Wow, so on June 5th, 2009, I wrote about how the Wii would revolutionize gaming.
I... didn't expect to be both right and terribly wrong in the same post.
So, yes, the Wii did bring to the forefront the change of how games were being controlled, marketed and made. However, it didn't do it for the better. At all. I mean really, this is ridiculous.
The PS3 Wiimote, wait, sorry, the Move, is about the only improvement I've seen, and only because it has better motion control. And that's still not that great. One of the biggest applications I've seen for the Move was to mount it in a gun frame... and use it like a light gun circa 1998. That's not innovation, that's... well, retrovation! That's not a word but it should be.
The XBox's "Project Natal"-turned-you-are-the-controller-Kinect is worse by light years. I thought the Wii had tons of shovelware. I think the entire product line for the Kinect is nothing but tech demos and terrible ideas. Yea, it's cool to gesture imperiously at your XBox to navigate menus, or command it to bring up a movie. But how are these applications going to work for gaming?
Quick answer: They don't.
Now, it's not because they couldn't. The Move has a better shot at integration into a more hardcore game simply because it can still be used as a controller. In that way, you can to the light gun rig, or maybe some kind of light saber thing... you get the idea. You can use the gesturing as a part of the action, while leaving some of the control to be done via good old button mashing.
See, Sony, and Microsoft went totally the wrong way. They tossed aside their elegant controllers in favour of gimicks and cheap tricks that are the hallmarks of why the Wii has never been taken seriously as a hard core console, and used them exactly like Nintendo did. That's a really bad move, and one they should stop. Like yesterday.
In my original post, I did state how low the buy-in was for the Wii, allowing anyone able to wiggle the controller to play a game. However, one of the really nice things is that after the initial learning curve, there are other games like Goldeneye and Legend of Zelda, that are more controller-oriented and will slowly get a player accustomed to analog sticks and button mashing.
If Sony and Microsoft wanted to improve on the model, they should have incorporated their respective controllers with the motion controls to enhance the experience. Instead, the motion controls are the only experience, and will eventually fall into disuse to be forgotten.
Let's hope with the new system from Nintendo and its LCD screen that they will not just saddle us with drawing tablets or some other ridiculous item to toss on the plastic junk pile...
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Monday, December 12, 2011
Did Jonah lie? Does it really matter?
Pretty fucking heartbreaking, isn't it?
A poor kid, near the end of his rope, hanging on by a thread but determined to struggle forward. It's brutal, raw, thought-provoking and heart-wrenching to watch, but ends with a hopeful message for any one else in this situation.
Later on, he did post another video, one where he appears much happier. So immediately, the Internet embraced his success story... right?
Um, no.
Instead, Jonah Mowry has become a target of harsh comments and accusations that he lied to gain attention and fame on the Internet. You can debate whether or not this is real or fake. You can doubt his pain if you want. But can you doubt his impact?
You see, his one video has become a rallying point for so many who have been bullied in the past, and are being bullied now. If his "lie" saved one life, then it's beyond worth any price. So far, Jonah defends his video, and states that it was made during a dark time in his life, and that it's 100% genuine.
For me, I don't care.
All I care about is that instead of reacting to yet another senseless suicide of a teenager due to their soul being crushed under the weight of bullying, we're talking about how a video is providing hope to others, and getting the discussion of bullying in schools to the forefront without some accompanying tragedy.
You see, we need to stop bullying, plain and simple. The old days where words could not hurt are gone. The relentlessness of today's Internet-addicted teenage culture leads them to take much more drastic steps to vent hate onto someone. And mob mentality rules at that point. Look at the comments on the video above. Really look at them. If even 1% of what he said was true, look at all the hate he now would endure for daring to speak up, even if at some point his life got better.
You know, honestly, I was never one of those people who said that TV, games, or the Internet is desensitizing people. But seeing things like this is changing my mind. Rapidly.
The suicide rate in teens is horrific globally (over 300,000 per this article). Now, keeping in mind that, as of right now, the #2 cause of death in Canada is for teens is suicide. 13 of every 100,000 teens have taken their own lives. So how much of that over 300,000 deaths globally are the problem that lives in your back yard.
Something horrible has grown in our own country. Something has been left to fester and now rots the morals and sympathies of today's youth. Be it absentee or poor parenting, a constant barrage of death and destruction on TV, the Internet or in games, or some other cause altogether, I can tell you this: Of all these things, the Internet is the one that glorifies bullying beyond any other media.
Trolling people is considered normal now. Spewing hate you would never say to someone's face is accepted in text. Websites base their entire being around harassed and attacking others, both online and in real life. Society needs to change. We need to relearn respect for one another, the value of one another's lives. This needs to end, and soon.
This is why I did all I could to stop bulling online. People seem to see it as harmless. But it teaches behavior to the young and impressionable. It rewards them for hating others, and leads them to perform bigger and grander acts of hatred. This is scarring our nation, our world. We need to put an end to it once and for all, to stand up against bullying, anywhere it happens, and punish those who think they are justified to act as though others are their personal punching bags.
Do your part, and I'll do mine. We can change the world, we just have to be willing to try.
Friday, December 9, 2011
WTFriday?
I know tons of websites have funny pictures, but these are specifically taken by me. Here's an old one to start off with. I wonder who won it!
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
How Minecraft will change gaming forever (maybe...)
When I was a kid, I was lucky enough to own an Atari 2600 (and a knock-off Radio Shack gaming system, but that's beside the point). Back then, there were no real franchise titles. It was console gaming's infancy still, and so the market was widely open for plenty of game ideas.
Of course, the technology was such that the variety of those early days was rather limited.
It's a shame that systems like the 360 and PS3 (hell even the Wii) weren't around at that time. You see, this was before there was an industry where new ideas are not only frowned on, but are viciously beaten into submission and reforged into clones of the latest and greatest.
Of course, there's still some really interesting games out there. Spelunky, I Wanna Be the Guy, Super Meatboy and others are still out there, delving into hardcore gaming with a touch of retro flavour. But these are small splashes in a very, very big pond.
One game, however, has done more than create ripples. It's created a tidal wave, one is just cresting before the shore of mainstream gaming. And that tidal wave is ridden not by some AAA studio. It's not directed by someone with a storied history of successful titles. Most shocking of all, it doesn't feature highly detailed graphics or some massive story. Instead, it's about mining, wandering, and making your own fun in a three-dimensional world populated by architecture you'd expect in a two-dimensional game. Yup, this wave is Minecraft, and it's about to rock the development world forever, if it hasn't already.
Unless you have been living under a rock for the past couple years, you've seen and heard about this game. Hell, if you're reading this and didn't wind up here via some random search, you've likely seen me playing this game and play it yourself!
But what does this game mean on the grander scale?
Perhaps nothing. But given that this game made most of its money during, not after, it development. Consider that, as an indie game with no previous titles or backing from advertisement giants, it has sold in excess of 4 million units to date. Sure, compared to Call of Duty's latest entry, Modern Warfare 3, selling 6.5 million units on its first day, it seems small. But consider that for the past 2 years, Infinity Ward made nothing from its game, whereas Minecraft continuously raked in cash as Notch and his team churned away at it. And that's not mentioning the sheer amount of money Activision used to advertise their game, where Notch has pretty much relied on the game's community to get the word out. The game even had a convention based around it!
If publishers don't learn the lesson, perhaps the indie crowd will, and may already have. This year's Humble bundle featured a game in Alpha release. I'm sure others are looking at the model created by Notch with hopeful eyes that they can duplicate it. As it stands, another game, Amnesia: the Dark Descent, had a similar viral rise to fame by people doing Let's Play's of the game.
Right now, if they are wise, the publishers are thinking how this model could help them launch a game a year or more before it's ready, and use the fans that pick it up on the cheap as thousands of testers and sounding boards for new game ideas. As many have said, Notch has adapted items modders have made into the game before (A very Valve move to pull). That's not to mention getting instant feedback on whether or not a feature is popular.
Perhaps in a few years, the next Call of Duty will launch, say, in a barebones multiplayer with only two or three maps, and you can buy it for only 20 dollars, then ride out the entire development cycle as you see it built into the next monster shooter. OK, maybe not, but it a great model for untested ideas. Fund them to Alpha, then sell it and see how it goes. Maybe one day the gaming market will get much broader!
Of course, the technology was such that the variety of those early days was rather limited.
It's a shame that systems like the 360 and PS3 (hell even the Wii) weren't around at that time. You see, this was before there was an industry where new ideas are not only frowned on, but are viciously beaten into submission and reforged into clones of the latest and greatest.
Of course, there's still some really interesting games out there. Spelunky, I Wanna Be the Guy, Super Meatboy and others are still out there, delving into hardcore gaming with a touch of retro flavour. But these are small splashes in a very, very big pond.
One game, however, has done more than create ripples. It's created a tidal wave, one is just cresting before the shore of mainstream gaming. And that tidal wave is ridden not by some AAA studio. It's not directed by someone with a storied history of successful titles. Most shocking of all, it doesn't feature highly detailed graphics or some massive story. Instead, it's about mining, wandering, and making your own fun in a three-dimensional world populated by architecture you'd expect in a two-dimensional game. Yup, this wave is Minecraft, and it's about to rock the development world forever, if it hasn't already.
Unless you have been living under a rock for the past couple years, you've seen and heard about this game. Hell, if you're reading this and didn't wind up here via some random search, you've likely seen me playing this game and play it yourself!
But what does this game mean on the grander scale?
Perhaps nothing. But given that this game made most of its money during, not after, it development. Consider that, as an indie game with no previous titles or backing from advertisement giants, it has sold in excess of 4 million units to date. Sure, compared to Call of Duty's latest entry, Modern Warfare 3, selling 6.5 million units on its first day, it seems small. But consider that for the past 2 years, Infinity Ward made nothing from its game, whereas Minecraft continuously raked in cash as Notch and his team churned away at it. And that's not mentioning the sheer amount of money Activision used to advertise their game, where Notch has pretty much relied on the game's community to get the word out. The game even had a convention based around it!
If publishers don't learn the lesson, perhaps the indie crowd will, and may already have. This year's Humble bundle featured a game in Alpha release. I'm sure others are looking at the model created by Notch with hopeful eyes that they can duplicate it. As it stands, another game, Amnesia: the Dark Descent, had a similar viral rise to fame by people doing Let's Play's of the game.
Right now, if they are wise, the publishers are thinking how this model could help them launch a game a year or more before it's ready, and use the fans that pick it up on the cheap as thousands of testers and sounding boards for new game ideas. As many have said, Notch has adapted items modders have made into the game before (A very Valve move to pull). That's not to mention getting instant feedback on whether or not a feature is popular.
Perhaps in a few years, the next Call of Duty will launch, say, in a barebones multiplayer with only two or three maps, and you can buy it for only 20 dollars, then ride out the entire development cycle as you see it built into the next monster shooter. OK, maybe not, but it a great model for untested ideas. Fund them to Alpha, then sell it and see how it goes. Maybe one day the gaming market will get much broader!
Monday, December 5, 2011
My provincial government is full of crack heads...
The Ottawa Citizen reported that half of all crack users are tossing their city-provided crack pipes into the garbage.
There are so many things wrong with the above statement that it's hard to know where to start.
Each year, the Province of Ontario wastes $300,000 taxpayer dollars on an estimated 5,000 crack users in the Ottawa area to provide them with glass tubes in order for them to smoke crack without the risk of catching HIV/Hepatitis C. In what universe is this justifiable? Why are we, as a province wasting money on supporting the habit of these users instead of, say, helping break their addiction?!?
Yes, yes, I get the liberal heart bleeding nonsense that we want to stop them from being sick so that, just in case they clean up on their own, they return to society as a healthy, productive member of society instead of being infected with some fatal disease. Here's the thing: the bulk of the users, according to the article, are single, disabled men. Right, so they will likely not hold a lot of jobs a recovering crack addict would be likely to get. And, depending on their disability, they may not even be able to pass on a sexually transmitted disease easily.
So why are we just facilitating these people to continue their miserable existence as a drug-addicted, single, disabled but otherwise healthy lifestyle?!?
Sure, infection rates will go back up to the 64-some-percent they were, but the rates are still at 49%... So this very expensive plan doesn't seem to be doing much more than adding contaminated shards of glass to our sewers, streets, parks and landfills. What we need is a treatment program, funded by that $300,000 a year. It may only help a handful at a time, but once their addiction is broken, they are done, finished, over with! Instead we continue to allow people to get high on the government's money.
The only reason, aside from blatant government laziness in getting an addiction treatment center going, is that my provincial government is full of single, disabled men smoking their crack through Government of Ontario crack pipes.
There are so many things wrong with the above statement that it's hard to know where to start.
Each year, the Province of Ontario wastes $300,000 taxpayer dollars on an estimated 5,000 crack users in the Ottawa area to provide them with glass tubes in order for them to smoke crack without the risk of catching HIV/Hepatitis C. In what universe is this justifiable? Why are we, as a province wasting money on supporting the habit of these users instead of, say, helping break their addiction?!?
Yes, yes, I get the liberal heart bleeding nonsense that we want to stop them from being sick so that, just in case they clean up on their own, they return to society as a healthy, productive member of society instead of being infected with some fatal disease. Here's the thing: the bulk of the users, according to the article, are single, disabled men. Right, so they will likely not hold a lot of jobs a recovering crack addict would be likely to get. And, depending on their disability, they may not even be able to pass on a sexually transmitted disease easily.
So why are we just facilitating these people to continue their miserable existence as a drug-addicted, single, disabled but otherwise healthy lifestyle?!?
Sure, infection rates will go back up to the 64-some-percent they were, but the rates are still at 49%... So this very expensive plan doesn't seem to be doing much more than adding contaminated shards of glass to our sewers, streets, parks and landfills. What we need is a treatment program, funded by that $300,000 a year. It may only help a handful at a time, but once their addiction is broken, they are done, finished, over with! Instead we continue to allow people to get high on the government's money.
The only reason, aside from blatant government laziness in getting an addiction treatment center going, is that my provincial government is full of single, disabled men smoking their crack through Government of Ontario crack pipes.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
How much are your children worth?
Shocking title I know, but it should be, because that's the question going before a committee in Parliament in regards to the bereavement benefit for when a soldier is killed in combat.
For those unfamiliar, if a married soldier is killed, normally the Government of Canada will provide $250,000 to the spouse and dependent children. This policy exists to help support a family who just lost half of their earnings due to the military placing the soldier in harm's way. Single soldiers, who have no such responsibilities, have no such benefit paid out.
Errol Cushley says this is discrimination.
Mr. Cushley, along with two other sets of greedy parents, have filed grievances in order to get paid for their children's deaths. But they swear it's not about the money, it's about equal treatment for single soldiers who have no one to benefit from their death other than, say, greedy parents.
It is a true tragedy when a soldier is killed in the line of duty, and we as a nation mourn their passing. But should we, as a nation, pay these filthy opportunists who think they should get tax payer dollars when their children die? Does that mean that children could now be sold off to the military on the off chance that, say, little Billy takes an IED to the face and thereby give their lucky parents a quarter of a million dollars to pad their retirement fund with?
Seriously, this makes me sick. These soldiers were recognized as heroes, awarded medals for their sacrifice, buried with all the honours they deserved. They were not discriminated against, in life or in death. Just because they never married does not mean they are deserving of money earmarked for supporting dependents of a married soldier.
Get your hands off our money, Mr. Cushley. Go work instead of crying unfair that you can't line your pockets with the blood money of your son's sacrifice!
For those unfamiliar, if a married soldier is killed, normally the Government of Canada will provide $250,000 to the spouse and dependent children. This policy exists to help support a family who just lost half of their earnings due to the military placing the soldier in harm's way. Single soldiers, who have no such responsibilities, have no such benefit paid out.
Errol Cushley says this is discrimination.
Mr. Cushley, along with two other sets of greedy parents, have filed grievances in order to get paid for their children's deaths. But they swear it's not about the money, it's about equal treatment for single soldiers who have no one to benefit from their death other than, say, greedy parents.
It is a true tragedy when a soldier is killed in the line of duty, and we as a nation mourn their passing. But should we, as a nation, pay these filthy opportunists who think they should get tax payer dollars when their children die? Does that mean that children could now be sold off to the military on the off chance that, say, little Billy takes an IED to the face and thereby give their lucky parents a quarter of a million dollars to pad their retirement fund with?
Seriously, this makes me sick. These soldiers were recognized as heroes, awarded medals for their sacrifice, buried with all the honours they deserved. They were not discriminated against, in life or in death. Just because they never married does not mean they are deserving of money earmarked for supporting dependents of a married soldier.
Get your hands off our money, Mr. Cushley. Go work instead of crying unfair that you can't line your pockets with the blood money of your son's sacrifice!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)