http://i.gizmodo.com/5130116/the-star-wars-galaxy-fully-mapped-in-high-resolution
In case you guys haven't seen this yet, I just wanted to share it.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Friday, January 9, 2009
http://kotaku.com/5127350/fallout-3-level-cap-getting-dialed-up-to-30
This Fallout DLC info just gets better and better. Turns out the level cap is going to be bumped all the way to 30. Considering the original cap is at 20 thats huge. Considering I finally reached level 20 last night; and the level progression bar showing level 21 is just sitting there in the bottom corner of every loading screen mocking me I can't wait for this change to come. Seriously! Why have that bar and not let it move? Its torture! Anyway, This stuff all looks great. If you haven't yet. Check out the images for the first DLC coming out. Ninja suit? good. Sweet Tank thing? good. Giant snowy Warzones? GOOOOOOODDD
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Piecing together the story of Left 4 Dead
This is an interesting read:
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=759074
I never really noticed that it is set in PA and that most of the in-game landmarks represent real places. The map of where each campaign probably takes place is pretty cool.
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=759074
I never really noticed that it is set in PA and that most of the in-game landmarks represent real places. The map of where each campaign probably takes place is pretty cool.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Some notes about buying Blu-rays
When it comes to blu-rays, all discs are not made equal. The quality of a hi-def transfer can vary (sometimes greatly) depending on who's releasing the disc and the effort that has been put into it. You can always go buy your favorite movies, but honestly it's not always worth it. 28 Days Later, for example, was shot on a regular handheld camera and will not look any better than a regular dvd.
I'm not going to go too much in-depth about what makes one better than the other, since it's all pretty subjective. My main reason for posting this is simply to point out that it really important to do a little research before you go on any spending sprees. There are all kinds of sites that review new discs, and the one I generally look at is Hi-Def Digest. AVSforum is another good site, but the reviews are a little more technical.
A couple buzzwords to look out for when reading reviews:
DNR - Digital Noise Reduction is something studios use to make the picture look less gritty. Basically, instead of seeing pores and wrinkles on someone's face (these are some of the details i always look for in HD), they are going to look like a wax mannequin. I'm not sure why studios do this, but it always makes a movie look worse than it should.
EE - Edge Enhancement is something applied to the edges of objects to make them stand out from the background and make the picture "pop" a little more. It creates a "halo" like effect on the object, but honestly I never really notice it. It's something that gets mentioned a lot as a negative, but I don't necessarily see it as a deal-breaker like DNR might be. The Dark Knight, for example, apparently had some edge enhancement and lots of people were pissed. This one doesn't mean as much to me, but I figured I should define it anyway.
Film Grain - This is the most noticeable thing for me and the number one thing I look for. You'll know it when you see it. In some movies it is unavoidable because a movie was shot with film rather than digitally. In these cases it doesn't really bother me, it just gives it more of a natural look. Some times it is added in the studio for artistic effect. Band of Brothers has a lot of grain in some places, but there was only one episode where it was a little distracting. 300 on the other hand, I can't watch in HD. The whole movie has a layer of grain to give it it's distinct look, and you can't really notice it in standard def (like at the theater) but in HD it really distracted me.
So yeah, those are really the main things that are mentioned in regards to picture quality, so now you know a little bit more what they are talking about when the mention it.
There are also a couple of useful sections in their forums:
The Blu-ray tier thread has all titles organized based on how good they look. Tier 0 (reference quality) is the best.
The Blu-ray bargains section is also good to keep an eye on. Basically, buying your movies at stores like Best Buy is downright stupid unless they are having a sale or the movie just came out (and is thus probably a few bucks cheaper than it will normally be. Amazon is almost always the best place to buy from. Their discs are usually 10 dollars or so cheaper than at a normal store (and shipping is free over 25 dollars). They also have sales all the time. Right now, for example, they are having a buy two, get one free sale.
Anyways, I just thought I'd share some of the pointers I've picked up. I want to make sure you guys are getting the best hi-def experience you can.
I'm not going to go too much in-depth about what makes one better than the other, since it's all pretty subjective. My main reason for posting this is simply to point out that it really important to do a little research before you go on any spending sprees. There are all kinds of sites that review new discs, and the one I generally look at is Hi-Def Digest. AVSforum is another good site, but the reviews are a little more technical.
A couple buzzwords to look out for when reading reviews:
DNR - Digital Noise Reduction is something studios use to make the picture look less gritty. Basically, instead of seeing pores and wrinkles on someone's face (these are some of the details i always look for in HD), they are going to look like a wax mannequin. I'm not sure why studios do this, but it always makes a movie look worse than it should.
EE - Edge Enhancement is something applied to the edges of objects to make them stand out from the background and make the picture "pop" a little more. It creates a "halo" like effect on the object, but honestly I never really notice it. It's something that gets mentioned a lot as a negative, but I don't necessarily see it as a deal-breaker like DNR might be. The Dark Knight, for example, apparently had some edge enhancement and lots of people were pissed. This one doesn't mean as much to me, but I figured I should define it anyway.
Film Grain - This is the most noticeable thing for me and the number one thing I look for. You'll know it when you see it. In some movies it is unavoidable because a movie was shot with film rather than digitally. In these cases it doesn't really bother me, it just gives it more of a natural look. Some times it is added in the studio for artistic effect. Band of Brothers has a lot of grain in some places, but there was only one episode where it was a little distracting. 300 on the other hand, I can't watch in HD. The whole movie has a layer of grain to give it it's distinct look, and you can't really notice it in standard def (like at the theater) but in HD it really distracted me.
So yeah, those are really the main things that are mentioned in regards to picture quality, so now you know a little bit more what they are talking about when the mention it.
There are also a couple of useful sections in their forums:
The Blu-ray tier thread has all titles organized based on how good they look. Tier 0 (reference quality) is the best.
The Blu-ray bargains section is also good to keep an eye on. Basically, buying your movies at stores like Best Buy is downright stupid unless they are having a sale or the movie just came out (and is thus probably a few bucks cheaper than it will normally be. Amazon is almost always the best place to buy from. Their discs are usually 10 dollars or so cheaper than at a normal store (and shipping is free over 25 dollars). They also have sales all the time. Right now, for example, they are having a buy two, get one free sale.
Anyways, I just thought I'd share some of the pointers I've picked up. I want to make sure you guys are getting the best hi-def experience you can.
F*C* New Web sites.
I want everyone to do me a favor and travel over to espn.com. I check this site religiously. Not because its got the best coverage, in fact, i think ESPN writers other then John Clayton, Bill Simmons, and TMQ are usually pretty bad. Too many things are the best ever: best player ever, best game ever, best team ever… They need to calm to heck down over there! Anyway that’s not the point of this post. I would go to ESPN because it was the easiest to use, best designed webpage in the known universe. I could always find the top story, new columns from my favorite writers were mere clicks away. Now they have updated the site to some new monstrosity that is waaaaaayyyyy too complex. It’s obvious they are changing the design to make it easier to sell ad space and this pisses me off. The first time i booted up the new page was this morning and I got this stupid b.s. ad with video from GMC or something welcoming me to the newly designed ESPN.com. AHH. I have no problem with web advertising and i understand places have to make money somehow but my god!
The same thing happened over at IGN. I loved that site and the reason i checked it more often then other sites was strictly due to the page design being extremely easy to navigate. Then they f-ed it up to make selling ad space easier. Ads are becoming more and more obtrusive to my internet experience and its driving me away from some of my favorite sites. I may just be stuck in my ways or something, and you guys may not care about this, but I think changes should be made to improve the experience of the user. Instead these two sites made changes to make avoiding advertising harder at the expense of a good user experience. All I can say is Fuck You ESPN. You broke my heart./rant
The same thing happened over at IGN. I loved that site and the reason i checked it more often then other sites was strictly due to the page design being extremely easy to navigate. Then they f-ed it up to make selling ad space easier. Ads are becoming more and more obtrusive to my internet experience and its driving me away from some of my favorite sites. I may just be stuck in my ways or something, and you guys may not care about this, but I think changes should be made to improve the experience of the user. Instead these two sites made changes to make avoiding advertising harder at the expense of a good user experience. All I can say is Fuck You ESPN. You broke my heart./rant
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Movie Review: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)
I'm a little torn as to how I feel about this film. I was intrigued by the premise (which is based on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald)--a baby is born with the body of an old man and he ages backwards while learning and maturing mentally as normal. It starts off with an old lady telling a story on her deathbed. I wasn't too excited about this, because frankly I feel like this kind of set-up has been done to death (no pun intended). I guess it might not have worked out as well if it was done differently, but I just kept thinking about Saving Private Ryan. The story itself though is very good. The first things you notice are the special effects, which are outstanding. The way they were able to use CGI to realistically make the actors look older (and younger) is amazing--side note: the visual effects were done by the studio my aunt used to work at, so that's cool. It's very strange to see a wrinkly hobbit-esque old man that looks vaguely like Brad Pitt, but the progression you see throughout is what really makes the movie. The story generally plays out as you would expect: he grows younger while everyone that he loves grows older and dies. Along the way, he travels the world and lives through many events which are uniquely experienced given his condition. Pitt gives a great performance and Cate Blanchett does a good job as well, although her character is unlikable at times. There are some touching moments, but my main problem is that ultimately it just doesn't have a deeply resonating message. It feels more like "here's a different kind of person and these are the events in his life." I just feel like it could have been a little more profound. Another thing I feel I must mention is the length. I have no problem with long movies, and I'm sure I have a higher tolerance for slowly-paced films than the average individual (for example I loved Fincher's last film, Zodiac, which had similar complaints), but there are definitely parts within the almost three-hour run time where I felt the movie dragged. Overall, I still enjoyed it and would recommend seeing it, but I don't think it deserves the best picture awards that it will no doubt be in contention for.
3.5/5
Friday, January 2, 2009
WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!
http://gizmodo.com/5122120/stand-aside-n64-kid-someone-else-goes-nuts-for-a-wii
Someone might want to tell this kid that this system has 3 good games. And they have all already come out with no future in site. I think the n64 kid was way more convincing too. This kid kind of hesitates.... As if he was thinking, "I kind of wanted an xbox, but this is kind of cool right? Oh hell, I can tell my parents tried to get me something cool, but since they are old they don't know that only people who don't know anything about videogames buy wii's.... Oh well, its Christmas. I'll throw them a bone, AHHHHHHH!!!"
Someone might want to tell this kid that this system has 3 good games. And they have all already come out with no future in site. I think the n64 kid was way more convincing too. This kid kind of hesitates.... As if he was thinking, "I kind of wanted an xbox, but this is kind of cool right? Oh hell, I can tell my parents tried to get me something cool, but since they are old they don't know that only people who don't know anything about videogames buy wii's.... Oh well, its Christmas. I'll throw them a bone, AHHHHHHH!!!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search
Custom Search
