage.
Considering that no one has seen the new OSX nor has a final version of Vista been benchmarked yet I don't understand the basis for such baseless claims of performance.
This is great. Companies spend millions to advertise on television, in magazines and numberous other places. But the idiot consumers actually pay these companies to advertise their products.
It's already bad enough with people walking around in $50 t-shirts with huge logos plastered all over them. Now we've got people paying money online for essentially no other reason than to help this company advertise.
The depth of corporate greed is easily outdone by the depth of consumer stupidity.