Sorry for ‘el crappio version-o,’ but this embed was all I could find in the 10 mins I had to look… Better version here.

Well, what did you think? Looks pretty awesome to me. To be honest, I was thinking a new Tron just wouldn’t work. Turns out I may have been wrong. Hudson may be right.

Mostly.

It’s an interesting one, really. Styles of gaming have always differed across these machine types, and there has always been a pervasive divider between the two. There has also, for as long as I can remember, been a consensus amongst console gamers that PC gaming is dead. Well, it hasn’t died yet, and let’s face it… it won’t die anytime soon. Regardless of how you feel (I’m a console gamer myself), I thought it pertinent to list the pros and cons of each, if only to help me understand why such a division exists.

Console Gaming

Pros

• System is designed for gaming – this means that no tweaking is required. Games are made based on system architecture, and as such are optimised for it. This is unchanged over the life of the system. Not only this, but the system provides a dedicated gaming platform – a place to contact gaming friends, download new titles and whatever else your particular system might offer.
• Simple plug-and-play – even more so than modern PCs, pop a game in the machine, and play instantly. No installation required (although this CAN still be done to achieve shorter load times).
• Play on TV – if you have a large screen TV in your lounge, a modern console can be a dream to play. And all from the comfort of your lounge. A much more comfortable scenario (for me, at least).
• Social aspects – many consoles are set up in the lounge as opposed to some other room of the house (although many teenagers likely have theirs in their bedroom). This allows for the console to be a more centralised form of entertainment that can be enjoyed by several people at once. The popularity of the Wii, and games such as Buzz, Guitar Hero, and Halo (among many many others) is testament to this.
• Controller – a touchy subject, but it can not be denied that modern gaming controllers make accessing and navigating games and media quite simple… regardless of how much you prefer a keyboard and mouse to play Half Life 2.
• Cheap? Tough call this one. I’m throwing it in because a $400 Xbox is far cheaper than a $1000 PC. Of course, you will need additional controllers and a TV… Accessories can kill you, but at their most basic, a console is cheaper than a PC.
• Perfect for some games – platformers, FPS (IMO), RPGs, puzzlers, racing games – these all play perfectly on a console (some play equally as well on a PC).

Cons

• Underpowered later in their lifecycle – they might be up-to-date on release day, but it doesn’t take long before they are lagging behind a modern, fully updated PC. Far behind.
• Limited – the specs remain unchanged over the life of the system, which means that games are limited to whatever has been decided by the powers-that-be. Of course, when there’s only one program running, there’s little need for raw power, but there is an obvious gap between graphical quality of PC and console games.
• Controller – buttons can be confusing for some. Some people prefer mouse and keyboard combination. ‘Nuff said.
• No installation – while you CAN install some titles, most will just run off the disc. This results in longer loading times.
• Terrible for some games – RTS, simulations (not so much The Sims, although the Sims isn’t well represented on console – I’m actually referring to flight sims), and old-school point-and-click adventures don’t play so well on a console. Some would argue FPS as well, but they would be wrong.

PCs

Pros

• Upgradeable – never fall behind. Need more power? Add it. This means you can upgrade your system over time rather than buy an new one outright. Always up-to-date (if you have the money).
• Keyboard/mouse – this combination just plain works. There are so many button combinations available, and virtually everyone knows how a keyboard and a mouse works.
• Tweakable – not getting the performance you would like? Dial it down a little. Prefer to see distinction between individual blades of grass? Dial it all the way up.
• Can be set up to use on TV – while not as easy to use as a console, a media centre PC connected to a TV can change the way you game and use the ‘net – and consume media as well. If you have a worthy system, it’s worth trying out, at least.
• Perfect for some games – RTSs, RPGs, FPSs and flight sims work particularly well on a PC.
• More than just a games machine – sure, your PS3 can play Blu-Ray, but can it process words, spread sheets, or decompress videos? A PC is far more than a games console could EVER aspire to be – thus, it is likely we ALL have one, regardless of where we like to play games (which moots the point that consoles are cheap, as they are an ADDITIONAL requirement).

Cons

• Expensive – no matter how you cut it, a good gaming PC will set you back a bit on the budget. A REALLY good PC will hurt.
• Anti-social – arguable, sure, but a PC is a one-man (or woman) tool. Yes, you can connect with peeps all over the world, but at home, you’re likely to be locked away in a separate room while your family socialises elsewhere. (In the interest of transparency, I keep my PC in the living room, so I remain amongst it all, but I still stand by the fact that PC gaming is single player, locally.)
• Uncomfortable – OK, I’m taking some liberties here, and attacking this one with a modicum of tunnel vision, but you’ll get over it. I have a particularly uncomfortable desk and desk chair. Sitting at my computer for any length of time is certainly far less comfortable than sitting on my reclining lounge in front of the TV. Perhaps if my set-up was more comfy, I might not bring this up, but it would have to be PRETTY DAMN COMFY before it can compare to the recliner.
• Terrible for some games – unless you fork out many the dollars for a good controller, you will not enjoy racing games on a PC. Most other games will play just fine on a PC – the rest comes down to personal taste. Me? I think platform games just don’t work on PC, but I really don’t think my opinion is strong enough to legitimately add this to the list. However, I still thought I should bring it up.

Wow, there you have it. I’m sure there are other points that I’ve glossed over – feel free to point them out in the comments section below.

Turns out that I really love both machines, but I really love GAMING on my console. That’s a personal preference and god damn anyone straight to hell if they try to force you to think their way. You are your own person and you will choose consoles based on the simple fact that they are better and you are smart. I mean – horses, courses, meat, poison, whatever. Do as thou will shall be the whole of the law. And so on.

As a result of me not posting a damned thing, I’ve been feeling a little restless –I need to post something, but I’m in a bit of a slump. Thus, I added Skribit (see widget in sidebar), where readers can suggest something for me to post about. And I decided to write up this quick post inviting you to my dad’s website:

Newbegin Writing

In block quote form, no less. Why not?

Anyway, my old man writes about various things, and he makes me chuckle, but he also wrote a sci-fi novel. If you have some money burning a hole in your pocket, it might be worth your while to check it out.

Oh, and yes, I’m aware the site needs to be updated… I designed his site, so it’s all down to my laziness… Again… I think I’ll migrate the blog to replace the static site – it will be much easier.

So yeah… go to his site, buy his book, and pop a suggestion in skribit to the right. If you like.

Peace, and catch you soon with rad ideas.

I came to realise it probably had a lot to do with the fact I have a tablet notebook at home, and have been soured on the PC-tablet as a result. Don’t get me wrong – I love it. However, I’ve also learned that – for a fully-fledged PC – touch just doesn’t cut the mustard. A PC needs a keyboard at the very least, and it doesn’t hurt to have a good sized HDD and a DVD drive. This is why netbooks work, as they are not only useful for a spot of portable internet, but also for some mobile computing, word processing, and the like. I found myself very rarely using the notebook as a tablet, as it just wasn’t as functional.

Thus, I really understand where Apple are coming from with the iPad. In the announcement, Steve Jobs mentioned that they wanted to release something between a Smartphone and a notebook, and this is what I was expecting. Basically, all a tablet needs to be is a tool to access the Internet, listen to music, read some eBooks and so on and so forth. It really doesn’t need to be any more complicated than that. In fact, I’d even go as far as saying the ability to chop and change the system would reduce its function.

Anyway, as this post is in regard to why I think the hardware is OK, and not just why I like the product as a whole, I’ve decided to comment on the most common complaints circulating the web at the moment – and you’ll note that I do agree that it certainly isn’t perfect.

No connectivity options

I agree that the iPad should at least have some sort of card reader – if only to add photos or what-not. However, I don’t agree that it really requires a USB port or anything else. As I mentioned, I feel a tablet should only be a very simple device, with very specific functionality. As a result, negative points incurred for not allowing any way to add photos, etc., without connecting to a PC/Mac.

You have to connect to a PC/Mac

Slightly covered this above – in order to function at its best, you need to be able to sync it with (most likely) iTunes. Regardless of what you think of iTunes, it’s probably about time Apple realised not everyone wants to rely on it as the be-all and end-all of their media management. Negative points here, but it’s not such a bad thing to me, as I’ve gotten used to the clunky old cantankerous iTunes over the years.

No Flash

OK, I can understand that Apple has a thing against Flash for being insecure and buggy, but come on – half the Internet still relies on it! As much as the ‘net might be moving towards HTML5, it certainly isn’t there yet. This is a major negative, Apple peeps.

Aspect ratio

Hmmm… The world has gone widescreen, so the decision for the iPad NOT to be is a bit strange. I actually don’t get it, to be quite honest, but I really don’t think it’s going to be that much of an issue. I guess at that size widescreen might be somewhat unwieldy, and smaller would just suck, so perhaps it’s a happy medium? Hard to say until I hold one in my hands.

No camera

Would you really hold up your iPad and tell someone to say cheese? No. BUT – you might want to use it for video conferencing on Skype. Thus, this is a mildly negative omission.

No multitasking

Probably the biggest problem with the iPhone is its lack of multitasking. It’s not a HUGE problem, but the thing is, we are fickle people, and we like to flit about from program to program. Plus, I personally hate the fact I have to close whatever I’m doing just to reply to an SMS I receive. That’s pretty lame. However, it’s not that big a problem, to be honest, as the system will generally remember where you were up to prior to closing the program. Not a big problem, sure, but it still doesn’t make sense.

As an aside, I hear a lot of netizens mentioning that it might be fixed in future updates, but there must be a reason why Apple hasn’t brought this to the iPhone yet…

It’s just a bigger iPod touch

So? I love my iPhone, and ALL I’ve dreamt of since I got it is the hope of getting a BIGGER one – without the phone function (because I don’t need to make phone calls on it, that’s what my phone is for). I don’t want a PC, because I already have plenty at home, I just want something thin and light – and kind of sexy-looking – to read comics, books, el internetto, listen to a bit of la musica, and grab a quick TV show on. Plus, a few quick little games will do me nicely, and that’s all I need. I don’t want to write on it (although I would if I had to), I don’t want to work on it, and I don’t want to fiddle around with it. Which leads me to the final topic I want to comment on (because the others are pretty weak – no GPS? Not such a big deal)…

Closed system

This is a tough one. On one hand, I believe in the user’s right to do with their system what they will. That said, I see no need to do so here, except to access for free what generally costs money. This, of course, has its merits – that being that you get to access for free what generally costs money. Seriously though, I have applied a jailbreak to my iPhone, but I don’t really care if I do or don’t on my next update. Having done it, I found it useful at first, but now? Unimpressed. And why is that? The iPhone pretty much comes with all the functionality you’ll need. Sure, some things could be done better, but it doesn’t really matter. Some might see this as Apple having total control over your products (and a lot of people do), but personally I find that unnecessarily cynical. Perhaps I’m just all too happy to accept what I’m given. I don’t know – I choose to let this topic stand actually, because as much as I don’t see a need for control over the OS, I must admit that I’m divided on how I really feel. (Aside: hopefully I dodged that one, but I don’t think I did…)

Anyway, it’s pretty obvious that I agree with all of the issues that people have levelled against the system, and the truth is, even I don’t really want to get one for at least another generation. Things will improve. But, as it stands, and taken as a simple internet and media tool, I think it’s definitely going to be another hit for Apple.

As a final point, it looks like there will be some competition – Sony has reportedly announced they want in on this market, there are rumours of a Google tablet, HP has the Slate, and then there’s the Joojoo Tablet… But I firmly believe anything based on an existing OS will not impress. Windows 7 might include touch features, but it’s not a touch OS. That said, I’m interested in what Google has to say, but I feel the Joojoo will not be as successful as it possibly should be, mainly because it doesn’t have the backing of a big name behind it…

In the real world, however, the truth of the matter is much more interesting. Apple – being Apple – has created buzz of extreme proportions and the reactions of the good people of the Internet were… well, pretty much as expected, really.

The Internet breeds cynicism – for some reason, it’s much more fun to find fault with something than to look at any possible merit. Or perhaps it’s related to the fact that most people just don’t like to support something in the fear of being labelled a dreaded ‘fanboy’.  Following the announcement yesterday, the Internet, TV critics, and society alike has responded with a fairly resounding "meh" – interspersed with the odd proclamation of love from the fanboys, of course . But is all this dislike deserved?

I don’t really think so. If you take a step back, and remove yourself from everything that’s being said, you might agree that it’s a fairly useful product. There’s no real problem with the name (who didn’t snigger when Nintendo announced the "Wii"? And come on, it’s an obvious play on iPod – they couldn’t overlook that), the hardware’s fine (before you jump on me, let me explain my position here – post coming soon!), and the price is… OK. In reality, there is one main problem with the iPad – it’s made by Apple.

This one problem is compound – on one hand, you have the Apple fanboys, who will love and defend the product simply because it is an Apple product. Then you’ll find strong opposition from the anti-fanboys, those that will dismiss the product without giving it the simplest perusal – and again, simply because it’s made by Apple. In between, there is a mish-mash of opinion, all somewhat affected by the ramblings of the fanboy and the anti-fanboy, and mostly happy to feign opposition – for now, at least – based on the success of Apples previous products, and the perception that this is an unnecessary new machine – and the overly simple suggestion that “it’s just a bigger iPod touch”.

However, while the above is fine – and let’s be honest, fairly natural as a response – and will develop with time (I myself expressed a little "meh"-ness following the announcement, but have revised my feelings following some deep-seated pondering – feelings likely to be revised further in coming weeks/months ), I DO see a great deal of potential with the iPad. In fact, I can comfortably say – without the shadow of a doubt – that if I was still single and with a largely disposable income, I would buy the crap out of an iPad on its Australian release date.

And why? Because there is a market for it, and I feel I have a purpose for it. There is a lot of talk out there around the fact that people should just get themselves a netbook, or an iPhone, and there is no need for such tablets, but think back just a couple of years and people were saying exactly the same things – about netbooks and iPhones. There was a market for small, portable notebooks and smartphones then, and there is a market for thin, light extremely portable media players now – ones with larger screens, that is. Ones that function LIKE a notebook, but without all the unnecessary functionality.

And I think that’s the point – it’s slightly misunderstood at this point. Sure, it’s just a big iPod touch  but that’s all it needs to be. Part of the problem with iPods and iPhones is that they are too small to use for the Internet, and too small to read books, and too small to really enjoy watching a movie. The iPad – while I haven’t laid eyes upon the finished product in person – is not.

Personally, I think it is quite a good product, and is likely to perform better than other such tablets (like HP’s Slate) mainly based on the fact that it is NOT trying to be a notebook. Running Windows in order to have access to all programs is overkill and unnecessary. Perhaps a lot of people find that hard to swallow, and so be it. Hopefully, someone else out there will release something similar running Linux, or another proprietary OS – just for some healthy competition. It’s a bit disheartening that Apple is monopolising the mobile market, but at this stage, it’s virtually impossible to compete! But that discussion is fit for another post, I reckon…

Anyway, as a final point – I must acknowledge that the fact that Apple has complete control over the OS and the Apps (like the iPhone) is again a bit of a problem. But hey – I am a fan of my imperfect iPhone, and I think I will like the imperfect iPad, as well.

What did people really expect from the iPad anyway? The ability to resurrect loved ones?

No matter what you know about Avatar, the truth is – it’s nothing new. We’ve seen it all before. The story is simple, the themes fairly standard fare. However, it’s the execution that makes it so worthwhile. The world itself is RICH… You can FEEL the history – not just of the individual characters, but of the world itself. On a more technical side, the use of 3D does not sensationalise the content or belittle the viewer, it merely adds depth and a sense of environment… Something modern movies are missing. Truly – Avatar 3D is a spectacle, something that will take people away from their torrents and bring them back to the cinema. If you think you can wait until it is released on DVD (or for a rip to be available on the tubes), then you’re doing yourself a disservice.

And that’s really the point of this post – go see Avatar at the movies. See it in 2D or 3D, whatever your preference, but see it on the big screen.

I don’t remember the last time I even THOUGHT that, let alone recommended it… 

Crazy Taxi, for it’s time, was a great game. Going back and playing it again now – it still stands the test of time, and above all, it’s virtually the PERFECT arcade game. There’s no need to invest any of your time in story or characters – you simply get in your car and drive (after, uh… choosing a character). Just drive! – In any direction – To beat the timer. The faster you can deliver your passenger, the more time you get, and the more money you make. Very simple mechanics, and much more fun than you think. It really lends itself well to the odd 20-minute stint on XBLA, and the trusty ol’ high score battle with your friends.

Sure, the game has appeared in many different iterations, but more recent versions – while still staying true to the first title – just haven’t been as good as the original. I reckon they should get the original title, pump up the graphics to HD (at least 720p), slam on a new soundtrack (or not – the Offspring DEFINES Crazy Taxi), and release at a nice price… Truth is, as great a game as Crazy Taxi is, it’s best aimed at the XBLA/PSN crowd – there’s no need for another retail version.

Come on, guys – bring it! I would LOVE to play this again, and SOON!

While I’m on this rant – there has always been a focus (by developers) on releasing the slightly OLDER – but no less cooler – arcades, such as Golden Axe and Gauntlet… These have all been reproduced a million times, and for good reason. BUT! I could also do with Daytona USA, NBA Jam (coming to Wii, but why not XBLA/PSN?), Aliens vs. Predator, and any other awesome arcade games that I might have missed (or any more you can think of?). Work on it people.

That is all.

So bear with me over the next week or so while I tweak and fix things up. Weeks may turn into months, however, so if you find something’s up, point it out to me.

Personally, I don’t think so. I don’t think it will take off – it just doesn’t make sense. Chewbacca did not come from Endor.

3D does not make sense as a passive form of entertainment

As a good friend pointed out, 3D is not passive; it requires  the active involvement of the viewer, at least in it’s current form. In that way, it works as a gimmick – it’s fun to dodge bees or what-not for a few dollars, but do we really need this kind of entertainment at home?

Perhaps not – but maybe this isn’t what is being attempted. Avatar has shown that 3D can be done well without directly acknowledging the viewer, so perhaps it’s more of an immersion thing? But is it really necessary?

If not filmed in 3D, it will not really be 3D

It’s all well and good to have 3D (arguably), but what’s the point if there’s nothing to watch? In order for something to be viewed in 3D, it must first be filmed/created in 3D – which isn’t cheap. It makes little sense to spend the big dollars in order to film in 3D if there is nobody to watch it in 3D. As a result, there probably won’t be much to watch! Big flicks like Avatar and so on might be worth watching in 3D, but they will still be worth watching in 2D – so is it worth spending money on a 3D TV (gaming is a different story)?

That’s where the problem lies. There are some out there that might think it’s worth it to have a 3D TV, if only to watch 3D movies on occasion – and that is a valid argument in itself, if you have the money. However, considering we’ve all recently been forced to buy new HD TVs (not that I minded); who is ready to spend big on another one just so they can watch 3D movies? It took many years for people to join the HD revolution, some still haven’t done so – and this is something that they HAVE TO DO if they watch TV at all, so who’s to say people are going to jump on this bandwagon?

Then again, the tech is advancing to a point where pseudo-3D can be created out of 2D images, so perhaps this is also a moot point. But pseudo-3D does not 3D make. Perhaps when all TV is 3D, and all movies are 3D, there will be a valid reason to make the switch, but I think it will be a long while before this happens…

Stupid, stupid glasses

I don’t really need to say much more here, do I? For years, we’ve all laughed at the blue and red 3D glasses that were required to create the 3D effect. Modern 3D uses different technology, but still requires the viewer to wear glasses. As nice as they might be (blecch), I’m not keen on the idea of donning lame-ass glasses every time I want to watch a flick. And I just don’t like the idea of having TV accessories like that. In fact, I’m not sure of anyone that would like that idea. The stupid glasses are a stupid joke.

If you break them, you have to buy new ones – if you have a large family, you have to buy a few sets… And judging by the looks of the new tech, they don’t look cheap… I just don’t get it!

And what do you do when your mates pop in to watch Avatar? Sit and watch them in your own glasses and not worry about your friends? Or do you fork out the dosh and buy a bunch of spares? Or should people bring their own? Or do you do a spot of timesharing? It won’t work, I tells ya!

Unless, of course, the tech turns out to be AWESOME. Still… for me, until 3D TV is straight from the box – sans stupid glasses (which I guess would require holographic technology) -then I don’t think I’m interested.

You know – maybe I’ll be wrong, and I’ll watch a 3D movie or play a 3D game and I’ll be blown away by the experience (I can see the benefit in 3D games… sounds pretty fun) – who knows? My point is, though – even if it’s cool, is it worth it?

So where do we go from here? Will 3D end up in the same graveyard as laserdisc and minidisc – a failed and broken dream of manufacturers, or will it actually turn out to be surprisingly useful? At this point, who knows? But I’d like to think it will flop like a big, dead, floppy fish in the sun. Smells fishy to me.

I wouldn’t go as far as calling myself a convert – I’m still uncertain that 3D will revolutionise television – but I now understand that having a 3D-capable TV will not be such a bad thing. Even if only to watch the occasional 3D movie, it will probably be worth it… Avatar was cool…

Update: The old video I had posted wouldn’t work for some reason. hopefully I’ve fixed this with the below Youtube video!