@MormonWarrior: I think you're missing the point that all reviews are "totally opinion based". Gamespot was in no way more analytical nor clinical. Just because they had more numbers besides stuff like graphics, gameplay, and audio in addition to the main review score, it doesn't mean that those numbers were in any way less opinion driven. There was never any empirical formula to arrive at any of those numbers; they were driven by the whims of the reviewer, not to mention the date of the review.
Would anyone expect a game with a graphics score of 8 in 1998 than a game with a graphics score of 7 in 2004 to actually have better graphics? Furthermore, I would hazard a guess that most, if not all, of the reviewers did not take a keen eye towards the history of their own review scores. So, I then don't see how you would even begin comparing scores for one game to another, let alone between other reviewers. I like Giant Bomb's move towards less granularity with scores. I would however like it even better if it was distilled into three levels:
play
try
don't play
That's essentially why you made this rant, right? A game got reviewed poorly, but you enjoyed your time with it; or a game got reviewed glowingly, but you had no passion for it.
With all that said, I only had one issue to take note of from your rant. The opinions you expressed about Rock Band 3 piano are pretty much the same exact way real guitarists felt about the guitar "instrument" ever since Guitar Hero. You're not actually playing the instrument, you're pressing buttons in time to a song. There's no phrasing or interpretation. You just press keys. Singers felt the same way about how the singing was scored. Real drummers couldn't even play the game correctly until they pushed it to expert. Just like DDR had nothing to do with real dancing, music games have nothing to do with real music.
This thread is bullshit. There are numerous times where they explicitly say how they are grateful for their jobs and the line of work they're in.
Even then, playing video games isn't their job.
Their job is providing interesting content that informs and entertains their viewership. They aren't at E3 playing games as a fun, little pastime. They're playing games critically with an eye for telltale signs of future quality. They're spending their time taking copious notes, planning how to cut this and that footage to make for interesting copy, not to mention lining up further access for the new games that they're seeing.
For all those saying they'd kill for a chance to go to E3 and play all the latest, upcoming games, just stop. No. At that point you're aiming to exacerbate the problems they're complaining about. Unless you're spending hours upon hours producing some sort of content from your experiences in playing these games, you are delaying someone else who will.
@tunaburn: As others have stated, you have a problem making a distinction between experience points and ranking points. It's not like you gain a certain number of points and then you get put into the next league. From what I understand those points just place you in rankings in your division.
But that's all besides the point. I don't think you find Starcraft 2 fun at all. If you found it fun, that 45 minutes spent on a losing game would still be rewarding. That losing experience would have shown you that there are holes in your strategy that need plugging. The fun should have been finding a new way to improve and using that knowledge in subsequent matches. If that's not fun for you, then Starcraft 2 isn't fun for you.
Oh and if you're just pulling builds out of your ass right when you feel like it, then I don't think you actually have any experience with competition. Now, I don't have any experience with jiu jitsu, but I'm going to guess that you don't willy nilly up and decide to try an arm bar in the middle of a competition match. Fuck no, I'm guessing that before that competition, you've spent weeks if not months or years, drilling the exact timing and positioning to actually be able to pull off that arm bar. Probably spent those weeks figuring out which ways it could be avoided or countered as well. If you're not willing to invest that time for Starcraft 2 ranked match, then I don't think you like competitive Starcraft 2 all that much.
And I'll bet that the first time you ever tried to attempt that arm bar was outside of a competition setting. That's kind of where practicing against the computer comes into play. The computer allows a low stress environment to perfect a build, getting the timings right and making sure you can put up sufficient defense against what may come. That 45 minute loss should make you think, "Gee, I need to spend at least as much time in the lab getting this build off the ground." If you think that's too much work, then yeah, Starcraft 2 doesn't seem to be fun for you.
Bottom line, you aren't playing Starcraft 2. You're playing the meta game where you make some numbers go up.
Here's the thing though, none of this is real 3D. If there's a miniature woman standing in front of me, I should be able to lower my head and see her panties under her skirt. Unless it's that, it's not 3D. It's just a unsatisfactory imitation of actual depth.
Manipulatable holograms projected into real world space is the kind of 3D I want. Glasses-required or glasses-free, the current "3D" isn't any more immersive than the 3D objects projected onto a 2D plane I get already. I only see the current technology as a stop gap and learning experience for 3 dimensional UI design, nothing more. With that said, TrackIR-enabled(or other head tracking technology) paired with glasses technology actually makes sense and provides some of the functionality I desire. However, that only services one person.
Yeah, I don't really see this technology going anywhere.
Most likely the replays are stored as digital inputs to save on storage space. So, the only way to get a visual replay, per se, is through the game engine.
That's the base line for pretty much all products that can play video/audio, so just do that.
Except .avi only describes the container format and doesn't actually get you anywhere with video. You still need to figure out which video encoder to use. XviD, DivX, H.264, various MPEG formats are all pretty popular encoding formats. Each needs its respective decoder to actually view it within an .avi file.
Log in to comment