My Vita stuff has started to show up; everything but the system itself at this point, which supposedly will land in my mailbox on Friday. So at this point I have the games, (WipEout and Uncharted) headset, memory card, and case. So, since I'm bored. I'll give a bit of an "impressions" on these items, some gut reactions if you will.
Memory card: Jesus these things are small. Seriously. Smaller than my pointer fingernail. I'm glad that these are apparently hard to put-in/take-out of the Vita itself, because I'm seriously afraid that I'd lose this if I had to take it out a lot. The packaging for it, however, is overkill. This damn near microscopic card is surrounded by almost 6 inches of dual layers of thin cardboard, along with a plastic insert to hold it in place. I'm sure that environmentalists will love that.
Case: I went with Sony's travel pouch, mainly because it looked pretty nice, had room for accessories, and was fairly cheap. The pictures, until recently, made it seem smaller than it actually is. Having the thing in my hands, it's almost more the size of a camera bag. Surprising, but not unpleasantly so. My only worry is that the system might shift around inside of it, but considering this case is mainly going to be sitting inside my laptop bag, it's not a huge concern.
Headset: Again, I went with the official Sony headset, mainly because I liked the design of them, and I've had good luck with Sony headphones in the past. Having used them for about a week and a half, I can say a few things. They sound surprisingly good; clear, sharp sound, decent base, no tinniness to them that I can detect. The cord is a decent length, and thick enough so it doesn't just wind up on it's own. The earpieces themselves feel pretty solid: hard plastic, metal ends. The PlayStation logo on the tip of the metal ends are shiny and cool-looking. The removable ear pieces, however, are a bit flawed. They come with three sizes: Large, Medium, and Small. The Large and Small sets fit those descriptions, for sure. The Medium, however, should be called Large Minus Two Millimeters. There's not a easily noticeable difference between Large and Medium, and since Large doesn't fit in my ear, and Small doesn't stay in either, Medium is my only route, and it's a bit tight. After about an hour or so, pain starts setting in. It's something I wouldn't have complained about so much, except I also use these headphones for listening to my iPhone, which I sometimes do for several contiguous hours.
Games: Obviously I haven't played these yet, so I can't speak to the quality of the games themselves. (The rest of the internet will fill that role nicely.) I can say, that opening the Amazon box, I was afraid that I hadn't received the games, but flyers about the games. The cases are small. I had seen comparison pictures online, of course, but it's hard to actually judge the size of something based on a picture. That being said, the case size surprised me; they're about 1.5 times the size of a deck of cards, width wise. The game cards themselves are pretty tiny as well; just a hair bigger on the surface than a SD card, but about half the thickness. Again, I'm afraid that I'd lose these, which is why I'm glad the case I bought has a few slots to hold game cards. This also goes to show that Sony really wants folk to buy games digitally; you can't trade in or sell a digital game, but at least you don't have to worry about losing a tiny card.
So, the waiting continues. Hopefully USPS is correct on that delivery date, but this being Alaska, one never knows. Here's hoping.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Thursday, February 2, 2012
School, Games, and SOPA
School is back. My sleep schedule, however, is fairly well screwed from a long night of trying not to vomit on my bed. So my brain is pretty well fried, going on about one and a half hours of sleep before I'm expected to be awake and functioning. So, yeah. Fuck. Classes this time around are mostly degree-related courses, so I'm looking forward to it and all, I just need to keep my brain in a semi-functioning state. This may go badly.
The holidays came and went, and thankfully I was able to procure enough in the way of cash and gift cards to fully pre-order a PS Vita, some games, accessories, and a copy of Star Wars The Old Republic. TOR is taking a good chunk of time, and for good reason: it's one of the most solo-friendly MMOs I've ever played. I'm all for gaming becoming more of a social gathering; it's a great step forward for the medium, and it can be a fun experience to partake in. However, I've never been a great participant in this phenomenon, either in a competitive or cooperative setting. I've always been a fairly solitary person, so interacting with other humans in general puts me on edge, either in person or using a virtual analogue. It's not just because I don't want someone on the other side of the country/planet to know my approximate skill level. (Though there is that.) Enjoying gaming is, for me, akin to enjoying porn. It's not something I'm ashamed of, just something I prefer to do by my lonesome. Also, headphones are a necessity.
SOPA is something else that came and went. Personally, I'm glad. It's a piece of legislation that would've affected most of the sites I visit on a daily basis, i.e. Facebook, Twitter, news sites, etc. It's amazing. After reading the bill, it's pretty obvious that it was some jackass in power wanting to make friends in higher places, particularly in Hollywood and record labels. Providing greedy people more ways to control the people who use their products is not the way to move an industry forward; providing great services and benefits to those customers is. Piracy is not an issue that's going to go away because you restrict access to a few sites; honestly, it's not going to go away completely, period. The way to fight piracy is to make buying these products easy and hassle-free, while providing great incentives for paying customers to continue paying. The main example of this strategy in action is iTunes. Love it or hate it, iTunes dealt a huge blow to music piracy, while giving customers an easy and cheap way to buy music they love, without having to go through a bunch of bullshit that record labels had been forcing people to do for quite a while. Bigwigs like movie studios and record labels had so much control up until a decade or so ago, they thought that they'd be able to sit back and let money flow into their coffers. They did this for so long, they didn't really notice (or didn't care) that the way their customers wanted to access and use the things they had legally purchased had changed. People want access to their stuff in more ways, some of which don't work in the bigwigs' financial interests. Their reaction? Evolve with their customers, as well as the medium that they represent? Not so much. Legislation and restriction methods (read: DRM) that basically punishes people who legally obtained their products? Now you're on to something, Kim Jong.
It may not be dead, but SOPA is definitely on life support. I was skeptical about the blackouts that Google and Reddit had announced, but when Wikipedia blacked out as well, my hopes raised significantly. Never underestimate the rage of millions of idiot college students trying to access Wikipedia to answer questions for their papers. When the bill gained about 18 opposing senators over the course of 3 days, I actually was hopeful. And when it was announced that the bill was put on an "indefinite hold," I actually stood up and cheered. Freedom for consumers won out, which is kind of a rarity in these days, sadly. This needs to happen more often.
Facebook
Twitter
The holidays came and went, and thankfully I was able to procure enough in the way of cash and gift cards to fully pre-order a PS Vita, some games, accessories, and a copy of Star Wars The Old Republic. TOR is taking a good chunk of time, and for good reason: it's one of the most solo-friendly MMOs I've ever played. I'm all for gaming becoming more of a social gathering; it's a great step forward for the medium, and it can be a fun experience to partake in. However, I've never been a great participant in this phenomenon, either in a competitive or cooperative setting. I've always been a fairly solitary person, so interacting with other humans in general puts me on edge, either in person or using a virtual analogue. It's not just because I don't want someone on the other side of the country/planet to know my approximate skill level. (Though there is that.) Enjoying gaming is, for me, akin to enjoying porn. It's not something I'm ashamed of, just something I prefer to do by my lonesome. Also, headphones are a necessity.
SOPA is something else that came and went. Personally, I'm glad. It's a piece of legislation that would've affected most of the sites I visit on a daily basis, i.e. Facebook, Twitter, news sites, etc. It's amazing. After reading the bill, it's pretty obvious that it was some jackass in power wanting to make friends in higher places, particularly in Hollywood and record labels. Providing greedy people more ways to control the people who use their products is not the way to move an industry forward; providing great services and benefits to those customers is. Piracy is not an issue that's going to go away because you restrict access to a few sites; honestly, it's not going to go away completely, period. The way to fight piracy is to make buying these products easy and hassle-free, while providing great incentives for paying customers to continue paying. The main example of this strategy in action is iTunes. Love it or hate it, iTunes dealt a huge blow to music piracy, while giving customers an easy and cheap way to buy music they love, without having to go through a bunch of bullshit that record labels had been forcing people to do for quite a while. Bigwigs like movie studios and record labels had so much control up until a decade or so ago, they thought that they'd be able to sit back and let money flow into their coffers. They did this for so long, they didn't really notice (or didn't care) that the way their customers wanted to access and use the things they had legally purchased had changed. People want access to their stuff in more ways, some of which don't work in the bigwigs' financial interests. Their reaction? Evolve with their customers, as well as the medium that they represent? Not so much. Legislation and restriction methods (read: DRM) that basically punishes people who legally obtained their products? Now you're on to something, Kim Jong.
It may not be dead, but SOPA is definitely on life support. I was skeptical about the blackouts that Google and Reddit had announced, but when Wikipedia blacked out as well, my hopes raised significantly. Never underestimate the rage of millions of idiot college students trying to access Wikipedia to answer questions for their papers. When the bill gained about 18 opposing senators over the course of 3 days, I actually was hopeful. And when it was announced that the bill was put on an "indefinite hold," I actually stood up and cheered. Freedom for consumers won out, which is kind of a rarity in these days, sadly. This needs to happen more often.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Re-Vita-lized!
So despite somewhat pricey memory cards, backwards compatibility being a little late, game sharing restrictions, UMD passports, and other weird things, I still really want a PlayStation Vita. Is it because I'm an addict who wants some form of game with me wherever I go? Not really, or, at least, not entirely. Is it because I'm a Sony "fanboy?" I wouldn't say that, though I do like their gaming hardware in general, faults and all, and will usually grab one of Sony's offerings rather than Microsoft's or Nintendo's.
I think part of it might be because I'm a fan of mobile hardware in general. Ever since I was a young'n, I found myself lusting over laptops, rather than the more powerful desktop counterparts. This was around the time when laptops were rapidly approaching becoming equal to desktops in terms of raw power, but it was also when I started to notice something: mobile devices tend to innovate more than desktops or set-top boxes. It started with laptops: getting more powerful, sure, (not to mention smaller) but also adding things like hot-swappable drives, (long before things like USB came along) interchangeable covers, and built-in webcams. Then PDAs came along: Palm did a pretty good job of moving them along, but that market fizzled out not long before smartphones (the iPhone in particular) took off like so many pissed off avians.
Gaming portables haven't had much in the way of innovation, save for the last 5 years or so. Game Boy started it, really, as the one of the first to have interchangeable cartridges for each game. Then the various iterations of that system (Color, Advance, SP, Micro) as well as the various copycats (Game Gear, Lynx, Wonderswan, and many others) didn't really change the formula, and as games a a whole evolved into more mature and cinematic experiences, portable gaming seemed more or less stuck in the same place, as kid stuff. Along came the Nintendo DS, and alongside that, the PlayStation Portable, or PSP. Both innovated in different ways: the DS used dual screens and a limited touch-screen capacity to make games more "friendly" and "interactive" to non-gamers, but the system and it's tricks always seemed way too "gimmicky" to me, which turned me off of it initially. (I did own an iteration of it later, as it did eventually get a few decent games on it, but it is no longer part of my collection.) The PSP, however, was much more graphically powerful, could play music and video, surf the internet, read digital comics, download podcasts, and more. (Granted a few of these features were added months or even years later.) It was designed to be a new generation of device. Sony even called it "the new Walkman" at some point. It could deliver console quality gaming (or close to it at the time) in the palm of your hand. Literally.
So, why did the DS become so damn popular? It's hard to say, but I'd bet that it had to do with the PSP coming off as a bit of a split personality. It could do so many different things, that what it actually was as a device was a tough question to answer. Was it a gaming device? Yes, but it was lacking a couple things, hardware wise, that would've made the games it delivered more, well, payable and fun. (One analog stick is so 2001.) Was it an MP3 player? Yes, but it wasn't better than an iPod, and didn't have an easy way to organize/import music onto it. (Such as iTunes.) Was it a web browser? Yes, but a crappy one, limited by the system's memory which was pretty low to begin with. And oh, god, did the pirates go after that system with everything they had. So, in the long run, it really had it's work cut out for it, and despite some great games made for it, the system never really got a foothold in the collective minds of gamers.
The Vita seems to recognize this, and learn from Sony's past mistakes. In the wake of Nintendo's 3DS flopping, the iPhone/App Store making portable games something completely different in the public mind, and Sony's own struggles with the PS3 launch, the Vita is in a position to take aspects of iPhone gaming and it's own technological and gaming prowess and make something truly unique. A touch screen, a touch pad on the back, front and rear cameras, motion sensors, WI-Fi, GPS, 3G, (if you so choose) a high-resolution OLED screen, dual analog sticks, and games that already span from unique, casual, touch friendly stuff (Sound Shapes, Escape Plan, Little Deviants) to stuff aimed at more hardcore, traditional gamers. (Uncharted, Resistance, Ruin) And this is all before the system is actually out. The next year or so has a long list of incoming games for the device that I not only want, but I believe others of all kinds and creeds would enjoy as well.
There's a lot of potential in the Vita, more than there is in the 3DS, in my opinion, and that's part of what draws me to it. The potential in both the hardware and software is there to not only bring great times with you wherever you go, but to also share those times with your friends, whether they're with you or not. Another part of the Vita's appeal is, as I mentioned earlier, the games. The 3DS has maybe 4 or 5 games I'd ever play on it. Ever. I seem to have this problem with a lot of Nintendo's recent work, alongside the aforementioned "gimmicky" nature of their new direction. The Vita, on the other hand, has at least 10 or 12 I'd buy on release day, and that's just the stuff in the next year. The Vita isn't without problems, at least in terms of the things I'd need to make it function properly (namely a memory card, as mentioned earlier) but they are something I can easily overlook as growing pains or early adopter syndrome.
So, a preorder is at the top of my wishlist this year. It doesn't hit the states till February, but a fully paid preorder would make an excellent Jesus-Birthday gift. The dilemma I had was how to preorder it. Do I go with the First Edition Bundle, and get a game I'm not super interested in, a smallish memory card, and a system with a feature I don't really need (3G)? Or do I make a custom bundle, say with the WI-Fi only model, Uncharted, a bigger memory card, and a kit of accessories? Turns out the latter option is only $10 more than the official bundle. Sold.
I think part of it might be because I'm a fan of mobile hardware in general. Ever since I was a young'n, I found myself lusting over laptops, rather than the more powerful desktop counterparts. This was around the time when laptops were rapidly approaching becoming equal to desktops in terms of raw power, but it was also when I started to notice something: mobile devices tend to innovate more than desktops or set-top boxes. It started with laptops: getting more powerful, sure, (not to mention smaller) but also adding things like hot-swappable drives, (long before things like USB came along) interchangeable covers, and built-in webcams. Then PDAs came along: Palm did a pretty good job of moving them along, but that market fizzled out not long before smartphones (the iPhone in particular) took off like so many pissed off avians.
Gaming portables haven't had much in the way of innovation, save for the last 5 years or so. Game Boy started it, really, as the one of the first to have interchangeable cartridges for each game. Then the various iterations of that system (Color, Advance, SP, Micro) as well as the various copycats (Game Gear, Lynx, Wonderswan, and many others) didn't really change the formula, and as games a a whole evolved into more mature and cinematic experiences, portable gaming seemed more or less stuck in the same place, as kid stuff. Along came the Nintendo DS, and alongside that, the PlayStation Portable, or PSP. Both innovated in different ways: the DS used dual screens and a limited touch-screen capacity to make games more "friendly" and "interactive" to non-gamers, but the system and it's tricks always seemed way too "gimmicky" to me, which turned me off of it initially. (I did own an iteration of it later, as it did eventually get a few decent games on it, but it is no longer part of my collection.) The PSP, however, was much more graphically powerful, could play music and video, surf the internet, read digital comics, download podcasts, and more. (Granted a few of these features were added months or even years later.) It was designed to be a new generation of device. Sony even called it "the new Walkman" at some point. It could deliver console quality gaming (or close to it at the time) in the palm of your hand. Literally.
So, why did the DS become so damn popular? It's hard to say, but I'd bet that it had to do with the PSP coming off as a bit of a split personality. It could do so many different things, that what it actually was as a device was a tough question to answer. Was it a gaming device? Yes, but it was lacking a couple things, hardware wise, that would've made the games it delivered more, well, payable and fun. (One analog stick is so 2001.) Was it an MP3 player? Yes, but it wasn't better than an iPod, and didn't have an easy way to organize/import music onto it. (Such as iTunes.) Was it a web browser? Yes, but a crappy one, limited by the system's memory which was pretty low to begin with. And oh, god, did the pirates go after that system with everything they had. So, in the long run, it really had it's work cut out for it, and despite some great games made for it, the system never really got a foothold in the collective minds of gamers.
The Vita seems to recognize this, and learn from Sony's past mistakes. In the wake of Nintendo's 3DS flopping, the iPhone/App Store making portable games something completely different in the public mind, and Sony's own struggles with the PS3 launch, the Vita is in a position to take aspects of iPhone gaming and it's own technological and gaming prowess and make something truly unique. A touch screen, a touch pad on the back, front and rear cameras, motion sensors, WI-Fi, GPS, 3G, (if you so choose) a high-resolution OLED screen, dual analog sticks, and games that already span from unique, casual, touch friendly stuff (Sound Shapes, Escape Plan, Little Deviants) to stuff aimed at more hardcore, traditional gamers. (Uncharted, Resistance, Ruin) And this is all before the system is actually out. The next year or so has a long list of incoming games for the device that I not only want, but I believe others of all kinds and creeds would enjoy as well.
There's a lot of potential in the Vita, more than there is in the 3DS, in my opinion, and that's part of what draws me to it. The potential in both the hardware and software is there to not only bring great times with you wherever you go, but to also share those times with your friends, whether they're with you or not. Another part of the Vita's appeal is, as I mentioned earlier, the games. The 3DS has maybe 4 or 5 games I'd ever play on it. Ever. I seem to have this problem with a lot of Nintendo's recent work, alongside the aforementioned "gimmicky" nature of their new direction. The Vita, on the other hand, has at least 10 or 12 I'd buy on release day, and that's just the stuff in the next year. The Vita isn't without problems, at least in terms of the things I'd need to make it function properly (namely a memory card, as mentioned earlier) but they are something I can easily overlook as growing pains or early adopter syndrome.
So, a preorder is at the top of my wishlist this year. It doesn't hit the states till February, but a fully paid preorder would make an excellent Jesus-Birthday gift. The dilemma I had was how to preorder it. Do I go with the First Edition Bundle, and get a game I'm not super interested in, a smallish memory card, and a system with a feature I don't really need (3G)? Or do I make a custom bundle, say with the WI-Fi only model, Uncharted, a bigger memory card, and a kit of accessories? Turns out the latter option is only $10 more than the official bundle. Sold.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
School, gaming, and, uh, things?
Dead island is a thing, certainly worth playing, just don't go into it expecting more than it is. It's a solid, if flawed, Borderlands/Fallout 3 clone with zombies. I knew this months ago when the first real footage started coming out. Looking at the forums, I'm surprised that there are still people either surprised or pissed that it wasn't something else; something completely different from what EVERYTHING has been saying. If you want to spend $50-$60 dollars on something without knowing what exactly it is, then you need to do one of two things: get over it, or stop gaming altogether. This also applies to people complaining about Human Revolution, saying that it was "supposed" to be a "sci-fi" Call of Duty. (Protip: NO IT FUCKING WASN'T.) read up on your hobbies people, otherwise they don't mean anything to you and you should stop.
A couple weeks into school, getting back into the rhythm of things. As Most of my classes are things I care about (programming, networking, and discovering Linux) it hasn't been too bad, though my Anthropology class might make my brain commit brain-icide. I'm not sure if it's the professor (who's a nice guy but might be trying too hard) or the subject matter itself, but it's hard to keep my focus in class, especially since the subject (at least the way it's being presented) has a lot rooted in history and historical figures. History has never been my subject; I'm more for looking forward and inward rather than backwards. Does that make me a futurist? I dunno. Nor do I really care. It's a requirement though, so I'm going to attempt to slough through it.
One thing holding me back a bit is the lack of books. They've been ordered, and should be here tomorrow or early this week, so it's cutting it a little close for some of my assignment's due dates. I'm not hugely worried; I tend to work well under pressure, and most of my professors have either delayed or extended the due dates for most of the assignments, as it seems a lot of the required books went on back order. If I had an iPad it'd be easier, sadly, this is not the case. FOR NOW.
A couple weeks into school, getting back into the rhythm of things. As Most of my classes are things I care about (programming, networking, and discovering Linux) it hasn't been too bad, though my Anthropology class might make my brain commit brain-icide. I'm not sure if it's the professor (who's a nice guy but might be trying too hard) or the subject matter itself, but it's hard to keep my focus in class, especially since the subject (at least the way it's being presented) has a lot rooted in history and historical figures. History has never been my subject; I'm more for looking forward and inward rather than backwards. Does that make me a futurist? I dunno. Nor do I really care. It's a requirement though, so I'm going to attempt to slough through it.
One thing holding me back a bit is the lack of books. They've been ordered, and should be here tomorrow or early this week, so it's cutting it a little close for some of my assignment's due dates. I'm not hugely worried; I tend to work well under pressure, and most of my professors have either delayed or extended the due dates for most of the assignments, as it seems a lot of the required books went on back order. If I had an iPad it'd be easier, sadly, this is not the case. FOR NOW.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Rebooting...
Seems Superman is getting rebooted in more ways than one. Both the comic and movie sides of the character are getting a makeover, and not just in looks. Granted, there's not much known about the movie version, as it is still filming, but the DCnU thing has been going around for a while now, and it seems to me that it's both interesting and counter-intuitive. A few points on the new (comic-based) Superman:
I'm having trouble figuring why, besides the obvious "attracting new readers" angle that's so popular these days. It's a drastic move, and I'm not sure it'll keep some of the most important readers: those who have been reading for years already. Granted, I haven't read any of these new "#1" issues, but I don't know if I want to; if the history of these storied characters is of little consequence to the creators, I'm having trouble seeing how the future would be any more so.
New Costume - There are a couple different versions going around, I guess since the two main series take place in different times (again, why?) but it basically comes down to either Supes in bluejeans and a short-sleeved version of the "traditional" suit, or the more regal armor-looking suit. Neither of these ideas are bad, really, they both make sense in a certain way based on the character, but I'm not sure why they needed to be done. Kevin Smith said it best: "The two more iconic things about Superman are the suit and the flying." The flying stays, of course, but why does the suit have to change? It's been around in one form or another for over 70 years. (Minus the couple years of "electro-Supes," but we don't talk about that.) Granted, they're not hugely drastic changes (red, blue, big "S" on the chest, cape, etc.) and, at least for me, it's not as concerning as other things on this list, but it does set a bit of further precedent of "Change is Good," when that's not true for some things, Superman included.
More Kryptonian - I've read in a few different places that he's being written for this "reboot" as being "more alien than human." So, how do you get him to relate to the (mostly) human audience you're trying to convince to read these new books? Kids can't look up to someone they don't understand, and adults (or adult-ish-es) aren't going to buy a book about a guy they don't like or relate to. Part of the magic of Superman (and there's a whole 10 years of television to support this) is that despite the pressures and conflicting emotions and responsibilities that he has, both about himself and the world around him, he's going to react as a good-natured human man is going to. There's a reason he was the leader of the Justice League for so long: he does seem to almost instinctively know the difference between right and wrong, and will always try to find a solution that works for everyone. Naieve? Possibly, but that's also why Batman's his best friend. It's called "counter-balancing." The "traditional" vision of Superman was already paying tribute to his heritage; hell the suit was made of his blankets from his ship, the Fortress of Solitude was essentially a "gift" from his father Jor-El, and the "S" was his Kryptonian family crest. Do we really need to mess with his brain, too?
Single & Orphaned - These might be the things that make me not want to buy these books. No longer married to Lois, and both parents are dead (again). So, once again, the things that tie him to Earth, emotionally at least,
are just gone. I'm having trouble figuring why, besides the obvious "attracting new readers" angle that's so popular these days. It's a drastic move, and I'm not sure it'll keep some of the most important readers: those who have been reading for years already. Granted, I haven't read any of these new "#1" issues, but I don't know if I want to; if the history of these storied characters is of little consequence to the creators, I'm having trouble seeing how the future would be any more so.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
TF2 thoughts
Since Team Fortress 2 went Free T. o Play a few weeks ago, more of my friends have gotten in on the action, which oddly enough, I never really got into. I bought it as part of the Orange Box a few years ago, packaged with stuff I Actually Wanted To Play: Portal and the Half-Life 2 games. I played it for about an hour and left it be. I allowed a small part of my brain to follow how it was coming along, in terms of updates and features being added and such. I was intrigued when microtransactions got added, and had an inkling that it would more than likely be popular enough to sustain it for a long time, maybe even make the game itself free. But for a while all I heard were complaints about the store overcharging for "hats," whatever that meant. (Turns out, they actually meant hats.)
So when the good folks at Valve released it for free (causing yet another mini-backlash, but whatever) it meant that a) my friends who were into that sort of thing would be able to play, giving me a reason to jump in, and b) the surge of new players would cause consternation (to put it mildly) among the "hardcore" players. Which is to be expected. Nerds can be very protective when they think they've found something special, especially when that thing can be affected by the other people enjoying it. So as such, the amount of maliciousness coming from these people is astounding: mods that kick F2P accounts off servers, experienced players screaming (over both voice and text chat) at newer players over every little mistake, alongside the usual name calling and such that usually goes on in games like this. (You know, ones that are connected to the internet.) Myself and my friends have been lucky enough to find a few servers where this behavior is pretty minimized, and folk are actually willing to help newer players learn the ropes, such as using the "mentor" function that the game created explicitly for this purpose.
That being said, we've had to quit out of servers on numerous occasions because of the crass and stupid behavior of some of the more "hardcore" folk. I put quotes around that because I'm sure that the number of hours and achievements they've racked up make them feel superior, but the fact is that I don't really care. I'm playing this game to have a good time, not get screamed at by a guy who puts more hours per day into this than he does sleeping. I'm not "hardcore" by any real stretch of the imagination; I like games in general, but playing them should not be like a job. It's the same reason I can't really get into MMOs; once I feel like a game requires my constant attention to be worthwhile, at least mechanically, then it stops being fun, and the point is lost.
The game is great, don't get me wrong, and I can see myself playing it for a good long time. I recommend it to everyone, especially since it's free, and can run on a pretty wide range of machines, Macs included. I would recommend hitting the offline "practice" mode first, though, just to get the hang of the various classes and such. Also, PC Gamer is doing a big "Beginner's Guide" for the game, with each class getting it's own write-up with basic and advanced strategies, recommended items to get, and so on.
So when the good folks at Valve released it for free (causing yet another mini-backlash, but whatever) it meant that a) my friends who were into that sort of thing would be able to play, giving me a reason to jump in, and b) the surge of new players would cause consternation (to put it mildly) among the "hardcore" players. Which is to be expected. Nerds can be very protective when they think they've found something special, especially when that thing can be affected by the other people enjoying it. So as such, the amount of maliciousness coming from these people is astounding: mods that kick F2P accounts off servers, experienced players screaming (over both voice and text chat) at newer players over every little mistake, alongside the usual name calling and such that usually goes on in games like this. (You know, ones that are connected to the internet.) Myself and my friends have been lucky enough to find a few servers where this behavior is pretty minimized, and folk are actually willing to help newer players learn the ropes, such as using the "mentor" function that the game created explicitly for this purpose.
That being said, we've had to quit out of servers on numerous occasions because of the crass and stupid behavior of some of the more "hardcore" folk. I put quotes around that because I'm sure that the number of hours and achievements they've racked up make them feel superior, but the fact is that I don't really care. I'm playing this game to have a good time, not get screamed at by a guy who puts more hours per day into this than he does sleeping. I'm not "hardcore" by any real stretch of the imagination; I like games in general, but playing them should not be like a job. It's the same reason I can't really get into MMOs; once I feel like a game requires my constant attention to be worthwhile, at least mechanically, then it stops being fun, and the point is lost.
The game is great, don't get me wrong, and I can see myself playing it for a good long time. I recommend it to everyone, especially since it's free, and can run on a pretty wide range of machines, Macs included. I would recommend hitting the offline "practice" mode first, though, just to get the hang of the various classes and such. Also, PC Gamer is doing a big "Beginner's Guide" for the game, with each class getting it's own write-up with basic and advanced strategies, recommended items to get, and so on.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Rango Was Pretty Good (or, My Love and Hate Relationship with Movie Trailers)
I got a chance to view (don't ask how) the "extended" version of Rango recently, and a couple things popped into my mind while I was watching it: first, that the trailers for this movies made it look really stupid; kid stuff, but stupid kid stuff. Second, that this flick is on par with a lot of Joss Whedon's stuff, in as much as it tells multiple types of stories without beating you over the head with them, using a lot of metaphor and imagination that even makes the silly stuff mean more than it seems to at first glance. It was a shock and surprise, to say the least. As previously mentioned, the trailers that i saw for this movie made it look supper-kiddie-Cars-type stupid, and despite the talent behind the scenes, I mentally brushed it aside. The difference between the trailer and the actual movie were night and day.
Don't get me wrong, I do honestly think that trailers can be works of art in and of themselves. Teasers in particular, which have to reveal (or, you know, tease) just enough information to build excitement with little to nothing in terms of confirmed or completed footage, fall into this line of thinking for me. I do tend to forget that trailers in general are also (read: primarily) marketing tools, designed to get as many folks into the theater as possible. So many is a time that trailers will mislead an audience into thinking that their movie is something that it's not. An example of this is the great movie Man of the Year, starring Robin Williams. A wonderful movie, but watching the trailers you'd think it was a screwball comedy about a comedian being elected president. The truth is that, while that is indeed a plot element of this movie, it barely covers a third of the entire concept, which involves heavy drama about political manipulation and self-worth. It is, in fact, primarily a drama, or I suppose dramedy would be a closer term to the truth. Why did the trailers misrepresent the movie like this, especially when it was a great flick to begin with? Again, we come to the answer of marketing people thinking they know what America wants to see on the big screen.
A similar situation came up with X-Men: The Last Stand. The trailers not only showed scenes, effects and stunts that were drastically changed in the final film (and not for the better) it even showed performances by the actors that were completely different in the final film (again, not for the better). The prime example of this is Ian McKellen's speech (if you could call it that) to the Brotherhood in the woods, convincing them to join his cause. In the trailer, he speaks with great emotion and weight, building energy up, ending with a flourish that honestly brought Malcolm X to mind, which is appropriate, considering that's who that character is based on. In the final film however, this same speech is given with almost no emotion at all, almost as if he's reading it off of a newspaper or a goddamn cereal box. I understand a director asking an actor to give multiple versions of a speech or line, it can help find character moments that you wouldn't find any other way. But when a revolutionary is giving a speech that brings up mental images of Hitler in one take, and a bored husband at the breakfast table in another, you go with the first take.
Anybody else have any instances of this? Leave a comment, either here or on my Facebook page.
Don't get me wrong, I do honestly think that trailers can be works of art in and of themselves. Teasers in particular, which have to reveal (or, you know, tease) just enough information to build excitement with little to nothing in terms of confirmed or completed footage, fall into this line of thinking for me. I do tend to forget that trailers in general are also (read: primarily) marketing tools, designed to get as many folks into the theater as possible. So many is a time that trailers will mislead an audience into thinking that their movie is something that it's not. An example of this is the great movie Man of the Year, starring Robin Williams. A wonderful movie, but watching the trailers you'd think it was a screwball comedy about a comedian being elected president. The truth is that, while that is indeed a plot element of this movie, it barely covers a third of the entire concept, which involves heavy drama about political manipulation and self-worth. It is, in fact, primarily a drama, or I suppose dramedy would be a closer term to the truth. Why did the trailers misrepresent the movie like this, especially when it was a great flick to begin with? Again, we come to the answer of marketing people thinking they know what America wants to see on the big screen.
A similar situation came up with X-Men: The Last Stand. The trailers not only showed scenes, effects and stunts that were drastically changed in the final film (and not for the better) it even showed performances by the actors that were completely different in the final film (again, not for the better). The prime example of this is Ian McKellen's speech (if you could call it that) to the Brotherhood in the woods, convincing them to join his cause. In the trailer, he speaks with great emotion and weight, building energy up, ending with a flourish that honestly brought Malcolm X to mind, which is appropriate, considering that's who that character is based on. In the final film however, this same speech is given with almost no emotion at all, almost as if he's reading it off of a newspaper or a goddamn cereal box. I understand a director asking an actor to give multiple versions of a speech or line, it can help find character moments that you wouldn't find any other way. But when a revolutionary is giving a speech that brings up mental images of Hitler in one take, and a bored husband at the breakfast table in another, you go with the first take.
Anybody else have any instances of this? Leave a comment, either here or on my Facebook page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)