By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Alby_da_Wolf on 30 June 2010
Smashchu2 said:

[...]


You've got to be kidding me. Why. Why do I bother.

Did you ever wonder why Reggie said "Technology is a tool." at the begining of their E3 press conference? It's because technology does not drive disruption. The business model does. I linked you to a video by Scott Anthony says how it's not always technology that drives disruption but the business model.

So I think I'll quit here. Please, stop wasting my time and go watch the disruption videos and read the links I provided.

Here

Tech is a tool, OK, but it matters, Nintendo didn't put a tech there like a placeholder, it uses it in a well defined way. In this case, although the business model is the central thing for Nintendo and it prevails on pure tech, the tech on its turn directly influencess the business model too, or better, its interaction with the business models of the rest of the industry, because the tech they chose actually doesn't help to create asymmetry, on the contrary, disrupting 3D with glasses, it hits hard its producers, but it helps ALL the rest of the industry to overcome glasses tech economic and practical limits, shortcomings, flaws and overshooting. After the disruption of a part of the industry that happened to be on a blind track anyway, the choices Nintendo made are actually more beneficial towards the rest of the industry than what we suspected before: the sooner 3DS disrupts glasses, the sooner display producers move beyond, the less money they waste on them, and the sooner competing consoles, players, recorders, movies and SW can widen the appeal of 3D features outside of the narrow glasses niche.

It's also quite logical: Nintendo DOESN'T produce displays, but it needs them for a consistent part of its business, home consoles, it wouldn't disrupt that market just for the sake of creating a mess, if it brings disruption there, it will be to make it move over some unhappy development choices that slow the research and adoption of better solutions for products that Nintendo needs, just like a lot of other HW and SW producers, to make its own products work.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!   


Around the Network
Smashchu2 on 30 June 2010
Alby_da_Wolf said:

Tech is a tool, OK, but it matters, Nintendo didn't put a tech there like a placeholder, it uses it in a well defined way. In this case, although the business model is the central thing for Nintendo and it prevails on pure tech, the tech on its turn directly influencess the business model too, or better, its interaction with the business models of the rest of the industry, because the tech they chose actually doesn't help to create asymmetry, on the contrary, disrupting 3D with glasses, it hits hard its producers, but it helps ALL the rest of the industry to overcome glasses tech economic and practical limits, shortcomings, flaws and overshooting. After the disruption of a part of the industry that happened to be on a blind track anyway, the choices Nintendo made are actually more beneficial towards the rest of the industry than what we suspected before: the sooner 3DS disrupts glasses, the sooner display producers move beyond, the less money they waste on them, and the sooner competing consoles, players, recorders, movies and SW can widen the appeal of 3D features outside of the narrow glasses niche.

It's also quite logical: Nintendo DOESN'T produce displays, but it needs them for a consistent part of its business, home consoles, it wouldn't disrupt that market just for the sake of creating a mess, if it brings disruption there, it will be to make it move over some unhappy development choices that slow the research and adoption of better solutions for products that Nintendo needs, just like a lot of other HW and SW producers, to make its own products work.

I actually changed my last post. So here's how it is going to work.

You keep saying that Nintendo wont be able to disrupt once other companies adopt the technology. So, now, you're going to find me a quote (or a video if you must) of Christensen or another analyst of disruption say that. If I am to take your idea seriously, I did to see something that backs it up.



jarrod on 30 June 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:

You're just using a pat argument to try to dismiss something you don't like.

Sounds like Malstrom talking about Other M.



Alby_da_Wolf on 30 June 2010
Smashchu2 said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:

Tech is a tool, OK, but it matters, Nintendo didn't put a tech there like a placeholder, it uses it in a well defined way. In this case, although the business model is the central thing for Nintendo and it prevails on pure tech, the tech on its turn directly influencess the business model too, or better, its interaction with the business models of the rest of the industry, because the tech they chose actually doesn't help to create asymmetry, on the contrary, disrupting 3D with glasses, it hits hard its producers, but it helps ALL the rest of the industry to overcome glasses tech economic and practical limits, shortcomings, flaws and overshooting. After the disruption of a part of the industry that happened to be on a blind track anyway, the choices Nintendo made are actually more beneficial towards the rest of the industry than what we suspected before: the sooner 3DS disrupts glasses, the sooner display producers move beyond, the less money they waste on them, and the sooner competing consoles, players, recorders, movies and SW can widen the appeal of 3D features outside of the narrow glasses niche.

It's also quite logical: Nintendo DOESN'T produce displays, but it needs them for a consistent part of its business, home consoles, it wouldn't disrupt that market just for the sake of creating a mess, if it brings disruption there, it will be to make it move over some unhappy development choices that slow the research and adoption of better solutions for products that Nintendo needs, just like a lot of other HW and SW producers, to make its own products work.

I actually changed my last post. So here's how it is going to work.

You keep saying that Nintendo wont be able to disrupt once other companies adopt the technology. So, now, you're going to find me a quote (or a video if you must) of Christensen or another analyst of disruption say that. If I am to take your idea seriously, I did to see something that backs it up.

 

Wait a moment, why should you establish rules, this is a forum, not a school, and you aren't the teacher or principal! Anyway, for this time be it, it actually helps me make my point...

 

You should already know it, it's in one of the links  you gave me, and I mentioned it in one of my previous posts in this thread, this one http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3510546 , where I marked it with the note #9.

It's from Christensen about Kodak initially entering digital cameras market with an incumbent approach, but then, after taking losses or at best getting little benefit from huge investments, correcting its strategy and doing the right moves. This is the link http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4353.html and if you want the exact quote, here:

"Cramming is like trying to stuff a square peg into a round hole. What signs indicate that cramming is occurring? When companies spend a lot of money fixing product deficiencies, they may be cramming. Large charges or expenses to integrate an acquisition are a good tip-off. Another sign is when companies must convince customers to change their behavior or put up with something they don't seem to want.

For example, Kodak first began to sense that digital imaging might pose a threat to its core business in the mid-1990s. It invested more than $2 billion in research and development. However, it framed the challenge as, "How do we make digital imaging good enough to serve as a viable replacement to silver halide film in our core market?" By seeking to create high-priced, performance-competitive digital products, Kodak missed much of the disruptive growth driven by inexpensive digital imaging. Kodak eventually established a strong market share after introducing a very low-cost camera, but only after spending $2 billion trying to maximize its cameras' performance".

You can see, BTW, analogies with the display industry insisting on 3D glasses before they'll eventually realize it's the wrong way. But to be precise, Kodak didn't actually avoid disruption at all, it suffered it until it learned a different approach that allowed it to find its place in the new market. (BTW, it actually exists, and it's healthy too, an high-end digital cameras market segment, but it's already occupied by producers like Nikon and others that were more respected than Kodak even when they occupied the analogous segment of the old chemical photography market, and that, not having particular interests in the photographic film market, had since the start a much greater freedom of action, Kodak never had any chance there).

Again, I don't say Nintendo won't be able to disrupt in any way, just that 3DS doesn't go in that direction, or to be more precise, it goes in that direction as far as 3D with glasses is concerned, but doing that it actually benefits the whole rest of the industry, including itself, because when the industry, or part of it, goes in the wrong direction, it's better that disruption happen. Obviously, having a consistent head start and pioneering in a clever way that doesn't make it lose money on it, it will most probably keep a big advantage and the market leadership.

From that same Christensen's article:

"An entrant runs into trouble if it does not develop a business model that is unattractive to the incumbent, or if it does not hone unique skills that are matched to the disruptive business. It can create initial growth by taking advantage of the incumbent's disinterest in small, immeasurable markets. But once the entrant has proved to the world that the market exists, the incumbent can muster its internal resources to co-opt the innovation, unless the entrant has made that path unattractive. Natural incumbent motivation shifts from flight to fight. And in direct fights with comparable motivation to win, the incumbents have some real advantages to bring to the battle".

Again, in this case, the only choice blatantly wrong made by the incumbents is the one about 3D with glasses, and luckily for them, it can be corrected, as soon as feasible, without having to throw away anything else they developed in fields different from display tech itself. The path is indeed very attractive, and it will become even more so when the tech evolves. Again, this is why in this case tech matters, because after the initial shock, that totally works in Nintendo's favour and against glasses, once glasses become the past it actually makes things easier for everybody.

One last thing: shouldn't Nintendo worry more about MS now? Bundling WM Plus Nintendo prevents any possible significant damage from PS Move, but how about Kinect? Do you rule out any chance that Kinect may disrupt Balance Board?



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!   


LordTheNightKnight on 30 June 2010
jarrod said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

You're just using a pat argument to try to dismiss something you don't like.

Sounds like Malstrom talking about Other M.


That's another strawman, since although he is snarky, he's been stating several reasons why he think it won't work. That is the opposite of what you are claiming. And the fact that you wrote such a short sentence is yet another pat argument to dismiss him.

You don't have to agree with him, but just dismissing him is foolhardy. Actually try to argue against what he says.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network
Smashchu2 on 30 June 2010

I'll try to respond to you Alby, but I don't want to right now. I'll try to get to it.



LordTheNightKnight on 01 July 2010
Smashchu2 said:

I'll try to respond to you Alby, but I don't want to right now. I'll try to get to it.

 


Please take this to PMs, or make another thread. The argument is just getting off topic.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Rhonin the wizard on 01 July 2010

Note: The pictures below are of Tactics, not myself

None of those are images of myself. I wish some of you people would read. (Must I place everything in italics?) And this isn’t the first time I put Tactics’ little sign photo up before.

Why did I put his images up? It is because he actually stood out in front of GDC, wearing Nintendo clothing, and with a sign. That takes some balls. At most, people just post on a message forum somewhere.

And the guy was massively ridiculed for what he did. I thought what he did was funny.

 

Email: Is Malstrom lying about Sakamoto?

There was a discussion on the comments of Jack Loftus blog where they brought up what you wrote on the “Super Metroid 2″ post.

Someone accused you from lying, because you said:

“Sakamoto says it has been many, many years since the last Metroid game was released on the home console“

while the translation in the interview said:

“it’s been “a while” since the last Metroid game was released on a console“

Although it can be a bit of a stretch to accuse someone of lying for interpreting “a while” as “many many years”, the irony is that you might have been (at least partially) right after all:

“The irony is that when Sakamoto says “a while”, he might be really saying what Malstrom interpreted. At 6:28 Sakamoto starts by saying “Hasashiburi”, which means “after a long time [interval, silence, absence, separation]“. So, when Malstrom “lied”, was he closer to reality?

On that point, yes. There is more though, although the fault is really on the translation. If you listen closely, you will hear Sakamoto say “Supaa Metroid”. So, what Sakamoto is really saying is something like:

“It’s been a very long time since a Super Metroid game has been launched in a home console”.“

For crying out loud…

Everything I write on my blog site I do with my little finger. I do not spend much time with it, and I often do not do direct quotes. The reason being is my website is more context orientated and is not a news conveyor belt as is most other sites. It also is not a ‘bean counter’ site that highlights sales numbers. Other sites are doing ‘news’ and ‘sales’ as well as message forums. If I refer to anything in the news, I know you guys already know about the story. You can easily quote or find it.

I paraphrase many things lately. You’re right that I did not directly quote Sakamoto as saying ‘much time has passed’. I made the post days after I saw Sakamoto clip and I paraphrased what I recalled. The reason why I mentioned that clip is because of the blatant dissing of Retro. This is not the first time Sakamoto has done this.

Here is what is really going on…

The Sakamoto Cult is emotionally falling apart. They have learned they cannot attack the message, so they attack the messenger. “Malstrom didn’t directly quote Sakamoto. OMG! Malstrom is lying!” “Malstrom didn’t get the exact number of classic Metroid GBA cartridge sales right. OMG! Malstrom is lying!” They have resorted to conspiracy theories. It is pathetic.

First of all, why would I intentionally lie about anything? How does that do me or anyone else any good? And second of all, why does the Sakamoto Cult care so much what I say anyway? Why get upset over what some anonymous guy says on a blog?

What amazes me is that I have been critical of other ‘elder game makers’ even recently such as Miyamoto. I get tired of him trying to ram 3d Mario down my throat instead of just making 2d Mario. And I also think Zelda has been in a long-term decline. While people might have been annoyed at me saying these things, they didn’t act like the Sakamoto Cult. If I say something like, “Miyamoto may be a living legend, but he is not a god. He does not walk on water or bring back the dead.” I don’t believe in ‘game god’ worship and do not believe it is beneficial to either the gamer, the game developer, or to gaming.

Yet, why does Sakamoto have this bizarre cult following and not Miyamoto? Clearly Miyamoto is the bigger of the two.

I mock Other M (mostly because it is easy and fun to do), but I do not think that is why these people get angry. They get angry because I mock Sakamoto. I am saying their ‘game god’ has feet of clay. And this is blasphemy. This is why they keep focusing on me.

Why don’t they ignore me? I’m not posting on anyone else’s website or message forum. I’m posting on my own personal website (of which I can post anything I want). Why are they so annoyed with what I say? Why the hostility? Why the constant attempts that any comment I make about Sakamoto is a “lie”? Why the conspiracy theories?

As Other M nears release, it is becoming very clear that it is not Super Metroid reincarnated. Well, who’s fault is that? It certainly isn’t my fault. When people played Other M at E3 2010 and expressed things they disliked about it, whose fault is it? It isn’t my fault.

It is becoming clear to me that this bizarre Sakamoto Cult will not be destroyed if Other M becomes mediocre. The Sakamoto cultist will instead blame the ‘Wii’ or blame ‘Team Ninja’. Already, Sakamoto cultists are already saying how they want Sakamoto to make 2d Metroid on the 3DS and take advantage of the platform.

How about we give 2d Metroid to someone else entirely? Sakamoto has had decades with it, and he had never gotten Metroid to go anywhere. I would love to see Retro make a 2d Metroid. Perhaps they could call it, Metroid Returns.

The Sakamoto cult is one of the strangest phenomenon I’ve seen in gaming. Somehow, someway, these cultists’ egos are intertwined with Sakamoto. Somewhere along the line, they had make believe where they thought Sakamoto’s Metroid games were ‘culturally amazing’ and ‘sophisticated art’ where ‘it was a privilege even just to play it’. This is why I refer to it as a cult because I have never, ever heard any of them criticize Sakamoto. Apparently, Sakamoto does nothing wrong. If we don’t like it, the problem is with us.

Years ago, before Other M was announced, if you told me there was going to be a Metroid game, made by Team Ninja, where the focus was going to be on ‘maternal instincts’ and Samus Aran fighting her inner demons, along with a love story, I’d think you were making a silly parody to slap on a website. It is a constant shock to myself that this game actually exists as it does. A Metroid game about maternal instincts! Yes, that is what Metroid fans have always wanted, a woman constantly thinking and dealing with her maternal instincts! As I stand by in utter shock at this direction, and try to laugh at it because it is preferable than to cry about it, there are people out there who cannot abide any criticism of Sakamoto. It is like when they play a Metroid game, they have all the Metroid manga spread out around them and a framed photo of Sakamoto on their bedside with candles around it.

So this begs the question of what would Sakamoto have to do in order to get criticized from his cultists? To be honest, I am having trouble thinking of anything more absurd than ‘maternal instincts’. Perhaps if he had Samus Aran get married, retire from being the Bounty Hunter, get pregnant, and bake cookies, that might inspire some complaint. But even then, I am sure we would be told that “You need to read the manga,” and “We all knew she was going to bake cookies. I mean, c’mon, this was being foretold since the very first Metroid.” So I am at a loss.

 

Email: Warren Spector, Final Fantasy, Mario 4

The following information comes from a Nintendo Power interview with Warren Spector…

WS: “The real power of games isn’t in figuring out what a designer wanted me to do or in executing a maneuver the designer insisted I execute. The real power of games is in solving problems the way I want to solve them, to decide for myself who I’m going to befriend and who I’m going to ignore, and to craft a unique experience in a compelling game world. When we make games that allow players to be the authors of their own stories, we’re beginning to live up to our potential”.

Seems like he gets it. I tried to explain this very sentiment to my boss at work the other day. I was complaining about Final Fantasy XIII and how it seems that all I do is run forward and hit A, then watch a cutscene. I recently played it at a friends house, and while I am a huge FF fan, I couldn’t wait to get into the real meat of the game.

Much to my sadness, I found out that it is somewhere around 40 hours that you are “released” into an overworld. A 40 hour game intro! Of running forward, hitting A to beat up some baddies, and then watching a cutscene. My buddy commented that he felt they made the game for the “hardcore FF fan”. Which was silly to me as I didn’t even feel like I was playing a game. I was watching a movie that I had to continuously prompt towards the next scene.

My point to my boss was exactly what Warren Spector spoke of. The greatness of video games is that the story is my story. Yes there are events and whatnot. Sure there is a plot. We all get to the same places, but how we get there is what makes it compelling. It’s like life, or a road, or something.

Earlier on the night that I played Final Fantasy. The same buddy and I were taking turns on Super Mario Brothers 3 (world 8). I found it fitting that we both played in completely different styles. It really seemed to fit what you often say about it and video games. About the many options a 2D Mario allows the player to play with.

I am going to personally keep a closer eye on Epic Mickey. It never struck me as interesting before, but after E3 and that quote above, it just might be awesome. But yeah, Final Fantasy = no bueno. I’m all for long games (100 hour saves in games like Pokemon), but it has to actually be a game. Squeenix might be falling too much in love with the ultragraphics (which are gorgeous, of course), and forgot that we gamers like to do more than just hit one button.

Warren Spector has a very long and interesting history with video games. His studio was the only one of Ion Storm which made something interesting (which itself is an achievement of what we knew about Ion Storm). I’m not surprised he would say this as he has worked on the Ultima games. If you ever want a game where you can ‘do anything’, play an Ultima (but not 8 or 9).

.
There is only one bad thing about Warren Spector: he engages in so much genre mixing that marketers are unable to figure out how to sell his game. I believe Trip Hawkins of EA once praised Richard Garriot (who came up with Ultima Online) because he had ‘grand ideas that would make super hits) but was unhappy with Warren Spector because his ideas would not break out into the mainstream but become ‘cult hits’. However, I think Epic Mickey’s wonderful animation will transcend the game beyond the usual Spector’s genre mash-up limitations.

Epic Mickey is a mash-up of the Mario and Zelda genres. Nintendo fans SHOULD keep an eye on this game.

About Mario, it definitely feels something was lost when the series went into 3d. When we look back at how Mario 64 was made, Nintendo apparently had a very difficult time making it. I hear that in the middle of the development, it became known that the camera system Nintendo was using was already legally patented by Sega so they had to completely redo it. Turn-over of employees at Nintendo is extremely light but the programmers of Mario 64 quit once the game was done. This means they must have gone through hell programming Mario 64.

Mario 64 is certainly a technical achievement of its time. But it wasn’t good enough. Or, rather, 3d gaming came too early. Already with the Wii-mote, Nintendo acknowledges the N64 controller didn’t work for the masses. To me, Mario 64 feels only like a prototype to 3d Mario, as if a type of tech demo. To me, 3d Mario still doesn’t exist. 3d Mario is not 2d Mario in 3d.

Here is the major area where I think 3d Mario went wrong: its levels are designed in a corridor type of fashion. Power-ups are required elements. Puzzles are abundant. In other words, you must play the game a certain way to get to the end of the level. And what Nintendo thinks is ‘fun’ about the game is how each level is different in terms of gameplay. In one level you are sliding around. In another level, you are rolling around on a ball. And yet in another level, you are jumping on clouds.

The solution to 3d Mario would be to put the 2d platforming style into 3d Mario. Have  Mario start off as small Mario, and allow small Mario to be able to get every ‘star’ (or flag pole) in the game. Then have the power-ups act as things to help you out on this journey. The core gameplay should be only about core gameplay. If Nintendo developers want to make gameplay where you roll a ball around, let them make Marble Madness. Or if they want to make a game where you race to the finish line, let those developers work on Mario Kart. Mario games should *only* be about platforming. No puzzles.

2d Mario is fun because I can play it in different ways. It is the most replayable game ever made. 3d Mario forces you to play through levels only in one way. And this sucks. 3d Mario feels more like ‘Obstacle Courses’ instead of a Mario game.

If 3d Mario was centered on core platforming and had a wide range of different ways to play through the level (due to powerups or whatever), I would be interested in playing it. In its current Mario 64 echo design, I stay far away.

This is why I also didn’t like puzzles in Zelda. Puzzles have zero replayability. Once you know them, that is all there is. You cannot play the puzzle differently. The earlier Zeldas didn’t have ‘puzzles’, they had mazes. Maze games used to be extremely popular in video games  Hello Pac-Man. Even 2d Mario can feel like a maze at times.

 

Music #52

Shadowgate

1987

All Platforms

This game was magical because of two things: imaginative writing and awesome music.

Below: The Unused Track

Below: The Flute

 

Sony tells Nintendo to stop bashing 3d glasses

Remember that 3d is not just a PlayStation 3 thing, it is a move throughout the entire company. But what is disrupted is not a product, it is the company.

Nothing is funnier than hearing Sony cry.

Sony bashes the competition all the time. And this is very recently as well…

What Nintendo is doing is making sure Sony is unable to revive their video game empire and unable to bring out a PSP2 because Nintendo will have stolen all the third party companies.

 

Email: Do you really believe better sales means better quality?

That’s something that I always wanted to ask yourself, after comparing yourself to Michael Jackson and saying that because he’s a better singer, he sold a lot more than you, well, I think that this comparison is somewhat short sighted.
.
You can’t compare one of the best singers of all time, who brought a revolution to the music industry, to someone who doesn’t write music.
.
How about comparing Queen and The Beatles? Can you literally say that the Beatles are, objectively, a “better quality” band than Queen, just because they sold more? That doesn’t take into account things like influence, who was earlier (who says that if Queen came before the Beatles they wouldn’t have sold more?)
.
And what about cases like The Backstreet boys? They sold a TON of albums back in the day, Millenium is among the top 5 best selling albums ever, but they stopped selling, how could that be, if their “quality” is so good? Better, according to you, than bands like Iron Maiden, who still goes on tours and preform in front of millions of pepole, sell millions of albums every year, yet, their grand total of albums sold is less than The Backstreet Boys?
.
And what about taking into account different genres, does the fact that some genres are more accessible, make the genres themselves “better”? Is Rap better than Classical music because it sells more?
.
Is Elvis a better singer than Michael Jackson? Is Michael Jackson a better singer than Freddie Mercury? Is Mercury a better singer than Pavarotti?
.
You are equating quality to mean ‘art’ which is not what quality means.
.
Who should define quality of a video game?

Should it be the game journalist?

Should it be the retailer?

How about the Pope?

What about a politician?

The answer is that the people decide what is the quality of a product. We know it has value because people give something they have of value to get it (their money). If they didn’t value it, people wouldn’t be paying for it.

The Wii outsold the PlayStation 3. Does this mean the Wii is a better quality product than the PS3? The answer is yes. The Wii is performing a job the customers want in a much better way than the PS3. “But the PS3 is better technology and has better engineering and costs much more.” That isn’t better quality, that is called incompetence.

The only thing that matters is the job the product performs. Customers hire products to perform jobs for them. We hire the toilet plunger to unplug our sink. We hire the loaf of bread to fill our stomach. We hire the video game to entertain us.

Things are only ‘art’ if they are still being looked at at least a hundred years since the product was released. Since we aren’t going to live that long, the ‘art’ question shouldn’t matter with current products. How often do you care about products that came out a hundred years ago? There you go. 99.9% of products released today will be forgotten a hundred years from now.

I wonder why this issue is so difficult for people to accept. I think much of it has to do with the issue of context. They may read business information, but they haven’t re-wired their brains to think in such a way.

I am deeply offended that you think I cannot sing well. How do you know that I am a worse singer than Michael Jackson? You don’t know. I could very well be a better singer. I could be a better dancer as well.

How do you know that Michael Jackson is a good singer and Sean Malstrom is not? The answer is that people were willing to pay money to listen to Michael Jackson. So far, no one has paid money to listen to Sean Malstrom sing.

Many people erroneously refer to ‘quality’ as some Platonic ideal that floats in the void. But quality does not exist in that way.

Once upon a time, it was said that quality of a play meant that the play followed the Greek concept of real-time daytime in the play. A playwright was heavily criticized for not following this Greek ideal (and so his plays could not be considered quality. He was called an ‘upstart crow). The playwright’s name was Shakespeare.

More recently, it was said that novels had to follow European standards if they were to be of any quality. American novelists imitated European standards for the novel. But one author decided not to follow these European standards and followed his own voice which very much ended up defining American literature. The author’s name was Mark Twain.

In both those examples, sales re-defined quality. Popularity defined quality.

Once upon a time, video games were said to be ‘poor quality’. When young Iwata went to work at HAL, it is said his parents were not too happy. Perhaps they thought he was throwing his life away. What changed? How did video games go from being considered junk to being something of great value?

It is the sales. Video games sell in massive numbers. It is sales that define quality, because sales are votes of the people and it is people who define quality. Pretty much everything considered ‘quality’ got that way because of good sales. Even if a work was unknown at one time but sells a hundred years later, that again points to sales.

Does pop music outselling classical music mean that pop music is of higher quality? Of course it does. Pop music PLEASES people more. The purpose of a product is not to appeal to dead people but to living people, not to ideals in the sky but of current problems on the Earth.

Once upon a time, video games were considered hideous things compared to books and music and other things. Video games were considered of ‘no quality’. What changed all this? Sales of video games. It pointed out that people did value it.

It doesn’t bother me if someone refuses to accept this. They will just spend their lives making products no one wants to buy. More room for me to succeed.

 

Can entertainment do more than just entertain?

I do miss the old Star Trek.

“It is because you are a nerd,” says the reader.

No, it is because the show did something other shows did not. And Hollywood always hated it.

True, Star Trek was science fiction. Major science fiction authors would write some episodes. But the show was very much about the style of futurism. The gadgets, the art, the sculpture, the backdrops, even the women’s hair styles and clothing, all of it were things everyone wanted to see and be with in the future.

Interestingly, Star Trek shows were presented not as television so much but as stage plays with the stage acting played with the intensity of Shakespeare. Shakespeare was constantly referenced (in “The Undiscovered Country”, of which the title comes from Hamlet’s famous monologue, the Klingon villain does nothing but quote Shakespeare), and actors who played Klingons were required to have a ‘heightened sense’ and were usually Shakespearan actors. There is a very different type of acting we normally see on TV… right down to even the make-up.

Unlike much mediocre entertainment today, Star Trek transcended the political as it showed its happy vision for the future. Despite the Cold War, a Russian was on the bridge named Chekov (named after the famous Russian playwright). You had all sorts of races and creeds all working harmoniously on the ship.

Most importantly, it made space travel seem like ‘right around the corner’ instead of some far off fantasy. It inspired generations of engineers. It inspired rocket scientists to become rocket scientists (which is not an easy profession in the slightest nor the most financially rewarding).

Today, I do not see any of that ‘hope for the future’. I see racial and ethnic strife increasing. I see the future constantly painted with the brush of doom. But most importantly, I see entertainment out there doing the complete opposite. Entertainment that is throwing gasoline on ethnic strife, entertainment saying that you are ‘nerd and stupid’ (or today commonly called ‘white’) for learning math and engineering and that it is only proper to act like a drunken ape, and entertainment that says the future of space travel is ‘not around the corner’ but a far off fantasy. The first man who walked on the moon, Neil Armstrong, is currently not happy with the political dismantling of the space program.

While entertainment is just entertainment, it can spark our imagination to a better world.

 

Before E3 was E3

This is how it was folks. One change I am happy about is that there are no longer sports celebrities hanging out in booths anymore (aside from the occasional Tony Hawk type product).

 

Awesome Nintendo outfit from the ‘Nintendo Fun Club’

This is from the Nintendo Fun Club:

While these Halloween costumes are… interesting, note the walking box in the middle. Yes, that kid’s Halloween costume was a Nintendo salesman. No, it does not say his name is Reggie. Anyway, I bet this kid is probably a millionaire today. Interesting how all the other kids are posing as Mario or Bowser or Samus Aran (which itself is amazing because, I am constantly told from message forums, no one played Metroid until Super Metroid came out) but one lone kid poses as a Nintendo salesman. If that interest in sales, as a kid, remained present through his life, that kid is probably being driven around in a limo today while the other kids are probably stuck reading this website.

Oh, the humanity!

 

UK Retailers: Kinect pre-orders are very low

Disruption literature: “If you have not earned the right to innovate and do not have control of your core business, your expanded innovation will create a fire that will get out of control.”

The fire continues with retailers saying the pre-orders for Kinect is very low. I cannot keep up with all the bad Kinect stuff. Where is Milo? What happened to Milo? “It’s a tech demo!” “No, it’s a real product!”

Reader, are you camping out for Kinect? You better hurry! People are already setting up tents next to the stores. According to Microsoft, the ‘hardcore’ cannot wait to get Kinect.


Above: People so excited for Kinect they are already camping out. I expect the reader to be pitching his tent immediately after reading this blog post. In fact, you should buy thirty Kinects so you can re-sell them at a ‘higher price’ on Ebay (since everyone will want a Kinect! Microsoft said so!).


jarrod on 01 July 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
jarrod said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

You're just using a pat argument to try to dismiss something you don't like.

Sounds like Malstrom talking about Other M.


That's another strawman, since although he is snarky, he's been stating several reasons why he think it won't work. That is the opposite of what you are claiming. And the fact that you wrote such a short sentence is yet another pat argument to dismiss him.

You don't have to agree with him, but just dismissing him is foolhardy. Actually try to argue against what he says.

I wasn't positing an argument, just making an observation.  Also, you should look up what "strawman" really means, and the proper context to throw out such a loaded term.



UnstableGriffin on 01 July 2010
Smashchu2 said:
UnstableGriffin said:
Smashchu2 said:

@Griffin:So, I can't say anything about the game until I have played it from begining to end unless tht something is "this is the best game ever. I can't wait to buy it!

Well, yes.


Complaining about something you don't fully understand and haven't experienced yourself is stupid. Also trying to deliberately find faults because you want to complain about it is stupid. Did I also happen to mention how stupid it is to complain about the very first part of the game that is yet to be released?

That's like if someone frequently complain how every upcoming movie sucks because he doesn't like their posters.

If that is true, then also praising a game you know very little about is stupid. We haven't experienced it yet. It might be garbage. And it's also dumb to deliberatly find praise for it.

This is like if someone frequently praised how every upcoming movie is awesome because he really likes the posters.

It goes both ways. So either we say absolutly nothing until the game coms out, or you accept that people are going to talk smack about Other M.

Then I'll be happy to let you know that I haven't praised the game irrationatelly. Currently atleast.

 

Anyway, I like how angry Sean Malstrom suddenly got when somebody corrected his mistake when quoting Yoshio Sakamoto(and making his completely idiotic remark all the more pathetic). NOBODY should ever correct Sean Malstrom, because he's NEVER wrong! NEVER EVEN ONCE!

...I mean geez, can't Mr. Malstrom just murder the guy already? It's not like he's fooling anyone.

He's like a deranged Dalek, obsessed with his supposed superiority and hatred against everyone.

"YOU WIll OBEY DALEK SEAN! DALEK SEAN IS SUPREME! ALL THOSE OPPOSING WILL BE EXTERMINATED! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!! EXTERMINAAAATEEE!!!"

And that "Sales = QUALITY" is still garbage.

I also feel sorry for all those kids. They had such a promising future.



He attacked everything in life with a mix of extraordinary genius and naive incompetence, and it was often difficult to tell which was which.

- Douglas Adams