So MS got the Temp to dream up another PR campaign to burn up some money for them? I mean, I don't see who they are going to convince with this, nor what they have to gain by doing it. Personally I either want my computing needs served either by guys like me doing it for the sheer fun and love of it, or by some large corp that needs customers (y'know, for profits...). And even at that, I'd take the like-minded community any day.
Still, I guess a little disinformation^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H marketing never hurt anyone. Oh, 'cept those guys that tattooed company logos on their foreheads...
Now, I used to read reviews in magazines. I even had a subscription to Edge for a while, and used to like the longer reviews (the pieces on San Andreas from there and other mags come to mind). But now I tend to rely more on peer reviews - and by that I mean people I actually know. Combine that with selectively trying demos and I reckon I have a system that does pretty well (for me anyway).
Of course, if I see a game discussed in depth on the world wide webby and with a great community, I will more than likely give it a shot. Notable games from this category are x/netrek; nethack; and HardWar, to name but 3.
So who is suffering? Well, [formerly?] well-paid magazine or ezine professional game reviewers. And yes, that is a shame to some extent. I do enjoy reading the long reviews -- I appreciate when someone puts an effort in -- but I would rather spend the subscription money elsewhere, say on a new graphics card to take advantage of these great games I should be reading reviews of.
So how do you recapture my (and everyone else's) attention? From TFA:
Ditch The Scores - Makes the review stand on the merit of its content. Good idea - as long as the content is good.
Focus on MegaReviews - Yup. El Goog prvoed that more is less; so write less reviews, but make them longer.
Trumpet Your Own Credibility - Personality can be interesting, but a fine line lies between 'trumpeting credibility' and 'arrogant gits that I won't be rading again'.
Aggregate Reviews on Your Own - Can't beat them, so join them? Might work.
Crunch The Curve - If people are looking for a quick point score, they are looking for something that conforms to their expectations. Giving lower scores will ultimately damage credibility and turn off readers, even if your intentions are noble. Here's a better idea - lose the scores altogether. Give people a well-written indepth review. The ones that are looking for a point score won't read if you give it 4/10 as opposed to 7/10 anyway.
How many of the media files have been taken despite being under copyright? I've seen the obvious and/or controversial images removed -- pretty promptly in most cases. But how about an image taken from a website with no watermark taken from a website where the webmaster has no time to pursue misappropriation.
Although if they truly have 400 000 original images that have been validly released for them to use, more power to them.
I actually saw an 'extension' (aka keyset) for this device a while back - snap on keyset for BF2 controls. At the time I thought the keyset was for regular qwerty keyboards, but they are actually for the product being reviewed.
TFA loaded too slowly for me to have a look at (read: short attention span), but it strikes me that this product is a bit redundant. How many CS players suddenly forget which is the flashlight key? How many people in BF2 have to stop and think "How the hell do I crouch??". No-one that has played the game for more than a couple of hours anyway.
In the end, I can only really see this benefiting newbies. Or maybe those that have only played Nethack for less than 100 hours...
This whole black n' white Vs colour was used in an episode of the X-files... except the other way round. A guy saw things in colour, but then they turned black and white, and died. He used this power to, uh, take photos of the bodies and, uh, sell them to the police.
So it's not *exactly* the same concept, I guess...
And I agree with whoever says bring back Farscape. Though I did enjoy catching a glimpse of the actors that played John and Aeryn on SG-1.
Problem is, all I have to judge modern learning software is this study. I had some software of that type as a kid, but it wasn't altogether impressive -- solid on the learning for the most part, but either too flashy or too boring to be usable in the long term.
I'm sure there are shining examples of interactive learning software, but the study shows some potential shortcomings. It is an area for improvement, as IT-assisted learning will most likely become increasingly used in the future.
The other half used an interactive program which, in addition to telling the story, encourages pupils to click the computer mouse on page illustrations, triggering almost 300 animations and sound effects.
Only two-thirds of the pop-up cartoons were relevant to the storyline.
-----
Firstly and seriously, of course children will be distracted by animations and sound effects. Knowing this, and if they are irrelevent, why did the writers of the software put them there? Why not add some animations that explained part of the story? Fair enough no kid's book should read like a tech manual (and vice versa), but putting in distractions will distract the reader - child or otherwise.
Secondly and less seriously... they're surprised 'only' two thirds of the popups are relevent? Put the kids on the net instead of using that software and we'll see how many 'relevent' popups they get.
Slashdot Mirror
So MS got the Temp to dream up another PR campaign to burn up some money for them? I mean, I don't see who they are going to convince with this, nor what they have to gain by doing it. Personally I either want my computing needs served either by guys like me doing it for the sheer fun and love of it, or by some large corp that needs customers (y'know, for profits...). And even at that, I'd take the like-minded community any day.
Still, I guess a little disinformation^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H marketing never hurt anyone. Oh, 'cept those guys that tattooed company logos on their foreheads...
Now, I used to read reviews in magazines. I even had a subscription to Edge for a while, and used to like the longer reviews (the pieces on San Andreas from there and other mags come to mind). But now I tend to rely more on peer reviews - and by that I mean people I actually know. Combine that with selectively trying demos and I reckon I have a system that does pretty well (for me anyway).
Of course, if I see a game discussed in depth on the world wide webby and with a great community, I will more than likely give it a shot. Notable games from this category are x/netrek; nethack; and HardWar, to name but 3.
So who is suffering? Well, [formerly?] well-paid magazine or ezine professional game reviewers. And yes, that is a shame to some extent. I do enjoy reading the long reviews -- I appreciate when someone puts an effort in -- but I would rather spend the subscription money elsewhere, say on a new graphics card to take advantage of these great games I should be reading reviews of.
So how do you recapture my (and everyone else's) attention? From TFA:
Ditch The Scores - Makes the review stand on the merit of its content. Good idea - as long as the content is good.
Focus on MegaReviews - Yup. El Goog prvoed that more is less; so write less reviews, but make them longer.
Trumpet Your Own Credibility - Personality can be interesting, but a fine line lies between 'trumpeting credibility' and 'arrogant gits that I won't be rading again'.
Aggregate Reviews on Your Own - Can't beat them, so join them? Might work.
Crunch The Curve - If people are looking for a quick point score, they are looking for something that conforms to their expectations. Giving lower scores will ultimately damage credibility and turn off readers, even if your intentions are noble. Here's a better idea - lose the scores altogether. Give people a well-written indepth review. The ones that are looking for a point score won't read if you give it 4/10 as opposed to 7/10 anyway.
my .02
I know. For my next trick, I'll get someone to believe me when I say "Hey, lets /. google!".
If we /. the wikimedia servers, we can start another fund drive! Who wants to hear another personal appeal from Jimbo?
How many of the media files have been taken despite being under copyright? I've seen the obvious and/or controversial images removed -- pretty promptly in most cases. But how about an image taken from a website with no watermark taken from a website where the webmaster has no time to pursue misappropriation.
Although if they truly have 400 000 original images that have been validly released for them to use, more power to them.
I actually saw an 'extension' (aka keyset) for this device a while back - snap on keyset for BF2 controls. At the time I thought the keyset was for regular qwerty keyboards, but they are actually for the product being reviewed.
TFA loaded too slowly for me to have a look at (read: short attention span), but it strikes me that this product is a bit redundant. How many CS players suddenly forget which is the flashlight key? How many people in BF2 have to stop and think "How the hell do I crouch??". No-one that has played the game for more than a couple of hours anyway.
In the end, I can only really see this benefiting newbies. Or maybe those that have only played Nethack for less than 100 hours...
Interesting concept, but...
This whole black n' white Vs colour was used in an episode of the X-files... except the other way round. A guy saw things in colour, but then they turned black and white, and died. He used this power to, uh, take photos of the bodies and, uh, sell them to the police.
So it's not *exactly* the same concept, I guess...
And I agree with whoever says bring back Farscape. Though I did enjoy catching a glimpse of the actors that played John and Aeryn on SG-1.
Problem is, all I have to judge modern learning software is this study. I had some software of that type as a kid, but it wasn't altogether impressive -- solid on the learning for the most part, but either too flashy or too boring to be usable in the long term.
I'm sure there are shining examples of interactive learning software, but the study shows some potential shortcomings. It is an area for improvement, as IT-assisted learning will most likely become increasingly used in the future.
The other half used an interactive program which, in addition to telling the story, encourages pupils to click the computer mouse on page illustrations, triggering almost 300 animations and sound effects.
Only two-thirds of the pop-up cartoons were relevant to the storyline.
-----
Firstly and seriously, of course children will be distracted by animations and sound effects. Knowing this, and if they are irrelevent, why did the writers of the software put them there? Why not add some animations that explained part of the story? Fair enough no kid's book should read like a tech manual (and vice versa), but putting in distractions will distract the reader - child or otherwise.Secondly and less seriously... they're surprised 'only' two thirds of the popups are relevent? Put the kids on the net instead of using that software and we'll see how many 'relevent' popups they get.
Actually, that might not be such a good idea...
"At first glance, the Fatal1ty gaming mouse doesn't look too different from any pther mouse..."
Looks like the spell checker got pwned by fatal1ty too!