Captain America. Traditional boy scout comic book superhero. Boyscout by profession. There's little to not like about this particularly naive boy scout, and the movie itself does not disappoint.
Cap is sufficiently well known that it's fairly challenging to spin a reimagination of his origins. This movie serves that purpose, and throws in oodles of humor to boot. The acting was good, and the story was build up with sufficient context to please even non-fans. It is also refreshing to see how the romance ends in this movie (those knowing me will know what to expect), and that scores points as well.
On the flip side, there really is little going against it. I suppose you could regard the usual comic book physics as implausible to impossible, and one who's a stickler for realism should steer clear of this one. Then again, the over the top action and true Cap patriotism are adequate to more than make up for it.
I'd say the movie deserves a 7.5/10. Ok maybe at least 8 since the female lead is pretty darned cute.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Steam
Steam, the digital distribution application by the Valve Corporation, is an evil money spinning wonder. First question: Who the heck likes to view ads? Not me. Would I like seeing Valve ads? Hell yeah!
Now, I've known for some time that Steam is evil. I know this because of the hundreds of games on my Steam account, for example. But what fascinates me the most is how Steam has managed to convince people to like ads. Those in advertising will know that the holy grail is to get peoples' attention, turn that attention to sales and then everything's nice and sunny. Steam does precisely that.
The beauty of a highly specialized distribution system is that everyone getting on it has the same goal: To acquire and play video games. Then comes how their ads are laid out: The top bar has game ads (which everyone expects) and the popup has the highlight game ads. It's easy enough to ignore the unobtrusive top bar ads, and to close the single popup.
Now, how does this differ from the average ad popup? Well for one they tend to show up in ways that prevent you from getting at the product. Youtube ads prevent you from watching a video to get you the advertiser's message. Pron sites spam you with shitloads of popups to the same effect. And everything else has ad bars that show stuff that may or may not be related to what you seek. All in all those just serve to turn eyes away, which translates to lower hits and even lower conversion rates.
Taking a page from Steam and Amazon, it seems that customers react best to very tight ad integration that brings them the information they seek, and in a timely manner. It doesn't obstruct user consumption either. I suppose the next thing is to wonder how one may elegantly advertise on a site that isn't selling stuff...
Now, I've known for some time that Steam is evil. I know this because of the hundreds of games on my Steam account, for example. But what fascinates me the most is how Steam has managed to convince people to like ads. Those in advertising will know that the holy grail is to get peoples' attention, turn that attention to sales and then everything's nice and sunny. Steam does precisely that.
The beauty of a highly specialized distribution system is that everyone getting on it has the same goal: To acquire and play video games. Then comes how their ads are laid out: The top bar has game ads (which everyone expects) and the popup has the highlight game ads. It's easy enough to ignore the unobtrusive top bar ads, and to close the single popup.
Now, how does this differ from the average ad popup? Well for one they tend to show up in ways that prevent you from getting at the product. Youtube ads prevent you from watching a video to get you the advertiser's message. Pron sites spam you with shitloads of popups to the same effect. And everything else has ad bars that show stuff that may or may not be related to what you seek. All in all those just serve to turn eyes away, which translates to lower hits and even lower conversion rates.
Taking a page from Steam and Amazon, it seems that customers react best to very tight ad integration that brings them the information they seek, and in a timely manner. It doesn't obstruct user consumption either. I suppose the next thing is to wonder how one may elegantly advertise on a site that isn't selling stuff...
Saturday, July 30, 2011
The Lure Of Gambling
Gambling is the scourge of mankind. How is it possible for people to be hoodwinked into playing a well known losing game, while irrationally hoping against hope that they'd come out ahead?
The obvious answer is well...everyone hopes to win and nobody really expects to come out the big loser. Fair enough. But while watching people react to the outcome of gambling results, I actually see some really good game design behind the whole shebang.
The first principle here is feedback. It's very clear in the case of winning and losing. You win, you come out ahead. You lose, you lose. Simple enough. They even threw in a reward system that way (punishment doesn't count since the bet is already acknowledged as a loss at the beginning).
Then comes the heroin content: You, sir, have nearly won! Nearly won? What does that mean? In this case, betting on numbers...oh man, I've scored 4 out of the 5 required numbers for the winning ticket. Dude...if I just rolled my numbers differently, I'd be taking home tens of thousands of dollars right now! That nearly won effect is fantastic in keeping people playing. If they simply put tickets through a system and it told them...Win/Lose, the motivation to continue playing would fade pretty quickly: There's no lure. Actually, I see the game in win/lose terms, which is why I refuse to play.
Finally...you've played, you've won. Hell yeah! The next question: Do you cash out and walk away for ever, or play for more money? Yanou...that money I just won? It's easy to come by. I didn't earn it, it's the house's money... Well that's the House Money Effect. Throw everything in and you've got a game that everyone wants to play, are fairly happy losing money at, and really winning only gets them coming back for more. So, friends, would you like to ante up now?
The obvious answer is well...everyone hopes to win and nobody really expects to come out the big loser. Fair enough. But while watching people react to the outcome of gambling results, I actually see some really good game design behind the whole shebang.
The first principle here is feedback. It's very clear in the case of winning and losing. You win, you come out ahead. You lose, you lose. Simple enough. They even threw in a reward system that way (punishment doesn't count since the bet is already acknowledged as a loss at the beginning).
Then comes the heroin content: You, sir, have nearly won! Nearly won? What does that mean? In this case, betting on numbers...oh man, I've scored 4 out of the 5 required numbers for the winning ticket. Dude...if I just rolled my numbers differently, I'd be taking home tens of thousands of dollars right now! That nearly won effect is fantastic in keeping people playing. If they simply put tickets through a system and it told them...Win/Lose, the motivation to continue playing would fade pretty quickly: There's no lure. Actually, I see the game in win/lose terms, which is why I refuse to play.
Finally...you've played, you've won. Hell yeah! The next question: Do you cash out and walk away for ever, or play for more money? Yanou...that money I just won? It's easy to come by. I didn't earn it, it's the house's money... Well that's the House Money Effect. Throw everything in and you've got a game that everyone wants to play, are fairly happy losing money at, and really winning only gets them coming back for more. So, friends, would you like to ante up now?
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Harry Potter: The Deathly Hallows 2
This is the end of the Harry Potter series. Seeing as how virtually everyone who watches is a fan (myself excluded), I suppose there's little worry of spoiling anything with the comments here. Newsflash: Prof. Dumbledore is an asshole. But then I suppose everyone knew that beforehand anyway =p
So...am I impressed by this particular installment of the Harry Potter series? Did it go out with a bang? Well not really. Frankly, as a non-fan, I found the overall movie to be somewhat lackluster. For one, the magickal duel between HP and Tom just wasn't all that spectacular. There were funny moments in the assault on Hogwarts, but everything in between kind of turned into a somewhat amorphous mush. Hermoine's still hawwt, by the way.
Overall I'd say the movie's something like a 6.5/10. It reveals something of the series that fans already know, but from a non-fan's perspective it really is mediocre at best.
So...am I impressed by this particular installment of the Harry Potter series? Did it go out with a bang? Well not really. Frankly, as a non-fan, I found the overall movie to be somewhat lackluster. For one, the magickal duel between HP and Tom just wasn't all that spectacular. There were funny moments in the assault on Hogwarts, but everything in between kind of turned into a somewhat amorphous mush. Hermoine's still hawwt, by the way.
Overall I'd say the movie's something like a 6.5/10. It reveals something of the series that fans already know, but from a non-fan's perspective it really is mediocre at best.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Camera Love
I am a firm believer that a photo's compositional quality comes not from the gear, but from the photographer. If the photographer's good, she'll pop out superior stuff relative to a more inexperienced photog given the same gear. That much is true.
However, when it comes to the gear, sometimes it really can make a big difference in one's shooting style. Take for example the compact camera vs the EVIL camera vs the DSLR. The compact camera is small, and can take shots from virtually any vantage point. It's easy to squeeze that little thing through a gap in a fence and snap shots. For the EVIL, it's got image quality comparable to a DSLR, but with speed that is somewhat faster than the compact's. It's good for slow, considered photography. Not so good for anything faster. Then comes the heavyweight DSLR, which is zippy in performance and changing settings. But of course, its primary disadvantage lies in its sheer bulk.
I was taking photos at a railway just yesterday, and I was frankly getting a bit tired of my EVIL misfocusing shots. It's doing that by giving me false focus confirmations. After thumbing the DSLR for a bit, I realized that it really was all that much faster than my EVIL (I was burning that one in previously, so I had to use it continuously). The feel was so different, and the handling on the device did make me feel a lot more confident in taking shots with it. Odd shots, too, that may involve holding the camera at odd angles.
Overall, I'd say I can now understand why I originally wanted the DSLR as my primary shooter. If there's something worth shooting and I'm lugging my gear along, I might as well carry the DSLR. It isn't really worth it going on a dedicated shoot armed only with the EVIL...it currently isn't zippy enough to do the job.
However, when it comes to the gear, sometimes it really can make a big difference in one's shooting style. Take for example the compact camera vs the EVIL camera vs the DSLR. The compact camera is small, and can take shots from virtually any vantage point. It's easy to squeeze that little thing through a gap in a fence and snap shots. For the EVIL, it's got image quality comparable to a DSLR, but with speed that is somewhat faster than the compact's. It's good for slow, considered photography. Not so good for anything faster. Then comes the heavyweight DSLR, which is zippy in performance and changing settings. But of course, its primary disadvantage lies in its sheer bulk.
I was taking photos at a railway just yesterday, and I was frankly getting a bit tired of my EVIL misfocusing shots. It's doing that by giving me false focus confirmations. After thumbing the DSLR for a bit, I realized that it really was all that much faster than my EVIL (I was burning that one in previously, so I had to use it continuously). The feel was so different, and the handling on the device did make me feel a lot more confident in taking shots with it. Odd shots, too, that may involve holding the camera at odd angles.
Overall, I'd say I can now understand why I originally wanted the DSLR as my primary shooter. If there's something worth shooting and I'm lugging my gear along, I might as well carry the DSLR. It isn't really worth it going on a dedicated shoot armed only with the EVIL...it currently isn't zippy enough to do the job.
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
Corporate Inefficiency
One thing that constantly amuses me in game development is how a big company can be inclined to stick to completely arbitrary deadlines. I say big company, because small companies do not necessarily have the resources to be able to say it's-done-when-it's-done. If anything, a smaller company saying that is effectively betting the entire game, whereas a big company will be betting shareholder value.
I find it inefficient because the sunk cost for a project is already there at the arbitary deadline, and extending it by a tad would result in significant gains in quality. There is always the argument to strike while the iron's hot, and to have the project shipped on schedule to take advantage of the holiday season and whatnot for sales. Yet, I find that other companies have successfully sat on their project for sales period after sales period to ship a truly quality product way beyond the typical 2 year dev cycle.
To me, a company may do well to incur an additional 10-20% of production costs from improving quality, such that first impressions do not get the already expensive project crushed from poor reviews. It is the image from poor reviews that can severely damage a project's sales, after all...
I find it inefficient because the sunk cost for a project is already there at the arbitary deadline, and extending it by a tad would result in significant gains in quality. There is always the argument to strike while the iron's hot, and to have the project shipped on schedule to take advantage of the holiday season and whatnot for sales. Yet, I find that other companies have successfully sat on their project for sales period after sales period to ship a truly quality product way beyond the typical 2 year dev cycle.
To me, a company may do well to incur an additional 10-20% of production costs from improving quality, such that first impressions do not get the already expensive project crushed from poor reviews. It is the image from poor reviews that can severely damage a project's sales, after all...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)