Sundown

Yeah, I guess at the end of the day, he does have a right to do with his creations as he pleases. It's just that the changes he's making are probably flat out insulting the many special effects crew that originally worked on the films and helped them become the successes they were.

Not to mention the directors, the scriptwriters, and some of the actors. (Sebastian Shaw being removed as the idealized force image of Anakin comes to mind.)

Even Lucas' friend Spielberg acknowledged this with the disastrous new CG enhanced version of ET, the DVD set of which specifically included the original cut of the film along with the new one.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder how much Lucas actually had to do with the things that made Indiana Jones cool, and how much of it was actually Speilberg's. I'm guessing silly bits like Shorty was entirely Lucas's doing.

-Al

I'm glad I'm not the only one who caught the connection. Okay... It's a travesty to alter old films... but it's perfectly alright to hack up something that's part of film history, that fans still love in its original form, then make the original version difficult to access... so long as you're the credited visionary. I see how that works.

The quote does explain a few things however. His adoration of the Stooges explains for the evil that's Jar Jar and the mostly-lame slap-stick he's been sneaking into the Original Trilogy.

To be fair though, he is consistent here on one thing. He's against the viewer having a choice.

-Al

All i saw was "Ohh Convoy!!!!" then I read further and it was some obscure reference to transformation via being a sock puppet of the church.

*Sigh.*

"Transformation" in Christian lingo... refers to a particular change in heart and character, something that's gets worked out between that individual and God, the Holy Spirit, the Son, and so forth, if you believe in that type of thing.

It has about um... zero to do with being some puppet for the earthly and often fallible human institution, and according to certain perspectives, it is often those really "transformed" that ruffle things up for a given church or religious establishment.

The ad was merely attempting to be clever and hip, using language that holds a certain and particular meaning to particular Christians.

I know religious cynicism's all fun and comfortable, but at the very least understand the references and meanings before maligning and twisting them into something more easily mocked.

Maybe they are saying "all of you are stupid trucks. Come to us and transform in to cool yet mindless robots?

It takes a capable mind to approach all ideas with respect, and it takes a capable one to evaluate all beliefs in fairness. Pointing, laughing, and making cynical assumptions don't require such sharp faculties, however.

-Al

EDIT: Added original quote replied to.

[soapbox rant mode]

why does there have to be a story behind every picture??? It just looks like good artwork to me.

disclaimer: This rant isn't aimed at any one particular person... it's happened before and it'll happen again. It's a tiny pet-peeve of mine, and if this offended you, then look the other way because I wasn't talking about you.

[/soapbox rant mode]

Sue folks for actually being curious and being proactive in their Macross interest.

Just like the "Funny Chineese" or "Deep Diver" stuff... it's just fan-custom work, or early design pictures with ideas that got tossed. Does it really have to be more than that?

Ahem. The "Funny Chinese" isn't a fan-custom or a tossed idea. It actually appears in "Love Drifts Away" in the TV series, and is precursor to the Elint in DYRL.

-Al

And yes- it seems mis-drawn if these are the same bird... fighter mode has only ONE booster. BUT!!! if you look closely, it almost looks like the 2 boosters sit touching each other in fighter mode, note the double hump at the front tip of these....

Actually, due to perspective, the other booster simply seems hidden by the nose of the Valkyrie. Even if the booster was actually missing, if it were drawn, it'd still be mostly or completely obstructed.

-Al

Eh it looks alright. The Gerwalk mode is cool but the other 2 bleh. Kinda reminds of some lame Transformer toy

What lame Transformer toys are you looking at? Because I need to get me some of those.

-Al

Some of his stuff actually puts the Mac 0 CGI to shame. Love how his CG VF-1's have the Temujin look going. Awesome.

-Al

Gotta say that the IHP's Battroid mode looks moderately better than Yamato's... proportions are nearly perfect, and looks a little less gangly. I also dig the smaller shoulder blocks... but Yamato's isn't too shabby.

I only wish they'd used dark, transparent plastic for the cockpit glass, rather than just painting in the windows with silver. =P

-Al

Luckily we Mac guys tend to only get the decent games ported (with few exceptions), seems to filter out alot of the crap

If by decent games you mean Warcraft III. And Warcraft III....

... And Photoshop.

Apple Gamer Switch Ad

-Al

Liked it. Not raving mad about it, but liked it. Especially after Signs-- while enjoyable to watch, left me feeling pretty empty, and with every thought after of the contrived ending causing me to hate it more and more. I wasn't expecting much, other than good acting and good directing, with lots of good dialogue... and *was* expecting everything to be for naught with his usual endings that undo all that happened in the previous two hours.

The obvious problem with Shamalayan movies is that the entire movie is one giant setup for his surprise ending-- which often leaves the audience feeling duped. There's actually not that much *story* going on, and thus, the entire film hinges on whether the audience likes that particular surprise or not. And he's not always successful in conveying the moral theme that might make the audience accept the movie as being something other than yet another trick played on them.

But I liked it, and liked the idea behind the surprise. The possible ending occurred to me a couple of times during the movie, but I didn't really see it coming per se. Wasn't that surprised by it though, but it left me smirking. Ended up thinking about the film's premise afterwards, and of how the little details tied into the ending. When a movie does that, when I was ready to roll eyes at it, then I guess it's doing something right.

-Al

I love Eric Bana. Espcially as Hoot. He kicks ass and then some. For that reason alone, I'm excited.

But I'm not at all sure he can pull off the Suave, Sophisticated, British thing. Bana always seemed to me darker, more brooding, and more rugged than I'd picture Bond in any incarnation. At least this Bond should kick some ass.

-Al

Sorry my internet is out at home and i only have it at work. In response to LOTR telling everyone they are making both sets still makes the hard core fans who wish to watch it over and over to buy the first and the second for the new material. Why couldn't it be done for the first release.

I think it would be a bit much to ask everyone who ever wanted to buy the LOTR sets to buy the more expensive extended version. I would also think that there was some production time involved in getting the material on the many bonus CD's made... and I wouldn't crucify a production company for releasing the smaller set, while demand is still high and fans are hungry, instead of holding off for until the second set was done.

Even the first release includes a lot of extra material, some of it not on the second, extended, multi-disk release.

And like everyone else mentioned... fans were give a choice. And they were informed well enough so they would be able to make that choice. If they were being milked, the impending release of the extended version would have been kept from them.

The most telling thing about the LOTR DVD releases is... fans of LOTR are overwhelmingly happy. Nearly the only people who take issue to with LOTR for "milking" fans are those who don't care for LOTR that much in the first place, don't care to own either DVD sets all that badly, or are using it as an ill-fitting example in some argument or other.

Can't say the same thing for Star Wars fans regarding Lucas's choices, however.

-Al

So, to me, that clinches it. Anakin doesn't just get a little toasted in Ep 3. He physically honest-to-god dies and is resurrected by machinery and Palpatine's dark powers. Hence, when he shows up as a spirit, he's as he looked physically when he kicked the bucket. Check out the mp3 file HERE.

Then that takes a little... well, a lot actually... away from Vader's own redemption and transformation back to Anakin, for me at least. All that work, all that sacrifice, all that putting up with a whiny Jedi excuse for a son and tossing some old sparking fogey over a railing... just to end up as a whiny Jedi himself again in the afterlife. I would have liked to think that with Vader's last act, he became more himself, more healed, and more one with the light side of the force than ever before-- taking that identity as a spirit. At least that's what the movie had shown for 20 years. Ah well, no dice. *shrug*

Thing that bugs me is that Lucas is trying to cast Anakin as this odd reverse-Christ. Virgin birth, resurrection, Messianic references, etc. But in doing so, he wears from the original theme of redemption-- placing focus on Christenson's young Anakin, who he's enamoured with, instead of focus on old Vader/Anakin/Luke's Father. If Lucas wanted to play with vaguely Christian allusions, then I'd rather have him parallel the transfiguration with Vader's own transformation to his "true self" at the end of his life, immediately following his act of sacrifice. But looks like he's set on applying those themes to young Anakin instead, making Vader a sort of walking undead, who's best hope is to revert to the form his old, angsty, whiny, and largely annoying self once took.

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that leaving Vader in this sort of living limbo causes his character to stop growing, but this twist does make his Vader and older state something he just needs to get away from, to revert back to his old self... instead of something that he needed to go through fully with, as Anakin Skywalker, fully alive, in order to reach and build what's to become his ultimate identity.

This all takes a little bit away from Obi-wan telling Luke that his father was "dead". That line had always been presented as "a manner of speaking" and "true from a certain point of view." But now, Obi-wan wasn't just being poetic. Anakin *did* die. Maybe that's neat in Lucas's eyes, but to me it feels hackneyed and forced, and changes many of the original scenes' implied meaning to something much more literal and a lot less poetic.

-Al

It's HIS movie because it's HIS money that paid for all of it.  Sure, it was released by Fox, but nobody else put up the cash to pay the designers, the actors, the modelers, or the guys in suits.  And for me, whomever signs the cheques gets TOTAL rights to the product.

Yes, Lucas has full legal rights. Whether or not his use of that right is artistically and cinematically appropriate is a different issue. That's a "right" of a whole different kind, and is something that's respected and acted upon only if one's inclined to in the first place.

And if Tolkien decides to rise from the grave and add dancing Orcs in Sauron's lair in Return Of The King-- or if Da Vinci did the same and then proceeded to sneak into the Louvre and slap a mustache on the Mona Lisa because he was feeling particularly giddy that day... expect folks to call them out on the same sort of thing. That just ain't right. Plus, I hate the undead.

What I meant is that, depending on how certain key scenes in Ep III ( I still can't get used to it actually having a name) he's felt the need to refine the way the ghost scene plays out. I don't know if any of what I've heard in this regard were ever confirmed as legitiamte spoilers, but this revision may indeed be necessary.

I suppose it might make for a better ending, depending on those scenes... but if that's true, then it doesn't sit well with me that Lucas is writing scenes which fit poorly with the existing films and necessitate their changing. Plus, I'm not a real big fan of him writing scenes for a trilogy that I'm lukewarm to, affecting changes in a movie that I actually do adore, causing it to lose something of its original narrative.

Oh, I thought you were complaining about how the celebrations fit into the timeline. I've seen complaints about the so-called immediacy of the celebrations before. As to how well they fit? Eh...I could go either way, but it's still a bit classier than "Yub yub."

Granted, the immediacy bugged me a tad, although I read it as partially symbolic, and partially as taking place in the possible hours that might have elapsed from before the scene to the moments after it. In either case, I'm sure the Alliance could (and would) have quickly sent out news of Palpatine's defeat on all hyperspace channels... news would travel fast. It was the way-too-bright CG and the stacato cuts that were distracting, portraying something so momumental in such short screentime. But I did get goosebumps.

I always have expectations of the smart posters here.

I guess I oughta be blushing or something.

Fair enough, but you gotta admit that's still a fair way away from pure "megalomania."

Hey, it's not me who thinks he's an undeniable egomaniac. But I can see how the traits he's exhibited in his treatment of the films might be interpreted by some impassioned folks as just that.

-Al

See, that's kinda my point here. The way I see it, the movies he released to theaters back then deserve the respect any popular 20 year old film would be given. And I also don't see it as HIS product, no matter how much they push it as a singular vision. Tons of people worked on those movies, the designers, the actors, the modelers, the guys in suits... not to mention audiences of millions who paid to see them... why is it HIS movie?

Bingo. The movie and its success belongs as much to everyone who's worked on the movie-- who collectively have contributed to the movie, in blood, sweat, tears... much more than Lucas has in providing vision (however critical and key that is)... along with the audience that made it successful.

To think it belongs to him and him alone, and thus he's allowed to do with it however he pleases discounts the reality and complexity of the situation.

Yes, he's got every right to make whatever edits he feels like and releasing them. But the fact that he's so persistant in trying to bury the original theatrical release-- a piece of film-making history-- by refusing to release it in any current media format, making it now impossible for anyone to purchase those pieces and view them for himself, justified in his mind only because they do not match the vision he has in his head-- does point out that Lucas has a certain sense of entitlement that he's lording a bit. The truth is, movie-making and enjoying is a collaborative endeavor, and I personally feel that trying to bury the original movies that put him where he is is a snub at that process and truth.

I think it's lame to rewrite cinema history because new gadgets have come out. I'm the same kind of person who hates "colorized" films, too.

What Lucas is doing is vaguely similar to colorizing the films, as tacky as that is... then destroying or making it difficult to access the originals. The new changes are dubious in quality-- and the history of the original film is lost due to the makers' own self-absorbtion with the current form of his tenous vision.

-Al

Pure, 100% specualtion. For the record, there has been no official word on these changes one way or another. Further, possible Ep 3 spoilers cast a different light on Anakin's youthful-looking spirit. Either way, we'll have to wait.

It's interpretation as much as it is "speculation". But "it'd be neat" is the only plausible thing I can come up with for why Lucas would trade the effect of the original scene for cramming Hayden Christenson in for a role originally played by someone of an entirely different age. Doesn't seem like an "original vision" sort of thing. If Lucas really wanted Anakin to reappear in a younger form, as part of his master plan, he would have cast a younger actor... then replaced the younger actor with Hayden now. Sure, it would have been confusing as all hell, but that only points to the fact that the original trilogy, and the original vision for the trilogy, was that it wasn't supposed to tie in in such an akward manner with movies that have yet to be made.

Either way, we'll have to wait for an explaination. But it strikes me odd that we didn't need an explaination for the last 20 years-- the scene stood well all on its own-- and now, ROTJ ends with a slightly more confusing ending and needing clarification from a movie that hasn't yet been released.

I certainly don't think Lucas was kicking himself each time he watched the ending of ROTJ before Ep II was made, thinking that old-wisend-Anakin was nothing like the picture he originally had in head.

"Forced" or not, I think you're looking at the end celebrations a wee bit to literally.

I'm not sure what's too literal from reading that planets all over the galaxy are celebrating Palpatine's downfall. Because that's what it shows and implies. Unless Lucas was only showing that a few certain systems even cared, which then makes the Alliance less just and less triumpant. Either way, as much as I did like the scenes for adding something to the narrative (as opposed to Jedi Rocks), it was a little bit akward.

This borders on plain old muckracking, plain and simple. Here, you really disappoint me Al. All kinds of internet posters love to go on and on about Lucas' supposed "megalomania" and his worshipping of the almighty dollar. But the problem is that it's all specualtion, usually put forth to support an anti-Prequel or anti-SE diatribe. Either that, or it's a sad attempt to bolster the notion of some lame franchise war. (for the record, Lucas and Jackson got along quite well)

I'm not sure what's so dissapointing about me having my own interpretations and opinions for Lucas's action. And I wasn't aware that you ever had any expectations placed on my personal view of things-- so sorry to dissapoint if you were expecting more palpatable. Then again, I never did say which side of the line I personally believed Lucas to lie on, so I guess I oughta clarify now:

I think he simply puts too much weight on the value of his own vision and believing that everything he envisioned (or now thinks he envisioned) makes for a better film. He's also a little too quick to make changes without weighing the meaning of the original scene, in favor of whatever sentiment drives him to change that scene now. In areas where he's had to compromise or relent to the creative direction of others, he doesn't seem altogether satisfied with. And it seems that he's enjoying his freedom to make edits and changes, and no longer has any outside checks that leave real weight or impressions on him.

I wasn't being facetious when I suggested that one determine what he believes of Lucas. I meant it... and one's take will be influence by one's opinion regarding the changes themselves. I personally lean slightly towards the "too self-absorbed and preoccupied with newness for the good of the movies and those he originally made them for" side of the line-- that's the only thing that explains for me how some of the puzzling additions and alterations have been made-- but that's my failing, I guess.

-Al

So tell me who is milking their franchise more SW who has held off putting out DVD's until they feel they are the way they want or say a LOTR that releases a DVD and months later another one with added footage just to get people to buy 2 sets.

You couldn't have picked a worse example of a DVD set that's just "milking a franchise." The LOTR sets, both the original release and the extended version, provides much, much more content than the theatrical release. The extended version supplies several extra DVD's that many viewers are actually interested in. Not only that, buyers were well informed that the extended set would be available down the line, even before the original set was released, so they would be able to choose exactly what they wanted, instead of being offered the next better thing a bit later and being suckered into buying both. The LOTR sets offered much, much, more than gimmicky edits and changes on every new release.

Lucas isn't necesesarily about milking. (Although three different versions of a 20 year old film in the last 10 years does say something.) This is all about him feeling the need to offer something different and new for difference's sake, and claiming that it's part of his original "vision", his own judgement of what his vision actually was muddled by time and his present mindset. Frankly, many of the changes in the Star Wars sets have been rather gimmicky and arbitrary-- often distracting, inconsistent, and thus wear down at the effectiveness of the film.

The problem most fans have with his changes isn't because he's trying to shape the films to his original vision. It's because he's shaping the film to his vision now, which appears to be constantly evolving, at his whim, and with less thought on what each element that he changes originally meant to the feel of the story, how each of those elements skillfully resonates with the rest of the trilogy, and more thought on "hey, wouldn't it be neat if..."

Example: The new edit replacing Shaw with young Anakin. The original scene impressed upon the viewers a certain tone-- a sense of triumphal tranquility, in having three wisened force "ghosts" watching the young protagonists as they celebrated their individual and collective victories. It gave the sense that this victory was much bigger than them, as the three fatherly figures watched upon them. It also highlighted Darth Vader's own transformation, in appearance and in character, from the dark to light side of the force again-- by his one redeeming act of total self-sacrifice. Vader was Anakin Skywalker once more, as the Skywalker he was in the last moments of life, now healed-- in a form that portrays him as Luke's father, and smiling upon him in paternal love and pride.

The new scene edits in young Anakin for the mere sake of "tie-ing better with the prequel", with little thought on what the scene now means. One begins to wonder why Anakin appears young, while Obi-Wan and Yoda appear in the form prior to their deaths. I suppose Lucas will explain away that Anakin appears as such because this is how he last was as "fully man" and as a lightside Jedi. But that only causes more problems for Vader's redemption, or at least, takes away from its impact and importance. That would suggest that Vader never really became fully "light" again and that Vader never transformed into something beyond himself in the last moments of his life-- that his best form and highest point of enlightenment was over 30 years ago, as a whiny and largely annoying Jedi. This scene also undermines Vader's final transition to the light side-- since young Anakin was always portrayed somewhat in the grey, and ever creeping closer to the Dark Side. Thus, it wears away at the scene of triumph and transformation, but cramming in Anakin as he was when he was closest to being fallen without actually being so. It also ends up losing the whole paternal tone, by giving Luke a visual image of his father that he couldn't have recognized. (I'm sure he would have figured it out, but still, the effect's lost.)

Why was it done? Because it'd be "neat".

And no, I'm not bashing these changes simply because they're new and different, and because nostalgia's got me seeing the old scene through colored rims. I'm actually torn between the new celebration scenes that pan across the galaxy, and the old classic Yub Nub sequence. The new scenes do add a certain amount of perspective and significance to the destruction of the Death Star and the Emporer's death (even though the effects and footage clash a bit with the rest of the movie), and make the last moments an epic one. However, it still comes across as being a little forced and canned-- because it paces a little bit oddly when tacked onto the original footage and writing, and because it seems to want to show the galaxy's response to the Alliance's victory in a mere 30 some seconds. It's jarring and forced, narratively, but I can appreciate what it's trying to say.

For what it's worth, the original movies weren't Lucas's vision alone. It was the vision of the artists, writers, directors, and actors that he enlisted-- and this joint effort made the films what they were. Now that he's got the sway and cash, he's able to supplant some of these things to his own whim. There's a fine line between being true to one's artistic integrity and vision, and being an egomaniac. I'll let folks formulate which side of the line Lucas resides on for themselves.

And lastly, I don't think Lucas fears that fans might not like his changes. He accurately knows that fans will be more likely to buy the new set if he offers a few gimmicks, and he knows that he'd be losing very few sales from a vocal minority of hardcore and critical fans. These decisions are as based just as much on business as on any artistic integrity anyone might attribute to him.

-Al

The closest thing an opinion can become to fact is when it is excepted by an overwhelming majority...

Facts are not determined by popular vote. Facts are objective truths, although there is often some correlation between the two.

  Most gamers out there will use the gamepad, because that's what they're used to (and no, there is NOT a mouse for the Xbox- at least, not one sold outside of internet stores like Lik Sang).  The majority of gamers, given a mouse and keyboard setup, wouldn't even know what to do with it.  Sundown is right to say that says nothing about which is truly the better setup, but what I'm saying is that mouse and keyboard PC gamers are the minority, and yet they're convinced that the majority is wrong, and that their mouse and keyboard preference should be taken as factual evidence of the gamepad's inferiority.

I didn't miss your point. You were trying to say that the mouse cannot be the better device, by mere fact that players playing on gamepads (in your figures, and don't apply when we take the FPS market as a whole) outnumber players on mice. And you were trying to imply that no device can be better if it's not preferred by the majority... and to imply such, even to offer factual arguments about physics and human physiology, is still to be "elitist".

Unless you're trying to say that the mouse can be a better device... but to actually say so... is elitism.

  Most gamers out there will use the gamepad, because that's what they're used to (and no, there is NOT a mouse for the Xbox- at least, not one sold outside of internet stores like Lik Sang).  The majority of gamers, given a mouse and keyboard setup, wouldn't even know what to do with it.  Sundown is right to say that says nothing about which is truly the better setup, but what I'm saying is that mouse and keyboard PC gamers are the minority, and yet they're convinced that the majority is wrong, and that their mouse and keyboard preference should be taken as factual evidence of the gamepad's inferiority.

It's not my preference that should be taken as evidence, although the majority preference of collective communities of FPS diehards, especially those who exclusively favor FPS's over any other genre, as opposed to those who buy consoles to play other genres as well, do speak on some volume.

And like you said, most folks don't even know what to do with a keyboard and mouse setup. Thus, by your own claim, most folks don't even have real comparative and, well, useful opinions on which is better, mouse or gamepad. That automatically rules out most of your Xbox Halo/Doom III sample when it comes to using preference to determine fact. Or even the ability to claim that there is a majority preference.

The only perferences that I would consider of real worth in determining whether the gamepad or mouse is truly more effective in FPS's are from:

1. Those who are truly FPS enthusiasts, and care to play at a high level of performance, not just those who play casually and are happy enough to "get by", or rely on auto-aim to service them.

2. Those who have spent a decent amount of time with both control schemes to really be able to make a valid and unbiased comparison.

An overwhelming number of XBox Doom III and Halo players do not form this body.

If you want to determine a tool's effectiveness for a job, you ask those with marked experience and interest in doing the job well, and those who have been doing the job for a period of time.

Just because most folks use Photoshop with mouse and pad, and some of us can do amazing mouse work and it's more than good enough for us... doesn't mean that a digital tablet and pen isn't still a better solution. If you ask the "elite minority" that have and use them-- that have tried both solutions-- real digital artists... it is, hands down. The rest just don't have the means or desire to form an opinion on either. And it isn't elitism for them to offer opinions or truths regarding things that the overwhelming majority haven't spent all that much time thinking about.

-Al

Invert mouse is the ONLY way to play . I feel your pain tho, all my friends don't understand how I can play inverted. It just makes more sense to me, like in real life, when you look up, you tilt your head back, so a mouse movement backwards should also tilt your view up! That, combined with years playing flight sims before ever playing a 3D FPS, just makes inverted so much more natural.

I used to feel the same about inverting the axis... until I just got over the fact that I don't "fly" my head in an FPS anymore than I "fly" my head in real life. I just think of clicking my target like I would in Windows.

Add to that that the movement of my upper arm more closely corresponds to the movement of my arm in real life when holding a firearm and moving its point of aim up with a non-inverted Y-axis than it does with an inverted one.

Inverting feels perfectly natural in a game where I *am* supposedly controlling a ship or craft with the mouse, however. Weird.

-Al

You're right, I haven't proven any of those things... but you haven't disproven them either. For all we know, the best gamepad user might destroy the best mouse user. Fact is, we don't know.

True enough. I'm just arguing with conventional wisdom and personal observation, along with consensus within certain communities that have experience with both... but I find that extremely implausible (a good pad gamer beating a good mouse user), given longterm personal experience, and given what's commonly agreed upon by most gamers. But it could be settled somewhat by taking up Max's challenge.

Mouse users didn't need to point to a specific group to validate their belief that their control device is viable... but joypad users don't either.  Sales for games like Halo, and the fact that I can pretty much promise that the Xbox version of Doom 3 will outsell the PC version.  All mentioning it does say is that, for some odd reason, PC gamers don't get that there are a lot of people who prefer to play their FPS on consoles and with joypads.

Most dubious use of statistics and numbers ever. All sales of Xbox Halo and Doom 3 would prove is that there there were more copies of Xbox Halo and Doom 3 sold. It proves nothing about controller effectiveness. Why? Let's look at some possibilities, none of which you are considering in skewing sales figures to make tenuous claims:

1. Halo on the Xbox has been out over a year longer than Halo on the PC. Thus Halo Xbox naturally already has more sales. Plus, why would you buy PC Halo if you already owned the Xbox version?

2. PC FPS players are not scrabbling to pick up Halo, partly for reason 1, and partly because Halo really isn't all that special when compared against other PC FPS shooters, from which they have many, many more to choose. The PC FPS market dilutes sales for any one game by offering many viable games.

3. Halo isn't even the top selling FPS on the PC, on a platform that's traditionally known for excelling at the genre. Using its lukewarm reception as a measure of how effective the mouse is against the gamepad isn't particularly convincing.

A more accurate indicator would be all FPS's sold on PC's versus all FPS's sold on a console. You might say that's hardly a fair comparison, since Halo and Goldeneye are the only good FPS's consoles have had available to them. I'd say you're right. And then I'd offer that FPS's are few and far between on consoles for a good reason.

4. Doom 3 will have likely have auto-aim assist for gamepad users. This alone makes a comparision largely invalid. Even if one can have as much fun with Xbox Doom 3, and even if Xbox players can do the same things a mousing player can with the same degree of effectiveness-- the addition of auto-aim alone wipes out any comparison that can be made. The feature's existence on the Xbox version of those games, and its absense on the PC versions is telling, however.

Apparently the developers thought the feature necessary to compensate some shortcoming or other.

5. Mice are available for the Xbox. Not all Xbox Halo and Doom 3 sales tally one in the "prefer gamepad" column. Few play Halo or will play Doom 3 with a gamepad on the PC, however.

6. Platform selection speaks much more about preferences in other areas: convience, display clarity, display size, portability, availability of disposable income, brand loyalty, *other* games and genre one also wants to play... than it does about controller selection for FPS games. The last would probably be the weakest reason for picking one or the other.

7. You've said yourself that the PC version of Halo is sub-par. I myself would have issues picking between the two, if I owned an Xbox.

Sales figures do not indicate controller preference in an FPS in any compelling way. There are just too many other more important factors involved in choosing which platform one prefers to play on.

And that's actually where the whole elitist thing comes into play.  The only reason why I feel like arguing is because, while I play both PC and console, I do prefer my FPS on Xbox.  This is a matter of my personal preference.  I recognize that I that it's my personal preference, and that I'm actually most likely in the majority.

It can be argued that assuming one's preferences are the majorities is a form of elitism. That's exactly what you've just accused us of. Furthermore, a choice to play the same game on the Xbox over the PC involves more than control device choice.

Just because one can have a personal choice and one picks based on their preference does not mean there aren't inherent advantages with a certain device. It's not "elitism" to offer that certain devices are better suited for certain situations and performing certain actions, nor is it "elitism" to describe exactly why. Blindly spouting that it's "merely personal perference" and ignoring any of the specific points brought up on why a certain device excels, or why another device falls short doesn't advance the discussion further.

It does allow one to throw around names in an attempt to color those that one disagrees with in some politically incorrect, "elitist" light. But hell, having a belief, and daring to offer that some things might be more true than others is politically incorrect to begin with.

It's a fact that console sales are the bulk of the market, after all.  PC gamers DO NOT prefer a mouse and keyboard because a mouse and keyboard is definatively a better choice... it's just their personal preference.

Your claim that PC gamers choosing to use a mouse does not in any way indicate device effectiveness is even less provable than whether either device is superior to the other. The existence of personal perference doesn't preclude the existence of a better choice... but unless I'm reading wrong, that seems to be the weight of your argument.

To that, I'd offer that mouse users prefer the mouse because it grants quick, accurate, immersive, and intuitive targetting-- easy enough to be used effectively by a four year old, as you've pointed out.

And that gamepad FPS players prefer the gamepad because they can't get used to the strangeness of the mouse and keyboard combination, that it just doesn't "feel right" to be playing on devices that weren't created for playing games, and their unwillingness to use a mouse has allowed them enough time to practice to be moderately decent with a pad.

But their proficiency doesn't exclude one device as being more effective than the other for most people by and large. Nor does their preference imply that a better solution doesn't exist. Chalking up all choices as being relative "preferences" that have no basis in objectivity and have no relation to real, general human physiology doesn't get us very far in searching for a better controller device. My reasons on why a mouse is more effective stands.

But whereas an average console gamer really doesn't have a problem with the idea that people play games on PCs, PC gamers seem to think that console gamers are nuts, and that the only "hardcore" gamers are PC gamers, and that a mouse and keyboard has been factually proven to be superior to a gamepad.

Straw Man. I own both and will play whichever platform offers the better experience for a particular game or genre. That's more akin to a hardcore gamer's line of thinking.

-Al

Heh. Funny how one poster with lukewarm reception to the released name brings the "You people will never be happy response," like a good and practiced reflex.

I'm actually not a big fan of the PT... and I think Lucas dropped the ball on both Ep. I and II (being one of the few people who liked AOTC even less than Phantom Menace)... but I love the title. It actually gives tribute to the Original Trilogy by being a twist on Ep. VI's title. Star Warsy in the old fashioned way. This is a good thing. Just hope the movie executes.

-Al

Someone remindi, in case I forgot, when I played Wolfstain 3D, 10 or so years ago, to movie foward you couldn't do it with the arrows in the keyboard, but rather you had to drag the mouse from top to bottom and arrows only work to turn. Am I remember correctly? this was the first time I play a FPS and was really hard.

But now, I really prefer Mouse over Gamepad for FPS.

Yeah. I think the default control scheme for Doom was funky, too. Something like holding the right mouse button down to move forward. Control schemes like that chilled me to even trying to use the mouse for years, until I encountered Dark Forces, which was the first FPS I tried using the mouse again for, and which had the much more useable WASD mapping.

It's funny that back then, folks were actually having arguments over whether the *keyboard* was as good as the mouse for FPS's. Some of their points sound the same as those who profess that the gamepad's just as good as the mouse. No one has those arguments anymore.

-Al

Video game peripherals are just as diverse as real world combatants. Some folks prefer handguns, some prefer SMGs, some prefer knives and heck some even strap TNT to themselves and run at you. For as many different ways there are to play there are as many people to play them that way. I still do a double take when I see those guys with the keyboard joysticks and even the old school Power Glove.

Yep. Except certain tools *are* better for certain situations. Knives don't fare as well in a gun fight. SMG's are poor choices at long ranges when pit against assault and battle rifles. And a sniper rifle isn't something you want to bring along for doing any sort of CQB.

-Al

Okay, this is actually the most elitist PC argument ever.  "You just CAN'T play a FPS without a mouse!"

Read the post(s) again. While I exaggerated slightly for emphasis (note itallics on the word *fully*), I clarified my reasoning a few posts down. FPS's are playable with a gamepad. Especially if auto-aim is built into the game to compensate for the gamepad's innaccuracy. Playable. Yes. Again. Playable. Did I mention playable? Even moderately enjoyable.

The mouse just works better. It's an objective observation borne from experience, agreed upon by many gamers who don't have some sort of pro-platform agenda. Not sure how you can read that as being "elitist", unless presenting what one perceives as true somehow marks one as "elitist". I own both a console and a PC, and I will begrudgingly admit any and all advantages a console has... which is why I own one in the first place.

Hey, look, my four year old niece plays Dora the Explorer point-and-click games... and with a mouse, let's be honest, you're just pointing and clicking.

No argument there. That just goes to show that the mouse is a much better pointing device. If a four year old can point and click with relative accuracy and speed, it's doing something right. If you really hate your niece, take her mouse away and force her to play Dora with a gamepad. I'm not delusional enough to think I'm more personally skilled than a pad user for being able to target much quicker. I'm also not delusional enough to choose a pad just so I can pride myself in struggling with and overcoming a somewhat cumbersome control device when I needn't, when better and more natural options are available.

And believe it or not, there's a whole group of gamers who learned to play FPS with Goldeneye.

Again, pads are usable. Hell, even keyboards are usable. But my money's on the mouse user when it comes to direct comparisons. So far, all you've offered is that console FPS's are playable with gamepads. No one is arguing that. You're also posing that certain folks can be *extremely* good with the joypad (despite its inherent innacuracy and akwardness when it comes to targetting in an FPS). No one's arguing that either.

You, however, haven't shown that a pad can perform as well as a mouse in every instance-- that the average gamepad user is as accurate as the average mouse user-- nor have you shown that the best gamepad user can compete with the best mouse user. For most who are comfortable with both devices and do not have any inherent biases... who are willing to use a pad if that's all they've got... most will agree that the mouse beats the gamepad for fast and natural targetting hands down.

They're got ridiculous talent for aiming their crosshairs as well as any PC gamer, only they do it with a pair of analog sticks. I wish I was as good as them, but I'm with them on one thing... I feel more comfortable with an Xbox controller in my hand than a mouse and a keyboard.

I think it also says something when mouse users don't need to point to a specific group of gamers who have become uncannily good with one in order to prove that the control device is viable. The mouse is simply that good and that easy to use for FPSs, as long as a modicum of hand-eye coordination is possessed.

-Al

If you're a sniper, play long enough with a controler and you'll adjust, just watch some those guys who spend too much time on SOCOM.

I've played FPS on both PS2 and PCs, to be honest, the key board and mouse just piss me off. You can rotate just as fast with a stick as you can with a mouse, all you need to do is jack up the sensetivity.

That merely means that certain players have adapted themselves to be vaguely proficient with a gamepad. But I still offer that they're no match for the speed some CS players are capable of achieving headshots with a mouse. If SOCOM was playable with a mouse (I would think it'd be), the good mouse players would have a field day. And if this isn't the case, I'm half betting there just aren't enough mouse owners that are also at the top of the game.

You can rotate as fast as a mouse if you crank up the sensitivity. But you can't rotate as fast, and then settle extremely quickly into a precise snapshot on a small target as fast as one. Cranking up the sensitivity with a joypad hoses your accuracy much more than doing the same does with a mouse. I can set my mouse up with the perfect sensitivity that allows me to both spin 180 with a mere flick of a wrist, and still be able to take extremely quick and precise snapshots at several pixel sized targets in successive order. And hit. That's a tall order with a gamepad.

-Al