It seems like a massively innovative time for gaming, and that's got to be due in part to the masses of competition - three big console manufacturers all doing respectably, cheap ubiquitous home computing in the form of netbooks, powerful phones capable of gaming, handhelds being pushed forward partly by this and partly by technological advancements. I hope we never get back to the point where one company dominates and effectively destroys the competition.
Maybe (and I realise how stupid this sounds in relation to corporations like Sony), just maybe Sony would rather participate in a sector where they and competitors all get to make money, rather than having to burn through all their profits just to bury the opposition. Of course they could ultimately make more money by killing off the competition, but how much would that cost them, and how damaging would it be to the industry as a whole? If they started selling off their console for next to nothing and heavily subsidising games, would customers be happy to return to the high prices once they killed off the competition? As to Apple eating Sony's walkman pie, well that surprised few people at the time, Sony have always been great at delivery technology but rubbish at predicting trends (not to mention they had a pretty big stake in not supporting easily copied digital formats back when digital players were starting to take off) so that it's usually a happy accident for them when the trend and the technology converge.
Exactly - Sony committed the same crime both Sega and Nintendo committed in the 90's, they believed their own hype, that they were too big to be challenged and that developers should be honoured to develop for their machines. It might not have hurt them greatly during the PS2 phase (but as you say, we can only guess how dominant they could have been if they'd played it differently - Nintendo was out for the count back then), but they certainly no longer have it all their own way.
Agreed - what the hardcore gamers (and I'm probably no longer one, but a few short years ago when I had the time, I'd happily put in 75+ hours a week gaming, kept an up-to-date gaming rig, followed the new consoles, etc) are generally opposed to is the lazy approach some developers take to just dialling it in and relying on cheap marketing fizz to sale their empty gaming experience. That's not limited to "casual" games, of course, there are plenty example of "proper" games that do this, but it does seem like there are an awful lot of casual cookie cutter style games with little or no substance but which get churned out one after another and rely on sheer quantity to make a profit. Mario is an example of a game which someone new to gaming can pick up and enjoy, yet has enough depth that even seasoned gamers can find a challenge in there. I think people who just dismiss all casual games/gamers out of hand are not "hardcore gamers" they're "bigots", and they're not confined to the gaming world by any means (that's not to say a portion, or even a large portion, of hardcore gamers are not bigots, but to tar them all with the same brush is to commit the same mistake).
Don't be churlish - no matter what you may think of the game, the precedent of WoW was bringing the MMO to the masses (even the non-gaming masses and media), and that's what GP is talking about. No matter how good FO is (and god I hope it's good), it will struggle to put a dent in WoW's numbers, we just have to hope the bottom line is profitable enough that it doesn't get canned before it gets a chance to take off.
On the downside, if the nearest doctor is two hours walk away, and the phone tells you you're going to die without immediate medical care, the stress might just kill you.
This is why I gave up watching what little sport I do watch on ITV a long time ago. They ruined the F1GP for me (now it's back on the Beeb but the FIA have managed to ruin the sport in the meantime), and in a football match where you might get one or two good goals in a 90 minute game, to risk missing them for an ad break is pretty intolerable and you're better off catching the highlights on the BBC later anyway.
On the other hand, I have particularly sensitive hearing, and the usual world cup cacophony of noise is enough to drive me insane. For me, the "normalising" effect of the Vuvuzela means I can actually deliberately ignore it to a large extent (I still don't watch much football anyway as I'm not a big fan), like any noise that's a constant drone, you eventually don't notice it until it stops. That only leaves the sudden massive increase in volume when the adverts are shown to contend with.
That's advertising cashing in on football's popularity rather than being the main driver behind it. Although there may be some reciprocal effect now (a few people getting into it because the advertising makes them more aware of its popularity, or somehow indicates it's "cool"), football was incredibly popular before advertising had really even begun to take off.
I understand the communication issue arises from the similarities in pitch between human speech and the instrument's sound. Have the footballers tried screaming like little girls (I mean, apart from when they get tackled) to see if that helps?
Maybe they should have lodged their complaints before the World Cup began, or did they seriously not anticipate that a lot of noise would prevent them playing? On a side note, does anyone watch much South African football? Does this affect their local game just as much or have they learned to compensate in some way?
As far as I can tell, the players are complaining about everything - that's pretty much standard for football players (common complaints are that the ball's too sticky, the grass is too bouncy/not bouncy enough, the noise is too loud, it's too hot, it's too cold, there's not enough oxygen, etc, etc) - actually I think that's pretty endemic of the fact that it's generally best to set your excuses up before you lose, so it doesn't sound like sour grapes, but the fact is if it affects both teams equally, it doesn't really disadvantage either unduly.
No, that's just being nasty, and it's by no means related to the Vuvuzela or the South Africans in general - this kind of behaviour has gone on for years. I remember reports of it at the last world cup, and more recent examples. A subset of all people will be anti-social, unsporting idiots, that's no reason to label the rest of the people the same way.
As to why they don't eliminate crowd noise all together, I guess they feel it adds atmosphere. Anyway, if you want a broadcast without any noise, you'd put your TV on mute.
I was thinking about this, and it occurred to me - how different does one match sound to another, really? There always seems to be a rumble of background noise which sounds pretty universal across every game. Throw in some effect overlays for goals, bad decisions, etc and I'm pretty sure any reasonable sound technician with a mixing deck could dub the crowd noises in real time and eliminate any unwanted sounds (abusive chants as well as annoying instruments).
As evidenced by the announcers often lamenting the lack of a replay (although why their own production team don't just overlay a replay I'm not sure - maybe it's a licensing thing) - I don't see much football but I have noticed this a few times, and it happens constantly in the F1 Grand Prix commentary.
I don't even understand what the problem is - every World Cup game I've seen (and I admit I try to avoid them where possible) going back three decades has been incredibly noisy, with air-horns, drums, shouting and the like - one more noisy instrument isn't going to change anything. And it's not like FIFA had no way of knowing about this instrument - which apparently is always played loudly at every single match in South Africa - before they awarded them the World Cup. It's a bit disingenuous to say we're going to embrace your culture by letting you host the cup, but do you mind awfully not playing those nasty vuvuzelas?
For a lot of people, watching sports is not a waste of time because they ultimately use it as a tool for socialising - i.e. they'll talk about the big game when they get to work the next day. I can't pretend to understand the fascination with football, but likewise I can't pretend that millions of people around the world aren't fascinated by it, and if they derive enjoyment from watching it, who am I to argue unless I'm willing to give up my enjoyable hobbies which they might not like? As for your final statement, I guess we could apply the same logic to any outstanding human endeavour - chess masters are just kids who got lucky being born with the kind of brain that understands chess - of course that discounts the many hours of practice that both chess masters and footballers put in to keep at the top of their game, but that fact would run counter to your rhetoric so I understand you leaving it out.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems like a massively innovative time for gaming, and that's got to be due in part to the masses of competition - three big console manufacturers all doing respectably, cheap ubiquitous home computing in the form of netbooks, powerful phones capable of gaming, handhelds being pushed forward partly by this and partly by technological advancements. I hope we never get back to the point where one company dominates and effectively destroys the competition.
Maybe (and I realise how stupid this sounds in relation to corporations like Sony), just maybe Sony would rather participate in a sector where they and competitors all get to make money, rather than having to burn through all their profits just to bury the opposition. Of course they could ultimately make more money by killing off the competition, but how much would that cost them, and how damaging would it be to the industry as a whole? If they started selling off their console for next to nothing and heavily subsidising games, would customers be happy to return to the high prices once they killed off the competition? As to Apple eating Sony's walkman pie, well that surprised few people at the time, Sony have always been great at delivery technology but rubbish at predicting trends (not to mention they had a pretty big stake in not supporting easily copied digital formats back when digital players were starting to take off) so that it's usually a happy accident for them when the trend and the technology converge.
Because the inability to create an aesthetically pleasing website of course invalidates one's opinion.
Exactly - Sony committed the same crime both Sega and Nintendo committed in the 90's, they believed their own hype, that they were too big to be challenged and that developers should be honoured to develop for their machines. It might not have hurt them greatly during the PS2 phase (but as you say, we can only guess how dominant they could have been if they'd played it differently - Nintendo was out for the count back then), but they certainly no longer have it all their own way.
Agreed - what the hardcore gamers (and I'm probably no longer one, but a few short years ago when I had the time, I'd happily put in 75+ hours a week gaming, kept an up-to-date gaming rig, followed the new consoles, etc) are generally opposed to is the lazy approach some developers take to just dialling it in and relying on cheap marketing fizz to sale their empty gaming experience. That's not limited to "casual" games, of course, there are plenty example of "proper" games that do this, but it does seem like there are an awful lot of casual cookie cutter style games with little or no substance but which get churned out one after another and rely on sheer quantity to make a profit. Mario is an example of a game which someone new to gaming can pick up and enjoy, yet has enough depth that even seasoned gamers can find a challenge in there. I think people who just dismiss all casual games/gamers out of hand are not "hardcore gamers" they're "bigots", and they're not confined to the gaming world by any means (that's not to say a portion, or even a large portion, of hardcore gamers are not bigots, but to tar them all with the same brush is to commit the same mistake).
[...] or at least give it to our plants, ehh?
There's no indication of whether it has electrolytes. That's what plants crave.
Don't be churlish - no matter what you may think of the game, the precedent of WoW was bringing the MMO to the masses (even the non-gaming masses and media), and that's what GP is talking about. No matter how good FO is (and god I hope it's good), it will struggle to put a dent in WoW's numbers, we just have to hope the bottom line is profitable enough that it doesn't get canned before it gets a chance to take off.
On the downside, if the nearest doctor is two hours walk away, and the phone tells you you're going to die without immediate medical care, the stress might just kill you.
Maybe it's a prelude to the One Smart Phone Per Child initiative.
[...] it'll probably end up 99% of the time as a semi-realtime nifty videoconference frontend for existing consulting nurses.
Sounds like Chat Roulette for the medical sector. Hmm, insert your own jokes here.
I hope it's not contagious, I'm bound to catch it, I seem to catch everything, I'm convinced I'm always ill. What are the symptoms?
This is why I gave up watching what little sport I do watch on ITV a long time ago. They ruined the F1GP for me (now it's back on the Beeb but the FIA have managed to ruin the sport in the meantime), and in a football match where you might get one or two good goals in a 90 minute game, to risk missing them for an ad break is pretty intolerable and you're better off catching the highlights on the BBC later anyway.
On the other hand, I have particularly sensitive hearing, and the usual world cup cacophony of noise is enough to drive me insane. For me, the "normalising" effect of the Vuvuzela means I can actually deliberately ignore it to a large extent (I still don't watch much football anyway as I'm not a big fan), like any noise that's a constant drone, you eventually don't notice it until it stops. That only leaves the sudden massive increase in volume when the adverts are shown to contend with.
That's advertising cashing in on football's popularity rather than being the main driver behind it. Although there may be some reciprocal effect now (a few people getting into it because the advertising makes them more aware of its popularity, or somehow indicates it's "cool"), football was incredibly popular before advertising had really even begun to take off.
I understand the communication issue arises from the similarities in pitch between human speech and the instrument's sound. Have the footballers tried screaming like little girls (I mean, apart from when they get tackled) to see if that helps?
Maybe they should have lodged their complaints before the World Cup began, or did they seriously not anticipate that a lot of noise would prevent them playing? On a side note, does anyone watch much South African football? Does this affect their local game just as much or have they learned to compensate in some way?
As far as I can tell, the players are complaining about everything - that's pretty much standard for football players (common complaints are that the ball's too sticky, the grass is too bouncy/not bouncy enough, the noise is too loud, it's too hot, it's too cold, there's not enough oxygen, etc, etc) - actually I think that's pretty endemic of the fact that it's generally best to set your excuses up before you lose, so it doesn't sound like sour grapes, but the fact is if it affects both teams equally, it doesn't really disadvantage either unduly.
I haven't seen the situation arise, but I'd expect refs to apply a little discretion. Or get a louder whistle.
Or maybe a Vuvuzela, I hear they're pretty loud.
No, that's just being nasty, and it's by no means related to the Vuvuzela or the South Africans in general - this kind of behaviour has gone on for years. I remember reports of it at the last world cup, and more recent examples. A subset of all people will be anti-social, unsporting idiots, that's no reason to label the rest of the people the same way.
As to why they don't eliminate crowd noise all together, I guess they feel it adds atmosphere. Anyway, if you want a broadcast without any noise, you'd put your TV on mute.
I was thinking about this, and it occurred to me - how different does one match sound to another, really? There always seems to be a rumble of background noise which sounds pretty universal across every game. Throw in some effect overlays for goals, bad decisions, etc and I'm pretty sure any reasonable sound technician with a mixing deck could dub the crowd noises in real time and eliminate any unwanted sounds (abusive chants as well as annoying instruments).
As evidenced by the announcers often lamenting the lack of a replay (although why their own production team don't just overlay a replay I'm not sure - maybe it's a licensing thing) - I don't see much football but I have noticed this a few times, and it happens constantly in the F1 Grand Prix commentary.
I don't even understand what the problem is - every World Cup game I've seen (and I admit I try to avoid them where possible) going back three decades has been incredibly noisy, with air-horns, drums, shouting and the like - one more noisy instrument isn't going to change anything. And it's not like FIFA had no way of knowing about this instrument - which apparently is always played loudly at every single match in South Africa - before they awarded them the World Cup. It's a bit disingenuous to say we're going to embrace your culture by letting you host the cup, but do you mind awfully not playing those nasty vuvuzelas?
Secret Agent Laser Obstacle Chess, anyone?
Unfair! Some of us would like to be doing something more productive, but we're stuck at work :)
For a lot of people, watching sports is not a waste of time because they ultimately use it as a tool for socialising - i.e. they'll talk about the big game when they get to work the next day. I can't pretend to understand the fascination with football, but likewise I can't pretend that millions of people around the world aren't fascinated by it, and if they derive enjoyment from watching it, who am I to argue unless I'm willing to give up my enjoyable hobbies which they might not like? As for your final statement, I guess we could apply the same logic to any outstanding human endeavour - chess masters are just kids who got lucky being born with the kind of brain that understands chess - of course that discounts the many hours of practice that both chess masters and footballers put in to keep at the top of their game, but that fact would run counter to your rhetoric so I understand you leaving it out.