Is it surprising that a small percentage of Arabs eventually decided to react to violence with more violence?
Eventually? You mean to tell me that part of the world hasn't been violent for over a thousand years? Don't take this the wrong way but I think you need to brush up on history a bit.
Why do people keep mentioning the iPod as the ultimate example that Japanese don't have nationalistic tendencies? I guess it's hard for Americans to understand that people can have these sentiments because American nationalism is frowned upon.
The popularity of one product does not negate the fact that Japanese do tend to avoid foreign products. The few exceptions tend to be luxury items. One thing Japanese love is European clothing, european handbags, etc. However, I think that's primarily because it's been established the world over that if you want to be seen as fashionable these are the kinds of things you want.
Some foregin automobiles have seen success in Japan, but again, only those in the luxury space, specifically Mercedes and BMW. But even then, they'll have shows where they compare cars and bias the comparisons to favor Japanese cars. Like this one time they compared the Nissan Z to a BMW M3, Porsche Boxster and something else. It was supposed to be a stock cars, but the Nissan had its passenger seat removed and an oil cooler installed in it's place. And on top of that they had another Nissan serving as the camera car. The camera car kept getting in between the Z and the other cars, blocking any chance of them passing. Then there was the one where they compared an Acura NSX to foreign sports cars and it broke down before the race was over but they still considered it the best of the cars they had driven. I drive a Japanese car myself, but the bias is painfully obvious.
Elements of American hip hop culture have found their way to Japan, but not directly. It's all been localized, they've got their own fashions and their own artists. How little they really understood of the hip hop culture they were mimicking was demonstrated by those stupid girls who would practically cover their faces in makeup and get insanely dark tans.
As far as electronics are concerned its pretty much guaranteed that any foreign product will fail. Apple has done well for a long time in Japan. Macs have always been popular because they're generally easier to use than PCs and they have a more appealing design. It was only inevitable that the iPod was in a good position to do well. Of course it helped that the iPod is immensely easy to use, far easier than the overwrought products Sony tends to produce. What really drove things home in the end for Apple was that the iPod looks damn cool. It certainly is striking, not like the overly generic silver-frosted crap we tend to see here. Japanese products tend to look nice and unique, so you really need to stand out if you want to be noticed.
The only way to succeed is to either produce a product that strongly appeals to Japanese fashion sense or create something that does something truly unique. Needless to say, the Xbox 360 fails on both these counts which is why it will never succeed in Japan. I don't even understand how the people at Microsoft can't see this. They'd be better off pulling out of Japan completely and investing all that money here.
I don't think Microsoft is capable of doing what is necessary to succeed in Japan.
I just tested Safari, Firefox and Explorer on my Mac. Only Safari came through fine, staying on the Google page. The other two browsers failed. Both Firefox and Explorer 6 on my PC here failed, being listed as susceptible.
This is a smart move on Apple's part towards making their computers a bit more ubiquitous. On the other hand, given that Macs now have Intel processors, most of their other internals are shared with PCs and they can run Windows it kind of defeats the purpose of getting a Mac.
Although, this is likely a plan by Apple to get consumers more comfortable with Macs. Switching is no longer the drastic jump it once was and this is a nice way of making the consumer comfortable with OSX. I'm sure a nicely designed PC would attract a lot of people. Maybe we'll finally get other PC makers to take product design a bit more seriously.
So much for the good old days where this kind of content was free. I would never even imagined I would have to pay for this sort of thing.
I can expect to pay something for a substantial mod that introduces a new storyline or something to that effect. But to be charged for something as simple as a new texture and maybe a new model is pathetic.
It's not like an MMO where we're playing on their servers. But here they are charging for an object that at best some employee threw together in an afternoon, at worst was originally created with the game but left out for the release. They apply a few stats to it and they're done.
If Bethesda are finding themselves in a situation where Oblivion isn't as profitable as they'd like because of what they've invested in it's development then they should be addressing the issue differently.
The first option is not to make the game so overwrought that they spend a fortune just creating the game. Focus on the gameplay. Don't get obsessed in the latest eye candy that doesn't add directly to gameplay and that even struggles to run on fairly recent video cards.
The second option is simply to charge a bit more for the game. That's not a pleasant option, but if the game is more expensive to produce then charge accordingly. Of course, then I wouldn't expect to have to pay for anything for these mods.
The problem is that the power is in the hands of the consumer. Unfortunately, too many consumers dont think. They're quick to defend these companies and readily pay for anything. The more these people happily accept this sort of the nonsense the more the rest of us are forced into these extortionist pricing models.
In a way I think MMOs have been a bad for the gaming industry. It's shown these companies that not only can they charge full price for a game, but convince people to pay a monthly fee to continue playing. And on top of that most of these games dont even provide significantly more content than a single player but instead are heavily padded with repetitive gameplay. Consumers seem to be more than willing to part with their money, so why not make things easy for them?
The Japanese are already extremely wasteful. You should see how often they toss out perfectly good mobile phones all in an effort to get the next best thing.
Something as simple as taking home leftovers from a restaurant is unheard of. You could have an entire plate of food left over and they'll look at you like you've got two heads if you ask them to wrap it.
They've already got laws which make it prohibitively expensive to own a car for more than a few years. They're pretty much forced into buying new cars every couple of years.
Even without these laws Japanese are always clamoring after the shinest new product. I bet the Japanese government didn't expect people to have a problem with those regulations. In fact, I'm surprised people were upset enough that they went out and had demonstrations. Good for them, I'm glad to see they did do something about it.
Each of Apple's releases has been at least as significant as the jump from Windows 95 to 98, and possibly as significant as the jump from XP to Vista (since Vista has lost major features like WinFS). Also, each version of OS X runs faster *on the same hardware*.
I'd like to have a bit of what you're smoking. Comparable to the jump from Windows 95 to 98? Each of those Mac OSX.1 upgrades from Apple has been the equivalent to a service pack from Microsoft which is provided for free.
The first upgrade was probably the most important in that it resolved some of the more serious issues in the original OSX. Since then the updates have been mostly cosmetic. Sure, a few improvements have been made, the search tool has been enhanced along with a few other things, but one of the bigger additions has been the widgets in 10.4, which again, is little more than eye candy.
As for each version running faster on the same hardware, again, I dont know what you're talking about. After perhaps version 10.2, each version has run progressively worse in various ways.
Lets not forget how utterly ridiculous it is that there are applications that run only in later versions of OSX and others that no longer run properly in the latest updates. And to top it all off Apple doesn't support anything but the absolute latest version of Mac OS.
The average user doesn't want to have to deal with this crap. And as someone who runs a design shop it's bad enough having to upgrade software without dealing with a company who screws their customers by charging the price of a full upgrade for minor updates.
Tabula Rasa seemed a lot more compelling in the first iteration. Now it looks like a glorified FPS, and one which seems to have taken the storyline from Starship Troopers.
Companies seem to be a bit too eager to attract the FPS crowd through MMOs but I don't know if the two can really mix, at least not yet. Developers need to realize that not everyone wants to play an FPS.
Maybe the end result will prove me wrong, but I don't have high hopes for this game as it looks now.
It all sounds great, but someone has to produce all this content. Given what I've seen from MMOs I don't expect to see the kind of experience described in the article within the next decade or two. Developers don't have the resources or desire to invest in that sort of venture.
While there are plenty of people out there with plenty of imagination, there are many more who lack it and as we all know the vast majority of companies are very averse to risk. If you're going to invest millions in a game you want to be sure it's a tried and true formula which will provide a reasonable return on investment.
And when it comes down to it some people simply want to tell their story. They don't want to dream up alternative futures; they don't want Luke to join the dark side in their story.
Yeah, we're losing all our civil liberties but some guy is still free to openly criticize the government without fear of the FBI showing up on his doorstep.
What is going on in China is an example of a lack of civil rights. Some guy calling people who criticize the government unpatriotic isn't an example of someone trampling on your rights. It's an example of that person exercising their right to free speech, just like anyone else is free to do. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean the guy should be censored.
I'm not necessarily defending what the US government is doing because I myself think some of it is wrong. I just can help but think that people are blowing things out of proportion and there are too many who seem to want free speech provided it's consistent with what they themselves believe.
If the government gets away with things its the fault of the citizens for caring more about crap like American Idol than they do what their politicians are up to. Then again, Europeans generally seem to be better informed and they have even less say over what their governments are doing than Americans, but that's a whole other story.
People will probably consider this trolling, but I can't stand that expression brick and mortar.
Why can't it just be called a physical store? What if my store is made of wood and sheetrock? Who comes up with these obnoxious, self-important business terms?
And with that, I have to go pull the trigger on something...
Marketing in general can be very despicable. But it really is all about shock value.
In college I had a classmate in my design class who lived by this. His point was that he wanted people to notice his work. If you've got a magazine crammed full of ads your want yours to stand out. It takes far less effort to create something graphic and shocking than it does to create something compelling and attractive.
I've also dealt with ad agencies who are exceedingly arrogant. It's like they think they're the rock stars of the design industry. I think those attitudes are reflected in advertising.
Marketing, of course, extends beyond advertising and defines the content of these games. Thats why we're flooded by games that are nothing more than an orgy of guns and violence. It doesn't help that it seems like a lot of these creative directors have all had identical upbringings and appear to have been influenced by the same exact things.
I guess humanity hasn't improved at all from the time of Roman gladiators. People still seem to enjoy watching an axe bury itself into someone's skull. I enjoy a good sword fight or gun battle as much as the next guy but some people really don't seem to know when enough is enough.
This sort of thing is based on the same principle that causes people to stare at a car wreck. Marketing people, unfortunately, have no taste whatsoever and seem to enjoy taking things to the extreme.
Having lived in what is considered the inner city, and having gone to what is considered an inner city school I have to say that those statistics are fairly accurate.
I cant count the number of students I've driving to school in their own cars, many of these being on government assistance and paying a reduced fee for lunch. School was a fashion show with these kids walking around in $150 sneakers and decked out in the latest styles. God forbid if anyone wore the same outfit twice in two weeks. Being cool also meant having to shop at select stores even though they were significantly more expensive than anywhere else.
I've known guys who work for cable companies who've gone into projects and have discovered that the tenants there own huge television screens, decent audio equipment and fairly expensive furniture. These are people living on government assistance.
Then there are the ones somehow manage to drive around in a Lexus, Cadillac, or some other expensive car and still have money left over to get huge chrome rims for the thing.
I have a friend knew this women driving around in a new car, dressed up expensive clothing who would go to her church and ask for money to help feed her kids.
I think those Heritage Foundation findings are spot on. These people have a poor sense of priorities; they care more about bling bling than they do leading a successful life. I think the US is one of the only nations where the "poor" are over-weight.
For the most part, in the United States today there is no reason whatsoever why anyone can't live a reasonable comfortable life, assuming, of course, you work for it. I had classmates in high school who wanted to do nothing but skip class, hang out with friends and go to parties. These were the kinds of people who made fun of those who were studious. Some of these kids sure had a good time making fun of the black kids who didn't speak ebonics.
What are they doing today? Nothing. At best they've got some crappy job making not much more than minimum wage.
Who's fault is that? It's their own fault for not asserting themselves. It's their parents fault for letting them slack off. And it's society's fault for encouraging this kind of behavior.
But them I'm expected to give away a portion of my hard-earned salary to pay for these kinds of people. I'm all for helping the disabled, the ones who really came upon some back luck. Those people really need the help. But I have no desire to help the freeloaders. Free money isn't the solution.
The democrats are basically trying to buy votes and they're trying to make those well off feel guilty. This idea of taxing the rich is bullshit. First of all, we're not living in a socialist state. Secondly, the ones who get screwed aren't the wealthy. They won't notice much if their taxes go up for a few percent. The middle-class, however, who work for a living are the ones who get screwed.
Free broadband is not a necessity. It's a luxury. What the hell do people need this for? To watch movies on the internet? To download music? If you're looking for work on the web a standard 56k connection will suffice. Those plans cost $5 a month. Shop around. In fact, they don't need the internet at all to find work. There's a reason we have the unemployment office. Better yet, go back to school, there's plenty of government assistance there. The problem is too many of these people want handouts; they don't want to be responsible for anything
I have two fundamental problems with in-game advertising.
The first is immersion. If I'm playing a game set in a post-apocalyptic world why am I seeing ads, and worse yet, why are they for products that don't exist in this world.
The second problem is specific to subscription based games. If I'm paying a monthly fee why should I be subjected to advertising? I don't even think I should see advertising in a game I've spent $50 for. Corporate greed knows no bounds and I expect in-game advertising to grow increasingly obnoxious and obtrusive.
I have a few other problems with this form of advertising, one of the largest being the general lack of quality for these ads. It's like ad banners, nearly all of which are complete and utter garbage. The stuff I've seen from screenshots of other games looks awful. I don't expect this to improve and I'm sure we'll see poorly placed ads. Like posters for Subway sandwiches in terrorist hideouts.
Now, advertising fits a bit more neatly into a world like that in City of Heroes; it's a contemporary city based in the United States. But again, the general idea of advertising in games rubs me the wrong way.
It's far more enjoyable and faithful to the game world to see the fake ads the designers have created. The moment I see an ad for a real-life product I'm no longer based in the game, I'm thinking about my life outside the game.
To put it simply, I think in-game advertising is lame. It's companies tried to grab every last penny from consumers. But too many consumers seem to think this is okay which means that its going to be forced on us all whether we like it or not. Consumers are far too accepting of being charged for nonsense and there aren't enough people willing to organize to oppose anything.
Regardless of what descriptions claim, this game so far looks like GTA set in a school. It could be argued that the main character in San Andreas technically wasn't a bad guy, except that almost immediately he ends up committing some serious crimes. The few screenshots available show a kid who looks like a troublemaker and a group of kids beating the crap out of each other. Given Rockstar's consistency in developing violent games I would expect more of the same here.
I do think that these people are over-reacting. There's plenty of crap out there outside of games. This attention games are getting is pretty much a ploy by politicians to win votes. Parents dont seem to want the responsibility of raising their own kids anymore. If they're concerned about this game, don't let them play it. Don't expect the government to raise your kids for you.
On the other hand, I can't help but think Rockstar is simply looking to get a rise out of people. They're using controversey to sell their games. They certainly aren't creating art here, they just seem to be obsessed with excessive violence. So now they're developing a game which hits closer to home for many people and will be certain to grab plenty of attention.
There were plenty of games with questionable subject matter back in the early days of gaming. However, there's a big difference today. Those old games had crappy, blocky graphics and relatively simplistic gameplay. Games today look fairly realistic, and they provide gameplay that is a reasonable facsimile of real life. It's all polygons and textures, but the experience has a stronger impact than pixelated sprites.
At some point we're going to have games that look absolutely real and when we reach that point we're going to see some serious debates regarding what is permissible. Are we going to allow games where you can tear people to pieces and experience it in all its graphic detail? When will everyone agree that enough is enough? Certainly developers have to be responsible to some extent for the content they produce.
For the most part, such subject may not necessarily drive anyone to reproduce what they've seen. However, it certainly does desensitize people. It makes them indifferent to atrocities. That, I believe, is a greater danger than a bunch of kids suddenly turning into bullies or being inspired to run around carjacking.
Player-created content is great and it seems to be a good fit for Second Life. However, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea because I think it appeals to developers as a cost-cutting measure, not as a way of creating a dynamic world.
Imagine paying a monthly subscription fee and on top of that having to produce your own content to keep the game going. And I hate to say it but more often than not player content and mods are subpar.
What I'd like to see is a union of the two where the developers create the world and then players shape that world via their actions. Players can take positions of power, build cities, vie for influence all within the context of the game world. And every so often the developers inject external elements, be it a new threat or new allies or whatever to keep things interesting. What MMOs truly need isn't merely additional content, they need a dynamic world with evolving storylines.
Unfortunately, I think people find Second Life's model appealing because of what it means to the bottom line, not because of any potential it has for enhancing the gameplay experience.
I guess they've forgotten about the floppy disc copy protection of the 80s. Put the disc in the drive, boot up the computer and sit there for 30 seconds or so while the drive makes an awful grinding as it got past the copy protection. Apparently the process was potentially damaging to the drive; eventually developers abandoned this sort of protection.
Then companies started introducing protection that came in the form of a series of questions requiring the gamer to refer to the manual or some kind of decoder wheel. Sierra was one company who really took advantage of this form of protection, sometimes having someone play through part of the game before they encountered something that was referenced in the manual.
All this never stopped anyone from making copies of the games. Copy-protection is completely pointless because all it does is cause inconvenience for the legitimate end user. It sure doesn't pose any challenge to those pirating games.
People will likely disagree with me on this, but I'm convinced that these kinds of games are completely wasted being developed for a console. They really belong on a PC instead of being hindered by the limitations of consoles.
As for the light bloom, blurs and other effects, while producing a neat result, especially in stills I tend to find distracting during gameplay. I've seen several games with these kinds of effects and the majority tend to overdo it. It's like I have cataracts or something. Someone with good eyesight doesn't see the world that way. I realize they're going for a cinematic feel, but at least don't overdo it.
I think Guild Wars, for example, has a nice glow that adds to the visuals without overdoing it. Then again, some of the problems here may be due to the low resolution of the PS2.
As for motion blurs, I've never liked them especially in driving games. If the world starts blurring around you because you're driving too fast then you probably shouldn't be racing at all. Imagine if the world turned to a haze for Formula 1 or WRC drivers.
Despite that, I'm impressed by how much they reveal about the game. It's an interesting read.
Re:Still can't beat the japanese
on
Tree Climbing Robot
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Why exactly do you say that?
Sure Japanese have developed some impressive robots, but I wouldn't call something like the ballroom dancing robot a great feat of technology. Japanese designers seem to go for flashy robots, putting immense effort in creating something that has little practical utility but creates quite a stir. One company developed a humanoid robot and then we see dozens of companies cloning the original concept.
The ones developed in the US and Europe tend to be developed for real world applications. They don't look pretty, but they get the job done, solving a specific challenge in the process.
Not to discredit what the Japanese are doing, as they certainly are innovating too, but there's no reason to put down this work just because it doesn't look like Honda's ASIMO.
Final Fantasy XII will certainly be a decent game. However, based on what I've read of the story it looks like it will be just as contrived as all the other Final Fantasy games, and probably Japanese RPGs in general.
I realize the game is catered to a market where anyone over 18 is considered old, but still, I wish they'd stop making such feminine lead characters. At least stop making them all look like 14 year olds. These guys look like they spend more time doing their hair than training for battle. It looks like they've cast pop stars to play the lead roles.
Visually it looks good. There was obviously a lot of effort put into designing the game. I like the liberal use of color, unlike the muddy, monotone worlds normally depicted in American RPGs, World of Warcraft being one of the big exceptions. The facial textures look a bit odd in all the in-game screenshots, but thats one of the only problems I see.
Visuals, however, don't make the game. I don't see how this game could possibly deserve a perfect score, especially in light of the current generation of games, and given that the game was just released. However, I would suspect the score is a marketing gimmick more than anything.
The more people get comfortable with the idea of being charged "postage" for emails the more companies are inclined to charge these fees. Most of these companies seem to be run by scoundrels who think about one thing: the bottom line. If they see a way to make a little extra money they're going to exploit that to its fullest extent.
Right now we see something as benign as what AOL is doing. Even if this ultimately fails, it's only a matter of time before someone else gives it a try. By then there will probably be more people comfortable with the idea. What's one or two cents?
Other companies catch on and the next thing you know everyone is charging for emails. Then the government decides they want to get their hands in the pot. So then we start paying taxes on our emails too.
It seems absurd, but look at all the crap consumers are willing to accept. Look at the mobile phone industry, especially in the US, which basically amounts to extortion. I'm sure there are people out there who would love to apply that model to the internet.
Is this the same Red Orchestra you could get for free as a mod for UT2K4?
This is the fundamental problem indie developers face. People don't think they should have to pay for these games, especially if earlier versions were free. To some extent the sentiment is justifiable because most indie games, even when they have potential, simply lack the polish and refinement or amount of content found in a commercial game. It hurts playability and I think people are averse to spending money on such games.
I played Red Orchestra on the recommendation of a friend, when it was still free. The amount of effort they put into that mod is impressive. They went out of their way to create realistic combat. Many of the guys who played were very particular about how true to life weapons and vehicles were.
The guys who played tended to be passionate about the game and no one tolerated the idiotic antics encountered in games like Battlefield 2. The problem was, however, that the game catered to a small niche; it has a steep learning curve.
It might not sell very well for that reason, but I think they're justified in charging for the game given the amount of work that was put into it.
If I were marketing my own game online, I'd do the same. Release initial versions for free, so that they get to know the game. Once people are hooked, hopefully, then I start charging, perhaps providing episodic content given that I wouldn't have the resources to develop a full-blown game all in one attempt.
Morrowind was a phenomenal game. The game had the vastness of an MMO without the problems of the genre. It did get lonely at times, but at least the world really did shape itself around my character.
Hopefully Oblivion feels more alive, and they've significantly improved the combat system.
I also hope we see more variety with enemies, and they show a bit more intelligence. Those Cliff Racers got extremely annoying after dealing with them for the hundred thousanth time.
I find it funny how Microsoft is accussed of unfair business practices by bundling software with their operating system. They add basic functionality to their operating system and its considered anti-competitive. Apple does the same and it's considered a good thing.
Microsoft got so popular specifically because Windows offered what people wanted. It did the job and did it well enough to make people happy. All the anti-competitive practices in the world wouldn't have made them as successful as they've become if it weren't for that simple fact.
Certainly Microsoft isn't without blame. A lot of what they develop is bloated crap. Windows security is a joke. And they certainly have engaged in anti-competitive activities, and should be punished for it.
But lets not be naive here. The South Korean and European rulings absolutely are intended to give domestic corporations a competitive advantage. I'm sure the US would try to do the same is Microsoft were a foreign company. However, the US has taken a traditionally free-market approach, sometimes at the advantage of US corporations and sometimes at their expense. Europe traditionally has put legislation in place to ensure success for European corporations.
The core of the problem here is the consumer. When a system as common as Windows offers everything the average consumer needs they're not likely to look for alternatives. Strip features from Windows and then the consumer is forced to look elsewhere opening up the opportunity to consider the competitor's software. These are the kinds of people get annoyed when they have to download some as simple as a Flash plug-in. They just want stuff to work, they want all the features they need all in one place. I'm sure many will argue that they didn't spend money on a PC, just so that they have to track down a media player online.
And it's not like Microsoft has ever prevented any of us from installing and using a competitor's software. I've had Quicktime since I started using Windows. I used to use Netscape in the early days until it fell behind and Explorer improved. Now I use Firefox. I haven't had a problem yet.
This sort of legislation may be a good thing for some companies, but it comes at the expense of the consumer. They're forced to make decisions about products they don't really understand, in a market that has become a mess where companies fight for mindshare.
And wat will ultimately happen? They'll migrate to the operating system that offers what they need. Right now, the most obvious choice would be Apple and Mac OS X. Then, when they've taken 80%+ share of the market we'll see this same crap start all over again. Suddenly Apple becomes anti-competitive for providing what the consumer wants.
You may absolutely hate Microsoft and Windows, and I've been considering alternatives for a while now. But you can't deny the fact that for a long time Microsoft provided exactly what the average consumer wanted. And I don't think that most people here are your average consumer.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it surprising that a small percentage of Arabs eventually decided to react to violence with more violence?
Eventually? You mean to tell me that part of the world hasn't been violent for over a thousand years? Don't take this the wrong way but I think you need to brush up on history a bit.
Why do people keep mentioning the iPod as the ultimate example that Japanese don't have nationalistic tendencies? I guess it's hard for Americans to understand that people can have these sentiments because American nationalism is frowned upon.
The popularity of one product does not negate the fact that Japanese do tend to avoid foreign products. The few exceptions tend to be luxury items. One thing Japanese love is European clothing, european handbags, etc. However, I think that's primarily because it's been established the world over that if you want to be seen as fashionable these are the kinds of things you want.
Some foregin automobiles have seen success in Japan, but again, only those in the luxury space, specifically Mercedes and BMW. But even then, they'll have shows where they compare cars and bias the comparisons to favor Japanese cars. Like this one time they compared the Nissan Z to a BMW M3, Porsche Boxster and something else. It was supposed to be a stock cars, but the Nissan had its passenger seat removed and an oil cooler installed in it's place. And on top of that they had another Nissan serving as the camera car. The camera car kept getting in between the Z and the other cars, blocking any chance of them passing. Then there was the one where they compared an Acura NSX to foreign sports cars and it broke down before the race was over but they still considered it the best of the cars they had driven. I drive a Japanese car myself, but the bias is painfully obvious.
Elements of American hip hop culture have found their way to Japan, but not directly. It's all been localized, they've got their own fashions and their own artists. How little they really understood of the hip hop culture they were mimicking was demonstrated by those stupid girls who would practically cover their faces in makeup and get insanely dark tans.
As far as electronics are concerned its pretty much guaranteed that any foreign product will fail. Apple has done well for a long time in Japan. Macs have always been popular because they're generally easier to use than PCs and they have a more appealing design. It was only inevitable that the iPod was in a good position to do well. Of course it helped that the iPod is immensely easy to use, far easier than the overwrought products Sony tends to produce. What really drove things home in the end for Apple was that the iPod looks damn cool. It certainly is striking, not like the overly generic silver-frosted crap we tend to see here. Japanese products tend to look nice and unique, so you really need to stand out if you want to be noticed.
The only way to succeed is to either produce a product that strongly appeals to Japanese fashion sense or create something that does something truly unique. Needless to say, the Xbox 360 fails on both these counts which is why it will never succeed in Japan. I don't even understand how the people at Microsoft can't see this. They'd be better off pulling out of Japan completely and investing all that money here.
I don't think Microsoft is capable of doing what is necessary to succeed in Japan.
I just tested Safari, Firefox and Explorer on my Mac. Only Safari came through fine, staying on the Google page. The other two browsers failed. Both Firefox and Explorer 6 on my PC here failed, being listed as susceptible.
This is a smart move on Apple's part towards making their computers a bit more ubiquitous. On the other hand, given that Macs now have Intel processors, most of their other internals are shared with PCs and they can run Windows it kind of defeats the purpose of getting a Mac.
Although, this is likely a plan by Apple to get consumers more comfortable with Macs. Switching is no longer the drastic jump it once was and this is a nice way of making the consumer comfortable with OSX. I'm sure a nicely designed PC would attract a lot of people. Maybe we'll finally get other PC makers to take product design a bit more seriously.
So much for the good old days where this kind of content was free. I would never even imagined I would have to pay for this sort of thing.
I can expect to pay something for a substantial mod that introduces a new storyline or something to that effect. But to be charged for something as simple as a new texture and maybe a new model is pathetic.
It's not like an MMO where we're playing on their servers. But here they are charging for an object that at best some employee threw together in an afternoon, at worst was originally created with the game but left out for the release. They apply a few stats to it and they're done.
If Bethesda are finding themselves in a situation where Oblivion isn't as profitable as they'd like because of what they've invested in it's development then they should be addressing the issue differently.
The first option is not to make the game so overwrought that they spend a fortune just creating the game. Focus on the gameplay. Don't get obsessed in the latest eye candy that doesn't add directly to gameplay and that even struggles to run on fairly recent video cards.
The second option is simply to charge a bit more for the game. That's not a pleasant option, but if the game is more expensive to produce then charge accordingly. Of course, then I wouldn't expect to have to pay for anything for these mods.
The problem is that the power is in the hands of the consumer. Unfortunately, too many consumers dont think. They're quick to defend these companies and readily pay for anything. The more these people happily accept this sort of the nonsense the more the rest of us are forced into these extortionist pricing models.
In a way I think MMOs have been a bad for the gaming industry. It's shown these companies that not only can they charge full price for a game, but convince people to pay a monthly fee to continue playing. And on top of that most of these games dont even provide significantly more content than a single player but instead are heavily padded with repetitive gameplay. Consumers seem to be more than willing to part with their money, so why not make things easy for them?
The Japanese are already extremely wasteful. You should see how often they toss out perfectly good mobile phones all in an effort to get the next best thing.
Something as simple as taking home leftovers from a restaurant is unheard of. You could have an entire plate of food left over and they'll look at you like you've got two heads if you ask them to wrap it.
They've already got laws which make it prohibitively expensive to own a car for more than a few years. They're pretty much forced into buying new cars every couple of years.
Even without these laws Japanese are always clamoring after the shinest new product. I bet the Japanese government didn't expect people to have a problem with those regulations. In fact, I'm surprised people were upset enough that they went out and had demonstrations. Good for them, I'm glad to see they did do something about it.
Each of Apple's releases has been at least as significant as the jump from Windows 95 to 98, and possibly as significant as the jump from XP to Vista (since Vista has lost major features like WinFS). Also, each version of OS X runs faster *on the same hardware*.
.1 upgrades from Apple has been the equivalent to a service pack from Microsoft which is provided for free.
I'd like to have a bit of what you're smoking. Comparable to the jump from Windows 95 to 98? Each of those Mac OSX
The first upgrade was probably the most important in that it resolved some of the more serious issues in the original OSX. Since then the updates have been mostly cosmetic. Sure, a few improvements have been made, the search tool has been enhanced along with a few other things, but one of the bigger additions has been the widgets in 10.4, which again, is little more than eye candy.
As for each version running faster on the same hardware, again, I dont know what you're talking about. After perhaps version 10.2, each version has run progressively worse in various ways.
Lets not forget how utterly ridiculous it is that there are applications that run only in later versions of OSX and others that no longer run properly in the latest updates. And to top it all off Apple doesn't support anything but the absolute latest version of Mac OS.
The average user doesn't want to have to deal with this crap. And as someone who runs a design shop it's bad enough having to upgrade software without dealing with a company who screws their customers by charging the price of a full upgrade for minor updates.
Tabula Rasa seemed a lot more compelling in the first iteration. Now it looks like a glorified FPS, and one which seems to have taken the storyline from Starship Troopers.
Companies seem to be a bit too eager to attract the FPS crowd through MMOs but I don't know if the two can really mix, at least not yet. Developers need to realize that not everyone wants to play an FPS.
Maybe the end result will prove me wrong, but I don't have high hopes for this game as it looks now.
It all sounds great, but someone has to produce all this content. Given what I've seen from MMOs I don't expect to see the kind of experience described in the article within the next decade or two. Developers don't have the resources or desire to invest in that sort of venture.
While there are plenty of people out there with plenty of imagination, there are many more who lack it and as we all know the vast majority of companies are very averse to risk. If you're going to invest millions in a game you want to be sure it's a tried and true formula which will provide a reasonable return on investment.
And when it comes down to it some people simply want to tell their story. They don't want to dream up alternative futures; they don't want Luke to join the dark side in their story.
Yeah, we're losing all our civil liberties but some guy is still free to openly criticize the government without fear of the FBI showing up on his doorstep.
What is going on in China is an example of a lack of civil rights. Some guy calling people who criticize the government unpatriotic isn't an example of someone trampling on your rights. It's an example of that person exercising their right to free speech, just like anyone else is free to do. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean the guy should be censored.
I'm not necessarily defending what the US government is doing because I myself think some of it is wrong. I just can help but think that people are blowing things out of proportion and there are too many who seem to want free speech provided it's consistent with what they themselves believe.
If the government gets away with things its the fault of the citizens for caring more about crap like American Idol than they do what their politicians are up to. Then again, Europeans generally seem to be better informed and they have even less say over what their governments are doing than Americans, but that's a whole other story.
Good god, my wrists shattered just looking at that thing.
There's a need for some kind of new input device, but I dont think this is it.
People will probably consider this trolling, but I can't stand that expression brick and mortar.
Why can't it just be called a physical store? What if my store is made of wood and sheetrock? Who comes up with these obnoxious, self-important business terms?
And with that, I have to go pull the trigger on something...
Marketing in general can be very despicable. But it really is all about shock value.
In college I had a classmate in my design class who lived by this. His point was that he wanted people to notice his work. If you've got a magazine crammed full of ads your want yours to stand out. It takes far less effort to create something graphic and shocking than it does to create something compelling and attractive.
I've also dealt with ad agencies who are exceedingly arrogant. It's like they think they're the rock stars of the design industry. I think those attitudes are reflected in advertising.
Marketing, of course, extends beyond advertising and defines the content of these games. Thats why we're flooded by games that are nothing more than an orgy of guns and violence. It doesn't help that it seems like a lot of these creative directors have all had identical upbringings and appear to have been influenced by the same exact things.
I guess humanity hasn't improved at all from the time of Roman gladiators. People still seem to enjoy watching an axe bury itself into someone's skull. I enjoy a good sword fight or gun battle as much as the next guy but some people really don't seem to know when enough is enough.
This sort of thing is based on the same principle that causes people to stare at a car wreck. Marketing people, unfortunately, have no taste whatsoever and seem to enjoy taking things to the extreme.
Having lived in what is considered the inner city, and having gone to what is considered an inner city school I have to say that those statistics are fairly accurate.
I cant count the number of students I've driving to school in their own cars, many of these being on government assistance and paying a reduced fee for lunch. School was a fashion show with these kids walking around in $150 sneakers and decked out in the latest styles. God forbid if anyone wore the same outfit twice in two weeks. Being cool also meant having to shop at select stores even though they were significantly more expensive than anywhere else.
I've known guys who work for cable companies who've gone into projects and have discovered that the tenants there own huge television screens, decent audio equipment and fairly expensive furniture. These are people living on government assistance.
Then there are the ones somehow manage to drive around in a Lexus, Cadillac, or some other expensive car and still have money left over to get huge chrome rims for the thing.
I have a friend knew this women driving around in a new car, dressed up expensive clothing who would go to her church and ask for money to help feed her kids.
I think those Heritage Foundation findings are spot on. These people have a poor sense of priorities; they care more about bling bling than they do leading a successful life. I think the US is one of the only nations where the "poor" are over-weight.
For the most part, in the United States today there is no reason whatsoever why anyone can't live a reasonable comfortable life, assuming, of course, you work for it. I had classmates in high school who wanted to do nothing but skip class, hang out with friends and go to parties. These were the kinds of people who made fun of those who were studious. Some of these kids sure had a good time making fun of the black kids who didn't speak ebonics.
What are they doing today? Nothing. At best they've got some crappy job making not much more than minimum wage.
Who's fault is that? It's their own fault for not asserting themselves. It's their parents fault for letting them slack off. And it's society's fault for encouraging this kind of behavior.
But them I'm expected to give away a portion of my hard-earned salary to pay for these kinds of people. I'm all for helping the disabled, the ones who really came upon some back luck. Those people really need the help. But I have no desire to help the freeloaders. Free money isn't the solution.
The democrats are basically trying to buy votes and they're trying to make those well off feel guilty. This idea of taxing the rich is bullshit. First of all, we're not living in a socialist state. Secondly, the ones who get screwed aren't the wealthy. They won't notice much if their taxes go up for a few percent. The middle-class, however, who work for a living are the ones who get screwed.
Free broadband is not a necessity. It's a luxury. What the hell do people need this for? To watch movies on the internet? To download music? If you're looking for work on the web a standard 56k connection will suffice. Those plans cost $5 a month. Shop around. In fact, they don't need the internet at all to find work. There's a reason we have the unemployment office. Better yet, go back to school, there's plenty of government assistance there. The problem is too many of these people want handouts; they don't want to be responsible for anything
I have two fundamental problems with in-game advertising.
The first is immersion. If I'm playing a game set in a post-apocalyptic world why am I seeing ads, and worse yet, why are they for products that don't exist in this world.
The second problem is specific to subscription based games. If I'm paying a monthly fee why should I be subjected to advertising? I don't even think I should see advertising in a game I've spent $50 for. Corporate greed knows no bounds and I expect in-game advertising to grow increasingly obnoxious and obtrusive.
I have a few other problems with this form of advertising, one of the largest being the general lack of quality for these ads. It's like ad banners, nearly all of which are complete and utter garbage. The stuff I've seen from screenshots of other games looks awful. I don't expect this to improve and I'm sure we'll see poorly placed ads. Like posters for Subway sandwiches in terrorist hideouts.
Now, advertising fits a bit more neatly into a world like that in City of Heroes; it's a contemporary city based in the United States. But again, the general idea of advertising in games rubs me the wrong way.
It's far more enjoyable and faithful to the game world to see the fake ads the designers have created. The moment I see an ad for a real-life product I'm no longer based in the game, I'm thinking about my life outside the game.
To put it simply, I think in-game advertising is lame. It's companies tried to grab every last penny from consumers. But too many consumers seem to think this is okay which means that its going to be forced on us all whether we like it or not. Consumers are far too accepting of being charged for nonsense and there aren't enough people willing to organize to oppose anything.
Regardless of what descriptions claim, this game so far looks like GTA set in a school. It could be argued that the main character in San Andreas technically wasn't a bad guy, except that almost immediately he ends up committing some serious crimes. The few screenshots available show a kid who looks like a troublemaker and a group of kids beating the crap out of each other. Given Rockstar's consistency in developing violent games I would expect more of the same here.
I do think that these people are over-reacting. There's plenty of crap out there outside of games. This attention games are getting is pretty much a ploy by politicians to win votes. Parents dont seem to want the responsibility of raising their own kids anymore. If they're concerned about this game, don't let them play it. Don't expect the government to raise your kids for you.
On the other hand, I can't help but think Rockstar is simply looking to get a rise out of people. They're using controversey to sell their games. They certainly aren't creating art here, they just seem to be obsessed with excessive violence. So now they're developing a game which hits closer to home for many people and will be certain to grab plenty of attention.
There were plenty of games with questionable subject matter back in the early days of gaming. However, there's a big difference today. Those old games had crappy, blocky graphics and relatively simplistic gameplay. Games today look fairly realistic, and they provide gameplay that is a reasonable facsimile of real life. It's all polygons and textures, but the experience has a stronger impact than pixelated sprites.
At some point we're going to have games that look absolutely real and when we reach that point we're going to see some serious debates regarding what is permissible. Are we going to allow games where you can tear people to pieces and experience it in all its graphic detail? When will everyone agree that enough is enough? Certainly developers have to be responsible to some extent for the content they produce.
For the most part, such subject may not necessarily drive anyone to reproduce what they've seen. However, it certainly does desensitize people. It makes them indifferent to atrocities. That, I believe, is a greater danger than a bunch of kids suddenly turning into bullies or being inspired to run around carjacking.
Player-created content is great and it seems to be a good fit for Second Life. However, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea because I think it appeals to developers as a cost-cutting measure, not as a way of creating a dynamic world.
Imagine paying a monthly subscription fee and on top of that having to produce your own content to keep the game going. And I hate to say it but more often than not player content and mods are subpar.
What I'd like to see is a union of the two where the developers create the world and then players shape that world via their actions. Players can take positions of power, build cities, vie for influence all within the context of the game world. And every so often the developers inject external elements, be it a new threat or new allies or whatever to keep things interesting. What MMOs truly need isn't merely additional content, they need a dynamic world with evolving storylines.
Unfortunately, I think people find Second Life's model appealing because of what it means to the bottom line, not because of any potential it has for enhancing the gameplay experience.
I guess they've forgotten about the floppy disc copy protection of the 80s. Put the disc in the drive, boot up the computer and sit there for 30 seconds or so while the drive makes an awful grinding as it got past the copy protection. Apparently the process was potentially damaging to the drive; eventually developers abandoned this sort of protection.
Then companies started introducing protection that came in the form of a series of questions requiring the gamer to refer to the manual or some kind of decoder wheel. Sierra was one company who really took advantage of this form of protection, sometimes having someone play through part of the game before they encountered something that was referenced in the manual.
All this never stopped anyone from making copies of the games. Copy-protection is completely pointless because all it does is cause inconvenience for the legitimate end user. It sure doesn't pose any challenge to those pirating games.
People will likely disagree with me on this, but I'm convinced that these kinds of games are completely wasted being developed for a console. They really belong on a PC instead of being hindered by the limitations of consoles.
As for the light bloom, blurs and other effects, while producing a neat result, especially in stills I tend to find distracting during gameplay. I've seen several games with these kinds of effects and the majority tend to overdo it. It's like I have cataracts or something. Someone with good eyesight doesn't see the world that way. I realize they're going for a cinematic feel, but at least don't overdo it.
I think Guild Wars, for example, has a nice glow that adds to the visuals without overdoing it. Then again, some of the problems here may be due to the low resolution of the PS2.
As for motion blurs, I've never liked them especially in driving games. If the world starts blurring around you because you're driving too fast then you probably shouldn't be racing at all. Imagine if the world turned to a haze for Formula 1 or WRC drivers.
Despite that, I'm impressed by how much they reveal about the game. It's an interesting read.
Why exactly do you say that?
Sure Japanese have developed some impressive robots, but I wouldn't call something like the ballroom dancing robot a great feat of technology. Japanese designers seem to go for flashy robots, putting immense effort in creating something that has little practical utility but creates quite a stir. One company developed a humanoid robot and then we see dozens of companies cloning the original concept.
The ones developed in the US and Europe tend to be developed for real world applications. They don't look pretty, but they get the job done, solving a specific challenge in the process.
Not to discredit what the Japanese are doing, as they certainly are innovating too, but there's no reason to put down this work just because it doesn't look like Honda's ASIMO.
Final Fantasy XII will certainly be a decent game. However, based on what I've read of the story it looks like it will be just as contrived as all the other Final Fantasy games, and probably Japanese RPGs in general.
I realize the game is catered to a market where anyone over 18 is considered old, but still, I wish they'd stop making such feminine lead characters. At least stop making them all look like 14 year olds. These guys look like they spend more time doing their hair than training for battle. It looks like they've cast pop stars to play the lead roles.
Visually it looks good. There was obviously a lot of effort put into designing the game. I like the liberal use of color, unlike the muddy, monotone worlds normally depicted in American RPGs, World of Warcraft being one of the big exceptions. The facial textures look a bit odd in all the in-game screenshots, but thats one of the only problems I see.
Visuals, however, don't make the game. I don't see how this game could possibly deserve a perfect score, especially in light of the current generation of games, and given that the game was just released. However, I would suspect the score is a marketing gimmick more than anything.
The more people get comfortable with the idea of being charged "postage" for emails the more companies are inclined to charge these fees. Most of these companies seem to be run by scoundrels who think about one thing: the bottom line. If they see a way to make a little extra money they're going to exploit that to its fullest extent.
Right now we see something as benign as what AOL is doing. Even if this ultimately fails, it's only a matter of time before someone else gives it a try. By then there will probably be more people comfortable with the idea. What's one or two cents?
Other companies catch on and the next thing you know everyone is charging for emails. Then the government decides they want to get their hands in the pot. So then we start paying taxes on our emails too.
It seems absurd, but look at all the crap consumers are willing to accept. Look at the mobile phone industry, especially in the US, which basically amounts to extortion. I'm sure there are people out there who would love to apply that model to the internet.
It's only a matter of time.
Is this the same Red Orchestra you could get for free as a mod for UT2K4?
This is the fundamental problem indie developers face. People don't think they should have to pay for these games, especially if earlier versions were free. To some extent the sentiment is justifiable because most indie games, even when they have potential, simply lack the polish and refinement or amount of content found in a commercial game. It hurts playability and I think people are averse to spending money on such games.
I played Red Orchestra on the recommendation of a friend, when it was still free. The amount of effort they put into that mod is impressive. They went out of their way to create realistic combat. Many of the guys who played were very particular about how true to life weapons and vehicles were.
The guys who played tended to be passionate about the game and no one tolerated the idiotic antics encountered in games like Battlefield 2. The problem was, however, that the game catered to a small niche; it has a steep learning curve.
It might not sell very well for that reason, but I think they're justified in charging for the game given the amount of work that was put into it.
If I were marketing my own game online, I'd do the same. Release initial versions for free, so that they get to know the game. Once people are hooked, hopefully, then I start charging, perhaps providing episodic content given that I wouldn't have the resources to develop a full-blown game all in one attempt.
Morrowind was a phenomenal game. The game had the vastness of an MMO without the problems of the genre. It did get lonely at times, but at least the world really did shape itself around my character.
Hopefully Oblivion feels more alive, and they've significantly improved the combat system.
I also hope we see more variety with enemies, and they show a bit more intelligence. Those Cliff Racers got extremely annoying after dealing with them for the hundred thousanth time.
I find it funny how Microsoft is accussed of unfair business practices by bundling software with their operating system. They add basic functionality to their operating system and its considered anti-competitive. Apple does the same and it's considered a good thing.
Microsoft got so popular specifically because Windows offered what people wanted. It did the job and did it well enough to make people happy. All the anti-competitive practices in the world wouldn't have made them as successful as they've become if it weren't for that simple fact.
Certainly Microsoft isn't without blame. A lot of what they develop is bloated crap. Windows security is a joke. And they certainly have engaged in anti-competitive activities, and should be punished for it.
But lets not be naive here. The South Korean and European rulings absolutely are intended to give domestic corporations a competitive advantage. I'm sure the US would try to do the same is Microsoft were a foreign company. However, the US has taken a traditionally free-market approach, sometimes at the advantage of US corporations and sometimes at their expense. Europe traditionally has put legislation in place to ensure success for European corporations.
The core of the problem here is the consumer. When a system as common as Windows offers everything the average consumer needs they're not likely to look for alternatives. Strip features from Windows and then the consumer is forced to look elsewhere opening up the opportunity to consider the competitor's software. These are the kinds of people get annoyed when they have to download some as simple as a Flash plug-in. They just want stuff to work, they want all the features they need all in one place. I'm sure many will argue that they didn't spend money on a PC, just so that they have to track down a media player online.
And it's not like Microsoft has ever prevented any of us from installing and using a competitor's software. I've had Quicktime since I started using Windows. I used to use Netscape in the early days until it fell behind and Explorer improved. Now I use Firefox. I haven't had a problem yet.
This sort of legislation may be a good thing for some companies, but it comes at the expense of the consumer. They're forced to make decisions about products they don't really understand, in a market that has become a mess where companies fight for mindshare.
And wat will ultimately happen? They'll migrate to the operating system that offers what they need. Right now, the most obvious choice would be Apple and Mac OS X. Then, when they've taken 80%+ share of the market we'll see this same crap start all over again. Suddenly Apple becomes anti-competitive for providing what the consumer wants.
You may absolutely hate Microsoft and Windows, and I've been considering alternatives for a while now. But you can't deny the fact that for a long time Microsoft provided exactly what the average consumer wanted. And I don't think that most people here are your average consumer.