Errata from the erotic (I makes da funny!)

Well, first off, after a long and soon to be deleted discussion on how to capture screenshots, I finally got a South Park character modeled after myself as well as one modeled after my wife, the illustrious Dido Doe!



Me


Wife

Huzzah for us!

Some thoughts on Christmas:

I always get pissy this time of year. Part of it is the music--did you know that Bob Seeger, Billy Idol and Jethro Tull all made Christmas songs? Well you do now, thanks to my podunk Montana classic rock station! I fail to see a need for EVER GODDAMNED BAND IN CREATION to make a Christmas album. I mean, there's something wrong when the same guy who taught me that sex and drugs are cool, that I should desperately avoid the holy sacrament of marriage, and that I should rebel against society starts singing about baby Jesus in a manger.
But even more annoying than the overt commercialism of mainstream pop music is the politically correct way that everyone so desperately tries to get into my wallet. Of all the Christmas commercials I was bombarded with this year, only one actually said "Merry Christmas," and that was for a beer commercial--they probably figured their key demographic would be too drunk to give a damn. Happy holidays? What 'holidays?' It's friggin CHRISTMAS!

Yeah, I know, not everyone believes in Jesus. Does that change the fact that its still CHRISTMAS? Is it just a bizarre coincidence that all of the banks and post offices happen to be closed on December 25th for a "winter holiday?" It's the name of the freakin holiday, and pretending it isn't so you don't offend some whiner just doesn't make sense.

And it isn't like the other winter holidays are anything to write home about. Let's review them briefly:

Channukah:
Channukah is the Jewish celebration of a miracle that happened about 2500 years ago. But it isn't like its a terribly important holiday; the event they're celebrating is only documented in Maccabees, a book they didn't consider important enough to put in their scriptures. And Purim, a celebration whose events ARE written about in the Jewish scriptures (its in the book of Esther, by the way), is so obscure that if you ask a Jew if he celebrates it, he'll respond "what the hell is purim?" In fact, I would go so far as to theorize that Channukah only became as big of a holiday as it is because of the attention Christmas was getting. Channukah is a protest holiday, and that don't jike with the Doester.

Ramadan:
Ramadan is the Islamic winter holiday. But instead of giving presents and spreading good will, they fast and pray for a month. Is it any small wonder that theirs is the fastest growing religion in the world?

Ramadan is actually a pretty decent holiday to celebrate tho--unless you're a business owner. You don't want people praying and fasting, you want them shopping. Since Muslims aren't going to be buying "holiday presents" anyhow, why bother being inclusive of them?

Kwanza:
Kwanza is the biggest freaking joke of a holiday out there. Christmas goes back about 2000 years. Channukah goes back 2500 years, Ramadan maybe 1500 years, and Passover over 3000 years. Kwanza, on the other hand, has a solid 39 years of strong, African-American history behind it!

People, get your heads out of your asses. You can't just make up a holiday because you don't like the other options! Anyone who panders to these guys is automatically on my shit list.

Saturnalia:
Well, you've got to give the ancient Roman pagans some credit--it was their holiday first. Pretty much everything about Christmas was stolen from the Romans, including the Christmas tree, the date, the lights, even the tradition of giving gifts!

But where the Roman pagans went wrong was dying out. See, the Christians are still around. The Romans aren't. So, its a Christian holiday now. Eat that, Antiochus IV!

Conclusion:
There are lots of different winter holidays, but that doesn't change the fact that December 25th is Christmas. Why be pussies about it? Why get all whiney and sue cities for hanging Christmas lights and putting up Christmas trees? Those things aren't even Christian!

This'd be alot better world if all the whiney-ass minorities got over themselves. Fuck you, mister Shlomo Mowanda Mohammed Bitchenstein! This is MY dojo (doejo?)! I just ate some CHRISTMAS candy, and in a few days I'm gonna rip open some CHRISTMAS presents! And maybe if I get my wife tipsy enough, I'll get me some CHRISTMAS sex!

Where's your messiah now?!

Harro werld!

JCD, in his infinite wisdom granted me the power to post on his blog! Expect very few posts, and any of the things I do post not to be funny! I am a valuable asset to the team!

Crappy picture of me using the
South Park Character Maker

A couple things

The war is over!

Our friend Adam over at vgpundit chose not to continue our debate here, wishing instead to participate in a board war. I declined. Here's why:

1) The people who post on message boards rarely bother reading what previous posters have said. It results in annoyingly redundant posts, which invariably begin with "I didn't bother reading the 18 pages of discussion here, I just wanted to say what I think."

2) I cannot win a board war. When I stopped the doejo comics, three things happened. First, Jesus stopped weeping tears of blood. Second, the Pope died (coincidence? I think so!). And third, I lost my knack for homosexual jokes. Adam, however, retains a mastery of calling people 'gay.' As is common knowledge on the internet, you need to call your opponent 'gay' as many times as is possible if you want to win a board war. I would lose.

3) This blog is the only place I can guarantee posts will not be deleted, and that is only because I'm in charge here. If Adam doesn't like what you have to say at vgpundit, he just deletes your comments. Most message board mods are worse, deleting posts that violate the 'terms of service' in ways that no one really knows (but are irrefutable because discussing acts of moderation is a violation of the terms of service!).

If Adam wants to continue arguing, he'll do it here. Because I'm not about to go to a message board.

And while this post isn't really a refutation in any way of anything Adam has said, I think it only fair to point out that the only people besides Adam who would know the sales numbers of the PSP for the first 18 weeks of its retail cycle would be these guys. If that's what it takes to be a 'real gamer,' then I'd rather not be one, thank you.

Microsoft ain't such a big hit in Japan!

Looks like the Japanese aren't terribly impressed with the XBox 360. As it turns out, Japanese gamers prefer Japanese games to first person shooters! Astounding!

Whether Microsoft's campaign to bring Japan on board through strategic partnerships with Japanese game maker will succeed or not is anyone's guess. But one thing is certain: launching the system with a football game, several first person shooters and an 8 hour long action game was destined for failure among our little friends across the sea.

Now if Microsoft had only allocated those units gathering dust in Japanese boutiques to American retail outlets, they might have actually moved em!

More Revolution Rumors?!?!

Hey, they may not be reputable, but they give me something to talk about! According to an article by nintendo-revolution, the Big N holds a patent on a method of displacement mapping. Displacement mapping is basically an advanced form of bump mapping, allowing programmers to map textures to a polygonal object in such a way that it appears to contain a far higher poly count than it does. Ya, read the article if you want to know all about displacement mapping, along with pictures for people like Mark Kwon Doe.

Is it likely? Well, Nintendo holds a patent on a method of displacement mapping, but Nintendo also holds patents on lots of things that never turned out (like a hard drive/ modem add-on for the N64. And it's also important to note that displacement mapping is a CPU intensive process (as noted by the original article). Could a 750 Mhz-1.5 Ghz CPU actually handle it? We'll see.

Ah the handheld wars!

It seems our friend Adam of vgpundit doesn't like me commenting on his blog. I guess that means I'll just have to comment on my own blog, where he can't delete dissention! Baha! (uh, yeah)

With the introduction of the Nintendo DS and the PSP, the handheld market has really heated up. There is a strong sense of competition once again, which is a good thing: competition drives innovation up and pricing down.

Before I begin discussing Adam's article on the handheld market, let's just list the specs of the three handheld juggernauts, just for shits and giggles:

PSP
CPU: 333 Mhz
RAM: 8 MB
VRAM: 2 MB
Media: 1.8 GB optical disc
Screen: 4.3" widescreen, 480x272 resolution
Color depth: 16.77 million colors

DS
CPU: 67 Mhz
RAM: 4 MB
VRAM: 656 KB
Media: cartridge
Screen: 2 X 3", 256x192 resolution
Color depth: 260,000 colors

GBA
CPU: 16.78 Mhz
RAM: 256 KB
VRAM: 96 KB
Media: cartridge
Screen: 2.9", 240x160 resolution
Color depth: 32,768 colors

Let's also get sales numbers. According to gameshout, the PSP has sold 4.26 million units, as compared with the DS which has sold 4.73 million units and the GBA which has sold an astonishing 6.25 million units. These numbers seem to mirror the preliminary NPD numbers listed at ign for the month of November, which show the PSP selling 360,000 systems, the DS selling 380,000 systems, and the GBA selling 900,000 systems.

Now, down to business.

In his article, Adam claims

without any real high profile titles of it's own, the DS was left behind in Default Second place, since really the best titles for each came in the launch pack, with PSP easily trumping the DS' offerings.

He goes on to say "the PSP still had better games, and was still leading, leaving the DS in it's wake" until the August release of Advance Wars: Dual Strike and Nintendogs.

The fact is, however, that the number simply do not, nor have they ever, borne this claim. The DS did not gain its 500,000 unit marketplace advantage since August. They only gained on the psp by 20,000 units in the month of November; it is highly dubious, if not downright unlikely, that the DS outsold the PSP by 480,000+ units in a 3 month period of time.

In spite of the numbers, Adam insists that even after August's heavy hitter releases, there was "still no clear winner" until the release of Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow (released in November). Apparantly he believes NPD's numbers are wrong; cleraly there was a gap of 500,000+ units in November! I'm sure Nintendo would like to hear that news!

Let's recap:
Adam: The PSP and the DS were tied for market share until November.
Fact: The DS's market superiority dated much farther back than even August, possibly stretching back to the release period of the systems.
The fact here is that in spite of the PSP's technological superiority, the DS has always beaten the PSP in the handheld market.

In response to my deleted post, Adam contended that the PSP "is by all measures 10+ times more powerful than the DS," concluding that "it's superior regardless of sales."

First, when we again consider the facts, we see that the PSP is hardly 10 times more powerful than the DS. It is a more powerful gaming machine, no doubt about it. But 10 times? It's CPU is about 5 times faster, and it has about doubled the RAM of the DS. Considering the difference in the size of their screens, the actual difference in output power is presumably even smaller.

Adam: The PSP is 10+ times more powerful than the DS.
Fact: The PSP, while clearly more powerful than the DS, hardly outpowers the Nintendo handheld by a factor of 10.

Finally, let's address Adam's contention that the PSP is "superior regardless of sales." This is perhaps the most telling comment of his entire diatribe.

"Superior" is defined by dictionary.com as "Of a higher nature or kind." Fair enough definition.

But what superiority are we talking about? In terms of hardware, the PSP is in fact superior to its competitors. Clearly. No contest. But is hardware the purpose of the PSP? Does the PSP exist simply to prove that the hardware can be put together? Clearly not; the purpose is fun.

It would seem, then, that the true test of "superiority" in this debate is not centered on hardware but rather on fun. How do you measure fun? The only tool we have are sales numbers; if more people buy the DS than the PSP, then clearly the consumer base, as a whole, finds the DS to be more fun than the PSP.

Going off these premises, however, we would have to conclude that the GBA is in fact "superior" to both the DS and the PSP. And you know something? I would have to agree!

This is where Adam has a disconnect with the average gamer. Graphics do not a great title make. Numbers and specs are meaningless when it comes to gaming systems. It's all about gameplay! And when it comes to gameplay, the GBA is the clear victor in the handheld war. It's library consists of thousands of titles stretching back to the original gameboy, its simple two button + d pad layout is both intuitive and functional, and its low price tag leaves me with more money to buy the things I love: games!

If I could roll back time and change one thing about the video game industry, it would be the advent of 3d gaming. Not that I don't enjoy 3d games; my favorite game is Xenogears, which is entirely in 3d. But in the wake of 3d gaming, we've seen such an emphasis placed on graphics--more polygons, higher res textures, more toys like anti-aliasing and shaders--that gameplay has taken a back seat. Sidescrollers are still fun! Overhead 'Zelda' type games are still fun! Turn based strategy and rpg games are still fun!

So that's where we have to leave it. In a previous article, Adam himself claimed that he likes "more of the same, so long as it's new and enjoyable." You don't need a $300 handheld to experience that. The end users have realized this. The numbers prove it.

Lots of interesting leaks about the revolution

Well, it seems our industry insider who leaked the early revolution specs was wrong. Very wrong (hey, I warned you that it was just an unverified and very premature rumor, k?). According to ign, developer leaks have a far less flattering set of specs to share:

CPU: 1.5 to 2.5 times more powerful than the gamecube's (approx. 750 MHz-1.5 Ghz--probably on the lower end as some devs have compared it to the XBox which clocks at 733 Mhz)
GPU: Unknown
RAM: 88 MB 1T Ram, 16 MB DRam
GPU RAM: 3 MB (?)
Media: Dual layer DVD (8.5 GB)

This is, of course, a FAR cry from the impressive specs of the PS3 (3.2 GHz Cell processor with 7 concurrent threads) and the XBox 360 (3 X 3.2 GHz dual threaded cores). It is absolutely clear now that the Revolution will never be able to output HDTV, as it lacks the RAM to handle higher definition textures. Simply comparing apples to apples, it almost looks like Nintendo is intentionally taking a dive this time around. So what's their game?

Well, first off they have their controller. Now, it is a damned cool little toy. But can you really build a system around a controller?

Second, they have the virtual console. Backward compatibility with all previous consoles certainly won't hurt; that's one of the things Sony has brilliantly leveraged with each incarnation of the playstation.

Third, they will have pricing working in their favor. It doesn't take a genius to tell that it'll cost less to buy a 750 Mhz, 104 MB ram system than it will to buy a 3.2 GHz, tripled core 512 MB system--alot less. Like, several hundred dollars less.

But all of this being said, will the Revolution be able to hold its own? Will the graphics at the least be comparable to their competitors in standard definition? Will people actually want a Revolution?

And that brings us to the ultimate conclusion: no one really knows. On the one hand, it's hard to imagine a 750 MHz machine competing with a triple cored 3.2 Ghz system. But on the other hand, its certainly no overstatement to say that computing power has reached a point of diminishing returns; my 2.4 Ghz pc with a GeForce FX 5700 is capable of running WoW in 1024 x 768 (similar to 720p, BTW), firefox, and windows, all with reasonably good performance. A console should be able to handle a game at least as complex as WoW with quite a bit less processing power (no need to run a bloated OS, no background apps, etc). But even still, could a system with a 750 Mhz CPU pull off a title like WoW?

When all is said and done, I just don't know if the Revolution can hold its own, and I certainly don't know if its going to be a success. But if I had to take a guess, I'd wager that Nintendo just plain didn't put enough under the hood to compete.

Review: Shadow of the Colossus

Since the Doejo has always been about video games, I decided that maybe I should actually, er, review some video games. Imagine that!

Shadow of the Colossus is probably the sleeper hit of the season. The amount of work poured into this game was substantial, and it shows. From the way the music subtlely responds to your actions to the realistic way the horse respond to your commands, its obvious that the game developers at SCEA pulled out all the stops.

The basic premise of the game is simple (and a bit unusual): you play a young man who travels to the cursed land of the colossi to restore the life of a young lady (you never find out who she is or what her relationship to your character is). The whole game revolves around two tasks: finding a colossus (a challenging task in and of itself), and then besting the enormous beast.

Graphics: 9
The graphics are good--damn good--but not great. Its clear that SCEA pushed the PS2 to its limits, and the result is a beautifully designed game running on hardware that is incapable of doing it justice. The game world is seamless--there are no zones--and represents miles of different biomes, from badlands to forests, lakes to deserts, plains to ruins. Each is well rendered, and looks great in spite of the relatively low resolution textures and lack of current GPU niceties (i.e., there is no pixel shading or anti-aliasing). Another nice visual feature of SotC is the way things blur when you spin the camera. It looks like a movie.

The limits of the PS2 just kill the overall impact of the work SCEA did on this title however. The gameworld looks grainy, the low resolution of the textures is painfully obvious in some of the more textured areas (like the several temples and ruins you will visit), and the lack of shaders makes water look flat and uninteresting. Another visual detraction is the 'washed out' look of colors in the game. Perhaps this is an intended stylistic element, but when you compare the flat colors of SotC with the vibrancy of a game like TES: Oblivion, it becomes painfully obvious that developers can create a realistic look while making good use of broad color pallettes.

In the end, the graphics would probably have gotten a perfect score if the PS2 hardware were capable of handling a title of this calaber. Unfortunately, it isn't likely that SCEA will port this to one of their competitors' system, so you'll just have to look past the jaggies to the fine work they did.

Sound: 10

The sound in SotC is great. And when I say great, I mean amazing. There is no synthesized music in the game. Every note was performed by a real musician playing a real instrument. The voice acting is both emotional and rich, and the ambient sounds (like wind rushing through a narrow vale or water cascading over a cliff) are both well placed and beautifully sampled. Even more amazing is the way the music changes based on your actions. When you are stalking a reluctant colossus, the music is pensive, but once you mount the beast, it goes more 'hollywood,' giving you a sense that what you are doing is truly epic. Also nice is the 'fake' language the characters use when speaking. It gives the game an 'otherworldly' appeal that English dialogue simply could not capture.

SotC does not support Pro-Logic II, but you won't even notice. I can't give this title anything but a perfect score for its use of audio.

Gameplay: 10

The game plays great. When a colossus throws its weight around with you on its back, the character stumbles around in a very realistic manner. When a colossus sets its foot down near you, your character is thrown to the ground. The animations and controls of the battles are so well done, you'd almost swear you've been watching a movie that you control.

Also amazing is the way Agro, your horse, controls. When he approaches a cliff, he rears back and skids to a halt. When he is at full gallop, his turn radius is limited--much as a real horse's turn radius would be wide at full pace. Again, when riding the horse, you'd swear it was a movie and not a game.

Story: 7

What story? The game begins with a short cutscene explaining that you are trying to save the life of a girl--you never find out who--and ends with you becoming a baby with horns. Don't ask me to explain it.

The story is actually pretty well executed through the few cutscenes spaced throughout the game, but its weird. Really weird. Like, Katamari after dropping acid weird. Perhaps its a cultural thing that only the Japanese understand. But I couldn't tell you why your character turns into a horned baby at the end.

Value: 7

Ah, the caveat. SotC is a great game, but its short. Really short. Even without using a cheat guide, you'd be hard pressed to stretch the game out for more than 10 hours of gameplay. The game does have some replay value in the form of timed boss fights and a hard mode, but even playing through all of these simply doesn't satisfy. Perhaps this is more of a commentary on the quality of the game--I didn't want it to end--but I could have used alot more content.

Overall: 8.5

This game is good--damn good. Its a 'must play' for the PS2, and if you're looking for a great, innovative action-adventure game, you won't be disappointed. But if you're looking for a game you can play for hours on end or a riveting storyline, you've come to the wrong place.

SotC is a nicely made game and deserves at the least a rental. In fact, you may want to rent this title since you could probably finish it over a weekend (I did). One way or another, its a must-play title for the PS2, and could well be one of the defining titles of the system.

What some people won't believe in (or why Halloween is so awesome)

So I had the day off, save a doctor's appointment at 12:15 PM. Normally I'd try to be about 10 minutes early, but as luck would have it, my office clock has yet to be adjusted for DST (thank you, Mr. Franklin, for your oh-so-wonderful idea!). Needless to say, I had an hour to kill, and nothing to do. Now Bozeman, Montana is a pretty cool place, but not at 11 in the morning. Lacking anything better to do, I headed to Borders.

The great thing about big book store chains is they carry some of the most random nonsense you can think of--wasting an hour in one is like spending the day at a firecracker factory. I browsed the science fiction section (they made books based on "Halo?" Yeech!), and then the political science section before my feet took me to the "religion" section (I think the fact that politics and religion are neighbors in the book store is the most delicious of ironies--they both defy the human mind, after all). My eyes were quickly caught by two books on prominent display, both on the 'arts' of magic.

The first one I paged through was sort of a 'witch's primer,' teaching you everything you need to know to go from your basic cantrips (like cursing crops and bewitching lovers) to the intricacies of formulating your own potent hokus-pokus. Most of it was just plain boring; I wanted something I could pick up, glance through, and shoot fire balls from my fingertips in like thirty minutes, not a dissertation on pentacle facings and star charts. Bleh.

Of particular interest, however, was a section entitled "Why didn't my spell work?" In this two page 'explanation' of why spells don't work, the author gave several possibly reasons:

1) The timing of the spell might not yet have come. Obviously! I cast a 'wealth with +2 to dexterity' on myself, but I didn't train the 'instant casting' feat (which I don't get until 12th level )! I should probably just wait around for my wealth and prowess! But wait:

2) You did not proactively pursue the results of your spell. See, magic doesn't just 'magically' grant you the results you desire, that'd just be silly! You need to then go and make them happen! If I want my wealth and agility, I'd better start daytrading and pumping up at the gym! And if that doesn't work, there's always . . .

3) Your inner god/goddess knew it was not in your best interests. Damn my aura of poverty and sloth! I drew the friggin pentagram, I uttered the friggin incantation, and I did the legwork! Why the hell did 'SIT rectal cleansers' stock do so poorly?! Screw you, inner god/goddess!

So lets say I wanted to shoot fireballs out of my fingertips (magic missile is a level 0 spell, so even an idiot like me should be able to master it). First I'd have to spend $30 on the book. Next, I'd need to draw charts and diagrams of the stars and stuff so I could properly cast the spell. Then I'd need to do some stuff (I didn't really read the book, so I can only assume this includes sacrificing cats, drinking blood and crushing up herbs). And for all my efforts, nothing would happen because my 'inner god' doesn't think it's such a good idea for me to be shooting fireballs out of my fingers. In other words, nothing would happen--I'd be better off taking my $30 and buying a zippo, since that'd actually work (and I could get my money back if it didn't).

The other book was even funnier. It was an omnibus of magical spells--5000 of em! The thing looked like a garden variety cook book, and I knew at first glance that it would be amusing. I flipped it open to the middle, and came across a spell for contraception. It said you need to go to a grain mill at midnight (where the hell am I going to find a grain mill?) and turn it backwards 4 times.

Who came up with this nonsense? Some 14th century medieval dunce? Condoms have existed for centuries; why would I go harass the owner of the local mill when I could just slap on a sheepskin? Better yet, why would this be in a book on the shelf of a bookstore in the year 2005? Between condoms, IUDs, the pill, hormone patches, and the morning-after pill, there's no need to invoke the dark arts to prevent conception--save your soul for something more worthwhile, like selling to the devil in exchange for being a rock star or something.

So to all you witches and warlocks out there, happy halloween! Go ahead and cast your poxes on me all you want; I have perfect faith that your inner gods and goddesses know that it isn't for the best and won't let you do it. Meanwhile, if one of you freaks gets close to me I'll just use use my revolver as a 'counterspell' that isn't governed by a divinity. Science wins the day!

Technology: the sky's the limit?

So, for all of you console monkey's out there, you probably know the arguments going into this coming console war: nintendo 'says video game technology has hit its upper limits and that all next gen consoles are going to be more of the same,' MS says 'yes, and we'll it to you first,' and Sony says 'our more of the same will be better than everyone else's more of the same!' There are fans on each side of the aisle; nintendo fans will happily tell you that the nintendo is going to completely own the next generation because the tech has capped out, and sony fans will blithely argue that the ps3 will easily outpower Skynet of Terminator fame. So who's right?

Well, first off, video game technology hasn't capped by a long shot. As nice as the next gen games look (and they really do look great), they aren't photo-realistic. Meaning, you can still tell they're computer generated. I have yet to see a tree in a video game that looks anywhere near as beautiful as a real tree. Video game people look 'plastic,' lacking the little flaws that make real people look 'real.' Even the best pixel shading cannot yet accurately mimic a lake surrounded by forest and mountains (and I live in Montana, so I know what that really looks like).

Audio is another area that has nothing but growth in the cards. Video game music is either midi based (meaning the score is coded in and the music is performed 'real time' by a synthesizer) or wave audio (meaning the music is pre-performed and recorded). It doesn't take much imagination to realize that wave audio is about as interactive as pre-rendered video. And while midi has the capability of adapting to the user, its dependant on sampled instruments (which invariably fail to accurately imitate the real thing). There are programs out there that will render an instrument, real time, via programming of the overtones etc. that are present on an instrument, resulting in a more accurate sound emulation experience (I'll find a link later, can't remember the name of the damned program). Perhaps that's where digital audio will go next. Or maybe it will continue in the trend of Dolby's Pro Logic II, which allows for a real time surround sound experience. Any way you look at it, the limit has not been reached.

'But you can only slap so many transistors on a single chip!' I hear the nintendo fanbois cry. That is true. But I like to think of skyscrapers in this situation (yeah, I said skyscrapers). Originally, skyscrapers were built out of concrete. The problem with concrete is that its brittle and heavy. As the building gets larger, the amount of stress on the base of the structure increases exponentially. Further, as the building gets larger, the amount of 'play' needed to tolerate tectonic shifts, high winds, etc also increases. The tallest concrete structure ever built is the Empire State Building. But that's far from the tallest structure ever built. How'd they outdo the ESB?

The answer is simple: when the existing tech hit its upper limit, they found new tech--steel frame skyscrapers. Steel is far more pliable than concrete, and its weight is negligible compared to that of concrete. Further, because the structural integrity of the building is based on a wire-frame like network of rebar rather than blocks of concrete, the facade of the building can be made out of far lighter materials. And in areas where seisemic activity is a serious concern, the entire building can be mounted on a sort of 'rolling base,' capable of swaying with the tremors and maintaining structural integrity.

As it is with skyscrapers, so it shall be with video games. Will we hit a limit? Oh yeah. Big time. But that doesn't mean we have to stop there--we'll just find a way around. And for those who claim that there's no place left to go, all I can say is just wait and see.

Console Wars: The Next Generation

In case you couldn't tell, I've had alot of stuff bubbling around inside my cavernous head that I've been meaning to rant about. :D Enter the next generation console wars!

The systems:

Ok, first things first: let's talk hardware. Both Sony and MS have officially released the specs of their next gen systems; Nintendo has not, but Han Solo, the same guy who leaked the specs of the XBox 360 a month before they were released, posted some fairly realistic specs (realistic meaning they aren't godly, but they aren't shameful either). He actually posted two prototypes Nintendo is still deciding between, so for the purpose of comparison, I'll lowball it and assume the wimpier one takes the cake.

XBox 360:
CPU: A custom IBM PowerPC with 3 independent cores, each running at 3.2 GHz
GPU: A custom ATI GPU, running at 500 MHz
RAM: 512 Megs of UMA RAM, shared between the CPU and GPU.
Memory Bandwidth: 22.4 GB/sec.
Audio: Software driven multichannel output
Outputs: 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i
Networking: Built in ethernet, optional Wifi
Media: Dual layer DVD-ROM
Harddrive: 20 MB removeable HD
Other cool stuff: supports 4 2.4 GHz wireless controllers

PS3:
CPU: 3.2 GHz cell processor
GPU: 550 MHz custom GPU with 256 Megs dedicated video RAM
RAM: 256 Megs XDR RAM
Memory Bandwidth: 25.6 GB/sec main system, 22.4 GB/sec video memory bandwidth
Audio: Software driven multichannel output
Outputs: 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p
Networking: Built in Wifi (802.11 B/G)
Media: Blue ray BD-ROM
Harddrive: Optional 2.5 inch removeable HD
Other cool stuff: supports 7 bluetooth wireless controllers, buttloads of USB connections

Revolution:*
CPU: IBM custom PowerPC at 2.5 GHz + 2 G5 dual-threaded cores, each at 2.5 GHz
GPU: Two ATI custom GPUs at 400 MHz and 28 shader pipes per GPU
RAM: 512 Megs of 1T RAM
Memory Bandwidth: Unknown
Audio: A separate hardware sound chip with 16 Megs dedicated ram
Outputs: 480i, 480p
Networking: Built in Wifi
Media: Dual-layer DVD
Harddrive: 512 Meg flash drive
Other cool stuff: Ability to download NES/SNES/N64 games, controller rumored to cure cancer

*Note: These are based on unofficial leaks. The source has been good in the past, but that's no guarantee that he's right now. I have no way of verifying their accuracy. Don't come bitching to me if the Revolution turns out to be a gopher in a tupperware container, k?

Specs are nice, but what the FUCK do they mean?

I'm glad you asked! I can summarize each of the spec sheets in one sentence (and I don't even need to discuss the difference between NPR ram and JCD ram!): all of the next gen consoles are going to kick major ass. Seriously. We're talking systems that are on par with the hottest pc you could possibly build (in fact, the PS3's GPU clocks faster than any pc video card on the market). Big wonking numbers, all of them.

But when people go the their local gamestop, they're not going to think "hm, do I want an XBox 360 for its 3 PowerPC 3.2 GHz cores, or do I want a PS3 for its breakthrough cell processor?" They're going to think "the games on that one look cool, and its not too expensive; guess I'll get it."

Price:

Anyone who doesn't think price matters is a retard. OF COURSE it matters. If I can buy one console, or a competitor console and a few games, I'll probably go with the competitor. This is where the real console war begins.

The PS3 is going to be fucking expensive. We're talking somewhere between $400 and $500 clams (hell, they're selling the PSP for $250--damn expensive for a handheld). Why so pricy? Well, Blu-ray is slick, and it can store a metric fuckload of data, but its brand-spanking new. That means more bucks. The same goes for the cell processor: it's really really really slick technology, but its also brand new, and that means expensive.

The XBox 360 and the Revolution will probably be around the same price: I'm guessing somewhere between $250 and $350. Neither uses anything particularly new or untried: PowerPC chips have been around for years, as have dual-layer DVD-ROMs, etc. The big difference between Sony and MS/Nintendo in this console war is that Sony is pioneering big, shiny new technologies, while Microsoft and Nintendo are using older technologies to their maximum potentials.

What is Sony's gameplan with all this?

Aha, now we come to it: the marketing plans! Of the three systems, the PS3 will most likely be the most powerful. PowerPC CPUs are nothing compared to cell CPUs, there are no other 550 MHz GPUs in existence (yet), and Blu-Ray discs can hold vast quantities of data in comparison with dual-layer DVDs. And 1080p output? Well, let's just say I haven't seen a TV at Bestbuy that can handle that yet.

So why does Sony need such a powerful system? Because they intend for the PS3 to last 10 years, as compared to the standard console life-cycle of 5! Sony is betting that in 10 years, HD televisions will have penetrated enough households worldwide that people will want a console that supports the highest levels of HD output. Sony is betting that Blu-ray will become the standard format for HD movies. Sony is, in short, trying to build an all-in-one set top box for the next 10 years, complete with a potent gaming console, HD movie player, and memory-stick and VCD support to play home movies.

It's a cool idea, but the price tag is going to hurt them big, at least in the beginning of the console's life. Perhaps once there are actually Blu-ray movies on shelves the price will look more appealing, but its a rough way to start (I'm reminded of lackluster PSP sales despite its impressive hardware and multimedia support).

What is Microsoft going after?

Well, no big surprise here, but Microsoft also wants to make an all-in-one set top box. Their strategy is a little different from Sony's, though. Microsoft wants their console to integrate itself with your computer. On your set top, then, you'd have a powerful gaming machine, movie playback (albeit without HD), VCD support for home movies, and ethernet connectivity to both their online gaming service (XBox Live, for those living under a shoe box) and to your computer.

Microsoft has been trying to get onto your TV for years. Does anyone remember those old set-top box internet browsers? Yeah, that was Microsoft. Does anyone actually own Windows XP: Media Center? Same thing, MS wants onto your TV.

With the XBox 360, they've actually got a shot. With XP: Media Center, I need to buy a computer whose video card has HD output, an expensive OS, and find someplace next to my TV to set up my PC (little big to fit on top of the tube). But with an X360, I plug the console into my TV, it can talk with my computer in the office wirelessly, all at the price of a video game console. Bam! Just by making a decent video game console, MS has accomplished what they've wanted for years.

. . . And Nintendo?

Ah Nintendo, the red-headed step-child in the coming console war! Nintendo is behind the times because they just want to make a system that plays video games--psh, it's all about mega-ultra media players!

Seriously, Nintendo does have a shot with their strategy. HD has performed fairly well in the states (largely because the FCC has decided that HD will be the US television standard format in the future), but overseas where they don't have to listen to the FCC, it's not doing all that hot. In Japan (where Nintendo has its strongest playerbase), HD has performed abysmally. And these days, just about everyone has a DVD player. If their customers don't need media playback, why charge them for it?

Instead of focusing on media playback, Nintendo has decided to 'revolutionize' the video game world itself with their ultra-secret new controller. No one knows what it does, but its been so hyped that Nintendo has put Don King to shame. Maybe it's a gyroscope! Maybe it's got pressure sensitive handles! Perhaps it's a ball of yarn! All I know for sure is that there's no way the damned thing can live up to hype, unless it either wins the Nobel Peace Prize, ends world hunger, or cures cancer.

Nintendo does have a good track record of innovating gameplay, mind you. The SNES gamepad was the basis for just about every successful controller that followed, the N64 was the first 3d accelerated console, pokemon (of all things) is a fantastic success, and the DS with its dual screen design and touch screen input has been a huge success in the handheld market. But how long will their creativity win out? Time will tell.

So who is teh best?

Who knows? Visually, all 3 will probably perform comparably. The Revolution won't support HD output, so those with HD televisions will see improved performance on the XBox 360 or PS3, but those with standard definition TVs won't. All three will have games, including a few exclusives that fanbois will swear put their system at the top. The MS and Sony systems will have lots of media playback options that might take off (or might not).

Only time will tell.

Emulation and the DMCA

Yeah, so I decided that editing HTML and uploading it every time I want to whine about something was a PITA, so enter teh blog!

Anyhow, after a heated discussion concerning reverse engineering and the Digital Millenium Copywrite Act (DMCA) , I started thinking about how we in the emulation scene could use the law to our advantage. And whoa nelly, could this work for us!

What does the DMCA say?

In the DMCA, there is a clause called the 'fair use clause' (or sometimes it's referred to as the 'interoperability clause;' it's section f of the law). Basically, the law gives programmers permission to reverse engineer a program, so long as they are doing so in order to maintain interoperability with the program they're writing.

The interoperability clause was written basically to level the playing field when competeing with Microsoft. Let's say I want to write an email client. Microsoft Outlook has built in interoperability with Windows and Word; it can have a little email notification thingy pop up in the task bar when you get an email, it can call Word's spell check and font system as desired, etc. Well I'm at a helluva disadvantage with my email client, aren't I?

Enter interoperability. I can disassemble Windows and Word, find the functions that Outlook is calling, and hook them in my own email client. The DMCA says its 'fair use,' my email client is now on an even keel with Outlook, God's in His heaven and all's right with the world. Right?

But it doesn't have to stop there. Let's say I decided to write a PSx emulator (I know, we already have dozens of the damned things already). If I took a game (couldn't touch the console for this) and decompiled it, mapped the system calls it makes to pc hardware, and released my emulator--I could even charge money for it if I wanted--I'd be ok. Why? Because I disassembled the game for the purpose of its interoperability with my emulator.

But why do I need to stop there? What if I thought "golly, Sony sure sells a helluva lot of consoles," and decided to make a PS2 clone? Well, if I went at it the same way I went at my emulator--reverse engineering the game, not the console--I'd be well within my rights under the DMCA. Sony'd crap themselves of course, but in the end, they'd have to let me sell the JCD2 because I didn't infringe on anyone's copywrites: I simply reverse engineered a game for the sole purpose of maintaining interoperability.

And that's cool.