monoraul, though?  I have never heard the term before now.  Using Google "Define monoraul" got me: "Did you mean: define monroe?".  In wikipedia I got "There is no page titled "Monoraul"."

I know what stereo means.  I also know what Trystero means.

Does GH3 for the wii now have stereo sound?

Some of the discs always did. Activision (which is what I should've said when I said "EA" up above) replaced and/or is in the process of replacing the discs for people who contact them and send them the mono discs, and supposedly all the ones on store shelves these days should be stereo. The fact that they made the mistake in the first place is ridiculous, though, especially given the doubt a lot of fans already had in whether or not they'd be able to handle a beloved franchise since the creators left for greener pastures.

Look out it might have monoraul sound.

Maybe if EA were in charge of Rock Band. I'd be more worried that it might not have DLC.

do you guys remember the stage in super mario 64 where you swam through that tunnel and ended up in some concrete box with a little town inside, and you could change the water levels and shit. i loved the song in that level. i think they also used that song in the level with the sunken pirate ship and that cave with the treasure chests and columns that fall over as you would walk by them.

I think you're talking about "Dire, Dire Docks." I've got that song on my iPod.

Also, Gamecube-controller-wise, the Z button was poorly handled. You might not have to shift your hand to use it, but you certainly couldn't use it as easily as the trigger on the N64 controller. I always hated when they made the Z button important in Gamecube games.

I never had to shift my hand on the N64 controller really, because I can't think of many games that used the d-pad or the L button for much on N64. But it's still the most comfortable controller I've ever held.

aren't you the guy who hates first person shooters because they're all the same

or something

I don't play First Person Shooters because the genre doesn't appeal to me (for the most part--the Metroid Prime series has been an exception because of how much of the Adventure genre they've mixed in with it and because I've already got an emotional attachment to the character/setting/franchise/whatever you want to call it) and therefore whatever changes they do make don't matter to me. I've put it more glibly in the past, but that's my real issue with FPSes, after trying to get into about a dozen of them.

I've assumed from the get-go that was the real crux of the issue with this game: the people who are saying that it's going to be terrible because it's so traditional are just not fans of jRPGs to begin with, but have decided to wax philosophical on why this viewpoint is better than others.

it's not the gamplay which annoys me most about these games. it is pretty frustrating starting up a new videogame only to be reminded vividly of time you've already whittled away on another one, but i can generally get over that if it is still at least easy to play. what really jones me up is the total lack of thought that goes into everything else about the game.

and maybe this is just personal opinion but i think that like pretty much everything else ever, videogames have got some power to explore new ideas if they use it and even if you are using an old gameplay model because ARGH INNOVATIVEE GAMEPlAYS TOOO HAARDDD!!!! then you should please at least put something new into the premise of your game. not characters seen over and over again (stereotypes which if aren't destructive at least don't push us any further along the line), not stories told over and over again and not narrative structures, themes and entire vocabularies of a game world filled with stupid mindless crap which no-one is even able to pay real attention to because it is so utterly cliche is might as well not exist.

it annoys me to see a chance to explore new ideas wasted, and it's doubly annoying to see people encourage that kind of game making by buying the games.

i don't think bioshock is really that great. the gameplay is functionable, but really yeah it is just a game i've played before so i'm not gonna compliment it on it's gameplay for being up to scratch. what was at least admirable about bioshock was that is attempted to incorporate some new stuff into it's premise. i don't think it really done it very well, but it took a whack at it and that is at least worthwhile because it might lay some groundwork for better stuff to come.

if a game, or anything which is creative, does at least one little thing new, then i'd say it is worth a little bit of time. lost odyssey doesn't seem like it does anything new at all - and adding frivolous menu mechanics is not new - and that's why i think it at least looks like a load of shit. i suppose i'm basing my opinion on speculation but it's not that wild considering how many of these games i've been totally disappointed in and annoyed by before.

So your point, basically, is that there is no room for perfecting old forms or building on past accomplishments: the only acceptable media are those that are shiny and new, and once they are no longer shiny and new, it is no longer acceptable to try to do things with the elements used to make them. An admittedly excellent game is a "hackneyed shitfest" because it only attempts to perfect an old genre(and according to all accounts I've heard, does a pretty good job, including your own reference), rather than inventing a new one.

I think you're really limiting yourself in terms of entertainment by insisting that the only things worth taking in are things that are revolutionary. Because there's very little that is.

I found it troubling that some critics and gamers have complained about things like turn-based combat being "old-school" and "unoriginal", rather than viewing it just as a game archetype.  Japanese RPG turn-based battles are a major framework for game design the same way that having a crosshair in the center of the screen and a button to shoot a gun.  It seems like the reviews for this game are particularly of this persuasion -- IGN Australia's review blasted this game, listing the core mechanics of Japanese RPGs such as turn-based combat and long cutscenes as major strikes against the game.  Considering that you make games with RPGMaker I'm really surprised that you have the same attitude.  I'm not about to complain about review scores or anything like that, but it really is akin to giving game negative marks just because it has a crosshair on the screen or maybe because it requires that I am able to read.

I am personally really looking forward to this game.  It's one of the first games that I've preordered for a long time (I do not anticipate retailers ordering a massive quanitity of copies).  I couldn't really care less about the "emotional experience" that this game might might to provide or any sort of story it might try to tell because I am completely convinced that videogames will never really tell competent stories.  I'm looking forward to the sorts of strategic gameplay, number-crunching, character customization, and exploration of exotic environments that Japanese RPGs and especially Final Fantasy games (let's not kid ourselves here) are always reliable for.

Like I said, I'm looking forward to it. I'm just reporting what I've heard about it before people come in here yelling about how unoriginal it is.

I was playing devil's advocate, not trying to tell people not to play/buy it. Dude, I play and love Nippon Ichi games. Like every one that comes out. I am far from a person who insists on reinventing the wheel with every game. I just wanted to head off the inevitable "lol unoriginal japfag RPG" crap that I'm sure is on its way.

I've heard that it's a good old school game, but that people looking for originality or anything should just skip it. They've said they were more worried about making an emotional experience than redefining the genre.

Personally, I'm looking forward to it, but these are the complaints I can see being levelled against it based on the reviews I've seen.

Probably won't see it until Fall either way. But the late night shows, like the Daily Show, should be back to where they need to be pretty quickly. Letterman and that scottish guy already were, though.

I speak in terms of cost/benefits, not some abstract principle of "deserving it".

The strike was probably not worth the small gains the writers made, for both the writers and everyone else.

They don't get to renegotiate for a few years, and it is entirely feasible that within three to five years, internet (or a similar but as of yet unknown new delivery medium) could be challenging TV as the primary means by which people get programming. Under the contracts they had before, and the contracts the studios wanted the writers to accept, the studios would have no obligation to reimburse the writers for money made off of those methods. And not all writers are making enough money to just sacrifice that extra income easily. The young unknowns (of which there are a lot more than the big name showrunners and the like) can't always depend on a steady income and only make so much even when they are employed. Those residuals are a huge deal for people who use them for groceries.

I'm glad the strike might be over, but I'm more glad that the AMPTP were finally willing to make some concessions to the writers. Neither side got everything they wanted from this, but that's the sign of a good compromise, I guess. "A good compromise leaves neither side satisfied," or something.

EDIT: Also, looking at the blogs I read by a couple of writers, the response from the WGA members yesterday was pretty positive, and it's looking like they'll ratify it and be back to work by the middle of next week. I'd still say to go with cautious optimism, but it's looking more and more likely that this is the end.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie wasn't really all that bad. It obviously lacked a lot of what made the book great (a lot of that was about the prose, which couldn't have been translated to film elegantly anyway, other than the few "excerpts from the Guide"), but it had the spirit of the book, and the casting was pretty decent, for all I would've preferred more british actors. Arthur was perfectly cast, and Mos Def surprised me as Ford Prefect....I've actually become a fan of his because of his performance as Ford. And I love Zooey Deschanel in pretty much everything I see her in.

I think the big problem with book-to-film adaptations is that fans of the original expect to see the experience they had with the book translated on screen....and that's just not going to happen. Even ignoring how much more time a book has to tell its story, they're different media with different strengths. Novels are great for clever wordplay and engaging the audience's imagination, while film is a lot better at impressing people and being accessible to people who don't have the time or attention span for books.

As a book fan, I think it's better not to expect anything more from a movie adaptation than a pleasant two hours (give or take) with characters who act acceptably like the characters you know, and maintaining the spirit of the original work. If you've got those two things, you ought to have a pretty decent movie. Worth the $4 for admission, and maybe even the $20 for the DVD.

I'm looking forward to a lot of adaptations by Neil Gaiman that are on the way. Coraline sounds like it's going to be spooky and awesome, and it sounds like he's writing an adaptation of the Neverwhere novel (as opposed to a remake of the television series), and those should both rock. I seem to recall hearing that there was an adaptation of Terry Pratchett's The Wee Free Men in the works, too. And of course the Good Omens movie that might never get made, but if Terry Gilliam can ever get the money, should be amazing.

Yeah, Batman's no-killing thing is the whole crux of the Joker dilemma, with people claiming that given how many people the Joker has killed and that no prison (or asylum, least of all Arkham) seems capable of holding him, Batman is indirectly responsible for hundreds, thousands of deaths because he won't just end it. And Kaworu, didn't the Crisis on Infinite Earths retcon those early deaths at his hands? It retconned just about a lot of other unwanted things....like Superman's more insane powers.

But then Batman's already out of his head. If he let himself start killing baddies, there's like zero doubt he'd turn into a huge, dark antihero in no time. He'd make Rorschach look stable! That's also the reason that he keeps a Robin around--he's got to have some sort of attachment to the realms of sanity and normalcy, and Robin's it. It's also why fans still tolerate a teen sidekick in Batman when every other hero has lost theirs to age or death or phlebotinum or whatever.

If anything, the most interesting thing about Batman is how hard he fights to not be an antihero.

Nitpicking over whether or not someone's a superhero is silly. Either way, he runs around in his underwear fighting supervillains. And "regular" (I guess) villains such as Anarky (age 12).

Yeah. "I'm the goddamn Batman" is way better than "What are you, retarded?"

Although I think my favorite use of that line is when he says "I'm the goddamn Batman, and I'll call my goddamn car whatever I goddamn want." Or whatever.

I was hoping someone would post that panel. XD

If you are entertained by whores and violence...he's your guy.

Oh, sure, when you phrase it like that it sounds pretty okay...

I'm guessing it'll turn out like Mystery Men; good idea, poor writers.

Hey, the writers in Mystery Men weren't be all bad--they came up with the name "Casanova Frankenstein." I mean that's hands down one of the best names I've ever heard.

I don't know where all you people thinking of importing think you're going to get your games from....if you haven't been following the news, Nintendo failed to meet demand for the Japanese release, and most stores aren't going to be able to fill preorders. Play-Asia said that they were only going to be able to meet 15% of theirs, and probably wouldn't be able to fill the rest until February 4 at the earliest.

So I think that if you're expecting to get a copy by next week, you're going to be paying quite a bit of money for rush shipping and buying off of eBay.

It sucks that after the british comic revolution bringing forth so many great english comic writers into the mainstream, he's always the one people remember, and is now getting HOLLYWOOD attention. Uhg.

I admit that I run in strange circles, but I tend to hear a lot more about Alan Moore and Warren Ellis than Frank Miller. And lately, that girl who got a job because she told everyone how stupid they were about writing women. Was it Gail Simone? I don't know if that's just because she's new or because she's really a phenom, though. I've read very little by her. I don't remember which run on Deadpool was hers (or was it Agent X at the time?), but Deadpool never feels like Deadpool without Fabian Nicieza writing him, to me, anyway. And he's such a specific sort of character that I can easily see good writers not doing him well....half of the fun of Deadpool is how mindlessly fun it is, and good writers aren't always great at mindless fun. They tend to prefer....Mindful Fun, I guess? Or Serious Business, maybe?

But anyway, yeah. Alan Moore and Warren Ellis are way cooler than Frank Miller, but I have no problem with someone writing something that is just balls-to-the-wall crazy distillation of the Superhero genre like Franky seems to like. That's basically all Nextwave was, and I loved Nextwave.

At any rate, I dunno about Frank Miller. If his writing felt a little more playful, I think I'd absolutely love him. Even when it's supposedly tongue-in-cheek (like Allstar "I'm the Goddamn" Batman), his stuff seems to take itself too seriously.

There's a demo? And it's not for WiiWare? How is that even remotely acceptable? [/spoiled by new Xbox 360]

Still, it's better than nothing. I guess.

I was under the impression that the reason Nintendo stuck with cartridges was because of different priorities in terms of the technology's performance than the other manufacturers. Catridges are a lot faster than discs, especially back then, and I had thought they stuck with cartridges because they thought fast loadtimes were more important than having enough space for FMVs (seeing as at the time, FMVs were about the only thing that would make games too big for a cartridge). Which I totally agree with, because I've considered FMVs the bane of the industry since....basically the moment I got over the initial impact of Final Fantasy VII and realized how much they damaged the experience of playing a video game.

So yeah, I never saw it as "being stuck in the past." I saw it as being unenthused by the advantages of CDs in light of their disadvantages. Although I realize that part of it was also so they could maintain a proprietary format so that publishers would have to buy media through Nintendo, too, which I totally don't support. But it's not like that's changed much since then. There's still no free and open and 100% legal way for a publisher (or even just Joe Q. Homebrew) to put a game on the console without going through the companies that make them.