Any fan familiar with the literary versions of the Chronicles of Narnia can tell you that the books are practically screenplays already.
A number of challenges face a writer trying to adapt a novel to a screenplay. One of the biggest comes from the fact that novels are generally longer and contain more detail than a typical screenplay. Screenwriters usually have to remove enough that the movie can fit into the 90-180 minute length without sacrificing so much detail that the overall story suffers. They usually do this by condensing or rearranging events. Pacing can also represent a problem. A novelist can get away with whatever placement of events makes sense to tell the story - even when that means long stretches of very little action or excitement, but a screenwriter will find him/herself putting an audience to sleep if the interesting bits, be they action or discovery, don't continue to come at a steady pace.
Understanding how difficult it can be to balance these things, I can usually forgive screenwriters taking certain liberties with a beloved story. I don't usually like it much, but I can reason why they did what they did.
With the Chronicles of Narnia, however, they'll get no such understanding from me. The books are already proper length for a screenplay at give or take 200 pages. They're expertly paced and don't suffer from any plot stalling. There are no redundant details - there is exactly as much exposition and action that is needed to tell the story and not a drop more. So there should be no reason to condense or remove any details in the books.
Unfortunately the writers who penned the screenplay for Prince Caspian think a little too highly of themselves and made the lamentable decision to embellish the story in nonsensical and unnecessary ways. I could almost forgive this desecration if it wasn't for the fact that they removed bits of the original story to make room for their un-inspirational additions.
The writers felt it necessary to continue the character assassination of Peter that they began with the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. In the first movie, they depicted Peter as a more modern boy who would run away from responsibility when the window broke. If you read the book, Peter clearly has a strong sense of responsibility and would face up to punishment, never running away.
In the Prince Caspian movie, Peter is portrayed as being a power-hungry slob that lets his anger rule him. Instead of focusing on Caspian's well-being and doing Aslan's will, Peter tries to (literally) fight Caspian for control of the Narnian army. And if that wasn't enough he leads the army on a foolhardy siege of the Telmarine castle that ends in defeat. The main point of the added siege sequence seems to be to make Peter realize what a bastard he's being so he'll give control back to Caspian. They could have more easily accomplished this by writing Peter as he was in the book where he wasn't a bastard to begin with, and practically tripped over himself to make sure he wasn't encroaching on Caspian's rightful rule.
Essentially the writers dumped the entire first chapter of the book in favor of adding a scene where Peter gets into a fight with several boys at the train station before they go back to Narnia, and the siege scene. They also felt it necessary to generate a romantic sub-plot between Susan and Caspian that promptly went absolutely nowhere and accomplished nothing but making purists like myself angry.
Moving away from my hatred of the embellishments and character assassination, the movie was quite enjoyable if one ignores the book it was based on.
Reepicheep is far and away my favorite character in the Prince Caspian story and the animators did an awesome job on him. I thought Eddie Izzard was an odd choice for him, but it fit better than I would have imagined.
Peter Dinklage went above and beyond with his portrayal of the cynical and fearsome Trumpkin. And I don't think I've ever seen Warwick Davis look quite so evil as when he played Nickabrick.
The animators, make-up artists, and actors did a great job of breathing life into the myriad fantasy creatures Lewis included in the stories, and the settings were beautiful.
I really hated Liam Neeson as a choice for Aslan's voice in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, but somehow it wasn't as grating and out of place here.
I also appreciated the good degree of violence that played out - specifically that none of it was removed to appease the absurdly anti-violence mentality that so many modern organizations that purport to be in the interest of children insist on purveying.
The music and photography were particularly noteworthy. The framing always maintained interest without being overly awkward, or plain. The musical scores complimented the scenes they accompanied and never distracted.
The film was longer than I would have expected, owing chiefly to the lamentable additions to the story. It actually takes me less time to read the entire novel than the running time of this film.
I can only request, and hope that the writers don't screw with the Dawntreader in 2010 as badly as they did with Caspian.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Friday, April 04, 2008
Anti-Gun Advocates Don't Need No Stinking Evidence
This article on Fox News is just one of many that infuriate me. The Second Amendment has increasingly come under fire by news media and reactionaries alike as we approach the anniversary of the VA Tech shootings. I'm sure the same thing is going to happen when we approach the Von Maur (Omaha, NE) incident's anniversary. It really gets my blood boiling to listen to these people.
For example, in the linked article above, the reporter explores two options about how to deal with the VA Tech shootings. One option, is to make more laws further restricting the acquisition of firearms, the other is to accept that laws, by nature, do not stop criminals, merely punish them after the fact, and just arm everyone. I might almost have made it through the article without getting angry if not for the fact that the reporter described continuing to disallow students to carry guns on campus as erring on the side of caution. That's the very issue being debated here. In my opinion, erring on the side of caution is giving everyone the ability to defend themselves.
I don't for a moment suggest that it's a good idea to start arming people who are uncomfortable or unfamiliar with guns, but for those of us who haven't been conditioned to automatically assume that guns are evil by nature, and not amoral tools, our right to defend ourselves should not be infringed.
It's an old argument, and one for which I've never heard an articulate or worthwhile rebuttal, but the simple fact is that a person willing to kill another in cold blood has already decided to violate the law so he/she is not likely to be tripped up by something as trivial as a gun law. They certainly aren't tripped up by the absurd stickers forbidding the carrying of firearms at the facilities where they commit their atrocities.
Trying to make "gun free zones" has been proven time and time again to be ineffective in preventing homicide by a motivated individual. It fails for much the same reason that communism does; it can only work when everybody believes in the same thing, and that's simply not possible. Not only is it impossible, but it is antithesis to the foundation of what we call American Values. We have rights to different viewpoints and opinions, different faiths and occupations, different dreams and hopes. This isn't true just because we like it that way, it's because the founders of our way of life recognized that it was harmful and ultimately futile to try to force everyone into the same mold.
It is simply impossible to prevent people from going crazy and killing others in the process. Some people are just prone to it, and despite our best efforts, they will get it done. The only logical response to this is to even the odds in favor of everyone else. If everyone is armed, will people still get killed? Absolutely, but not nearly as many. Recent news reports about that church in Colorado have pretty much proven that to be the case. It amazes me that so many officials are so reluctant to allow college students to arm themselves voluntarily.
It's relatively obvious that they're concerned with the responsibility of making such a decision. It amazes me that they consider their own personal liability more important than the lives of the people who would be saved by such a thing. Can we please start electing people with some spine?
For example, in the linked article above, the reporter explores two options about how to deal with the VA Tech shootings. One option, is to make more laws further restricting the acquisition of firearms, the other is to accept that laws, by nature, do not stop criminals, merely punish them after the fact, and just arm everyone. I might almost have made it through the article without getting angry if not for the fact that the reporter described continuing to disallow students to carry guns on campus as erring on the side of caution. That's the very issue being debated here. In my opinion, erring on the side of caution is giving everyone the ability to defend themselves.
I don't for a moment suggest that it's a good idea to start arming people who are uncomfortable or unfamiliar with guns, but for those of us who haven't been conditioned to automatically assume that guns are evil by nature, and not amoral tools, our right to defend ourselves should not be infringed.
It's an old argument, and one for which I've never heard an articulate or worthwhile rebuttal, but the simple fact is that a person willing to kill another in cold blood has already decided to violate the law so he/she is not likely to be tripped up by something as trivial as a gun law. They certainly aren't tripped up by the absurd stickers forbidding the carrying of firearms at the facilities where they commit their atrocities.
Trying to make "gun free zones" has been proven time and time again to be ineffective in preventing homicide by a motivated individual. It fails for much the same reason that communism does; it can only work when everybody believes in the same thing, and that's simply not possible. Not only is it impossible, but it is antithesis to the foundation of what we call American Values. We have rights to different viewpoints and opinions, different faiths and occupations, different dreams and hopes. This isn't true just because we like it that way, it's because the founders of our way of life recognized that it was harmful and ultimately futile to try to force everyone into the same mold.
It is simply impossible to prevent people from going crazy and killing others in the process. Some people are just prone to it, and despite our best efforts, they will get it done. The only logical response to this is to even the odds in favor of everyone else. If everyone is armed, will people still get killed? Absolutely, but not nearly as many. Recent news reports about that church in Colorado have pretty much proven that to be the case. It amazes me that so many officials are so reluctant to allow college students to arm themselves voluntarily.
It's relatively obvious that they're concerned with the responsibility of making such a decision. It amazes me that they consider their own personal liability more important than the lives of the people who would be saved by such a thing. Can we please start electing people with some spine?
Monday, March 31, 2008
The Desert Eagle 50 Action Express
I'm a relative n00b when it comes to weapons. I'm not one of those guys who can watch a movie and tell you the make and model of every gun used, or field strip an M-16 blindfolded. I am, however, a U.S. citizen that believes that I'm honor bound to practice the right to own and bear arms to ensure that, among other things, the government maintains a healthy respect for me and my household.
I was recently in an argument with a co-worker over the necessity of owning firearms which are designed and intended primarily for shooting other human beings. When I related a couple of the stories I have read (real life accounts, not fiction) about people in pre-communist Russia, and pre-WWII Germany being ordered to relinquish their weapons, and only discovering afterwards that the reason was to minimize troop casualties when the army showed back up a day or week later to confiscate livestock and other goods, and to force able-bodied young men in the family into military service. His response was "but this is America, that could never happen here." I asked him why he thought that made any difference, and his response was "we're a democracy." Now, the U.S. is not, and has not ever been, to my knowledge, a democracy, but a republic with democracy-like representation. I didn't quibble over that, but did tell him that the countries I mentioned enjoyed similar forms of government prior to being overtaken by fascists. I went on to express my belief that the reason we are and will remain a republic is precisely because the government cannot force us to do otherwise, and the government cannot force us to do otherwise because the Second Amendment prohibits the government from prohibiting citizens to keep guns which would make such an effort too costly and ineffective to attempt. I still could not convince him it was so. He seemed to believe that America has been and will remain a "free country" simply because it's citizens have been granted the authority to vote and we like things this way.
My personal belief is that an inherent mistrust of the government is a healthy necessity that we all need to develop - even those people who comprise the government aught to carefully question the motive of every action they are asked to take. I'm not saying that we ought to develop a liking for lawlessness as some have suggested when they have heard me say this, but that we ought to always keep in perspective that the government exists for the sole purpose of serving our needs, not we its. The practical meaning of this is that if the government's requirements of you are reasonable and necessary, you ought to comply, but if the government's requirements become unreasonable or are still enforced although unnecessary you ought to fight back. There is considerable room for interpretation in those statements, and necessarily so because, just like our constitution, which the U.S. Supreme Court is fond of pointing out was loosely written, the actual meaning is contextual and will change over time.
Basically my reason for owning a gun is for protecting myself, my family, and my home from aggressors, regardless of who the aggressors are - it could be a burglar or it could be a soldier following illegal orders to violate my rights and freedoms.
So when I told that same co-worker that I was going to try one (Desert Eagle) out, and I related what I knew of it, he asked, "why would you need something like that?" My answer is that I didn't, but I don't have to need a sports car to want one either. It still fulfills the need but has a little extra kick for fun. I wanted to try one out because it's one of the most well-known and largest caliber hand guns available, and it looks freakin' cool.
I tried one out at a local gun range and learned why some friends with more experience had warned me away from it.
Firing the gun felt like hanging onto a standard claw hammer while someone hit the head with a 10-lb sledge. It was very difficult to rapid-fire with any degree of accuracy at all. And in true n00bish fashion, I found myself instinctively closing my eyes before squeezing the trigger. I could only hit around 6 inches of a target 25 feet away. I'm much more accurate with smaller calibers.
I figured I might just need a lot of practice to get used to the power. The ammunition worked out to cost something like $1.60 per round, so practice would be prohibitively expensive.
On the upshot, the gun is accurate enough that I could still use it effectively in a confrontation with a perpetrator in my home, and loud and destructive enough that even if I missed it would probably convince the perpetrator to disengage.
I was recently in an argument with a co-worker over the necessity of owning firearms which are designed and intended primarily for shooting other human beings. When I related a couple of the stories I have read (real life accounts, not fiction) about people in pre-communist Russia, and pre-WWII Germany being ordered to relinquish their weapons, and only discovering afterwards that the reason was to minimize troop casualties when the army showed back up a day or week later to confiscate livestock and other goods, and to force able-bodied young men in the family into military service. His response was "but this is America, that could never happen here." I asked him why he thought that made any difference, and his response was "we're a democracy." Now, the U.S. is not, and has not ever been, to my knowledge, a democracy, but a republic with democracy-like representation. I didn't quibble over that, but did tell him that the countries I mentioned enjoyed similar forms of government prior to being overtaken by fascists. I went on to express my belief that the reason we are and will remain a republic is precisely because the government cannot force us to do otherwise, and the government cannot force us to do otherwise because the Second Amendment prohibits the government from prohibiting citizens to keep guns which would make such an effort too costly and ineffective to attempt. I still could not convince him it was so. He seemed to believe that America has been and will remain a "free country" simply because it's citizens have been granted the authority to vote and we like things this way.
My personal belief is that an inherent mistrust of the government is a healthy necessity that we all need to develop - even those people who comprise the government aught to carefully question the motive of every action they are asked to take. I'm not saying that we ought to develop a liking for lawlessness as some have suggested when they have heard me say this, but that we ought to always keep in perspective that the government exists for the sole purpose of serving our needs, not we its. The practical meaning of this is that if the government's requirements of you are reasonable and necessary, you ought to comply, but if the government's requirements become unreasonable or are still enforced although unnecessary you ought to fight back. There is considerable room for interpretation in those statements, and necessarily so because, just like our constitution, which the U.S. Supreme Court is fond of pointing out was loosely written, the actual meaning is contextual and will change over time.
Basically my reason for owning a gun is for protecting myself, my family, and my home from aggressors, regardless of who the aggressors are - it could be a burglar or it could be a soldier following illegal orders to violate my rights and freedoms.
So when I told that same co-worker that I was going to try one (Desert Eagle) out, and I related what I knew of it, he asked, "why would you need something like that?" My answer is that I didn't, but I don't have to need a sports car to want one either. It still fulfills the need but has a little extra kick for fun. I wanted to try one out because it's one of the most well-known and largest caliber hand guns available, and it looks freakin' cool.
I tried one out at a local gun range and learned why some friends with more experience had warned me away from it.
Firing the gun felt like hanging onto a standard claw hammer while someone hit the head with a 10-lb sledge. It was very difficult to rapid-fire with any degree of accuracy at all. And in true n00bish fashion, I found myself instinctively closing my eyes before squeezing the trigger. I could only hit around 6 inches of a target 25 feet away. I'm much more accurate with smaller calibers.
I figured I might just need a lot of practice to get used to the power. The ammunition worked out to cost something like $1.60 per round, so practice would be prohibitively expensive.
On the upshot, the gun is accurate enough that I could still use it effectively in a confrontation with a perpetrator in my home, and loud and destructive enough that even if I missed it would probably convince the perpetrator to disengage.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Circle of Nothing
These are the lyrics to a song I wrote a long time ago:
CIRCLE OF NOTHING
Indiscriminate decision from eyes that once have seen
With slightly clouded vision and dismissed it as a dream
Turn from light to darkness to try to see with their own glow
The eyes that seek the truth they want and not the truth they know
Unrealistic expectation from men of both minds
Turns the cross of healing to the burning sword that blinds
Men will claim allegiance in their mouth but not in heart
And men who know the answer will still turn and depart
Self defeating human nature an inescapable disease
And the only thing that proves to each of us we’re free
A great divide of the things we hide
From those that feed our pride
Designates the the things we hate
And the flags we wear outside
Far from logic or calling divine
Chooses their sides and draws for them the line
What motivates their loving and loathing
Is an ever recycling circle of nothing
To place your trust in one who’s eyes merely touched the story
And not to see yourself is to give a traitor glory
Your ears will dance with magic of the words you want to hear
And your heart will crush with anguish when that magic disappears
Enduring of this hardship will surely seed your fate
You’ll seek reconciliation, let hatred dominate
Or shake your fists at God and gauge his faithfulness by man
Because your pride was burned from faith acquired second hand
A grandchild of the king seeking to claim the throne
Slay the unrighteous blood ‘till you see that blood’s your own
Far from logic of calling divine
Chooses your side and draws for you the line
What motivates your loving and loathing
Is an ever recycling circle of nothing
Plain and simple is the way the truth and light
All pervading forgiveness to replace any wrong with right
Blood shed for the cause of life free for you to take
Not to accept is the only possible mistake
Far from logic of calling divine
Can choose your side and draw for you the line
If you make your heart a temple of loathing
You’re forever bound in a circle of nothing
Taken to a place you sought but did not seek
Hearing Him repeat the words you thought but did not speak
And ask questions of the things you knew but did not think
The darkness will envelop leaving not a thing to see
And forever abolish this foolish feint of ambiguity.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Toy Poodles: The Silent Menace: The Untold Story of Bobby Tables
Owning a dog is a family tradition that dates back to a long time ago when families started keeping dogs around. Dogs can be faithful companions, warm your feet at night, warn you of intruders or pull you from a burning building.
Despite such a glowing reputation as "man's best friend", some breeds of dog have garnered a reputation for being unpredictably brutal, and dangerous. Thankfully a number of forward-thinking lawmakers have summarily banned dangerous breeds like the American Pit Bull, the German Shepherd Dog, the Doberman Pincer, the Sugar Glider (technically it's a squirrel but it's considered just as deadly by some Wisconsin residents), The Chihuahua (the puppies were found to be a choking hazard for hungry seniors who unsuspectingly confused the miniature canine for a popular menu item at Taco Bell), and last but not least the Rottweiler.
As every breed of dog that is potentially dangerous has been clearly identified and banned by visionary lawmakers in some areas of the country, those citizens can walk the streets without fear of being mauled by dangerous animals on the prowl. Many believe that if we can just get these laws enforced across the country, the number of dog related deaths and injuries can be brought down to zero. All dangerous breeds can be safely eliminated.
But does a recent change in policy at Home Depot point to something more sinister? The popular retailer of hardware, grills and discount software has recently reversed its "pet friendly" policy, barring the use of dogs in its facilities. Store managers were silent as I pondered calling them to ask for a comment, and I can only take this to mean that there is a potentially explosive cover-up in the works.
Consider the story of little Bobby Tables, a bright-eye'd boy of six who accompanied his father to Home Depot to get an eight-year-old copy of solitare and some wood screws. His father had promised to bring him to Dairy Queen for an ice cream cone that afternoon. It was a soft-serve delight that the boy would never have the chance to enjoy. While Bobby's father was busy perusing Home Depot's selection of table saws, little Bobby told his father that he was going to look at Thomas The Train DVDs in the $1.99 bin at the end of the aisle. That was the last time Bobby was seen alive.*
"I heard a scream, so I flipped my camera phone and ran to the scene. In case I could send a picture to 911 or somethin'," said Phillip Dittmeyer, the first responder to the scene, and this was among the grizzly images he captured:
Fifi, an innocent-looking wild toy poodle was left to roam the aisles of Home Depot back in 2003. The employees and staff would feed Fifi beef jerkey and occasionally paint thinner, to lighten his mood.
"He was really just a mascot for the stores. He loved the kids. Occasionally people would say he bit them, but there was never any proof - most of us just figured that Fifi was trying to help the kids get their fingers unstuck. There's a lot of dangerous stuff around the store," said the evening-shift manager of Store 117 who agreed to speak with us on condition of anonymity.
After the closed casket service for little Bobby Tables, his father Wilbur probably said, "You just never think of a toy poodle in that way. I mean it's not like it's a[expletive deleted] Sugar Glider for [expletive deleted] sake. People have to know about this, I mean I'm sure I could hold my own against one of them, but a kindergartener doesn't stand a chance. Where is the legislation to ban these [expletive deleted] baby-killing monsters?"
Where indeed, Wilbur; where indeed. When I attempted to learn about any pending legislation to ban the breed by staring at the Google search page, I drew a blank. As it turns out, there is no legislation being considered to ban the possession of these cuddly-looking killers. In fact, when I thought about going back to do follow-up interviews, I found that all trace of the incident had been erased from local newspapers, and had never made it to the national press. All that remains is the new policy that says "no pets allowed" in Home Depot, and when asked about the justification, the manager grew silent and would only say knowingly, just above a whisper in confidence, "Somethin' probably happened down south."
At first I thought maybe it was an innocent mistake, a desire not to spread fear and angst about what could be a fictional account of a toy-poodle related death, and not a plot to cover up the long history of this vicious white murder-machine. Then I found more evidence of the cover-up masquerading as a badly-doctored attempt to fabricate an alibi for Fifi.
Are we to believe the testimony of every suspected killer who says "i is innosint"? Do we truly live in a society where a brutal creature like Fifi can be allowed to roam freely in the aisles of other non Home Depot stores? This reporter hopes not. Echoing a statement on behalf of the fathers of Bobby Tables everywhere, "Dear God, won't someone please think of the children."
*These statements have not been evaluated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Despite such a glowing reputation as "man's best friend", some breeds of dog have garnered a reputation for being unpredictably brutal, and dangerous. Thankfully a number of forward-thinking lawmakers have summarily banned dangerous breeds like the American Pit Bull, the German Shepherd Dog, the Doberman Pincer, the Sugar Glider (technically it's a squirrel but it's considered just as deadly by some Wisconsin residents), The Chihuahua (the puppies were found to be a choking hazard for hungry seniors who unsuspectingly confused the miniature canine for a popular menu item at Taco Bell), and last but not least the Rottweiler.
As every breed of dog that is potentially dangerous has been clearly identified and banned by visionary lawmakers in some areas of the country, those citizens can walk the streets without fear of being mauled by dangerous animals on the prowl. Many believe that if we can just get these laws enforced across the country, the number of dog related deaths and injuries can be brought down to zero. All dangerous breeds can be safely eliminated.
But does a recent change in policy at Home Depot point to something more sinister? The popular retailer of hardware, grills and discount software has recently reversed its "pet friendly" policy, barring the use of dogs in its facilities. Store managers were silent as I pondered calling them to ask for a comment, and I can only take this to mean that there is a potentially explosive cover-up in the works.
Consider the story of little Bobby Tables, a bright-eye'd boy of six who accompanied his father to Home Depot to get an eight-year-old copy of solitare and some wood screws. His father had promised to bring him to Dairy Queen for an ice cream cone that afternoon. It was a soft-serve delight that the boy would never have the chance to enjoy. While Bobby's father was busy perusing Home Depot's selection of table saws, little Bobby told his father that he was going to look at Thomas The Train DVDs in the $1.99 bin at the end of the aisle. That was the last time Bobby was seen alive.*
"I heard a scream, so I flipped my camera phone and ran to the scene. In case I could send a picture to 911 or somethin'," said Phillip Dittmeyer, the first responder to the scene, and this was among the grizzly images he captured:
Fifi, an innocent-looking wild toy poodle was left to roam the aisles of Home Depot back in 2003. The employees and staff would feed Fifi beef jerkey and occasionally paint thinner, to lighten his mood.
"He was really just a mascot for the stores. He loved the kids. Occasionally people would say he bit them, but there was never any proof - most of us just figured that Fifi was trying to help the kids get their fingers unstuck. There's a lot of dangerous stuff around the store," said the evening-shift manager of Store 117 who agreed to speak with us on condition of anonymity.
After the closed casket service for little Bobby Tables, his father Wilbur probably said, "You just never think of a toy poodle in that way. I mean it's not like it's a
Where indeed, Wilbur; where indeed. When I attempted to learn about any pending legislation to ban the breed by staring at the Google search page, I drew a blank. As it turns out, there is no legislation being considered to ban the possession of these cuddly-looking killers. In fact, when I thought about going back to do follow-up interviews, I found that all trace of the incident had been erased from local newspapers, and had never made it to the national press. All that remains is the new policy that says "no pets allowed" in Home Depot, and when asked about the justification, the manager grew silent and would only say knowingly, just above a whisper in confidence, "Somethin' probably happened down south."
At first I thought maybe it was an innocent mistake, a desire not to spread fear and angst about what could be a fictional account of a toy-poodle related death, and not a plot to cover up the long history of this vicious white murder-machine. Then I found more evidence of the cover-up masquerading as a badly-doctored attempt to fabricate an alibi for Fifi.
Are we to believe the testimony of every suspected killer who says "i is innosint"? Do we truly live in a society where a brutal creature like Fifi can be allowed to roam freely in the aisles of other non Home Depot stores? This reporter hopes not. Echoing a statement on behalf of the fathers of Bobby Tables everywhere, "Dear God, won't someone please think of the children."
*These statements have not been evaluated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Friday, December 14, 2007
What a Year For Video Games
The last time I remember getting this excited about all of the great games coming out was the golden age of the SNES heyday.
I've had a chance to play through most of the titles that made my list this fall and I haven't been disappointed yet.
It seems like everyone's buzzing about Half-Life 2 Orange Box, and with good reason. Half Life 2 is one of the most solid and entertaining games ever made. The game itself is actually 3 years old but somehow still manages to outshine most of its contemporaries. The story is intriguing and complex, but not overreaching. The voice acting and facial animation are so fluid and natural that you don't really notice them until you view them in comparison to newer games like Halo 3 and wonder why the rest of the game industry is still 3 years behind Valve (Half-Life 2's creator). Visually the game is gorgeous with its dynamic lighting, particle-filled explosions, realistic textures and shading. Aurally this game outshines anything I've ever experienced - the sound of weapons firing is somehow more visceral than in any other game I've ever played. Ambient noise in most games feels like an afterthought, but here it powerfully and convincingly draws you into the story. The controls are the best I've ever used in an FPS. They seem tuned perfectly for the XBOX. And if Half-Life 2 wasn't good enough by itself, the Orange Box comes with two more "episodes" to the story - each is about 5-6 hours long, giving you essentially an entire new game. The set also includes one of the most original twists on an FPS that I've ever seen - the puzzle solving adventure, Portal. Portal was a complete surprise and even at only 5-6 hours long, it provides enough problem-solving fun to be worth nearly the price of the whole set by itself. If you only get one game for your 360, it should be Orange Box. By far the best value and most fun. I have little interest in the PC version of this game because I don't like Steam, or more the the point, I don't like the idea of not being allowed to play an offline game without an Internet connection and a spyware account. From what I'm hearing, the PS3 version has some noticeable flaws that the PC and 360 versions do not, but I don't have first hand knowledge of that.
Super Mario Galaxy was a riot. As addictive, fun and challenging as any game in the Mario proper series, Galaxy truly takes everything Nintendo has learned from its previous games and improves on it. As with any Mario game, the worst part is getting to the end, finishing every challenge and realizing that there is no more. I spent a good 30 hours with this gem and finished it begging for more. The game seems to perfectly balance the needs of both first-time gamers and long-time veterans without resorting to things like difficulty settings. Nintendo provided enough low-challenge stages to allow unskilled players to complete enough of the game to defeat Bowser and enjoy a sense of accomplishment. At the same time, they provided enough challenge and incentive for veteran players to feel the same sense of accomplishment by getting all 120 stars and getting the special ending - and, believe me, some of those bonus stages are nearly impossible. This game has more story than most of the games in the series. Personally, I preferred it when Mario games left most of that to the imagination, but that's hardly an unbiased observation. The controls were natural, and although the gravity twisting and dramatic perspective shifts (like walking upside down or on the side of an object instead of on top of it) were a bit disorienting at first, after an hour or two, I felt perfectly at home with them. My wife really got a kick out of using a second Wii-remote to help me gather stars and stun enemies. Graphically, it is beautiful. I'm using the best setup available - component cables connected to an HDTV and playing the game in progressive scan mode, so your mileage may vary, but overall it's very impressive, with brilliant use of color and dynamic lighting. The music wasn't quite as memorable as that of its predecessors. It was standard fare, but I enjoyed the remixes of older tunes moreso than any of the newer material. Maybe I'm just getting crusty in my old age. Overall, though, I'd say that this is a definite must-have for Wii owners. Hopefully Nintendo will start bundling it with the Wii and we'll have come full circle to the days when the system shipped with the premier Mario title.
Assassin's Creed kept me entertained for a good 35 hours. Let me start off by saying, do not buy the PS3 version of this game. If the PS3 is all you have, just skip it - it's not worth ruining an otherwise thrilling experience with horrible frame-rate and lighting problems. I can't believe that some quality assurance team looked at the 360 and PS3 versions of this game side by side and thought that the PS3 version was okay to unleash on the public. Ubisoft must have expected that the positive press over the 360 version would muffle any complaints from the poor shafted PS3 owners. If someone tells you the difference isn't that big, then they have no idea what they're talking about. So, this impression is on the 360 version which I was lucky enough to replace my nasty original PS3 purchase with. The game had a very procedural feel to it - from the way that the story progresses, to the objectives, to the crowd behavior. I've seen some reviewers trashing the game for being repetitive, but I don't see a problem with vaguely repetitive tasks as long as they're fun. Plus, most of the repetitive elements are optional anyway. Stealing a page out of other A-list titles like Symphony of the Night, or Metroid Prime, you start the game with all of the powers and abilities available, and then you lose them. As you regain each one, you are compelled to appreciate its place in your arsenal, and this provides a natural learning process. By the end of the game, you'll be using nearly every one of the skills you've learned as instinctively as the main character should. Visually, the game is gorgeous. It has set a standard by which I'll judge every 360 and PS3 game in this generation. The controls are fluid and responsive, and the story is very interesting, if a bit predictable. When the game starts, you are presented with a disclaimer of sorts saying that the game was created by members of a lot of different faiths. After discovering the more controversial elements of the story, I have to admit I was offended by some of the fictitious implications about Christianity, or more directly about Christ himself. Not being a Muslim, I cannot surmise whether it is nearly as offensive to Muslims. It's a good thing I don't get my theology from a game. As laughable as that notion sounds, the frightening reality is that the same people who lent credence to The Davinci Code will probably adopt attitudes from the story in this game.
Mass Effect was, in many ways, a disappointment. The game has greatness in its soul, but it can be very difficult at times to see past its gaping flaws and shortcomings to really enjoy it. Graphically it's very pretty, and thank God Bioware added an option to remove the annoying film grain effect. But for all of its beauty, the game is extremely glitchy. After a while you learn to tune out the minor jumps and pops as the camera struggles to follow you while the game is loading - and it is nearly always loading something. About 10 hours into the game, the inventory system becomes an annoying and unintentional mini game because your inventory is limited to an anemic 150 items. The problem isn't so much not having enough space, it's sorting through the equipment and deciding what to keep and what to sell or melt down. Looting is automatic - once you kill someone, any loot they were carrying just becomes part of your inventory. Unfortunately the game will allow you to exceed the 150 item limit, say during a firefight, and not tell you until you unwittingly try to open the equipment menu, at which point you are mercilessly forced to melt down all of the new loot (and newer is almost always better) to get your item total beneath the 150 item threshold. You are unable to cancel out of this screen until you have melted down everything you just got. Very poor design choice. What's worse, there's no way to look at your entire inventory on one screen unless you're at a vendor. In order to assess your inventory you often have to dig three menus deep to see what's available. This may sound petty, but it actually becomes an immensely annoying chore that distracts from the fun of the game. The side games are also extremely repetitive. There are basically two different layouts used for buildings and bunkers for the side quests, and aside from the junk scattered throughout the rooms are exactly identical in every respect, from the layout down to the color of the soil visible through the glass tubes connecting identical boxlike rooms. Every ground mission is basically the same wash-rinse-repeat operation. Some of the skyscapes visible from the planets are quite beautiful, but there is otherwise very little variety. Leveling up is basically identical to Knights of the Old Republic, except there seem to be fewer abilities available to each class, and the Dungeons and Dragons style descriptions of abilities are replaced by somewhat more straightforward terms. The combat is decent and neither impresses, nor leaves room for complaint; I didn't find anything particularly satisfying or annoying about it. Its faults aside, however, the music and story are the areas in which Mass Effect really excels. The main story arc of Mass Effect is extremely entertaining and there are a few "wow" moments culminating into one of the best "last two hours" I've spent with a game in a very very long time. Filled with dramatic synth, the music often reminded me of 80's sci-fi like Terminator and created a very unique mood throughout. When the action heats up or is about to heat up, the tempo and volume rise slightly to get your blood pumping and it's a very effective tool. All in all, Mass Effect was a good game, and the ending makes up for its shortcomings, but only just. It could definitely have used more polish, and BioWare shouldn't have been so frightened of spanning it across two discs. RPG players not only don't mind this, but we sort of like it. I suspect that a good deal of the incessant loading has something to do with the compression required to keep the size down to one 9GB disk.
Crysis was the best option I could find for testing out my new PC. My machine specs read like the recommended system on the Crysis box, but the game still wouldn't run at full speed with the settings on high. The game requires some obscure November update to DirectX that evidently didn't garner its own version number, nor was it something the developers thought they would need to include with the game itself. After the obligatory hour of installing and hour of troubleshooting that always reminds me why I avoid PC games like the plague, I finally got Crysis up and running. Another twenty minutes of tweaking controls and switching to 64-bit mode and I actually had the game working rather passably with my XBOX 360 controller. My impression of the first half of the game was pretty meh. Nothing really stood out from any other FPS I had played, except maybe the fact that the designers do not share my opinion that vehicles should be fun or easy to use. The suit functions are neat, but the stealth mode is really the only one that's really useful, and it is so limited that it was more difficult than fun to use. But after a while I fell into a rhythm and it started to get fun. At about the halfway point in the game, the gameplay changed radically and for the better. (Spoiler Alert) When gravity went bye-bye in the bowels of the alien complex, I really started to have respect for the game. It was unique and fun and challenging, visually and audibly stimulating and spooky all at once. Unfortunately that section only accounted for about a quarter of the entire game. The last quarter of the game was spent on unimaginative, contrived missions and frustratingly limiting vehicular combat. I could have forgiven it but that was also the quarter of the game that seemed most unfinished, as evidenced by numerous glitches that forced me to reload previous saves and replay the same section just so I could move the game forward. Important events would just simply fail to happen. The crown jewel of this glitch fest was when the game gave me a shiny new gun to kill the end boss with that just mysteriously decided not to work on the end boss. I had to back track nearly 90 minutes into older saves, spending over 2 hours playing through the same set of events over and over until I found a save prior to whatever glitch made the magical gun decide not to fire. Maybe most PC gamers are okay with beta software like this, but I'll stick with 95% finished games on my consoles, thank you very much.
I've had a chance to play through most of the titles that made my list this fall and I haven't been disappointed yet.
It seems like everyone's buzzing about Half-Life 2 Orange Box, and with good reason. Half Life 2 is one of the most solid and entertaining games ever made. The game itself is actually 3 years old but somehow still manages to outshine most of its contemporaries. The story is intriguing and complex, but not overreaching. The voice acting and facial animation are so fluid and natural that you don't really notice them until you view them in comparison to newer games like Halo 3 and wonder why the rest of the game industry is still 3 years behind Valve (Half-Life 2's creator). Visually the game is gorgeous with its dynamic lighting, particle-filled explosions, realistic textures and shading. Aurally this game outshines anything I've ever experienced - the sound of weapons firing is somehow more visceral than in any other game I've ever played. Ambient noise in most games feels like an afterthought, but here it powerfully and convincingly draws you into the story. The controls are the best I've ever used in an FPS. They seem tuned perfectly for the XBOX. And if Half-Life 2 wasn't good enough by itself, the Orange Box comes with two more "episodes" to the story - each is about 5-6 hours long, giving you essentially an entire new game. The set also includes one of the most original twists on an FPS that I've ever seen - the puzzle solving adventure, Portal. Portal was a complete surprise and even at only 5-6 hours long, it provides enough problem-solving fun to be worth nearly the price of the whole set by itself. If you only get one game for your 360, it should be Orange Box. By far the best value and most fun. I have little interest in the PC version of this game because I don't like Steam, or more the the point, I don't like the idea of not being allowed to play an offline game without an Internet connection and a spyware account. From what I'm hearing, the PS3 version has some noticeable flaws that the PC and 360 versions do not, but I don't have first hand knowledge of that.
Super Mario Galaxy was a riot. As addictive, fun and challenging as any game in the Mario proper series, Galaxy truly takes everything Nintendo has learned from its previous games and improves on it. As with any Mario game, the worst part is getting to the end, finishing every challenge and realizing that there is no more. I spent a good 30 hours with this gem and finished it begging for more. The game seems to perfectly balance the needs of both first-time gamers and long-time veterans without resorting to things like difficulty settings. Nintendo provided enough low-challenge stages to allow unskilled players to complete enough of the game to defeat Bowser and enjoy a sense of accomplishment. At the same time, they provided enough challenge and incentive for veteran players to feel the same sense of accomplishment by getting all 120 stars and getting the special ending - and, believe me, some of those bonus stages are nearly impossible. This game has more story than most of the games in the series. Personally, I preferred it when Mario games left most of that to the imagination, but that's hardly an unbiased observation. The controls were natural, and although the gravity twisting and dramatic perspective shifts (like walking upside down or on the side of an object instead of on top of it) were a bit disorienting at first, after an hour or two, I felt perfectly at home with them. My wife really got a kick out of using a second Wii-remote to help me gather stars and stun enemies. Graphically, it is beautiful. I'm using the best setup available - component cables connected to an HDTV and playing the game in progressive scan mode, so your mileage may vary, but overall it's very impressive, with brilliant use of color and dynamic lighting. The music wasn't quite as memorable as that of its predecessors. It was standard fare, but I enjoyed the remixes of older tunes moreso than any of the newer material. Maybe I'm just getting crusty in my old age. Overall, though, I'd say that this is a definite must-have for Wii owners. Hopefully Nintendo will start bundling it with the Wii and we'll have come full circle to the days when the system shipped with the premier Mario title.
Assassin's Creed kept me entertained for a good 35 hours. Let me start off by saying, do not buy the PS3 version of this game. If the PS3 is all you have, just skip it - it's not worth ruining an otherwise thrilling experience with horrible frame-rate and lighting problems. I can't believe that some quality assurance team looked at the 360 and PS3 versions of this game side by side and thought that the PS3 version was okay to unleash on the public. Ubisoft must have expected that the positive press over the 360 version would muffle any complaints from the poor shafted PS3 owners. If someone tells you the difference isn't that big, then they have no idea what they're talking about. So, this impression is on the 360 version which I was lucky enough to replace my nasty original PS3 purchase with. The game had a very procedural feel to it - from the way that the story progresses, to the objectives, to the crowd behavior. I've seen some reviewers trashing the game for being repetitive, but I don't see a problem with vaguely repetitive tasks as long as they're fun. Plus, most of the repetitive elements are optional anyway. Stealing a page out of other A-list titles like Symphony of the Night, or Metroid Prime, you start the game with all of the powers and abilities available, and then you lose them. As you regain each one, you are compelled to appreciate its place in your arsenal, and this provides a natural learning process. By the end of the game, you'll be using nearly every one of the skills you've learned as instinctively as the main character should. Visually, the game is gorgeous. It has set a standard by which I'll judge every 360 and PS3 game in this generation. The controls are fluid and responsive, and the story is very interesting, if a bit predictable. When the game starts, you are presented with a disclaimer of sorts saying that the game was created by members of a lot of different faiths. After discovering the more controversial elements of the story, I have to admit I was offended by some of the fictitious implications about Christianity, or more directly about Christ himself. Not being a Muslim, I cannot surmise whether it is nearly as offensive to Muslims. It's a good thing I don't get my theology from a game. As laughable as that notion sounds, the frightening reality is that the same people who lent credence to The Davinci Code will probably adopt attitudes from the story in this game.
Mass Effect was, in many ways, a disappointment. The game has greatness in its soul, but it can be very difficult at times to see past its gaping flaws and shortcomings to really enjoy it. Graphically it's very pretty, and thank God Bioware added an option to remove the annoying film grain effect. But for all of its beauty, the game is extremely glitchy. After a while you learn to tune out the minor jumps and pops as the camera struggles to follow you while the game is loading - and it is nearly always loading something. About 10 hours into the game, the inventory system becomes an annoying and unintentional mini game because your inventory is limited to an anemic 150 items. The problem isn't so much not having enough space, it's sorting through the equipment and deciding what to keep and what to sell or melt down. Looting is automatic - once you kill someone, any loot they were carrying just becomes part of your inventory. Unfortunately the game will allow you to exceed the 150 item limit, say during a firefight, and not tell you until you unwittingly try to open the equipment menu, at which point you are mercilessly forced to melt down all of the new loot (and newer is almost always better) to get your item total beneath the 150 item threshold. You are unable to cancel out of this screen until you have melted down everything you just got. Very poor design choice. What's worse, there's no way to look at your entire inventory on one screen unless you're at a vendor. In order to assess your inventory you often have to dig three menus deep to see what's available. This may sound petty, but it actually becomes an immensely annoying chore that distracts from the fun of the game. The side games are also extremely repetitive. There are basically two different layouts used for buildings and bunkers for the side quests, and aside from the junk scattered throughout the rooms are exactly identical in every respect, from the layout down to the color of the soil visible through the glass tubes connecting identical boxlike rooms. Every ground mission is basically the same wash-rinse-repeat operation. Some of the skyscapes visible from the planets are quite beautiful, but there is otherwise very little variety. Leveling up is basically identical to Knights of the Old Republic, except there seem to be fewer abilities available to each class, and the Dungeons and Dragons style descriptions of abilities are replaced by somewhat more straightforward terms. The combat is decent and neither impresses, nor leaves room for complaint; I didn't find anything particularly satisfying or annoying about it. Its faults aside, however, the music and story are the areas in which Mass Effect really excels. The main story arc of Mass Effect is extremely entertaining and there are a few "wow" moments culminating into one of the best "last two hours" I've spent with a game in a very very long time. Filled with dramatic synth, the music often reminded me of 80's sci-fi like Terminator and created a very unique mood throughout. When the action heats up or is about to heat up, the tempo and volume rise slightly to get your blood pumping and it's a very effective tool. All in all, Mass Effect was a good game, and the ending makes up for its shortcomings, but only just. It could definitely have used more polish, and BioWare shouldn't have been so frightened of spanning it across two discs. RPG players not only don't mind this, but we sort of like it. I suspect that a good deal of the incessant loading has something to do with the compression required to keep the size down to one 9GB disk.
Crysis was the best option I could find for testing out my new PC. My machine specs read like the recommended system on the Crysis box, but the game still wouldn't run at full speed with the settings on high. The game requires some obscure November update to DirectX that evidently didn't garner its own version number, nor was it something the developers thought they would need to include with the game itself. After the obligatory hour of installing and hour of troubleshooting that always reminds me why I avoid PC games like the plague, I finally got Crysis up and running. Another twenty minutes of tweaking controls and switching to 64-bit mode and I actually had the game working rather passably with my XBOX 360 controller. My impression of the first half of the game was pretty meh. Nothing really stood out from any other FPS I had played, except maybe the fact that the designers do not share my opinion that vehicles should be fun or easy to use. The suit functions are neat, but the stealth mode is really the only one that's really useful, and it is so limited that it was more difficult than fun to use. But after a while I fell into a rhythm and it started to get fun. At about the halfway point in the game, the gameplay changed radically and for the better. (Spoiler Alert) When gravity went bye-bye in the bowels of the alien complex, I really started to have respect for the game. It was unique and fun and challenging, visually and audibly stimulating and spooky all at once. Unfortunately that section only accounted for about a quarter of the entire game. The last quarter of the game was spent on unimaginative, contrived missions and frustratingly limiting vehicular combat. I could have forgiven it but that was also the quarter of the game that seemed most unfinished, as evidenced by numerous glitches that forced me to reload previous saves and replay the same section just so I could move the game forward. Important events would just simply fail to happen. The crown jewel of this glitch fest was when the game gave me a shiny new gun to kill the end boss with that just mysteriously decided not to work on the end boss. I had to back track nearly 90 minutes into older saves, spending over 2 hours playing through the same set of events over and over until I found a save prior to whatever glitch made the magical gun decide not to fire. Maybe most PC gamers are okay with beta software like this, but I'll stick with 95% finished games on my consoles, thank you very much.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
It's the Tarubots vs. the Deceptarucons!
The heroic Tarubots, Optimus Porum, Aizenhide, and Bumbletsuki are pitted against the evil Deceptarucons, Megatulik and Taruscream.
Windurst is the battleground, The Managon cube is the prize and the stakes are Vana'diel itself!
Don't miss Tarusformers - Their War, Our Windurst!
Windurst is the battleground, The Managon cube is the prize and the stakes are Vana'diel itself!
Don't miss Tarusformers - Their War, Our Windurst!
Sunday, March 25, 2007
New Music: The Showdown - Temptation Come My Way
It has been some years since I've been as excited about a new release as I have about The Showdown's sophmore release "Temptation Come My Way". Stylistically the album is a bit of a turn from their first album, "A Chorus of Obliteration". This album focuses more on the melodic elements that they did so well. A hint of the death-metal influences still remain, but only a sprinkling here and there. This release seems to be an amalgam of the band's favorite styles and although things like this are traditionally risky, it really works here. I've heard the core style called "Southern Metal" and I suppose that's as good a label as any. A mix of modern and contemporary metal, "Temptation Come My Way" is all over the map drawing deserved comparisons with Pantera and Metallica's Black album. In terms of refinement and maturity I'd say it's at least on par with Tourniquet's "Vanishing Lessons" - IMO the best album of its time. And unless I miss my guess I even heard an Oz Fox (Stryper) riff in there. As I listen, I'm constantly reminded of classics from Sacred Warrior to early Guardian while being pounded in the ears with Disciple and As I Lay Dying.
Lyrically they are as practical and in-your-face as ever. I don't think I'd call them a ministry band, but their Christian beliefs, patriotism, and strong sense of family are unabashedly on the front line.
Evidently the first track "Fanatics and Whores" which promises to bring the hypocracy of certain televangelists "down around that self-serving smile", was controversial enough that the record label altruistically decided to omit the track from copies to be sold in certain Christian Book store chains. Under the guise of protecting theological integrity they have commited the sin of greed. The bottom line is that any faith so fragile that it could not stand up to such honest criticism, or hearing the word "Whores" does not deserve preserving and if the music is contrary to solid Christian principle, the label should have declined to publish it altogether. But arbitrarily omitting a song on the basis of the word "Whores" or the subject matter of false prophets, is the worst kind of evil. This isn't about theology, it's about money, and I cannot stress enough how important it is to avoid such hacked-up politically corrected material. Don't buy this from a Christian Book store if the first track is not "Fanatics and Whores". Best Buy sells the whole version and it's a lot cheaper. I encourage you to read the lyrics to the song (you can find them on Google with a minimum of effort). I challenge anyone to tell me how this is less acceptible than the Bible itself in terms of language and message. Plenty of music has addressed the touchy issue of an internal audit of the Church - Steve Taylor for example addressed these matters several times with songs like "Am I in Sync", "I Want To Be a Clone", and "Guilty by Association".
The bottom line is that this is one of the best collections of music I have heard in a long time. "Temptation Come My Way" was two years in the making and has the genius and polish to make it a reference by which all metal to come after it should be measured.
Lyrically they are as practical and in-your-face as ever. I don't think I'd call them a ministry band, but their Christian beliefs, patriotism, and strong sense of family are unabashedly on the front line.
Evidently the first track "Fanatics and Whores" which promises to bring the hypocracy of certain televangelists "down around that self-serving smile", was controversial enough that the record label altruistically decided to omit the track from copies to be sold in certain Christian Book store chains. Under the guise of protecting theological integrity they have commited the sin of greed. The bottom line is that any faith so fragile that it could not stand up to such honest criticism, or hearing the word "Whores" does not deserve preserving and if the music is contrary to solid Christian principle, the label should have declined to publish it altogether. But arbitrarily omitting a song on the basis of the word "Whores" or the subject matter of false prophets, is the worst kind of evil. This isn't about theology, it's about money, and I cannot stress enough how important it is to avoid such hacked-up politically corrected material. Don't buy this from a Christian Book store if the first track is not "Fanatics and Whores". Best Buy sells the whole version and it's a lot cheaper. I encourage you to read the lyrics to the song (you can find them on Google with a minimum of effort). I challenge anyone to tell me how this is less acceptible than the Bible itself in terms of language and message. Plenty of music has addressed the touchy issue of an internal audit of the Church - Steve Taylor for example addressed these matters several times with songs like "Am I in Sync", "I Want To Be a Clone", and "Guilty by Association".
The bottom line is that this is one of the best collections of music I have heard in a long time. "Temptation Come My Way" was two years in the making and has the genius and polish to make it a reference by which all metal to come after it should be measured.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Rocky Balboa
As most children of the 80's I grew up with Rocky movies. Corny as I would later come to consider them, they were fun and inspirational and carried a message of hope and perseverance that I believe resonated with most of America at the time. I'm speaking of course, of the first four Rocky movies. I did not see Rocky V until a year ago, and when I did finally watch it, I realized why. Rocky had been done to death, and V looked like just another chance to cash in on name recognition. Although I didn't see it when it came out, I do remember seeing interviews with Sylvester Stallone back in 1990, and even back then interviewers were posing the question "Isn't this going too far? Aren't you running Rocky's good name into the ground by churning out mindless sequels." I remember Stallone's answer at the time. He basically answered that the Rocky movies had been the story of a man's life and his dream and each represented a different stage of it. So, no, this wasn't going too far. That being said, Rocky V was an awful movie, so chock full of cliches that it stunk of "cash-in". After a swan song like that, I was surprised to realize just how intriguing the idea of another Rocky movie sounded to me.
My curiosity was undeniable - what could another Rocky movie possibly have to offer the world? The filmmakers either had something great going on to counteract the bad taste left in anyone's mouth by V, or they were banking on my curiosity and/or memory loss to trick me into going to see another bad movie. Fortunately for me, they had something great.
I've heard a couple of explanations for why this movie was not called Rocky VI, but it is my personal belief that this movie was intended as a replacement for Rocky V as the end of the man's story.
From the start, it paints a believable picture of a retired present-day Rocky Balboa. The story walks you through some of the twilight years of a man who speaks few words and doesn't speak them clearly, but still manages to dish out some unexpected and poignant wisdom on life and love and happiness. His body looks tired and worn down, but his spirit is willing.
A computer simulated fight between Rocky in his prime, and the reigning heavyweight champion, Mason "The Line" Dixon and that willing spirit eventually drives him back to the ring. The concept may seem overly ambitious at a glance, but the movie is very quick to point out parallels in real life that make it more believable. Evidently a statistical computation done in the 60's between Mohammed Ali and some boxer that was retired at the time (boxing fans, please don't hate me, I don't remember his name), showed that the older boxer would have won. And, of course, the Foreman vs. Holyfield fight where George Foreman came back to fight in his 50's nicely parallels Rocky's post prime aspirations.
Visually the film isn't anything special, but then it really doesn't need to be as it is the story that compels you to keep watching. The camera work is faithful to the older movies, with a few dramatic slow-motion and freeze-frame fade-outs. Rocky's signature theme song makes a couple of appearances, once as a remix and a final time as a beautiful rendition of the original. After all these years I can think of few scores with such widespread recognition that can inspire quite as well.
Throughout the film, Rocky experienced flashbacks, and although I can't say I'm an aficionado, it appeared that his flashbacks were limited to scenes from the first four movies, almost as though the filmmakers wanted to skip over that painful chapter or pretend it didn't happen. This is partly why I believe this film was intended as a replacement for V.
From Rocky's struggle with old age and ridicule to return to the ring to the climactic fight scene with Mason Dixon, the movie was engaging and even suspenseful at times. I actually found myself tensing up as Rocky would take a hard knock, nearly cheering with relief as he fought back.
The film somehow managed to maintain the charm of the prequels without falling into the trap of taking itself too seriously. A few well placed jabs at itself, and a comical cameo by Mike Tyson kept things fresh and believable.
The movie is very family friendly with a minimum of rough language and nothing sexually objectionable. I don't personally believe that there is anything wrong with violence - in fact I believe that prohibiting violence is a fundamental flaw in most societies that call themselves civilized - but that is another discussion. I mention it here to give fair warning that I may not be the best judge when it comes to violence. In my personal opinion, the movie could have done with more violence, but since it did have slightly more violence than a Care Bears movie, you might not want your fragile children watching it. Yes, that was intended as sarcasm.
All in all, no one could have hoped for a better conclusion to this story. Anyone who liked Rocky could not help but be pleased by this final chapter, and even some of those who despised the sequel-heavy story will be delighted by the freshness here.
My curiosity was undeniable - what could another Rocky movie possibly have to offer the world? The filmmakers either had something great going on to counteract the bad taste left in anyone's mouth by V, or they were banking on my curiosity and/or memory loss to trick me into going to see another bad movie. Fortunately for me, they had something great.
I've heard a couple of explanations for why this movie was not called Rocky VI, but it is my personal belief that this movie was intended as a replacement for Rocky V as the end of the man's story.
From the start, it paints a believable picture of a retired present-day Rocky Balboa. The story walks you through some of the twilight years of a man who speaks few words and doesn't speak them clearly, but still manages to dish out some unexpected and poignant wisdom on life and love and happiness. His body looks tired and worn down, but his spirit is willing.
A computer simulated fight between Rocky in his prime, and the reigning heavyweight champion, Mason "The Line" Dixon and that willing spirit eventually drives him back to the ring. The concept may seem overly ambitious at a glance, but the movie is very quick to point out parallels in real life that make it more believable. Evidently a statistical computation done in the 60's between Mohammed Ali and some boxer that was retired at the time (boxing fans, please don't hate me, I don't remember his name), showed that the older boxer would have won. And, of course, the Foreman vs. Holyfield fight where George Foreman came back to fight in his 50's nicely parallels Rocky's post prime aspirations.
Visually the film isn't anything special, but then it really doesn't need to be as it is the story that compels you to keep watching. The camera work is faithful to the older movies, with a few dramatic slow-motion and freeze-frame fade-outs. Rocky's signature theme song makes a couple of appearances, once as a remix and a final time as a beautiful rendition of the original. After all these years I can think of few scores with such widespread recognition that can inspire quite as well.
Throughout the film, Rocky experienced flashbacks, and although I can't say I'm an aficionado, it appeared that his flashbacks were limited to scenes from the first four movies, almost as though the filmmakers wanted to skip over that painful chapter or pretend it didn't happen. This is partly why I believe this film was intended as a replacement for V.
From Rocky's struggle with old age and ridicule to return to the ring to the climactic fight scene with Mason Dixon, the movie was engaging and even suspenseful at times. I actually found myself tensing up as Rocky would take a hard knock, nearly cheering with relief as he fought back.
The film somehow managed to maintain the charm of the prequels without falling into the trap of taking itself too seriously. A few well placed jabs at itself, and a comical cameo by Mike Tyson kept things fresh and believable.
The movie is very family friendly with a minimum of rough language and nothing sexually objectionable. I don't personally believe that there is anything wrong with violence - in fact I believe that prohibiting violence is a fundamental flaw in most societies that call themselves civilized - but that is another discussion. I mention it here to give fair warning that I may not be the best judge when it comes to violence. In my personal opinion, the movie could have done with more violence, but since it did have slightly more violence than a Care Bears movie, you might not want your fragile children watching it. Yes, that was intended as sarcasm.
All in all, no one could have hoped for a better conclusion to this story. Anyone who liked Rocky could not help but be pleased by this final chapter, and even some of those who despised the sequel-heavy story will be delighted by the freshness here.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Using "ls" in Windows
As my professional life moves into a more UNIX direction I have found myself more and more often trying to execute UNIX commands in Windows. One such command is "ls" - to list the contents of a directory. I know that cygwin binaries can be compiled for Windows to get ls functionality, but I decided to solve the problem a different way. I've written a batch file that wraps the "dir" command in windows. To work properly, both "ls.bat" and "getstrlen.bat" from an earlier post on this blog, will need to be present in your PATH.
I don't have time to explain this code right now, but I will make an effort if anyone asks.
ls.bat:
I don't have time to explain this code right now, but I will make an effort if anyone asks.
ls.bat:
@echo off
if not "%1"=="" goto gotargs
echo Executing: dir /b&dir /b
goto done
:gotargs
set ARGS1=%1
set CHECK=%ARGS1:~0,1%
if "%CHECK%"=="-" (set CURROPT=%ARGS1% & goto parsearg1)
if not "%9"=="" (echo Executing: dir /b "%1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9"&dir /b "%1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9"&goto done)
if not "%8"=="" (echo Executing: dir /b "%1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8"&dir /b "%1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8"&goto done)
if not "%7"=="" (echo Executing: dir /b "%1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7"&dir /b "%1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7"&goto done)
if not "%6"=="" (echo Executing: dir /b "%1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6"&dir /b "%1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6"&goto done)
if not "%5"=="" (echo Executing: dir /b "%1 %2 %3 %4 %5"&dir /b "%1 %2 %3 %4 %5"&goto done)
if not "%4"=="" (echo Executing: dir /b "%1 %2 %3 %4"&dir /b "%1 %2 %3 %4"&goto done)
if not "%3"=="" (echo Executing: dir /b "%1 %2 %3"&dir /b "%1 %2 %3"&goto done)
if not "%2"=="" (echo Executing: dir /b "%1 %2"&dir "%1 %2"&goto done)
echo Executing: dir /b %1&dir /b %1
goto done
:parsearg1
call getstrlen %CURROPT%
REM echo Got strlen: %strlen%
set ARGLEN=%strlen%
set count=%ARGLEN%
set i=1
set newargstr=
set CURROPT=%CURROPT: =%
set remain=%CURROPT%
goto parsearg2
:parsearg2
echo>%temp%\helper.bat set token=%%remain:~0,1%%
echo>>%temp%\helper.bat set CURROPT=%CURROPT%
echo>>%temp%\helper.bat set remain=%%CURROPT:~-%count%%%
call %temp%\helper.bat
del %temp%\helper.bat
if %i% GTR 2 goto resolvearg
:argresolved
set /a i="i+1"
set /a count="count-1"
if "%count%"=="-1" goto parsed
goto parsearg2
:resolvearg
if "%token%"=="l" goto arg_l
if "%token%"=="s" goto arg_s
if "%token%"=="a" goto arg_a
if "%token%"=="t" goto arg_t
if "%token%"=="r" goto arg_r
if "%token%"=="R" goto arg_CR
goto argresolved
:arg_l
if not "%newargstr%"=="" (set newargstr=%newargstr: /n=%)
if not "%newargstr%"=="" (set newargstr=%newargstr: /q=%)
set newargstr=%newargstr% /n /q
goto argresolved
:arg_s
if not "%newargstr%"=="" (set newargstr=%newargstr: /n=%)
if not "%newargstr%"=="" (set newargstr=%newargstr: /q=%)
set newargstr=%newargstr% /n /q
goto argresolved
:arg_a
if not "%newargstr%"=="" (set newargstr=%newargstr: /a=%)
set newargstr=%newargstr% /a
goto argresolved
:arg_t
if not "%newargstr%"=="" (set newargstr=%newargstr: /o:d=%)
if not "%newargstr%"=="" (set newargstr=%newargstr: /t:w=%)
set newargstr=%newargstr% /o:d /t:w
goto argresolved
:arg_r
if not "%newargstr%"=="" (set newargstr=%newargstr:d=-d%)
if not "%newargstr%"=="" (set newargstr=%newargstr: /t:w=%)
set newargstr=%newargstr% /t:w
goto argresolved
:arg_CR
if not "%newargstr%"=="" (set newargstr=%newargstr: /s=%)
set newargstr=%newargstr% /s
goto argresolved
:parsed
if not "%9"=="" (echo Executing: dir %newargstr% "%2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9"&dir %newargstr% "%2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9"&goto done)
if not "%8"=="" (echo Executing: dir %newargstr% "%2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8"&dir %newargstr% "%2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8"&goto done)
if not "%7"=="" (echo Executing: dir %newargstr% "%2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7"&dir %newargstr% "%2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7"&goto done)
if not "%6"=="" (echo Executing: dir %newargstr% "%2 %3 %4 %5 %6"&dir %newargstr% "%2 %3 %4 %5 %6"&goto done)
if not "%5"=="" (echo Executing: dir %newargstr% "%2 %3 %4 %5"&dir %newargstr% "%2 %3 %4 %5"&goto done)
if not "%4"=="" (echo Executing: dir %newargstr% "%2 %3 %4"&dir %newargstr% "%2 %3 %4"&goto done)
if not "%3"=="" (echo Executing: dir %newargstr% "%2 %3"&dir %newargstr% "%2 %3"&goto done)
if not "%2"=="" (echo Executing: dir %newargstr% %2&dir %newargstr% %2&goto done)
echo Executing: dir %newargstr%&dir %newargstr%
goto done
:done
How different is 1080i from 1080p really?
I've had a lot of people ask me about the new HD buzz words floating around on the Internet and in store ads. There seems to be a lot of confusion on the subject of whether or not 1080p is better than 1080i by a large enough margin that the discerning consumer needs to be careful of them. Most recently this question came in the form of an email, and I thought I'd share my answer.
Question: What is the loss of quality between 1080p and 1080i?
Answer: That actually depends on the source material and the monitor - it's a very complicated question to answer but all things being equal the loss of quality would be half of the horizontal resolution.
Another way of putting it:
1080i:
1920x540 pixels displayed at once
1080p:
1920x1080 pixels displayed at once
But this isn't an exact comparison.
The Long Explanation:
Video recorded natively at 1080i will be broken down into two separate fields (540 lines x2). One field (commonly called Field A) will consist of all of the even lines from the original frame and the other field (Field B) will consist of all of the odd lines from the original frame. The idea is that when these two fields are displayed one right after the other quickly enough, that you appear to see the whole original frame (1080 lines) but it only requres 540 horizontal lines to do it. Essentially 1080i relies on tricking your eye into thinking it is seeing more than it actually is.
The interleaving technique was developed with CRTs in mind. Most fixed-resolution displays (LCD/Plasma/DLP) can't actually display an interlaced picture (or rather don't because it would look like crap on that type of display). Instead these displays have image processors that use a variety of techniques to take the interlaced signal and turn it into a progressive signal for whatever the native resolution of the display is. This is where the interlacing really presents a problem, because when being shown on a progressive display, the material has to be "de-interlaced" first. The image processor has three basic options, line-doubling, interpolation, or field overlap.
Line-doubling is the easiest but it is wasteful- just take one of the two fields and show every line twice, discarding the other field entirely - sure, it's using all of the available pixels, but you're really only seeing half of the picture.
Interpolation is the hardest to do and it lowers fidelity- the image processor will "make up" the missing lines by averaging color and lighting info between each pair of lines in a single field and discard the other field entiely. The picture is a little clearer, but you've lost some fidelity because you're no longer seeing the true picture.
Field overlap is the most problematic but provides the best fidelity. Simply taking the two separate fields and laying them on top of each other will give you the complete picture, however if the material was originally recorded in an interlaced format (1080i for example) each field will have a separate time index. What this means is that objects in motion between fields will not line up correctly and this creates an effect called "combing" - where the right and left edges of the moving object will appear like the teeth of a comb.
Most current image processors will use a combination of these techniques, constantly sampling the source material and trying to determine the best method. A lot of progressive scan DVD players have a Video Mode setting that will let you choose something like "Film,Video,Auto" so you can override the image processor if it isn't choosing the right technique.
The "Film" setting is of particular relavence. This is also sometimes called "3:2 pulldown" or "Inverse Telecine". Basically it is a smart version of the field overlap technique. When film material is transferred to video it is run through a machine called a Telecine. The Telecine basically takes each full frame of the film and breaks it down into separate fields to be played back on an interlaced display. Because the frame rate of film (24 frames per second) and interlaced video (~30x2 fields per second) have a constant ratio of 2:3 the Telecine machine uses that ratio to turn every two frames into five fields - that means that our of every five fields one of them will be a duplicate. When your TV or DVD player (it doesn't really matter where the image processor is) detects or is set to Inverse Telecine mode, it uses that known ratio to reassemble the original frames from the interleaved fields.
So the conclusion of the long answer is this:
--If your source material is video (i.e. it was captured/created in 1080i) then your resolution loss between 1080i and 1080p is 540 horizontal lines, because this information will most likely be padded with either fake video information, or line-doubled making every other line redundant. This would be true of most TV shows and video games.
--If your source material was originally film (i.e. it was run through a telecine machine to be made 1080i) and your TV has a decent image processor, then the individual fields will be reassembled into the full 1080p frames resulting in essentially no loss of picture quality whatsoever.
Question: What is the loss of quality between 1080p and 1080i?
Answer: That actually depends on the source material and the monitor - it's a very complicated question to answer but all things being equal the loss of quality would be half of the horizontal resolution.
Another way of putting it:
1080i:
1920x540 pixels displayed at once
1080p:
1920x1080 pixels displayed at once
But this isn't an exact comparison.
The Long Explanation:
Video recorded natively at 1080i will be broken down into two separate fields (540 lines x2). One field (commonly called Field A) will consist of all of the even lines from the original frame and the other field (Field B) will consist of all of the odd lines from the original frame. The idea is that when these two fields are displayed one right after the other quickly enough, that you appear to see the whole original frame (1080 lines) but it only requres 540 horizontal lines to do it. Essentially 1080i relies on tricking your eye into thinking it is seeing more than it actually is.
The interleaving technique was developed with CRTs in mind. Most fixed-resolution displays (LCD/Plasma/DLP) can't actually display an interlaced picture (or rather don't because it would look like crap on that type of display). Instead these displays have image processors that use a variety of techniques to take the interlaced signal and turn it into a progressive signal for whatever the native resolution of the display is. This is where the interlacing really presents a problem, because when being shown on a progressive display, the material has to be "de-interlaced" first. The image processor has three basic options, line-doubling, interpolation, or field overlap.
Line-doubling is the easiest but it is wasteful- just take one of the two fields and show every line twice, discarding the other field entirely - sure, it's using all of the available pixels, but you're really only seeing half of the picture.
Interpolation is the hardest to do and it lowers fidelity- the image processor will "make up" the missing lines by averaging color and lighting info between each pair of lines in a single field and discard the other field entiely. The picture is a little clearer, but you've lost some fidelity because you're no longer seeing the true picture.
Field overlap is the most problematic but provides the best fidelity. Simply taking the two separate fields and laying them on top of each other will give you the complete picture, however if the material was originally recorded in an interlaced format (1080i for example) each field will have a separate time index. What this means is that objects in motion between fields will not line up correctly and this creates an effect called "combing" - where the right and left edges of the moving object will appear like the teeth of a comb.
Most current image processors will use a combination of these techniques, constantly sampling the source material and trying to determine the best method. A lot of progressive scan DVD players have a Video Mode setting that will let you choose something like "Film,Video,Auto" so you can override the image processor if it isn't choosing the right technique.
The "Film" setting is of particular relavence. This is also sometimes called "3:2 pulldown" or "Inverse Telecine". Basically it is a smart version of the field overlap technique. When film material is transferred to video it is run through a machine called a Telecine. The Telecine basically takes each full frame of the film and breaks it down into separate fields to be played back on an interlaced display. Because the frame rate of film (24 frames per second) and interlaced video (~30x2 fields per second) have a constant ratio of 2:3 the Telecine machine uses that ratio to turn every two frames into five fields - that means that our of every five fields one of them will be a duplicate. When your TV or DVD player (it doesn't really matter where the image processor is) detects or is set to Inverse Telecine mode, it uses that known ratio to reassemble the original frames from the interleaved fields.
So the conclusion of the long answer is this:
--If your source material is video (i.e. it was captured/created in 1080i) then your resolution loss between 1080i and 1080p is 540 horizontal lines, because this information will most likely be padded with either fake video information, or line-doubled making every other line redundant. This would be true of most TV shows and video games.
--If your source material was originally film (i.e. it was run through a telecine machine to be made 1080i) and your TV has a decent image processor, then the individual fields will be reassembled into the full 1080p frames resulting in essentially no loss of picture quality whatsoever.
String Length with Windows Batch
I've often found myself needing a reliable way to determine string length with windows batch files. I know there are probably add-ons or third-party solutions, but I prefer to do things with the base system whenever possible. Since I wasn't able to find any solutions, I figured I'd contribute one now that I've written it. This is my code, I don't care if you use it or what you use it for. I hope it works for you and if not, sorry. It relies on the set /a command, which I believe is exclusive to XP (it might work in 2000 but I no longer have a box to test it on.)
getstrlen.bat:
Example:
c:\>getstrlen.bat Badger
c:\>echo %strlen%
6
c:
How it works:
The :checklen marker is the beginning of a loop that increments an iteration variable called count.
Every time through the loop the variable passed to the batch is checked by string substitution. The logic looks at a number of characters (represented by the count variable) and compares that to the string itself.
For example, if the string being checked was "Badger", the first time through the loop "Badger" (represented by the variable STRING) would be checked against "B" (represented by the variable CHECK) because count is set to 1. Since they don't match, the script will increment count by 1 and jump back up to :checklen. This time it will check "Badger" against "Ba" because count is set to 2. The process repeats until the sixth time around when both CHECK and STRING are equal to "Badger" at that point count is set to 6. When the helper.bat script finds that the two are equal the value of check is assigned to strlen and the script exits.
Limitations:
The script will only verify strings up to 255 characters long (hopefully you're not trying to use Windows batch for stuff bigger than that!). If you try to check a string longer than that the value of strlen will be set to "GE256" meaning "Greater or equal to 256". And the script will blow up if you try to pass invalid characters like spaces, semicolons or ampersands. Some punctuation is okay but I don't have the time to write an exhaustive list. A safe bet is to either only use this script on strings composed of letters and numbers or to build in your own string validation logic.
What's the point of the checker.bat?
Because variable refrencing in Windows Batch is so limited it is not ordinarily possible to use variables with the string substitution functions of the set command.
I can't do this -
set CHECK=%STRING:~-%count%%
Because the set command will not evaluate %count% before attempting to use it.
In order to get around this I dynamically construct a secondary batch (helper.bat) file using echo statements.
%temp%\checker.bat set CHECK=%%STRING:~-%count%%%
Because the echo command will resolve the variable "count" to the value it holds, the echoed statement is perfectly valid.
If "count" happened to equal 3 during the previous command, open up checker.bat and you'll see:
set CHECK=%STRING:~-3%
Since this is using an actual number rather than a variable, we're all set. Now all that's needed is to call checker.bat from your original script and the variable is set as desired.
It's a bit silly to have to go so far out of your way just to modify the input of a command, but at least it's possible.
Let me know if you found this helpful!
getstrlen.bat:
@echo offThis will set a session variable called "strlen" which will be assigned the numerical length of whatever string you pass to getstrlen.bat.
REM Sets the variable "strlen" to the length of the first argument.
REM
REM Usage:
REM getstrlen
if "%1"=="" (echo getstrlen error: no argument &goto lengthset)
if not "%2"=="" (echo getstrlen error: too many arguments &goto lengthset)
set count=1
set strlen=
:checklen
echo>%temp%\checker.bat set STRING=%1
echo>>%temp%\checker.bat set equal=no
echo>>%temp%\checker.bat set CHECK=%%STRING:~-%count%%%
echo>>%temp%\checker.bat if "%%STRING%%"=="%%CHECK%%" (set equal=yes)
call %temp%\checker.bat
del %temp%\checker.bat
if "%equal%"=="yes" (set strlen=%count% & goto lengthset)
set /a count="count+1"
if not "%count%"=="256" goto checklen
set strlen=GE256
:lengthset
Example:
c:\>getstrlen.bat Badger
c:\>echo %strlen%
6
c:
How it works:
The :checklen marker is the beginning of a loop that increments an iteration variable called count.
Every time through the loop the variable passed to the batch is checked by string substitution. The logic looks at a number of characters (represented by the count variable) and compares that to the string itself.
For example, if the string being checked was "Badger", the first time through the loop "Badger" (represented by the variable STRING) would be checked against "B" (represented by the variable CHECK) because count is set to 1. Since they don't match, the script will increment count by 1 and jump back up to :checklen. This time it will check "Badger" against "Ba" because count is set to 2. The process repeats until the sixth time around when both CHECK and STRING are equal to "Badger" at that point count is set to 6. When the helper.bat script finds that the two are equal the value of check is assigned to strlen and the script exits.
Limitations:
The script will only verify strings up to 255 characters long (hopefully you're not trying to use Windows batch for stuff bigger than that!). If you try to check a string longer than that the value of strlen will be set to "GE256" meaning "Greater or equal to 256". And the script will blow up if you try to pass invalid characters like spaces, semicolons or ampersands. Some punctuation is okay but I don't have the time to write an exhaustive list. A safe bet is to either only use this script on strings composed of letters and numbers or to build in your own string validation logic.
What's the point of the checker.bat?
Because variable refrencing in Windows Batch is so limited it is not ordinarily possible to use variables with the string substitution functions of the set command.
I can't do this -
set CHECK=%STRING:~-%count%%
Because the set command will not evaluate %count% before attempting to use it.
In order to get around this I dynamically construct a secondary batch (helper.bat) file using echo statements.
%temp%\checker.bat set CHECK=%%STRING:~-%count%%%
Because the echo command will resolve the variable "count" to the value it holds, the echoed statement is perfectly valid.
If "count" happened to equal 3 during the previous command, open up checker.bat and you'll see:
set CHECK=%STRING:~-3%
Since this is using an actual number rather than a variable, we're all set. Now all that's needed is to call checker.bat from your original script and the variable is set as desired.
It's a bit silly to have to go so far out of your way just to modify the input of a command, but at least it's possible.
Let me know if you found this helpful!
Wii
Over the weekend of November 17th to November 19th, I was able to acquire both of the most sought after consoles, the Wii and the PS3. Personally I consider it unfair to compare the two because the PS3 is such a powerful beast, and the Wii is so much more fun. You can go pretty much anywhere on the 'Net and find opinions about the two systems, and this blog is no exception! I will, however, attempt to provide information that I haven't seen elsewhere.
Due to a strange sequence of events, I actually acquired my PS3 later in the day on the same day I acquired my Wii. And since I'm an unapologetic Nintendo fanboy, I'm reviewing the Wii first.
Nintendo prefers for some reason that the system simply be called Wii and not "Nintendo Wii". I'm sure it figures into the rantings of some social engineering plot designed to cement the system into the hearts and minds of the world, but it also saves me typing so I'm going along with it.
While many people camped out 2-3 days to acquire a PS3, I camped out a day and a half to get a Wii - not because that was the only way, but because I wanted one on day-one. Bored to tears I walked into the Best Buy I had camped out in front of and bought a copy of Eragon. I nearly finished the book by the time the store opened the next day, but, dad-gummit, I was the first one in line and thus got first pick of some of the more hard-to-find accessories like controllers and nunchuck attachments. I also picked up Red Steel, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz, and Rayman: Raving Rabbids.
Out of the box -
System setup was pretty straightforward, but a bit more complicated than any previous Nintendo system owing to the requirements of the new controller. In order determine vertical alignment and triangulate distance from the screen, the system requires a slim infrared sensor bar to be mounted at the bottom of the screen or the top of it. This isn't very complicated to get accomplished correctly, however it makes moving the system from one TV to another more of a chore. I suppose if you count the fact that the controllers are all cordless now you might be able to call it even. Other than that, you have your power cord, and video cables and that's all there is to it. If you intend to use the Wii's online features (many of which are pending a future update) you will need to have a Wi-Fi capable router or access point as the Wii does not support wired Internet connections without the use of a special USB adapter (sold separately, only from Nintendo) The Wi-Fi setup is pretty straight forward. If you have ever set up a computer for Wi-Fi, everything should be more or less familiar. It supports all of the popular Wi-Fi security features like WEP and WPA. Mine was up and running in less than 10 minutes.
The Good -
The Wii remote - the center of your Wii world - is surprisingly simple in appearance but is in reality one of the most sophisticated human-computer interfaces commercially available. It utilizes two different types of wireless connectivity, has a multi-axis gyroscopic sensor that knows the exact orientation of the controller no matter how you tilt it, has a force feedback vibration function, a built in speaker, and a high-speed extension port that allows for a wide variety of possibilities for future expansions. In addition to its myriad features, it has an unexpectedly comfortable heft to it. Usage is very intuitive for simple things like menu navigation and with a little tweaking, could easily replace the PC mouse in a few years. For gameplay, there can be a bit more of a learning curve depending on how and how well the developer implemented it. Games like Rayman: Raving Rabbids were easy to just pick up and play, but Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz required a somewhat steeper learning curve. With practice, precision control is possible.
The Wii has a very small "footprint" (the amount of space it takes up on the surface on which it is placed) and should fit easily into just about any TV cabinet, shelf or entertainment center. The ventilation is all accomplished through the back panel of the unit (unlike the Gamecube where the fan vents were on the sides) Wii can easily be sandwiched between or underneath other devices without concern of overheating.
The Wii Sports tech demo included with the system is a very shallow but almost addictive diversion. The Wii operating software has a feature called Mii where you create little virtual characters, somewhat akin to a super-simplified version of the Sims or Animal Crossing. These characters can be sent to visit the Wii consoles of other friends connected to the Internet, and they are also the players in Wii Sports. Each Mii acquires his/her own scores and stats based on how well you perform at the various sporting events while using that Mii as the character. From what I've seen, Nintendo has future titles in the works to build on this feature.
The limited Internet communication is extremely restricted with the intention of keeping kids safe from Internet predators. Non-parent players will probably find it too restrictive as it requires that you first communicate with a person outside of the Wii network to exchange Wii console numbers. Without a Wii console number you cannot invite someone to be your friend, and unless the other person accepts your invitation you cannot communicate with him or her. The idea being that a child is literally unable to meet new people via the Wii interface. There are several fan-run websites that seek to alleviate this restriction by providing a place to meet other players and exchange the codes required to communicate via the Wii.
Zelda and Rayman are by far my favorite games so far. Rayman is stupid fun and makes innovative use of most of the new controller's capabilities. Zelda is as sweeping an epic that any fan could want. These games may not look like Oblivion or Gears of War in terms of polygon count, but they are every bit as much fun.
The system is, as far as I can tell, 100% backwards compatible with Gamecube. Two lids on the top of the Wii open up to reveal Gamecube controller and memory card ports.
The Bad
Along with all of the wonderful new features, there are a couple of annoyances I have encountered with Wii.
--Wii 24/7
This is Nintendo's "always-on" Internet-based service. The Wii will periodically "phone home" to check for system software updates, and your friends can come and visit your Wii to leave messages or Mii's even while you're not playing. Personally I would prefer to have a little more control over this feature. As it is, you have to completely disable Internet connectivity to get your Wii console to stop acting as if it has a mind of its own. It was a little creepy the first time the blue disc slot just came on in the middle of the night and stayed on for several hours. As none of my friends reported visiting at that time, and no software updates were available at the time, there was no explanation provided as to why the Wii had done that. What's more I found that my controller's battery was completely drained in the morning. (The controller part is possibly just a coincidence, but I could have sworn that the battery had at least half a charge left before night time.
--AA batteries only
The Wii remote runs on two AA batteries. With the other current generation systems, the Wireless controllers either have or can be fitted with rechargeable battery packs which can be recharged by plugging the controllers into the system. Given the immense flexibility of the Wii remote, I suppose such a feature is a possibility for the future, but for now you just have to keep changing the batteries. If you decide to use one of the rubber sleeves (I believe they are referred to as "gloves") on your Wii remote, it will have to be removed each time your replace the batteries. The gloves I have are tight enough that this operation is a royal pain.
--Composite Video
From the outset, Nintendo has downplayed the role of High Definition graphics in video games, choosing instead to focus on improved gameplay and improved overall player experience. And I'm all for innovation like that, but I still want the best picture quality possible. The Wii ships with composite video cables - probably the lowest quality signal available on most TVs these days. Composite represents the "just enough to get by" mentality, and that's fine that that is all that you get with the system, but Nintendo grossly underestimated the demand for higher-quality Component video cables needed to get ultra-clear 480p video from the system. What's worse, none of these highly-sought-after cables were sent to stores. The only place they were available was from Nintendo directly via their online store. I ordered my cables on the 16th of November and did not receive them until the 28th due to gross underestimation of demand. In the interim, these cables (which cost me $35 if you count shipping) were being scalped on Ebay for nearly $200 - and people appeared to be paying it! For smaller TVs the improvement provided by these cables will not be so evident, but with larger screens (about 30 inches and above) the difference can be night and day. They made a dramatic improvement on my 42". The supply problem appears to be fixed now, but it was very annoying in the beginning.
--Space
Although the Wii takes up very little space itself, some of the activities suggested by the games take up quite a bit more. Wii is definitely not small-room friendly, at least not for titles like Wii Sports that suggest a wide range of motion.
--Controller Volume
So far I have not found a way to mute or turn the volume down on the Wii remote, and let me tell you the sound effects in Zelda are LOUD. This would seriously hamper one's ability to play a game in the wee hours of the morning (no pun intended) without disturbing anyone sleeping within earshot.
The Ugly
--Wii Shop
The Wii Shop is Nintendo's vaunted "iTunes of Video Games" where players can go to purchase vintage games from numerous classic systems (both Nintendo and non-Nintendo systems) for download and play on the Wii console. It is one of the main selling points that Nintendo has been pushing since before any of us even knew what the Wii would look like or be named.
This feature has gone from being one of the things I was most looking forward to, to being the one I most resent and will likely never use.
When Nintendo first announced this service they (Satoru Iwata at both E3 and SpaceWorld) were adamant that first party titles would be provided free of charge. A year later when the service is actually available, first party software costs from $5 to $10 per game - not free and not even cheaper than third-party software. Nintendo welched on its promise and that stings a lot. I won't go as far as to say that this would have changed my decision about buying a Wii but it sure didn't help. I understand that they are in business to make money, but to make money, you have to have good relationships with your customers. Making promises with no intention of keeping them is not a good relationship builder.
Another big disappointment with the Wii Shop is that although the Wii games themselves have been officially declared region-free (meaning any Wii game from any country should play on any Wii system) the Wii Shop will be region locked to prevent players from downloading classic games available in other reigions. This dashes the hopes of many of us who were hoping some beloved and nearly forgotten titles would have an unprecedented second chance at U.S. distribution.
I have strong opinions about supporting download-based software distribution. Because of the security mechanisms required to satisfy anti-piracy paranoia the usability of such downloaded software is almost exclusively crippled in some way - either it can only be downloaded into internal memory and cannot be transferred to permanent storage (like CD-R or DVD-R) or it will only work with a specific machine, or for a specific amount of time. I consider such restrictions immoral as there are far too many scenarios outside of the customers' control under which they will end up paying something for nothing. Perhaps it is my collector's mentality, or my buy-it-now play-it-later attitude toward a lot of games that makes me see it that way. Or perhaps it is the fact that if such services ever become commonplace the entire video game retail industry will suffer a painful demise. No more EBGames, no more GameStop, no more Game Crazy - just poof gone. And with it any chance of service by gamers for gamers.
So, for now, despite my fanaticism for Nintendo, it is my firm hope that the Wii Shop and any other download-based distribution (like XBOX Live Arcade) fails utterly, and although this demise is largely out of my control, I refuse to contribute to the problem by allowing one red cent of my money to be applied to them.
Conclusion
At $250 a pop, the Wii is definitely a good value. Make sure you either have a big room or avoid games that are likely to require one. Rechargeable AA batteries are a must.
Due to a strange sequence of events, I actually acquired my PS3 later in the day on the same day I acquired my Wii. And since I'm an unapologetic Nintendo fanboy, I'm reviewing the Wii first.
Nintendo prefers for some reason that the system simply be called Wii and not "Nintendo Wii". I'm sure it figures into the rantings of some social engineering plot designed to cement the system into the hearts and minds of the world, but it also saves me typing so I'm going along with it.
While many people camped out 2-3 days to acquire a PS3, I camped out a day and a half to get a Wii - not because that was the only way, but because I wanted one on day-one. Bored to tears I walked into the Best Buy I had camped out in front of and bought a copy of Eragon. I nearly finished the book by the time the store opened the next day, but, dad-gummit, I was the first one in line and thus got first pick of some of the more hard-to-find accessories like controllers and nunchuck attachments. I also picked up Red Steel, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz, and Rayman: Raving Rabbids.
Out of the box -
System setup was pretty straightforward, but a bit more complicated than any previous Nintendo system owing to the requirements of the new controller. In order determine vertical alignment and triangulate distance from the screen, the system requires a slim infrared sensor bar to be mounted at the bottom of the screen or the top of it. This isn't very complicated to get accomplished correctly, however it makes moving the system from one TV to another more of a chore. I suppose if you count the fact that the controllers are all cordless now you might be able to call it even. Other than that, you have your power cord, and video cables and that's all there is to it. If you intend to use the Wii's online features (many of which are pending a future update) you will need to have a Wi-Fi capable router or access point as the Wii does not support wired Internet connections without the use of a special USB adapter (sold separately, only from Nintendo) The Wi-Fi setup is pretty straight forward. If you have ever set up a computer for Wi-Fi, everything should be more or less familiar. It supports all of the popular Wi-Fi security features like WEP and WPA. Mine was up and running in less than 10 minutes.
The Good -
The Wii remote - the center of your Wii world - is surprisingly simple in appearance but is in reality one of the most sophisticated human-computer interfaces commercially available. It utilizes two different types of wireless connectivity, has a multi-axis gyroscopic sensor that knows the exact orientation of the controller no matter how you tilt it, has a force feedback vibration function, a built in speaker, and a high-speed extension port that allows for a wide variety of possibilities for future expansions. In addition to its myriad features, it has an unexpectedly comfortable heft to it. Usage is very intuitive for simple things like menu navigation and with a little tweaking, could easily replace the PC mouse in a few years. For gameplay, there can be a bit more of a learning curve depending on how and how well the developer implemented it. Games like Rayman: Raving Rabbids were easy to just pick up and play, but Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz required a somewhat steeper learning curve. With practice, precision control is possible.
The Wii has a very small "footprint" (the amount of space it takes up on the surface on which it is placed) and should fit easily into just about any TV cabinet, shelf or entertainment center. The ventilation is all accomplished through the back panel of the unit (unlike the Gamecube where the fan vents were on the sides) Wii can easily be sandwiched between or underneath other devices without concern of overheating.
The Wii Sports tech demo included with the system is a very shallow but almost addictive diversion. The Wii operating software has a feature called Mii where you create little virtual characters, somewhat akin to a super-simplified version of the Sims or Animal Crossing. These characters can be sent to visit the Wii consoles of other friends connected to the Internet, and they are also the players in Wii Sports. Each Mii acquires his/her own scores and stats based on how well you perform at the various sporting events while using that Mii as the character. From what I've seen, Nintendo has future titles in the works to build on this feature.
The limited Internet communication is extremely restricted with the intention of keeping kids safe from Internet predators. Non-parent players will probably find it too restrictive as it requires that you first communicate with a person outside of the Wii network to exchange Wii console numbers. Without a Wii console number you cannot invite someone to be your friend, and unless the other person accepts your invitation you cannot communicate with him or her. The idea being that a child is literally unable to meet new people via the Wii interface. There are several fan-run websites that seek to alleviate this restriction by providing a place to meet other players and exchange the codes required to communicate via the Wii.
Zelda and Rayman are by far my favorite games so far. Rayman is stupid fun and makes innovative use of most of the new controller's capabilities. Zelda is as sweeping an epic that any fan could want. These games may not look like Oblivion or Gears of War in terms of polygon count, but they are every bit as much fun.
The system is, as far as I can tell, 100% backwards compatible with Gamecube. Two lids on the top of the Wii open up to reveal Gamecube controller and memory card ports.
The Bad
Along with all of the wonderful new features, there are a couple of annoyances I have encountered with Wii.
--Wii 24/7
This is Nintendo's "always-on" Internet-based service. The Wii will periodically "phone home" to check for system software updates, and your friends can come and visit your Wii to leave messages or Mii's even while you're not playing. Personally I would prefer to have a little more control over this feature. As it is, you have to completely disable Internet connectivity to get your Wii console to stop acting as if it has a mind of its own. It was a little creepy the first time the blue disc slot just came on in the middle of the night and stayed on for several hours. As none of my friends reported visiting at that time, and no software updates were available at the time, there was no explanation provided as to why the Wii had done that. What's more I found that my controller's battery was completely drained in the morning. (The controller part is possibly just a coincidence, but I could have sworn that the battery had at least half a charge left before night time.
--AA batteries only
The Wii remote runs on two AA batteries. With the other current generation systems, the Wireless controllers either have or can be fitted with rechargeable battery packs which can be recharged by plugging the controllers into the system. Given the immense flexibility of the Wii remote, I suppose such a feature is a possibility for the future, but for now you just have to keep changing the batteries. If you decide to use one of the rubber sleeves (I believe they are referred to as "gloves") on your Wii remote, it will have to be removed each time your replace the batteries. The gloves I have are tight enough that this operation is a royal pain.
--Composite Video
From the outset, Nintendo has downplayed the role of High Definition graphics in video games, choosing instead to focus on improved gameplay and improved overall player experience. And I'm all for innovation like that, but I still want the best picture quality possible. The Wii ships with composite video cables - probably the lowest quality signal available on most TVs these days. Composite represents the "just enough to get by" mentality, and that's fine that that is all that you get with the system, but Nintendo grossly underestimated the demand for higher-quality Component video cables needed to get ultra-clear 480p video from the system. What's worse, none of these highly-sought-after cables were sent to stores. The only place they were available was from Nintendo directly via their online store. I ordered my cables on the 16th of November and did not receive them until the 28th due to gross underestimation of demand. In the interim, these cables (which cost me $35 if you count shipping) were being scalped on Ebay for nearly $200 - and people appeared to be paying it! For smaller TVs the improvement provided by these cables will not be so evident, but with larger screens (about 30 inches and above) the difference can be night and day. They made a dramatic improvement on my 42". The supply problem appears to be fixed now, but it was very annoying in the beginning.
--Space
Although the Wii takes up very little space itself, some of the activities suggested by the games take up quite a bit more. Wii is definitely not small-room friendly, at least not for titles like Wii Sports that suggest a wide range of motion.
--Controller Volume
So far I have not found a way to mute or turn the volume down on the Wii remote, and let me tell you the sound effects in Zelda are LOUD. This would seriously hamper one's ability to play a game in the wee hours of the morning (no pun intended) without disturbing anyone sleeping within earshot.
The Ugly
--Wii Shop
The Wii Shop is Nintendo's vaunted "iTunes of Video Games" where players can go to purchase vintage games from numerous classic systems (both Nintendo and non-Nintendo systems) for download and play on the Wii console. It is one of the main selling points that Nintendo has been pushing since before any of us even knew what the Wii would look like or be named.
This feature has gone from being one of the things I was most looking forward to, to being the one I most resent and will likely never use.
When Nintendo first announced this service they (Satoru Iwata at both E3 and SpaceWorld) were adamant that first party titles would be provided free of charge. A year later when the service is actually available, first party software costs from $5 to $10 per game - not free and not even cheaper than third-party software. Nintendo welched on its promise and that stings a lot. I won't go as far as to say that this would have changed my decision about buying a Wii but it sure didn't help. I understand that they are in business to make money, but to make money, you have to have good relationships with your customers. Making promises with no intention of keeping them is not a good relationship builder.
Another big disappointment with the Wii Shop is that although the Wii games themselves have been officially declared region-free (meaning any Wii game from any country should play on any Wii system) the Wii Shop will be region locked to prevent players from downloading classic games available in other reigions. This dashes the hopes of many of us who were hoping some beloved and nearly forgotten titles would have an unprecedented second chance at U.S. distribution.
I have strong opinions about supporting download-based software distribution. Because of the security mechanisms required to satisfy anti-piracy paranoia the usability of such downloaded software is almost exclusively crippled in some way - either it can only be downloaded into internal memory and cannot be transferred to permanent storage (like CD-R or DVD-R) or it will only work with a specific machine, or for a specific amount of time. I consider such restrictions immoral as there are far too many scenarios outside of the customers' control under which they will end up paying something for nothing. Perhaps it is my collector's mentality, or my buy-it-now play-it-later attitude toward a lot of games that makes me see it that way. Or perhaps it is the fact that if such services ever become commonplace the entire video game retail industry will suffer a painful demise. No more EBGames, no more GameStop, no more Game Crazy - just poof gone. And with it any chance of service by gamers for gamers.
So, for now, despite my fanaticism for Nintendo, it is my firm hope that the Wii Shop and any other download-based distribution (like XBOX Live Arcade) fails utterly, and although this demise is largely out of my control, I refuse to contribute to the problem by allowing one red cent of my money to be applied to them.
Conclusion
At $250 a pop, the Wii is definitely a good value. Make sure you either have a big room or avoid games that are likely to require one. Rechargeable AA batteries are a must.
Merry Christmas, scratch that, Happy Jesus' Birthday!
A couple of years ago when the traditionalists and Christians were really starting to get miffed about the politically correct neutering of Christmas greetings, I decided to try a reverse-psychology approach with a friend of mine. Knowing that he was a Christian and not at all bashful about it, I approached him in mid-December and told him "Season's Holidays!". He fixed me with a flat stare and replied "Happy Jesus' Birthday." to rhyme with "Tonight you sleep with the fishes." That is one of my most cherished Christmas memories.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Well, there goes the Universe
It has become painfully obvious to me after playing a couple of hours of the long-awaited, much-anticipated Phantasy Star Universe, that the game is a big steamy turd.
I've been looking forward to this game for quite some time, but it seems like it has been one disappointment after another... I'm posting my impressions to see if anyone agrees with me. If you disagree with my reasons, please respond with articulate rebuttals or not all.
First Sega arbitrarily decides that we aren't allowed to play with players from other reigons. No chatting with Japanese friends for me, I guess... I suppose this isn't really a big deal for most people, so no one will care if I don't like it.
Next Sega decides not to allow the different platforms to play together. That's par for the course, I suppose, but I can't see the justification for it. They had an excuse with the various incarnations of PSO - the games were each developed in a vacuum. That is to say that when the DC PSO was created, the PC version was not part of that development process. Although the games were similar, they used different tables and addressing for the word select system, and had features that were not compatible between them. But all three versions of PSU were developed in tandem - there's really no excuse. Final Fantasy IX runs fine on all three of the same platforms as PSU and the players of FFXI are all able to play together regardless of platform. FFXI is even a more complex and robust game. There is no excuse for separating the platforms except possibly laziness. So now, in order to play with all of my friends, I had to purchase two separate copies of the game, and to pay two hunters fees. Maybe this was Sega's big plan to cash in at my expense? It sure feels like it.
And while I'm on the subject of gouging, why is it that Sega is using a separate licensing system for the XBOX 360? Contrary to various rumors that have been flying around, and I guess even posted by Sega themselves, the 360 version not only requires XBOX Live! Gold membership (~$50/yr) but also requires the same full price license fee ($9.99/mo)? (I'm not guessing at this, I've actually tried to use Silver and seen the fee on Live Marketplace). Maybe that's not a big deal for people who already pay for Gold membership for other reasons, but I don't have any other reason to get a Gold membership, and for me that's a complete ripoff. Again, I'm going to dredge up Final Fantasy XI for comparison. FFXI players can not only use the free XBOX Live! Silver membership, but any Content ID (Square-Enix's equivalent to a Guardian License) will work equally well on any of the three platforms. That means that I can pay one monthly fee to play on any of the three platforms. Sega, you're ripping me off either way. I mean, if I'm playing on Microsoft's servers, I shouldn't be paying Sega to play on them, and if I'm playing on Sega's servers, I shouldn't be paying Microsoft for it - simple as that.
My next gripe is the fact that this game isn't even finished yet. We're paying to beta-test Sega's software. Opinion you say? Look in the official Brady Games strategy guide at the number of items are listed as "in a future update". It is painfully obvious that Sega pushed this out the door before it was ready with the intention of fixing their obvious mistakes with patches later. The XBOX and PC have a facility for handling this (not that that makes it right) but how are they going to fix the PS2 version?
Speaking of fixes - slowdown? Sega has produced slowdown on the 360? Do you know how massively powerful the 360 is? How do you get slowdown (frequent) with three or four moving characters onscreen...on the XBOX 360? Have you seen Ninety-Nine Nights? Do you realize how massively obvious your sloppiness is Sega?
I just can't believe how completely I've been let down by this game. I can't imagine that the player community will embrace it like they did PSO. Not only does Sega have a lot more competition than it did back then, but PSO was a better game. I'm not just saying that it was a better game for its time, I'm saying it is a better game period. For one thing it was finished, for another the pricing scheme was fair for what was provided ( the game servers were little more than a proxy that hosted the lobbies and connected peers together when they created a room). Most of my friends from FFXI and PSO have already expressed similar dissatisfaction, so I know I'm not alone in this.
As if all that wasn't enough, I even had trouble signing up for this forum because of poorly thought-out design.
Due to a number of logistical reasons I can think of off the top of my head, I highly doubt Sega will do the right thing and recall this game and not release it until it's finished, but I can still ask for it. Who knows, if enough of the fans speak out, it might happen.
The bottom line is that if the game was any fun at all, I would be playing it right now instead of making this post. Sega doesn't even get a nice try on this one. Bad form.
I've been looking forward to this game for quite some time, but it seems like it has been one disappointment after another... I'm posting my impressions to see if anyone agrees with me. If you disagree with my reasons, please respond with articulate rebuttals or not all.
First Sega arbitrarily decides that we aren't allowed to play with players from other reigons. No chatting with Japanese friends for me, I guess... I suppose this isn't really a big deal for most people, so no one will care if I don't like it.
Next Sega decides not to allow the different platforms to play together. That's par for the course, I suppose, but I can't see the justification for it. They had an excuse with the various incarnations of PSO - the games were each developed in a vacuum. That is to say that when the DC PSO was created, the PC version was not part of that development process. Although the games were similar, they used different tables and addressing for the word select system, and had features that were not compatible between them. But all three versions of PSU were developed in tandem - there's really no excuse. Final Fantasy IX runs fine on all three of the same platforms as PSU and the players of FFXI are all able to play together regardless of platform. FFXI is even a more complex and robust game. There is no excuse for separating the platforms except possibly laziness. So now, in order to play with all of my friends, I had to purchase two separate copies of the game, and to pay two hunters fees. Maybe this was Sega's big plan to cash in at my expense? It sure feels like it.
And while I'm on the subject of gouging, why is it that Sega is using a separate licensing system for the XBOX 360? Contrary to various rumors that have been flying around, and I guess even posted by Sega themselves, the 360 version not only requires XBOX Live! Gold membership (~$50/yr) but also requires the same full price license fee ($9.99/mo)? (I'm not guessing at this, I've actually tried to use Silver and seen the fee on Live Marketplace). Maybe that's not a big deal for people who already pay for Gold membership for other reasons, but I don't have any other reason to get a Gold membership, and for me that's a complete ripoff. Again, I'm going to dredge up Final Fantasy XI for comparison. FFXI players can not only use the free XBOX Live! Silver membership, but any Content ID (Square-Enix's equivalent to a Guardian License) will work equally well on any of the three platforms. That means that I can pay one monthly fee to play on any of the three platforms. Sega, you're ripping me off either way. I mean, if I'm playing on Microsoft's servers, I shouldn't be paying Sega to play on them, and if I'm playing on Sega's servers, I shouldn't be paying Microsoft for it - simple as that.
My next gripe is the fact that this game isn't even finished yet. We're paying to beta-test Sega's software. Opinion you say? Look in the official Brady Games strategy guide at the number of items are listed as "in a future update". It is painfully obvious that Sega pushed this out the door before it was ready with the intention of fixing their obvious mistakes with patches later. The XBOX and PC have a facility for handling this (not that that makes it right) but how are they going to fix the PS2 version?
Speaking of fixes - slowdown? Sega has produced slowdown on the 360? Do you know how massively powerful the 360 is? How do you get slowdown (frequent) with three or four moving characters onscreen...on the XBOX 360? Have you seen Ninety-Nine Nights? Do you realize how massively obvious your sloppiness is Sega?
I just can't believe how completely I've been let down by this game. I can't imagine that the player community will embrace it like they did PSO. Not only does Sega have a lot more competition than it did back then, but PSO was a better game. I'm not just saying that it was a better game for its time, I'm saying it is a better game period. For one thing it was finished, for another the pricing scheme was fair for what was provided ( the game servers were little more than a proxy that hosted the lobbies and connected peers together when they created a room). Most of my friends from FFXI and PSO have already expressed similar dissatisfaction, so I know I'm not alone in this.
As if all that wasn't enough, I even had trouble signing up for this forum because of poorly thought-out design.
Due to a number of logistical reasons I can think of off the top of my head, I highly doubt Sega will do the right thing and recall this game and not release it until it's finished, but I can still ask for it. Who knows, if enough of the fans speak out, it might happen.
The bottom line is that if the game was any fun at all, I would be playing it right now instead of making this post. Sega doesn't even get a nice try on this one. Bad form.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Is XBOX 360 the Dreamcast of the Next Generation?
It's almost frightening how may parallels there are between the XBOX360 vs. PS3 battle and the Dreamcast vs. PS2 battle.
Consider the following
RELEASE
Dreamcast vs. PS2: Dreamcast is released a full year before the PS2. Sony steals some of Dreamcast's thunder by releasing detailed specs for the PS2 days before the Dreamcast's 9/9/99 launch, thereby making the PS2 a little more real in the customers' eyes and causing some consumers to decide to wait for the spec-superior hardware.
360 vs. PS3: 360 is released a full year before PS3. Sony starts its thunder stealing in May by releasing detailed quasi-final specs on the PS3 to coincide with when stores start taking 360 preorders. Many consumers vow to wait for the PS3, confused at the 6 vs. 18 month difference.
BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY
Dreamcast vs. PS2: Sony vows PS2 fully backwards compatible with PS1. Dreamcast is not backwards compatible with Saturn or Sega CD. In practice this is a minor issue as most people will want to see new graphics on their new system and are unlikely to use the feature extensively, however Sony spins this into a major selling point. Bleem company has vowed to make emulation software that will allow the Dreamcast to play the entire library of PS1 titles on Dreamcast thereby eliminating Sony's advantage. In the end technical limitations reduced Bleem's success to a handful of PS1 games playing on Dreamcast, and the Sony legal machine abused its massive budget to starve the fledgling Bleem out of business before the technical issues could be resolved. End result, PS2: almost fully backwards compatible with previous generation, Dreamcast: sort of backwards compatible with the previous generation.
360 vs. PS3: Microsoft flip-flops on backwards compatibility for 360 first we're getting full compatibility, then we're getting partial, then nobody knows. Sony vows PS3 fully compatible with PS2 and PS1. The 360 hardware is completely different from XBOX so emulation software has to be written for each individual game. Games like Panzer Dragoon Orta, Shenmue II, and X-Men Legends aren't compatible, but Halo and Barbie Horse Racing are. It all depends on whether or not anyone takes an interest in writing the emulation software, and also on how difficult such a project becomes. Sony takes Microsoft to task over this, once again turning this into a selling point for the PS3. (Sony will most likely implement its backward compatibility by including the processors from the PS2 and PS1 in the PS3 hardware.) End result, PS3: almost fully backwards compatible with previous generation, 360: sort of backwards compatible with the previous generation.
FORMAT
Dreamcast vs. PS2: Dreamcast was released prior to DVD becoming a mass-market product. Most DVD players cost more than $500 and only a handful of titles are available. Due to the increased expense in both hardware and licensing fees, Dreamcast ships with a proprietary CD drive with enhancements for reading a special 1GB disc format that Sega dubbs GD-ROM. In keeping with the previous generation (Saturn, PS1, 3DO, Jaguar CD, CD-i) The only mass market media that Dreamcast plays is Audio CD (Red Book). Part of Sony's motivation for waiting a year longer than Sega to release PS2 is to incorporate a DVD drive into the system. Not only does this afford the system a massive 9GB canvas for games, but at $299, it makes the PS2 one of the more affordable DVD players on the market, while at the same time boosting the DVD format itself as millions of gamers now have a DVD player built-in. The PS2, of course, also plays Audio CD. Sega vows to level this playing field by offering an add-on DVD drive for the Dreamcast. (They will not be able to offer a Dreamcast with a built-in DVD drive without alienating their original customers, and even if they did so, they could not use the format to enhance games as that would force publishers to split their product lines or limit their market potential.) But ultimately it was too little, too late. The viability of such a device diminshed as the prices for standalone DVD drives declined and the logistics of an addon drive were the least of Sega's worries as Sony remorselessly crushed its hardware business as a whole.
360 vs. PS3: In keeping with the functionality of the previous generation of hardware, the 360 sports a standard DVD-ROM drive with a maximum disc capacity around 9GB. Due to increased interest in anti-copy technology, the formats and playback schemes for the next-generation disc formats were not finalized as of the time that the 360 was released. Sony, however has played the waiting game once again to incorporate a Blu-ray Disc drive in the PS3, in hopes of duplicating its success. The Blu-ray format affords PS3 a theoretical 200GB-per-disc canvas (although 50GB is more realistic). As of this writing there are only two Blu-ray video players available on the market, both of which cost around $1000. At $600, the PS3 will appear to be a cheap alternative to a stand-alone player, and Sony is banking on the PS3 to simultaneously boost the Blu-ray format by installing a Blu-ray movie player in the homes of millions of gamers. Microsoft has vowed to even this playing field with an add-on HD-DVD drive - another high-capacity format in direct competition with Blu-ray. Microsoft will not be able to offer a 360 with a built-in HD-DVD drive without alienating its original customers, and even if it does so, it cannot use such a drive to enhance games without forcing publishers to either split their product lines or limit their market potential to one or the other. Technical limitations between the 360 and the HD-DVD format (the 360 does not have an HDCP compliant video output and this may be required by some HD-DVD movies to show full resolution) are threatening to limit the performance potential of such an add-on drive. Couple this with the logistics of trying to sell such a peripheral and the fact that no solid details have been released after over 6 months of speculation and this add-on is starting to look like vaporware. As of this writing neither the add-on drive for the 360 nor the PS3 have been released yet, however the lines are already drawn.
PRICING
Dreamcast vs. PS2: Dreamcast - $199, PS2 - $299. Difference - PS2 is $100 more.
360 vs. PS3: 360 - $299(stripped-down)/$399(complete), PS3 - $499(stripped-down)/$599(complete). Difference - PS3 is $100 - $300 more.
COSMETICS
Dreamcast vs. PS2: The standard Dreamcast is white with a white controller. The controllers used the colors red, green, yellow, and blue for its buttons which were labeled A, B, X, and Y. The standard PS2 is black with a black controller. The buttons are black with colored markings. The colors are green, pink, red and periwinkle, labeled (square), (triangle) (circle) and X.
360 vs. PS3: The 360 is white with a white controller. The controllers used the colors red, green, yellow, and blue for its buttons which were labeled A, B, X, and Y. The most recent prototypes of the PS3 are shown to be black with a black controller. The buttons are black with colored markings. The colors are green, pink, red and periwinkle, labeled (square), (triangle) (circle) and X.
OPERATING SYSTEM
Dreamcast vs. PS2: Dreamcast used Windows CE as its OS. PS2 used a proprietary Sony OS.
360 vs. PS3: 360 uses a heavily modified version of Windows 2000 as its OS. The PS3 OS has not been fully divulged but is clearly proprietary to Sony.
PHILOSOPHY
Dreamcast vs. PS2: Dreamcast was a system designed based on gamer feedback, made by gamers for gamers. It featured a very long controller cord, and four ports for multi-player gaming. It seems clear that the aim of Sega with the Dreamcast was to provide a system that was easy to develop for, and would have beautiful games. Many developers went on record praising Sega for making a system that was such a joy to develop for. The PS2 was designed by Sony with little customer interaction, there was little or no innovation included in PS2 aside from beefier hardware. The aim of the PS2 seemed to be squeezing the most profit possible out of the consumer rather than to make it easy to develop for or have beautiful games. This is evidenced by the fact that the system is notoriously difficult to develop for, that games released on both systems looked better on the Dreamcast than their PS2 counterparts, and the seemingly endless stream of mediocre or downright worthless games that Sony points to as a strength by way of diversity.
360 vs. PS3: This battle has not yet begun in earnest, however the lines have been drawn. In addition to nearly a year of customer surveys and customer focus groups, nearly every feature of the 360 was designed around the desires of the gamers who would be playing it. The 360 has been described as a joy to work with by many developers because the OS is very similar to the original XBOX (even if the hardware is drastically different) and they are required to re-learn less. Several games on 360 have been gorgeous. With the XBOX, Microsoft sought to distance itself from the PC game world - particularly some of the stigmas associated with it (PC game publishers are notorious for releasing unfinished software with the intention of finishing it via patches later on, but these patches only get made if the game is commercially successful, so there are many PC games that remain forever deeply flawed.) Although many of the best games on 360 are PC ports, they still seem to be maintaining their insistence on quality that console games have come to expect. Sony on the other hand is taking their quest for a deluge of mediocre gaming that they can point to and say "we have something for everyone" to the next level by actually describing the PS3 as a PC. The accuracy of the statement itself is irrelevant, it is the implied connotation of the statement that Sony wants to make the console gaming industry more like the PC gaming industry that is so revealing. Just as with the PS1-PS2 generation hop, the only real innovation with the PS3 over the PS2 is beefier hardware, these systems are largely identical in terms of player interaction.
CONCLUSION
Although some of these comparisons, such as the cosmetic ones, may seem frivilous, there is still something to be said for the eerie conclusion that they all culminate to. Has Microsoft done more with their year head start on Sony than Sega did last generation? Is XBOX Live the PSO of this generation? In 5 years will there even be an XBOX Live? Or will it do its stint in the limelight and fade into obscurity? Will Sony succeed again in misdirecting customers by dangling Metal Gear Solid 4 in front of them just like they did with Metal Gear Solid 2, when the game will not be available for years after PS3? Does Sony have anything other than new Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo and Final Fantasy titles to draw customers in? Honestly there are only a couple of PS3 launch games I might even care to play, and none that I'm actually excited about. Warhawk? Isn't that a remake of a PS1 game? You'd think if it had any potential it would have already had a sequel by now - but perhaps not. As far as game prospects, the Nintendo Wii has already blown its competition out of the water with new Zelda, Mario, Smash Bros, Metroid, Sonic and Final Fantasy titles, but at least the 360 had some great stuff lined up for launch (even if Oblivion was only a feint - at least I didn't have to wait a full 2 years after launch to play it). Will the promise of games like Gears of War, Mass Effect and Halo 3 keep gamers faithful to the 360, or will brand loyalty, Blu-ray playback, and backwards compatibility win the day again?
Microsoft had better just hope that history doesn't repeat itself.
Consider the following
RELEASE
Dreamcast vs. PS2: Dreamcast is released a full year before the PS2. Sony steals some of Dreamcast's thunder by releasing detailed specs for the PS2 days before the Dreamcast's 9/9/99 launch, thereby making the PS2 a little more real in the customers' eyes and causing some consumers to decide to wait for the spec-superior hardware.
360 vs. PS3: 360 is released a full year before PS3. Sony starts its thunder stealing in May by releasing detailed quasi-final specs on the PS3 to coincide with when stores start taking 360 preorders. Many consumers vow to wait for the PS3, confused at the 6 vs. 18 month difference.
BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY
Dreamcast vs. PS2: Sony vows PS2 fully backwards compatible with PS1. Dreamcast is not backwards compatible with Saturn or Sega CD. In practice this is a minor issue as most people will want to see new graphics on their new system and are unlikely to use the feature extensively, however Sony spins this into a major selling point. Bleem company has vowed to make emulation software that will allow the Dreamcast to play the entire library of PS1 titles on Dreamcast thereby eliminating Sony's advantage. In the end technical limitations reduced Bleem's success to a handful of PS1 games playing on Dreamcast, and the Sony legal machine abused its massive budget to starve the fledgling Bleem out of business before the technical issues could be resolved. End result, PS2: almost fully backwards compatible with previous generation, Dreamcast: sort of backwards compatible with the previous generation.
360 vs. PS3: Microsoft flip-flops on backwards compatibility for 360 first we're getting full compatibility, then we're getting partial, then nobody knows. Sony vows PS3 fully compatible with PS2 and PS1. The 360 hardware is completely different from XBOX so emulation software has to be written for each individual game. Games like Panzer Dragoon Orta, Shenmue II, and X-Men Legends aren't compatible, but Halo and Barbie Horse Racing are. It all depends on whether or not anyone takes an interest in writing the emulation software, and also on how difficult such a project becomes. Sony takes Microsoft to task over this, once again turning this into a selling point for the PS3. (Sony will most likely implement its backward compatibility by including the processors from the PS2 and PS1 in the PS3 hardware.) End result, PS3: almost fully backwards compatible with previous generation, 360: sort of backwards compatible with the previous generation.
FORMAT
Dreamcast vs. PS2: Dreamcast was released prior to DVD becoming a mass-market product. Most DVD players cost more than $500 and only a handful of titles are available. Due to the increased expense in both hardware and licensing fees, Dreamcast ships with a proprietary CD drive with enhancements for reading a special 1GB disc format that Sega dubbs GD-ROM. In keeping with the previous generation (Saturn, PS1, 3DO, Jaguar CD, CD-i) The only mass market media that Dreamcast plays is Audio CD (Red Book). Part of Sony's motivation for waiting a year longer than Sega to release PS2 is to incorporate a DVD drive into the system. Not only does this afford the system a massive 9GB canvas for games, but at $299, it makes the PS2 one of the more affordable DVD players on the market, while at the same time boosting the DVD format itself as millions of gamers now have a DVD player built-in. The PS2, of course, also plays Audio CD. Sega vows to level this playing field by offering an add-on DVD drive for the Dreamcast. (They will not be able to offer a Dreamcast with a built-in DVD drive without alienating their original customers, and even if they did so, they could not use the format to enhance games as that would force publishers to split their product lines or limit their market potential.) But ultimately it was too little, too late. The viability of such a device diminshed as the prices for standalone DVD drives declined and the logistics of an addon drive were the least of Sega's worries as Sony remorselessly crushed its hardware business as a whole.
360 vs. PS3: In keeping with the functionality of the previous generation of hardware, the 360 sports a standard DVD-ROM drive with a maximum disc capacity around 9GB. Due to increased interest in anti-copy technology, the formats and playback schemes for the next-generation disc formats were not finalized as of the time that the 360 was released. Sony, however has played the waiting game once again to incorporate a Blu-ray Disc drive in the PS3, in hopes of duplicating its success. The Blu-ray format affords PS3 a theoretical 200GB-per-disc canvas (although 50GB is more realistic). As of this writing there are only two Blu-ray video players available on the market, both of which cost around $1000. At $600, the PS3 will appear to be a cheap alternative to a stand-alone player, and Sony is banking on the PS3 to simultaneously boost the Blu-ray format by installing a Blu-ray movie player in the homes of millions of gamers. Microsoft has vowed to even this playing field with an add-on HD-DVD drive - another high-capacity format in direct competition with Blu-ray. Microsoft will not be able to offer a 360 with a built-in HD-DVD drive without alienating its original customers, and even if it does so, it cannot use such a drive to enhance games without forcing publishers to either split their product lines or limit their market potential to one or the other. Technical limitations between the 360 and the HD-DVD format (the 360 does not have an HDCP compliant video output and this may be required by some HD-DVD movies to show full resolution) are threatening to limit the performance potential of such an add-on drive. Couple this with the logistics of trying to sell such a peripheral and the fact that no solid details have been released after over 6 months of speculation and this add-on is starting to look like vaporware. As of this writing neither the add-on drive for the 360 nor the PS3 have been released yet, however the lines are already drawn.
PRICING
Dreamcast vs. PS2: Dreamcast - $199, PS2 - $299. Difference - PS2 is $100 more.
360 vs. PS3: 360 - $299(stripped-down)/$399(complete), PS3 - $499(stripped-down)/$599(complete). Difference - PS3 is $100 - $300 more.
COSMETICS
Dreamcast vs. PS2: The standard Dreamcast is white with a white controller. The controllers used the colors red, green, yellow, and blue for its buttons which were labeled A, B, X, and Y. The standard PS2 is black with a black controller. The buttons are black with colored markings. The colors are green, pink, red and periwinkle, labeled (square), (triangle) (circle) and X.
360 vs. PS3: The 360 is white with a white controller. The controllers used the colors red, green, yellow, and blue for its buttons which were labeled A, B, X, and Y. The most recent prototypes of the PS3 are shown to be black with a black controller. The buttons are black with colored markings. The colors are green, pink, red and periwinkle, labeled (square), (triangle) (circle) and X.
OPERATING SYSTEM
Dreamcast vs. PS2: Dreamcast used Windows CE as its OS. PS2 used a proprietary Sony OS.
360 vs. PS3: 360 uses a heavily modified version of Windows 2000 as its OS. The PS3 OS has not been fully divulged but is clearly proprietary to Sony.
PHILOSOPHY
Dreamcast vs. PS2: Dreamcast was a system designed based on gamer feedback, made by gamers for gamers. It featured a very long controller cord, and four ports for multi-player gaming. It seems clear that the aim of Sega with the Dreamcast was to provide a system that was easy to develop for, and would have beautiful games. Many developers went on record praising Sega for making a system that was such a joy to develop for. The PS2 was designed by Sony with little customer interaction, there was little or no innovation included in PS2 aside from beefier hardware. The aim of the PS2 seemed to be squeezing the most profit possible out of the consumer rather than to make it easy to develop for or have beautiful games. This is evidenced by the fact that the system is notoriously difficult to develop for, that games released on both systems looked better on the Dreamcast than their PS2 counterparts, and the seemingly endless stream of mediocre or downright worthless games that Sony points to as a strength by way of diversity.
360 vs. PS3: This battle has not yet begun in earnest, however the lines have been drawn. In addition to nearly a year of customer surveys and customer focus groups, nearly every feature of the 360 was designed around the desires of the gamers who would be playing it. The 360 has been described as a joy to work with by many developers because the OS is very similar to the original XBOX (even if the hardware is drastically different) and they are required to re-learn less. Several games on 360 have been gorgeous. With the XBOX, Microsoft sought to distance itself from the PC game world - particularly some of the stigmas associated with it (PC game publishers are notorious for releasing unfinished software with the intention of finishing it via patches later on, but these patches only get made if the game is commercially successful, so there are many PC games that remain forever deeply flawed.) Although many of the best games on 360 are PC ports, they still seem to be maintaining their insistence on quality that console games have come to expect. Sony on the other hand is taking their quest for a deluge of mediocre gaming that they can point to and say "we have something for everyone" to the next level by actually describing the PS3 as a PC. The accuracy of the statement itself is irrelevant, it is the implied connotation of the statement that Sony wants to make the console gaming industry more like the PC gaming industry that is so revealing. Just as with the PS1-PS2 generation hop, the only real innovation with the PS3 over the PS2 is beefier hardware, these systems are largely identical in terms of player interaction.
CONCLUSION
Although some of these comparisons, such as the cosmetic ones, may seem frivilous, there is still something to be said for the eerie conclusion that they all culminate to. Has Microsoft done more with their year head start on Sony than Sega did last generation? Is XBOX Live the PSO of this generation? In 5 years will there even be an XBOX Live? Or will it do its stint in the limelight and fade into obscurity? Will Sony succeed again in misdirecting customers by dangling Metal Gear Solid 4 in front of them just like they did with Metal Gear Solid 2, when the game will not be available for years after PS3? Does Sony have anything other than new Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo and Final Fantasy titles to draw customers in? Honestly there are only a couple of PS3 launch games I might even care to play, and none that I'm actually excited about. Warhawk? Isn't that a remake of a PS1 game? You'd think if it had any potential it would have already had a sequel by now - but perhaps not. As far as game prospects, the Nintendo Wii has already blown its competition out of the water with new Zelda, Mario, Smash Bros, Metroid, Sonic and Final Fantasy titles, but at least the 360 had some great stuff lined up for launch (even if Oblivion was only a feint - at least I didn't have to wait a full 2 years after launch to play it). Will the promise of games like Gears of War, Mass Effect and Halo 3 keep gamers faithful to the 360, or will brand loyalty, Blu-ray playback, and backwards compatibility win the day again?
Microsoft had better just hope that history doesn't repeat itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)