Bigger isn't always better. It's really a matter of personal preference and how you use that size. What was I talking about? No, not that. Get your mind out of that filthy gutter. I'm talking about smartphones. Specifically, the trend of high-end Android devices getting bigger and bigger screens (I'm looking at you Galaxy Nexus).
I've had my iPhone 4S for over two months now, and I've discovered one of the primary reasons I like it; it's unobtrusive. It's diminutive size compared to the current top-tier Android behemoths is striking when you put it next to one. In daily use it becomes even more obvious. It goes in pockets without issues. It sits on my desk without getting in the way. It's not challenged to fit in any pocket inside my backpack.
That's the reason I'm sticking with the iPhone right now in a nutshell. As I said in a previous post, iOS is mature enough now to compete on the same level with Android, but the advantages and disadvantages of both cancel each other out in my experience.
So where's the top-tier hardware running Android 4.0 and a 3.5" to 4" screen? There's a demographic out there looking for these devices, and the only device offering that (sans Android) is coming from Apple. Is anyone paying attention? Samsung? HTC? LG? Sony? Bueller?
Got a couple real gems for you today. The first one is brought to you by "monkeys on typewriters."
I did a search on the topic and found the majority of persons will have the same opinion with your blog.
This on one of my past spammer posts. Because when you churn out enough I this crap, you'll accidentally be on topic eventually. I'm sure most bloggers would agree that spammers are annoying. Your URL still pegs you as a spammer, though. NEXT!
Next up, we have a little nugget brought to you by "inappropriate metaphors."
Then the biggest and most expensive game of chess seen, a two legged semi final to decide who will be at Wembley for the European Cup Final 2011.
I've heard soccer (or football as it's known across the pond) called many things, but chess? Don't even get me started on the ridiculous wording. Oh, and the 2011 final was May of last year. Way to stay up to date with your spam.
Three hundred and seven rejected spammers and counting.
I'm a huge gearhead, and I've always loved racing games of any type. On-road, off-road, or the rare few that mix both. I like sims more than arcade racers, but I have been known to play both. Following the rather large disappointment that was Gran Turismo 5, I was hoping that Forza Motorsport 4 would pick up where the Japanese failed. For the most part, it did.
This isn't going to be a long review. Pretty much if you've played Forza at all up to this point, you're not going to be disappointed by the latest version. It's not revolutionary by any means, but does many things to further refine the franchise. Go ahead and buy it, it's worth your money. If you plan to get any of the DLC, the $30 season pass should be worth it as well.
So... the high points? The graphics are incredible, every car model looks like it belongs in the current console generation, and the Autovista models are mind-bogglingly detailed. It's a far more consistent presentation than GT5, where loading up an "old" car model was like playing GT4 on the PS2 again.
The cars themselves have never felt more alive. Wheel hop from rear drive live axles, four wheel drifts on all wheel drive cars, wheel lift on front drive cars, etc. All translate well into your hands and the way the cars behave. One of the biggest improvements is in the feel of the track. In Forza 3 they always felt a bit too smooth. No longer in Forza 4... corners with rough patches and difficult cambers demand respect. Fail to give that respect and a meeting between you and Mr. Wall will be very intimate. Again, GT5 just can't compare here.
The car selection is still very good, and unlike the majority of GT5's cars, all of Forza's were designed for current hardware. All of them also have fully modeled interiors with working gauges.
Multiplayer is the biggest area of improvement over Forza 3. There are a myriad of options that simply didn't exist in previous games, all allowing much more control. I haven't explored all of the options yet, but it does appear that the majority of complaints were addressed.
Forza 4 is an amazing game, but it does have a few faults. The silly pre-race engine revving that you have no control over exacerbates the issue that standing starts are the only type of start Forza knows. This makes getting a good launch off the line next to impossible. It also gives AWD cars a serious advantage at starts, which is a third issue. For whatever reason Turn 10 didn't address any of these problems.
They're small issues in what is otherwise an excellent racing sim. Not perfect by any means, but certainly better than GT5's attempt.
The abbreviation of Duke Nukem Forever is "DNF." In racing, the acronym stands for "Did Not Finish." It's appropriate, because I never finished playing Duke Nukem Forever. In short, I got bored.
I was a massive Duke Nukem fan back in the mid-90's. Duke Nukem 3D was one of the greatest games ever made. So it pains me to say that Duke Nukem Forever was boring. There are plenty of other games out now doing new and interesting things.
There's nothing outright wrong with DNF. The game itself was relatively bug-free and was a solidly constructed shooter. Had DNF been released in 2005, it likely would have well-reviewed. It wouldn't have been as groundbreaking as Duke Nukem 3D (2004's Half-Life 2 would have stolen that crown), but I think most of us would have been happy with a "good" return to the world of Duke. Unfortunately, DNF was released in 2011.
There are simply too many other games out there sporting modern graphics, new gameplay ideas, sophisticated narratives, more interesting weapons/devices, and plenty of other forward-thinking ideas. I don't fault Gearbox. They saw a chance to take a mostly finished game, polish it up a bit, and release it for relatively little cost. To their credit they released a game with relatively few technical problems.
Ultimately DNF is a game stuck in time. Its window for a return to glory had passed a good 7-8 years before it was finally released. Was it fun? Occasionally. Was it funny? At times, though Duke's humor doesn't work quite as well as it used to. Is it worth the price of admission? Not even close.
That's how many spammer approval attempts I've rejected. I like to think of it as my "stupid people census." Keep proving me right. I enjoy frustrating spammers.
Yeah, you read that headline right. I got myself an iPhone 4S on Sprint. And quite honestly... I like it.
Now don't get any crazy ideas. This doesn't mean I'm suddenly an Apple fanatic. Quite the opposite in fact. I've made many disparaging remarks about Apple in the past, and I don't take any of those back. Apple as a company is still an evil entity.
The iPhone, however, I think is finally at the point where it can legitimately claim to be competitive with the rest of the market. It's not playing catchup anymore, and you're not really sacrificing anything by choosing it over an Android device.
One of my biggest issues with iOS up until version 5 was notification popups. Especially when they came in chains. So Apple implemented Android's notification tray. Problem solved. It works in a very similar fashion to its Android counterpart, and that's not a bad thing. It's arguably the best way to do it.
Multitasking was one of my other big problems, which got addressed back in iOS 4. Sure it's not quite true multitasking, but in most ways that matter it gets the job done. While the bulk of the app gets frozen, some small part of it keeps running and pushes notifications. I haven't had the phone for long, but it hasn't given me any problems in that regard.
There was a time when you had to be a serious Apple fanboy to want to use an iPhone. Now I'd call it a real choice. It's actually not about the fruit factor anymore, it's just a really good device. Apple, on the other hand, still has some work to do to redeem itself. Get to that, Mr. Cook.
Yeah... I got this little gem in my gmail inbox today, which only reinforced what I said about the state of multiplayer video games these days. It purported to be from "firstname.lastname@example.org." The source headers tell a different story, but you probably guessed that already.
Ever wanted to dominate the servers you play on with guaranteed results, but you were too afraid to cheat because of ban risks? Visit [url removed]. It's safe, secure and undetected.
Along with hacks, we've also got some general discussion sections, hacking tutorials and tools, porn, free giveaways and much more. This site has been conditioned to meet all your needs in terms of resources so be sure to take a look and tell us what you think.
the [url removed] team.
I just don't get it.
Nintendo painted a pretty bleak picture with their most recent financial statement. They went from projecting profits back in July, to projecting a sizable loss just a couple days ago. That on top of the sizable loss they actually had over the past year. It's really something, because this would be the first full year of losses for Nintendo in a good 30 years. It might come as a shock to some executives at Nintendo, but to a lot of us gamers, it's not in the least bit surprising.
Today's console market is a very different animal than the one Nintendo helped catalyze back in the late 80's and early 90's. Nintendo has failed to recognize these changes time and time again. The "ooh! shiny!" factor doesn't make for repeat business anymore. I don't buy a console and then wait for the games to come. That worked back when Nintendo was the only serious contender in the business, but they're far from alone today. Today I own a 360 not because the hardware is amazing (quite the opposite, if I'm honest, RROD anyone?), but that's because most of the new and exciting games are on the 360. I also own a PS3 because there are a few good exclusives to be had. The ability to play blu-ray discs is nice too.
It's been a long time coming. The last time I played was way back in middle school. That was 1995-ish. I got interested in D&D again when I found the Penny Arcade D&D podcasts. I started reading up on fourth edition, and I generally liked what I saw. I couldn't see what all the long-time players were complaining about. Granted I never played third edition.
Let me slow down a bit. I spent some time really trying to figure out why I wanted to get back into D&D, and it hit me: online multiplayer today just plain sucks. There was a time when playing games with other human beings was an enjoyable experience. After middle school and the end of D&D, I burned pretty much every afternoon following high school in Team Fortress Classic. I didn't care about gamer scores, achievements, kill streaks, or anything that could serve to enlarge my e-peen.
You see, back then games for the most part could only run on custom built computers. Maybe this is the PC elitist in me talking, but you had to be in possession of a logically functioning brain to assemble a PC in the pre-2000's world of computers. Generally this meant that players partaking in the online world of gaming were of high quality. The few that weren't got banned and that was that. It was a small world, so when those people went away, the average quality went up sharply.
Fast forward to today. I play maybe a handful of hours a month of Team Fortress and Left 4 Dead. That's pretty much it. They're great games, don't get me wrong, but joining them means I have to wade through the unwashed masses of the current crop of "gamers." So I hardly ever play them. Gamers today are a bunch of foul-mouthed, spoiled, bratty, selfish, egotistical, social problems. I usually leave voice chat modes completely off and type what I need to say. It's just not worth it anymore.
I wouldn't touch the multiplayer mode of a console game with a 40 foot pole and ear protection. The one mode I will entertain on a regular basis is co-op. That's because I'm always playing with a friend I know in person. Following that lengthy line of explanation, it comes as no surprise that I got back to D&D.
D&D at its heart is a cooperative game between friends. It's the ultimate cooperative game, because there are humans behind all of the controls. There aren't any achievements, there are no stat trackers. It's simple and honest, and can only be played because you really want to play. I enjoy the single-player aspect of video games, but I'd really been missing that social component that comes from having quality human beings playing the same game you are.
I blame consoles. Always.
So by this point if you are or were a Netflix subscriber, you've probably heard about the impending split. It seems a preemptive strike is being made to cut the disc-by-mail business off the main body so it can be easily removed when it does die off. The problem with this is that I don't think it's going to die off any time soon.
Before I go any further, let me say that I am not a current Netflix subscriber. It was no fault of Netflix that I cancelled. There just weren't enough good new movies to justify the expense, and their streaming service simply didn't have enough content (again, more the fault of greedy content owners than Netflix). These new moves certainly aren't going to bring former subscribers like me back, so I'm not entirely sure what is telling them it's a good idea.
Even more bewildering is the fact that they're doing this such a short time after splitting their plans into streaming and disc-only options. If I were running Netflix, I would want to give that decision some time to simmer to see how the subscriber numbers settle. Sure, Netflix's streaming numbers were strong before the plan split. The selection wasn't great, but it was bundled with the plan, so why not?
I know a lot of people signed up for the streaming only option. Maybe enough to convince Netflix that it would be viable to go it solo on that base. I don't pretend to have the same information that they do. I don't think Qwikster is going anywhere any time soon though. Videophiles like me don't accept Netflix's heavy compression as a viable alternative to the pristine quality of blu-ray, instant gratification or no. Even cable beats out Netflix in the quality contest.
Give me 1080, quality compression, and a selection of decently new stuff and I might consider it. I know a large portion of the problem lies with content owners, so I hope for Netflix's sake they've got something big lined up.