The other day, RPadholic smartguy posted a comment about social media making the world dumber because it ignores poor spelling and punctuation. In this particular case, Texas Rangers pitcher and chief misogyny officer Matt Garza was guilty of a common Internet mistake — using “there” instead of “their.” Garza meant to menacingly tweet, “Some people can’t shut their woman up!” but instead wrote, “Some people can’t shut there woman up!”
All of us have misused there/their/they’re, its/it’s, and your/you’re. Smartguy is absolutely right though — the Internet is making it worse. Instead of lamenting the fact, let’s celebrate it! What are some of your favorite Internet grammar and usage errors? Here are some of mine…continued
Welcome to Coffee Talk! Let’s start off the day by discussing whatever is on your (nerd chic) mind. Every morning I’ll kick off a discussion and I’m counting on you to participate in it. If you’re not feelin’ my topic, feel free to start a chat with your fellow readers and see where it takes you. Whether you’re talking about videogames, Alex Rodriguez selfishly refusing to donate $500,000 to RPad.TV, helping technophobes set up WordPress blogs, or the best cheese for grilled-cheese sandwiches, Coffee Talk is the place to do it.
The other day, RPadholic smartguy posted a comment about social media making the world dumber because it ignores poor spelling and punctuation. In this particular case, Texas Rangers pitcher and chief misogyny officer Matt Garza was guilty of a common Internet mistake — using “there” instead of “their.” Garza meant to menacingly tweet, “Some people can’t shut their woman up!” but instead wrote, “Some people can’t shut there woman up!”
All of us have misused there/their/they’re, its/it’s, and your/you’re. Smartguy is absolutely right though — the Internet is making it worse. Instead of lamenting the fact, let’s celebrate it! What are some of your favorite Internet grammar and usage errors? Here are some of mine.
Could Care Less: This is one I used to mess up frequently, until RPadholic N8R schooled me in the comments section of a G4tv story. People use this phrase when they’re trying to say that they don’t give a dman. What they should say is couldn’t care less.
All Intensive Purposes: This is one of my favorites. I see this one a lot on ESPN.com and various boxing forums. I rarely see it on comics, gaming, and tech blogs. My theory is that nerds that like sports are smarter people than sports fans that don’t like geeky things. Anyway, it should be all intents and purposes. A Doghouseboxing reader completely butchered the phrase and wrote, “All in tents and porpoises.” That gave me a three-day headache.
Mute Point: What’s that? I can’t hear you. You must be making a mute point. Bwahahahahaha!!! No, imbecile, (Don Keefer™) it’s a moot point.
Nip it in the Butt: I don’t understand why people get this one wrong. It’s nip it in the bud. If you equate a problem with a flower, then you nip it in the bud before it can bloom into something larger. Saying that you want to nip it in the butt is another way of saying you like to bite ass, which only makes sense if you’re Marv Albert.
Anyway, those are my favorite Internet grammar and usage errors. Kindly leave some of yours in the comments section!
With “Always on My Mind” closing out s2e2 of The Newsroom, lots of my Internet nerd friends were raving about Willie Nelson. They praised his distinct voice that used behind-the-beat timing and unique phrasing. While I dig Willie Nelson on multiple levels, the surge in his popularity (in the nerd world, anyway) got me thinking about voices in popular music that I find unique. Of course there are obvious ones like Bob Dylan and Jimi Hendrix. For millions of people Elvis Presley’s voice is synonymous with rock and roll. After thinking about it for a few days, three vocalists stood out — Roy Orbison, Barry Gibb, and…more
Welcome to Coffee Talk! Let’s start off the day by discussing whatever is on your (nerd chic) mind. Every morning I’ll kick off a discussion and I’m counting on you to participate in it. If you’re not feelin’ my topic, feel free to start a chat with your fellow readers and see where it takes you. Whether you’re talking about videogames, the salivating possibility of Alex Rodriguez getting a lifetime ban from Major League Baseball, product review requests from naughty companies, or Wolverine excitement, Coffee Talk is the place to do it.
With “Always on My Mind” closing out s2e2 of The Newsroom, lots of my Internet nerd friends were raving about Willie Nelson. They praised his distinct voice that used behind-the-beat timing and unique phrasing. While I dig Willie Nelson on multiple levels, the surge in his popularity (in the nerd world, anyway) got me thinking about voices in popular music that I find unique. Of course there are obvious ones like Bob Dylan and Jimi Hendrix. For millions of people Elvis Presley’s voice is synonymous with rock and roll. After thinking about it for a few days, three vocalists stood out — Roy Orbison, Barry Gibb, and Freddie Mercury.
Keep in mind that I’m talking about distinct voices, not necessarily the most powerful or ones with ridiculous range (though Mercury definitely possessed crazy power and range). I’m talking about singers that are so unique that you can identify their voices after two notes and can’t imagine anyone else singing their songs (other than homages).
Roy Orbison — Depending on the song, Orbison’s voice could be ethereal or haunting (and sometimes ethereally haunting). I was always amazed by how expressive he could be while being so controlled at the same time. While I love lots of his solo stuff, hearing him in the Traveling Wilbury’s “Handle With Care” is one of my favorites. It’s a very good song that’s made great by Orbison’s bridge.
Barry Gibb — I love the Bee Gees. While the Aussie trio’s harmonies were awesome, Barry’s voice is what made the band stand out. What makes his voice so memorable to me is that he had two distinct styles that were both fantastic. There’s the falsetto that everyone knows from songs like “Stayin’ Alive” and “Night Fever” but there’s also the deeper, breathy voice he used for “How Deep is Your Love?”
Freddie Mercury — Best. Rock. Singer. Ever.
If geneticist and sorcerers teamed together to make the perfect rock-and-roll singer, you’d have the second coming of Freddie Mercury.
So those are my picks for some of the most distinct voices in pop music. I’d love to hear about yours! Kindly use the comments section to share the voices that stand out in your head (not the voices in your head).
Comic-Con 2013 — or as it’s known in some circles, Nerd Heaven — is over! There were tons and tons of geeky announcements, trailers, and news bits. Some of the highlights include:
Welcome to Coffee Talk! Let’s start off the day by discussing whatever is on your (nerd chic) mind. Every morning I’ll kick off a discussion and I’m counting on you to participate in it. If you’re not feelin’ my topic, feel free to start a chat with your fellow readers and see where it takes you. Whether you’re talking about videogames, A-Rod’s unfortunate (not really) quadriceps injury, your favorite summer fruit, or slogging your way through mediocre coffee beans, Coffee Talk is the place to do it.
Comic-Con 2013 — or as it’s known in some circles, Nerd Heaven — is over! There were tons and tons of geeky announcements, trailers, and news bits. Some of the highlights include:
Man of Steel 2 being a Superman/Batman movie
The Avengers 2 being an Age of Ultron movie
A lengthy and awesome Kick-Ass 2 trailer
Lots of information on X-Men: Days of Future Past
Sweet details on The Amazing Spider-Man 2
More footage from Thor 2
More footage from Captain America 2
The first glimpse of WWE Batista as Drax in the Guardians of the Galaxy movie
The trailer for Cosmos, a new version of the excellent Carl Sagan show hosted by Neil de Grasse Tyson
Updates on A Song of Ice and Fire and Game of Thrones season 4
What got your inner nerd fired up at Comic-Con 2013? What got you worried?
As for me, I was totally jazzed by the return of Cosmos and I loved the Kick-Ass 2 clip. I really didn’t like Joss Whedon strongly hinting that Hank Pym will not be part of Ultron’s origin in The Avengers 2. Yeah, there are ways to write around that like altering Ultron’s origin so that it’s an accidental creation by Tony Stark or S.H.I.E.L.D., but as a longtime comic-book nerd, I can’t buy that. The identities of Ultron and Hank Pym are tied together. Yes, I understand that it frees up The Avengers 2 and the upcoming Ant-Man movie, but it just…feels wrong.
Now it’s your turn! Fire away with your Comic-Con 2013 thoughts in the comments section (please!).
T-Mobile shook up the American telecom business with its T-Mobile Jump program. For a $10 monthly fee, T-Mobile Jump offers two phone upgrades every 12 month, as well as insurance. Days after the program was announced, AT&T countered with AT&T Next. This program allows AT&T customers to pick up a new phone every year “with no down payment, no activation fee, no upgrade fee and no financing fees.” The word on the street is that Verizon is whipping up its own program to compete with AT&T Next and T-Mobile Jump. Some pundits believe that Sprint will play the generous-upgrade game too, while others believe that…more
Welcome to Coffee Talk! Let’s start off the day by discussing whatever is on your (nerd chic) mind. Every morning I’ll kick off a discussion and I’m counting on you to participate in it. If you’re not feelin’ my topic, feel free to start a chat with your fellow readers and see where it takes you. Whether you’re talking about videogames, Tim Lincecum’s glorious no-hitter, the New York Knicks giving (Metta World) Peace a chance, or bikini girls with machine guns, Coffee Talk is the place to do it.
T-Mobile shook up the American telecom business with its T-Mobile Jump program. For a $10 monthly fee, T-Mobile Jump offers two phone upgrades every 12 month, as well as insurance. Days after the program was announced, AT&T countered with AT&T Next. This program allows AT&T customers to pick up a new phone every year “with no down payment, no activation fee, no upgrade fee and no financing fees.” The word on the street is that Verizon is whipping up its own program to compete with AT&T Next and T-Mobile Jump. Some pundits believe that Sprint will play the generous-upgrade game too, while others believe that it has more important issues to deal with now that Softbank rules the roost.
All of you know that the four major American mobile carriers suck. They just suck in different ways. Initiatives like AT&T Next and T-Mobile jump help them suck a little bit less. While some people are thrilled with more lenient upgrade terms, others believe that these programs are just new schemes designed to get you to spend more money and extend your contracts. The mobile phone market — particularly the Android space — moves so fast that many tech nerds are thrilled with the idea of being able to upgrade phones (relatively) quickly. Don’t mistake these programs as the mobile carriers suddenly “getting it” or becoming benevolent. It’s all about trying to get more money from you every month for a longer period of time.
Personally, I’m not tempted by these programs. My main line is a grandfathered Verizon plan combined with a corporate discount — that’s too good to give up. My second line is that cheapie $30 T-Mobile plan that’s also too good to give up. Additionally, I don’t see myself buying anything but iPhones, Android Nexus phones, or Google Play Edition phones. I hate carrier bloatware and slow OS updates. All that said, I totally understand that I’m an atypical customer and can see why many people are excited about these programs.
How about you? Are you interested in AT&T Next, T-Mobile Jump, and whatever the Sprint/Verizon equivalents will be called? Kindly share your thoughts on these programs in the comments section.
Half of 2013 is over and I want to hear about your favorite game of the year (thus far). Were you enthralled by BioShock Infinite? Were you captivated by Lara Croft’s return in Tomb Raider? Perhaps Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch brought you a slice of gaming heaven. I know that some of you are down on The Last of Us, but it has been getting rave reviews, so maybe the game is working for some of you? Please talk about the best game you’ve played this year in the comments section.
Welcome to Coffee Talk! Let’s start off the day by discussing whatever is on your (nerd chic) mind. Every morning I’ll kick off a discussion and I’m counting on you to participate in it. If you’re not feelin’ my topic, feel free to start a chat with your fellow readers and see where it takes you. Whether you’re talking about videogames, how The Rock satisfies his women, the Dwight Howard Greg Oden sweepstakes, or 4th of July sales like the excellent Bastion for iOS currently costing 99 cents, Coffee Talk is the place to do it.
Half of 2013 is over and I want to hear about your favorite game of the year (thus far). Were you enthralled by BioShock Infinite? Were you captivated by Lara Croft’s return in Tomb Raider? Perhaps Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch brought you a slice of gaming heaven. I know that some of you are down on The Last of Us, but it has been getting rave reviews, so maybe the game is working for some of you? Please talk about the best game you’ve played this year in the comments section.
As for my choice, it’s an oldie but a goodie. Baldur’s Gate: Enhanced Edition for OS X was old-school RPG bliss for me. The original is one of my all-time favorites (played through the frickin’ thing 18 times) and it was nice to experience it again with updated elements. The enhanced version of the game brought improved graphics, new characters, and gameplay improvements from the sequel (class kits!) to the mix. It was everything I loved from the first time around, with a few bells and whistled that improved the overall experience. I’ve played through the BGEE multiple times with multiple characters. So yeah, I kind of loved it and it was easily the most satisfying gaming experience I’ve had in 2013 (thus far).
Now it’s your turn! Kindly talk about your game of the (half) year in the comments section!
According to The Wall Street Journal, Google plans to make its own Android videogame console. The reason behind the alleged move is that the company wants to compete with Apple’s alleged videogame efforts that will allegedly be in the next version of Apple TV. (That’s a lot of alleging, hey?) While the strategy makes sense using broad and basic strokes of logic, the videogame industry is complex, intricate, and changing rapidly. Do you think that Google should make a home console? Or should it…more
Welcome to Coffee Talk! Let’s start off the day by discussing whatever is on your (nerd chic) mind. Every morning I’ll kick off a discussion and I’m counting on you to participate in it. If you’re not feelin’ my topic, feel free to start a chat with your fellow readers and see where it takes you. Whether you’re talking about videogames, the surprising picks in the 2013 NBA draft, the crapiness of Wimbledon 2013, or Mayim “Blossom” Bialik reentering the singles scene, Coffee Talk is the place to do it.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Google plans to make its own Android videogame console. The reason behind the alleged move is that the company wants to compete with Apple’s alleged videogame efforts that will allegedly be in the next version of Apple TV. (That’s a lot of alleging, hey?) While the strategy makes sense using broad and basic strokes of logic, the videogame industry is complex, intricate, and changing rapidly. Do you think that Google should make a home console? Or should it skip out on a costly effort that would be difficult to “win.”
While Android has been a very successful mobile operating system, Google has relied on many hardware partners to make it so successful. Although the company has sold and marketed a line of Nexus products, those phones and tablets were meant as hero products. They were more for developers and tech enthusiasts, and definitely not for general consumers. A videogame console is a whole other ball of wax (not to be confused with the whole enchilada, the whole nine yards, or the whole shebang). I don’t see the point in making a hero Android console; Google’s game box (G-Box?) would have to be aimed at the mass market. Additionally, products like Ouya, Nvidia Shield, and GameStick will have a huge (in gaming years) head start on Google’s machine. While the videogame market is very different than it was five years ago and changing more every year, it has traditionally been unkind to hardware newcomers.
Then again, Google can learn a lot from the companies selling Android gaming systems and avoid several issues. Microsoft has shown that bullying your way into gaming with tons of money (original Xbox) can lead to amazing success (Xbox 360). Google certainly has tons of money and probably wouldn’t mind losing lots on a console that gives the company more data to target advertisements with. Lastly, a videogame box branded, designed, and marketed by Google is a potential powerful thing that could resonate with consumers.
On the third hand, a videogame console would need great hardware marketing and Google has shown to be incompetent with hardware marketing. A console would also require strong customer support and Google is really, really bad at this. After thinking about the WSJ article for several hours, I can think of 10 times as many reasons for Google not to enter the console business as I can reasons for the company to enter it.
What’s your take on the rumored Google Android console? Should the company get into the game? (*snicker*) Or should the company let its Android partners handle things?
EA recently changed the name of Dragon Age III: Inquisition to Dragon Age: Inquisition. EA president Frank Gibeau explained the name change to IGN, saying, “We just wanted to draw more attention to the fact that Inquisition is an all-new chapter inside of the Dragon Age universe, as opposed to people expecting a follow-on to Dragon Age 1 and 2 in a literal, linear sense.” Never mind that the E3 2013 trailer for the game featured characters from the first two games. Never mind that the third game was supposed to unite the Hero of Ferelden (Dragon Age: Origins), the Champion of Kirkwall (Dragon Age II), and That Really Nice Guy From Antiva (my Dragon Age fan fiction). This is…more
Welcome to Coffee Talk! Let’s start off the day by discussing whatever is on your (nerd chic) mind. Every morning I’ll kick off a discussion and I’m counting on you to participate in it. If you’re not feelin’ my topic, feel free to start a chat with your fellow readers and see where it takes you. Whether you’re talking about videogames, why Garry Shandling felt the need to get plastic surgery, Rafael Nadal losing in the first round of Wimbledon 2013, or getting psyched for the Wolverine movie, Coffee Talk is the place to do it.
EA recently changed the name of Dragon Age III: Inquisition to Dragon Age: Inquisition. EA president Frank Gibeau explained the name change to IGN, saying, “We just wanted to draw more attention to the fact that Inquisition is an all-new chapter inside of the Dragon Age universe, as opposed to people expecting a follow-on to Dragon Age 1 and 2 in a literal, linear sense.” Never mind that the E3 2013 trailer for the game featured characters from the first two games. Never mind that the third game was supposed to unite the Hero of Ferelden (Dragon Age: Origins), the Champion of Kirkwall (Dragon Age II), and That Really Nice Guy From Antiva (my Dragon Age fan fiction). This is “an all-new chapter” whether or not you wanted climactic closure to the Dragon Age tale.
My initial reaction to Gibeau’s explanation was, “Who gives a sh*t?!?” I love the Dragon Age series. I’m looking forward to the third game, no matter what it’s called. I was (naively) surprised that many gamers are treating the name change as an “issue.” Dragon Age II haters (boy, are there a lot of them) believe that EA is dropping the numeral to help gamers forget about the second game. This is known as the Rocky Balboa technique, which was used to help moviegoers forget that Rocky V ever happened. After reading several arguments about the issue, my evolved reaction was, “Who gives a sh*t?!?” It’s just a name.
Of course I wanted to check myself with you guys and gals. Is the Dragon Age: Inquisition name change a big deal? Or is it, like Heart famously sang, nothin’ at all? Kindly share your thoughts in the comments section when you have a moment.
Last week in the RPad.TV Google Hangout, RPadholic bsukenyan shocked a bunch of us by saying that he doesn’t believe that the NBA is softer than it was in the ’80s and ’90s, and that aside from hand checking, the rules are basically the same. His comments stopped my brain activity for a millisecond. In my mind, his claim was a step removed from saying, “You know what? I don’t believe that the atomic weight of cobalt is 58.9.” Here’s some of what he had to say:
The current game is not soft compared to ’80s/’90s NBA.
They didn’t play as close in man-to-man defense, and as far as fouls are concerned they really weren’t that much different than they are now.
Man-to-man is much tighter now than I’ve seen in any older games…more
Welcome to Coffee Talk! Let’s start off the day by discussing whatever is on your (nerd chic) mind. Every morning I’ll kick off a discussion and I’m counting on you to participate in it. If you’re not feelin’ my topic, feel free to start a chat with your fellow readers and see where it takes you. Whether you’re talking about videogames, discovering the joys of Farrah Abraham, finally unpacking your games (though not organizing them), or Adrien Broner being an unsportsmanlike punk, Coffee Talk is the place to do it.
Last week in the RPad.TV Google Hangout, RPadholic bsukenyan shocked a bunch of us by saying that he doesn’t believe that the NBA is softer than it was in the ’80s and ’90s, and that aside from hand checking, the rules are basically the same. His comments stopped my brain activity for a millisecond. In my mind, his claim was a step removed from saying, “You know what? I don’t believe that the atomic weight of cobalt is 58.9.” Here’s some of what he had to say:
The current game is not soft compared to ’80s/’90s NBA.
They didn’t play as close in man-to-man defense, and as far as fouls are concerned they really weren’t that much different than they are now.
Man-to-man is much tighter now than I’ve seen in any older games. They played so far away from each other.
I have not seen a game that shows a more physical game than average ones I’ve seen during the regular season of today’s era.
I suggested that this would make a fun Coffee Talk debate and bsukenyan agreed. So let’s do it! If you disagree with him, please counter his thoughts in a respectful way.
As for my opinion on the issue, I couldn’t disagree with him more. To me, the game was absolutely rougher and tougher back then. Hand checking, zone defense being illegal, and being able to deck a guy in the back court that has a clear path to the basket — the game was much more physical in the ’80s and ’90s. Hell, you could frickin’ punch a guy and stay in the game during the ’80s.
As for saying the rules haven’t changed much, let’s take a look at NBA.com:
1990-1991
Penalties for flagrant fouls increased such that an infraction is penalized by two free throw attempts and possession of the ball out-of-bounds. The offender may also be ejected if there is no apparent effort to play the ball and/or, in the official’s judgment, the contact was of such an excessive nature that an injury could have occurred. Ejected players will be automatically fined $250.
1993 Playoffs
Any player who throws a punch now immediately ejected from the game, suspended for at least one game, and fined an appropriate dollar amount. Any player throwing a punch that connects with another player will be ejected from the game, suspended for a minimum of one to five games, and fined an appropriate dollar amount. Teams will also be fined an amount equal to the total sum of their players’ fines. Any player leaving the bench area during a fight will be fined $2,500, up from $500, and that player’s team will be fined $5,000 for each of its players who leave the bench area.
1993-1994
“Five-point” flagrant foul rule implemented whereby if a player’s season total exceeds five points, he receives an automatic suspension following the game in which his point total exceeds five and for each additional flagrant foul committed during the season.
1994-1995
Any player who leaves the bench during a fight automatically suspended for a minimum of one game and fined a maximum of $20,000; in addition to losing 1/82nd of his salary for each game, he is suspended.
Any player who commits two flagrant fouls in one game will be ejected.
Hand-checking eliminated from the end line in the backcourt to the opposite foul line.
“Clear path” rule changed to include contact in the backcourt. If a defender, grabs a player when the player has a clear path to the basket on a breakaway, two foul shots will be awarded.
1997-1998
A defender will not be permitted to use his forearm to impede the progress of an offensive player who is facing the basket in the frontcourt.
The “no-charge area,” formerly a two-by-six foot box where an offensive foul is not called if contact is made with a secondary defensive player who has established a defensive position, will be expanded to the area consisting of a half circle with a four-foot radius measured from the middle of the goal.
2000-2001
No contact with either hands or forearms by defenders except in the frontcourt below the free throw line extended in which case the defender may use his forearm only.
Neither the offensive player nor the defender will be allowed to dislodge or displace a player who has legally obtained a position.
Defender may not use his forearm, shoulder, hip or hand to reroute or hold-up an offensive player going from point A to Point B or one who is attempting to come around a legal screen set by another offensive player.
Slowing or impeding the progress of the screener by grabbing, clutching, holding “chucking” or “wrapping up” is prohibited.
2001-2002
Illegal defense guidelines will be eliminated in their entirety.
A new defensive three-second rule will prohibit a defensive player from remaining in the lane for more than three consecutive seconds without closely guarding an offensive player.
2004-2005
New rules were introduced to curtail hand-checking, clarify blocking fouls and call defensive three seconds to open up the game.
A lot of the ’90s rule changes were a result of the Detroit Pistons and New York Knicks. While they were multifaceted teams, a lot of people remember them for their punishing defense that bordered on assault. In my head, the 2004-2005 rule changes were basically David Stern’s way of saying, “Okay Detroit, your defense is too good and other teams are copying it. It makes for a slow and boring game, and I can’t have that!”
Objectively, I don’t see how anyone can say that the NBA hasn’t gotten softer. Look at the rules. Players used to be able to do a lot more, physically. I’m not saying that today’s defense is bad. On the contrary, there are some wonderful defensive teams that execute fantastic defense through brilliant athleticism and smartly coached zone schemes. In the ’80s and ’90s, players generally weren’t as athletic as today’s players (nutrition and sports medicine have advanced a ton) and coaches didn’t have the benefit of zone defense. The luxury those teams were afforded was the liberal stretching of liberal rules (i.e. muggings).
Subjectively, look at some of the players back then. Enforcers like Bill Laimbeer, Rick Mahorn, Charles Oakley, and Anthony Mason (who mugged me in high school…I think) were lauded for their tough play. If those guys played under today’s rules, they would be kicked out of the league. Even the top stars played rougher back then. In a game between the Detroit Pistons and Utah Jazz, Isiah Thomas humiliated John Stockton to the tune of 44 points. The next time those two teams met, Karl Malone greeted Thomas with a bionic elbow that resulted in a cut that required 40 stitches. You can still see the scar on Zeke’s head.
That elbow resulted in a $10,000 fine and one-game suspension — one frickin’ game! If a superstar like LeBron James or Kevin Durant delivered an elbow like that, the fine would be much heavier and the suspension would be much longer. With that in mind, Malone had a history of delivering flying elbows to several (mostly smaller) players. And why not? The penalties were a slap on the wrist back then.
Anyway, in what’s possibly the longest Coffee Talk ever, my conclusions is that basketball in the ’80s and ’90s was undeniably tougher and more physical than today’s game. I’m not saying that it was better or that the modern game is less entertaining. Today’s NBA is simply softer than it used to be because the rules have changed.
What say you? Do you believe that the “legend” of ’80s and ’90s basketball toughness has been exaggerated? Or do you believe that the modern NBA is soft? Kindly share your thoughts in the comments section!
I was going to save this Coffee Talk for tomorrow, but RPadholic smartguy requested that I post it today, so here it is! At E3 2013, Microsoft caused several fanboy heart attacks (not actual heart attacks) by unveiling Killer Instinct for Xbox One. The game is an updated version of Rare’s beloved fighter from the ’90s. In addition to new graphics, new moves, and new fighters, the game is also introducing a new business model (for console fighting games, anyway). Instead of a traditional flat price, the new Killer Instinct will use a…more
Welcome to Coffee Talk! Let’s start off the day by discussing whatever is on your (nerd chic) mind. Every morning I’ll kick off a discussion and I’m counting on you to participate in it. If you’re not feelin’ my topic, feel free to start a chat with your fellow readers and see where it takes you. Whether you’re talking about videogames, the on-again-off-again talks between the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Clippers, fine visitors from Korean e-cig companies, or Bryan Danielson’s injury, Coffee Talk is the place to do it.
I was going to save this Coffee Talk for tomorrow, but RPadholic smartguy requested that I post it today, so here it is! At E3 2013, Microsoft caused several fanboy heart attacks (not actual heart attacks) by unveiling Killer Instinct for Xbox One. The game is an updated version of Rare’s beloved fighter from the ’90s. In addition to new graphics, new moves, and new fighters, the game is also introducing a new business model (for console fighting games, anyway). Instead of a traditional flat price, the new Killer Instinct will use a free-to-play model that many mobile and social games use.
Gamers will be able to download Killer Instinct for free and play to their heart’s content. However, only one character will be available for free. Players will be able to purchase individual characters or pay a flat fee for access to all characters, including those that will be added to the game post-launch. This business model has been lucrative for many mobile and social games, but will it fly with a console fighting game?
What’s your take on the Killer Instinct business model? Are you interested in experiencing games this way? Do you think Microsoft will be successful using a mobile-game tactic on consoles? Or is it too foreign for console gamers? Please share your thoughts in the comments section.
Colleague: No, I mean it feels and looks too much like Halo.
Me: There are a lot elements in the game that are nothing like Halo, but I guess there are some visual similarities. But so what?
Colleague: I’m just tired of them doing the same thing game after game.
At E3 2013, I also had at least ten conversations that went something like this…more
Welcome to Coffee Talk! Let’s start off the day by discussing whatever is on your (nerd chic) mind. Every morning I’ll kick off a discussion and I’m counting on you to participate in it. If you’re not feelin’ my topic, feel free to start a chat with your fellow readers and see where it takes you. Whether you’re talking about videogames, Samsung and Jay-Z teaming up for (allegedly) $20-million, LeAnn Rimes’ crew visiting my favorite vape shop, or Rob Van Dam returning to WWE, Coffee Talk is the place to do it.
At E3 2013, I had at least ten conversations that went something like this:
Colleague: *excited* It looks like an Insomniac game!
Me: It should. It’s being made by Insomniac.
Colleague: No, I mean it looks like what I expect from them. Resistance didn’t look and feel like an Insomniac game. This is more like it!
Me: I guess the tone feels more like what the company has done prior to Resistance, but I don’t mind when developers try different things.
Colleague: Yeah, but this is what I love about Insomniac.
In one case, people are criticizing Bungie for (supposedly) going to the well again. In the other case, people are lauding Insomniac for (supposedly) going to the well again. It’s funny, isn’t it? I’m not sure what the deal is — it’s like you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t. Destiny is pretty ambitious, but some people are down on it because it has some artistic and tonal similarities to other Bungie games. Sunset Overdrive is also ambitious, and it’s getting praised because it has some artistic and tonal similarities to other Insomniac games. In my head, this kind of inconsistency is causing game developers to sing Adam Lambert’s “Whataya Want From Me?” on an hourly basis.
There’s something comforting about creators — of any kind, not just game developers — using familiar elements. There’s also something exciting about creators trying something new. The results of both approaches can be good or bad. I get that. What I don’t get is the inconsistent pigeonholing game journalists and gamers are doing with these two titles. Why is it good for one developer to use a similar style and bad for another?
Don’t get me wrong. I respect the hell out of Bungie and I’m a huge Insomniac mark. I just think it’s unfair that Bungie is getting dinged and Insomniac is getting praised for the same reason.
Perhaps you can explain it to me. Are these judgements just? Are they inconsistent? Leave your thoughts on the matter in the comments section (please!).
