Saturday, July 23, 2011

Oil and Water

 
It really seems like it should work, doesn't it? You'd think that movies like Harry Potter and Iron Man should make great games, right? There's plenty of room for action, creative game mechanics, even RPG elements... It's almost like the idea is gift wrapped for the developer.
Regardless, time and time again, taking a movie and making it into a video game instead becomes an exercise in futility.
Take Harry Potter, for instance. A quick look at Metacritic tells most of the story. The movie Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 has received an aggregate score of 87, an impressive showing. The game of the same name? 47. That's not even in the ballpark.
Iron Man was also recognized as a decent movie by most standards. But the video game? It fared even worse than the Harry Potter game, earning an aggregate score of 45.

What's the problem? Why are these entertaining movies that are already littered with action ending up as such horrendous video games?
Unfortunately, the vast majority of games that are based on movies are created with the sole purpose of promoting the movie. They're glorified advertisements. Big-name publishers like Sega and Electronic Arts aren't above attaching their names to them because they're guaranteed money-makers.
Still, would it kill you guys to take one of these titles seriously? Just once?
Well, it did happen at least once. One very rare exception to this rule is - believe it or not - The Chronicles of Riddick. The movie was universally received as lousy, turning up a Metacritic score of 38. But the video game adaptation titled The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay received an excellent aggregate score of 90! It is widely considered a lost gem of a video game that simply not enough people played due to the fact that it was based on a failure of a movie.
But that's an extremely unusual case. And the problem is arguably worsened when the roles are switched.
Has anyone seen the Doom movie? Max Payne? Alone in the Dark?
These are all great games, considered some of the best ever in their respective genres. The movies are the polar opposites.
And it's for the same reason that game adaptations of movies are never good. They're cash-ins. The directors of these movies aren't fans of their associated games, made painfully evident by the fact that the movies have almost nothing in common with the games other than than their titles.
Even a movie like Resident Evil, considered one of the less-painful of game-to-movie adaptations, is hardly an adaptation at all. It's just a film with occasional references to the game peppered throughout.
So excuse me if I'm less than excited to hear stories of movies based on great games like Uncharted and Mass Effect being in development.
As far as movies go, Uncharted has been done before. Nathan Drake is a compelling protagonist and a great video game character, but he is this gaming generation's Indiana Jones. Make it a 2-hour movie and the similarities will be exposed in all the wrong ways.
And a Mass Effect movie? The epic and compelling story of the video game took a good 30 to 40 hours of gameplay to be fully uncovered and fleshed-out. To say that I'm skeptical that a couple hours is all a movie would need to accomplish a similar feat would be a vast understatement.
I hate to sound cynical, but all we should expect here are two more cash-ins of big-time game franchises. If these movies actually see the light of day, do yourself a favor: save your ticket money and put it towards the next game in the series.
But for now, it looks like we're doomed to have our cherished games and movies bastardized by cross-pollination. I think we can expect these medium-swaps to eventually turn out products of actual quality as a result of the growing acceptance of gaming as a respectable form of entertainment. But being honest, we are still quite far from that scenario.

The First Avenger

  When a superhero origin story movie is made it is inevitable that someone will be disappointed. Character introductions, lengthy exposition, and transformation scenes are all keys to getting the uninitiated up to speed, but can be merely a rehash for the target fanboy audience. Admittedly I went into Captain America: The First Avenger as a relative novice to the character’s history and status as one of Marvel Comic’s oldest heroic icons. The Captain has not exactly maintained a commercial presence outside of the realm of comic books like Batman, Spider-Man, or Superman (seriously how many people on the street would know his real name?). As a prelude to next year’s massive The Avengers, Captain America succeeds in introducing many of us to one of that film’s key heroes and does so with retro charm, efficient action sequences, and enough heart to care about the scenes in between all of the explosions.
Brooklyn pipsqueak Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is our hero – a diminutive scrapper determined to join the U.S. armed forces as World War II rages. On the home front, Steve is designated 4-F (not fit to serve) but continues to prove his masochistic mettle in fights with guys twice his size. His best friend is called up and the two celebrate by checking out the Stark Industries Modern Marvels pavilion at the World’s Fair (lots of in-jokes for the “true believers” here). Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper) is aligned with Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci doing his best Dr. Strangelove) in a secret government experiment to perfect cell regeneration in the human body and beat Hitler in the “Supermen” race. Rogers’ foolhardy bravery in trying to sneak into the army impresses the scientists and he is subsequently strapped into a human-size blender. But before that it’s off to basic training.
Here’s where the movie lags in its crucial early stages. The training scenes are played for laughs – especially the gruff deadpan humor of Tommy Lee Jones as Col. Chester Phillips (a Men in Black-style role he could play in his sleep) and the flirtations between Rogers and his comely British superior Peggy Carter (buxom caricature Hayley Atwell). The corny stuff and all-American hokum is in keeping with comic book tradition, but for an audience primed for action it may prove wearying – a patriotic musical sequence in the George M. Cohan tradition is the most egregious example and might remind some of Peter Parker’s indulgent disco moves in Spider-Man 3.

Hulu Could Lead Apple, Google, or Yahoo to Dominance

Each tech giant has their case for obtaining Hulu in leading its company toward dominance on the web.  Apple seeks interest in possibly jumpstarting their Apple TV services.  Google may have a similar case along with solidifying its social networking features on Google+.  For Yahoo, the former premiere search engine website seeks a comeback in both traffic and revenue with Hulu as their missing piece of the puzzle. 

Hulu shines as a highly attractive online property by proving its value with over 1 billion ad impressions a month, according to Comscore, and impressive offerings of video content.  The latest auction for Hulu has left many pondering on the potential combination of services that may birth from current bidders in Apple, Google, and Yahoo. 
Google+ has been rising in popularity with their innovative approaches to content sharing and video chat.  The addition of Hulu could concrete Google's spot as the top online video website as a new flood of content may do wonders for visitors and advertising revenue.  The search giant already owns YouTube, which rakes in nearly 150 million unique visitors a month, and will seek ways to integrate video watching within Google+.  The Hangout feature in Google+ may open the door to online video watching with multiple friends at once.  The platform makes watching video content and commenting on them through mobile devices easy and social.  Content from Hulu combined with Youtube's offerings can lure potential users to join Google's growing social network.  

Apple's case for a potential bid for Hulu comes in the form of Apple TV and content for their upcoming lineup of mobile devices.  Financially, Apple may hold the advantage in terms of having over $76 billion in cash on hand for a purchase.   If Apple were to follow its current business model of renting out shows rather than making revenue on ads, then the Hulu acquisition can potentially transform into another Netflix service.  Apple would then hold great advantages in terms of reach, marketing, and content distribution through iTunes.  As GigaOm pointed out, the deal would definitely provide Apple with additional video content to offer through iTunes and increasing the company's content value. 
In terms of distribution, Hulu's high definition, HD, quality content can be a valuable asset as Apple's new platform of HD capable iPhones and iPads plan to hit the market possibly later this year.  The iPhone 5 and iPad 3 are rumored to have HD display screens that can play 720p and 1080p videos.  With Hulu already reaching out to media devices through it s Hulu Plus subscriptions, the millions of Apple mobile devices will only increase the content reach. 
Of all the players involved with the current bid, Yahoo may appear to be the front runner as it has much to lose without Hulu.  Yahoo would love to see more traffic and utilize its strength in media and content.  . 
In an interview with Adage, EVP of 'Americas' at Yahoo Ross Levinsohn spoke about Yahoo's desired future plan, "to be the premier digital media company. We're No. 1 or 2 in 19 categories. That's insane! That doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. You embrace that. You support that. We're focused on premium content. Some of its original, some of it's curated, some of it's aggregated. And we're focused on premium advertising," said Levinsohn.

The Hulu acquisition would bolster the media aspect in Yahoo's offerings as well as increasing their online advertisement revenue.  Without Hulu, Yahoo may have less footing in their continuous role in playing catch-up with premiere rivals in YouTube or Apple. 
Recent news ruled Microsoft out of the bidding for Hulu saying that the company would not continue with future offers in the second round.  With Microsoft out, the remaining three big players will duke it out for ownership of a highly prized online commodity.  According to reports, Yahoo would be willing to pay $2 billion in a deal that includes an exclusive package for TV shows and movies.  Based on that, the LA Times suggested that Yahoo may be in the lead spot among other bidders.





Google recognition firm, despite privacy concerns

Even after publicly declaring on several occasions that it had no interest in facial recognition, Google has gone out and bought itself a –yes – facial recognition software company by the name of PittPatt.
Pittsburgh based PittPatt, which emerged from Carnegie Mellon University’s Robotics Institute, has all the algorithms needed to identify your little punum, and is even able to track the motion of faces on video.
“At Google, computer vision technology is already at the core of many existing products (such as Image Search, YouTube, Picasa, and Goggles), so it’s a natural fit to join Google and bring the benefits of our research and technology to a wider audience,” said a notice on the PittPatt site.

We will continue to tap the potential of computer vision in applications that range from simple photo organization to complex video and mobile applications,” the statement went on.
Google said it thought PittPatt’s “research and technology can benefit our users in many ways,” though whether those ways invade people’s privacy or not remains to be seen.
It certainly is an about face for the firm whose Chairman, Eric Schmidt, said back in May his firm would be “unlikely to employ facial recognition programs,” owing to privacy concerns.
Google wouldn’t be the first to integrate facial recognition into mobile apps, however. Qualcomm funded Viewdle has been tinkering with facial recognition for quite some time. Which company ultimately gets the most face time, remains to be seen.

Slowing Down to Savor the Data

DATA beats opinion” has long been a mantra at Google, where evidence-based research tends to rule. But now the company is showing its softer side with Think Quarterly, a business-to-business publication whose first United States issue is to make its debut online this week.
 


Although Google investors remain wary of the spending and long-term intentions of the company’s taciturn new chief executive, and co-founder, Larry Page, Google reassured them in July with financial results that beat Wall Street analysts’ expectations.
Google reported second-quarter net income, excluding the cost of stock options, of $8.74 a share, up from $6.45 a year ago. Net revenue, which excludes payments to advertising partners, was $6.92 billion, up 36 percent from $5.09 billion. Analysts had expected net income of $7.86 a share and net revenue of $6.5 billion.
Google’s stock price, which has fallen 9 percent in 2011 as investors react to uncertainty about Mr. Page, ballooning expenses, challenges from Facebook and stepped-up scrutiny from federal regulators, climbed 12 percent in after-hours trading.
Recent Developments
In June 2011, Google took its biggest leap yet onto Facebook’s turf, introducing a social networking service called the Google+ project— which happens to look very much like Facebook. The service, which was initially available only to a select group of Google users who will soon be able to invite others, will let people share and discuss status updates, photos and links.
But the Google+ project would be different from Facebook in one significant way, which Google hoped would be enough to convince people to use yet another social networking service. It was designed for sharing with small groups — like colleagues, college roommates or hiking friends — instead of with all of a user’s friends or the entire Web. It also offered group text messaging and video chat.
At stake was Google’s status as the most popular entry point to the Web. When people post on Facebook, mostly off-limits to search engines, Google loses valuable information that could benefit its Web search, advertising and other products.
Google has committed $200 million to find the next Google, playing venture capitalist in the hottest market for technology start-up companies in over a decade. Other pedigreed tech companies are doing the same.
To some, it seemed a telltale sign of an overheated industry, symptomatic of a late and ill-advised rush to invest during good times. But Google said it has a weapon to guide it in picking investments — a Google-y secret sauce, which means using data-driven algorithms to analyze the would-be next big thing.
Google Ventures said it has invested as much money in the first half of 2011 as in all of 2010, and Mr. Page, who became chief executive in spring 2011, has promised to keep the coffers wide open.
Background
Founded in 1998, Google runs the world's most popular Internet search engine. It's a position that has earned Google huge profits and given it outsize influence over the online world.
But Google's ambition far exceeds the confines of Internet search and advertising. The company sees its mission as the organization of the world's information, making it universally accessible and useful.
Its unbounded ambition, as well as what many critics say is a cavalier approach to copyrights, has put Google at odds with a growing list of companies in industries ranging from Hollywood to book publishing and from telecommunications to e-commerce. And the company's appetite for collecting vast amounts of data about its users and their online habits has prompted increasing fears that Google could become a threat to consumer privacy.

Company Information

Google Inc. (Google) is focused on improving the ways people connect with information. The Company generates revenue primarily by delivering online advertising. The Company focuses on areas, such as search, advertising, operating systems and platforms, and enterprise. The Company maintains an index of Websites and other online content, and make it available through its search engine to anyone with an Internet connection. Businesses use its AdWords program to promote their products and services with targeted advertising. The Google Network use its AdSense program to deliver relevant ads that generate revenue and enhance the user experience. In February 2010, the Company acquired Aardvark and On2 Technologies, Inc. In May 2010, The Company acquired of AdMob, Inc. (AdMob). In August 2010, the Company acquired Slide, Inc. (Slide). In December 2010, the Company acquired Widevine Technologies, Inc. (Widevine). In April 2011, the Company acquired PushLife.

"Google" Places drops outside customer reviews

Google Inc (GOOG.O) has removed excerpts of customer reviews from sites such as Yelp and TripAdvisor from Google Places, its own competing online service aimed at helping consumers search for local businesses.
The move, announced in Google's official blog on Thursday, follows the disclosure of a U.S. antitrust investigation last month.
The federal probe concerns whether Google, which dominates U.S. and global markets for search engine advertising, abuses its market power by favoring its own services over those of rivals in online searches and through other practices.
The blog post made no mention of the investigation.
"Based on careful thought about the future direction of Place pages, and feedback we've heard over the past few months, review snippets from other web sources have now been removed from Place pages," Avni Shah, Google's director of product management, said in the blog post.
Google said it added a function for Google users to write their own reviews at the top of its Place web pages.
It said the search pages' rating and review counts would only include reviews written by Google users, although the company would continue to list links to other review sites.
Google's "Places" offerings of local ratings and reviews, originally called Hotpot, were introduced last fall.

Judge throws out Oracle's $6.1b suit against Google

San Francisco: Oracle Corp's $6.1-billion (Dh22.38 billion) damage estimate in its patent infringement lawsuit against Google Inc over the use of Java technology in the Android operating system was thrown out by a federal judge.
US District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco ruled on Friday that a new damage estimate should start as low as $100 million, a figure Google was offered, and rejected, in 2006 to license Java from Sun Microsystems Inc, before Sun was acquired by Oracle, according to a court filing. The $6.1 billion estimate assumed that all of the seven patents Oracle is suing over were used in Android and the company didn't present sufficient facts to support that, Alsup said.
"The court is strongly of the view that the hypothetical negotiation should take that $100 million offer as the starting point," Alsup said in his written ruling.
Oracle, the largest maker of database software, sued the internet search-engine company last year, claiming Google didn't obtain a licence for the patents infringed by Android. Besides seeking damages, Oracle wants the court to order destruction of all products that violate its copyrights.
Substantial possibility
A trial is scheduled for October 31. Deborah Hellinger, an Oracle spokeswoman, and Aaron Zamost, a Google spokesman, declined to comment on the ruling. Alsup said that if a jury determines that Oracle's patents were infringed, there is "a substantial possibility" Google will be ordered to permanently stop selling any infringing products. A new damage estimate should address assumptions that an injunction may be granted and can be based on a portion of Google's advertising revenue garnered from Android devices, he said.
The $100-million "starting point" can be adjusted upward to assume that all parts of the patents that Oracle cited in its complaint are valid and infringed, Alsup ruled.
Oracle's new damage report is due 35 days before an October 17 pretrial conference, Alsup said.
Google, based in Mountain View, California, denies infringing and asked Alsup at a July 21 hearing to throw out Redwood City, California-based Oracle's damage estimate.
The case Oracle America Inc v Google Inc, is being heard at US District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More

 
Design by Free WordPress Themes | Bloggerized by Lasantha - Premium Blogger Themes | Blogger Templates