• 22Nov 08

  Why Apple is no PC Killer (yet)

  

  First of all, let me state that I agree that Microsoft has indeed employed many questionable tactics in the past, especially in developing its Windows OS. I agree that Apple (and UNIX, for that matter) should at the very least have an equal market share with Microsoft because of its sheer product quality. Now that that's out the way, let's ask ourselves: why doesn't Apple have a larger market share? Is it really just evil Microsoft's fault for copying Mac design patterns?

  The answer is no. It is not just Microsoft's fault.

  While Microsoft is infamous for its faulted products, there is no denying that Microsoft knows how to please customers. Don't believe it? Take the following example: why is the Xbox 360 the "hardcore gamer" console of choice? Since it entered the market, it has been plagued with problems, the most infamous of which is the "Red Ring of Death". Note that Apple has nothing to do with the console market, and yet Micorsoft managed to pull it off again: it took a faulted product and turned it into the industry leader.

  This occurred mainly because Sony overlooked an opportunity that Microsoft exploited: online console gaming. After that, even though Sony brought a far superior product to the market in the form of the PS3, consumers just didn't care enough to switch back.

  Can we find an equivalent situation in the computer market? Certainly. Apple has constantly ignored the opportunity of opening up its products, while Microsoft has no problem in handing them out like hotcakes.

  Typical example: Mac OS must run on an Apple system, while your microwave oven could probably run on Windows if it had a microprocessor. This behavior extends beyond the operating system market, though, and sometimes in markets where Microsoft is no clear competitor. The iPod, for example requires iTunes to manage media. And now, as I was searching for an API for development of iPhone apps, I stumbled upon an iPhone SDK.

  An API (Application Programming Interface) is usually a library which contains documentation on how to program certain behavior on a particular programming language. An SDK (Software Development Kit) is usually a single program or software suite (a bundle of related programs) that aid in the rapid development of computer applications. And while I was hoping to find an iPhone API on a language such as Java or C++ or Python, I ended up with an SDK for an iPhone-specific language based on Objective-C (a minor programming language on its own).

  Why? Why must Apple hold such a tight leash on its products? Apple marketing is quick to point out that if you switch from PC to Mac, you get both Mac OS and Windows, instead of just Windows. But the argument actually cuts the opposite way: if lifelong non-tech-savvy Windows users are going to end up using Windows anyway, why switch to (the much more expensive) Mac in the first place?

  Why can't Apple learn from its own success? It's no exaggeration to say that Apple only came into the mainstream because of the iPod. And why did the iPod become the most successful Apple item to date? Because while it does need iTunes, iTunes can be run on Windows! Yet they expect to use this as a hook for people to switch over.

  If they really want that strategy to work, why not open up Mac OS? Most of Microsoft's success lies in that it doesn't always create the hardware for its software to run on. That's why Windows-capable hardware is so cheap in the first place: economic competition forces competitive prices on hardware. If Apple doesn't compete, sure it'll always be king of its hill, but people won't really care.

  I'm not one to ally myself to a specific camp. I'm not a die-hard PC fan nor am I an Apple advocate. I do however love the computer market, and within it, variety can only bring good things to the table, and that's why I want Apple to reach its potential. But until Apple gives me a good reason to switch over, I (and millions of others) will just keep happily being Windows users. Windows may be faulted, but it provides what I need at a reasonable price, and that is Microsoft's key to success.

  Originally from my other blog at jcbonilla.wordpress.com.

  • Posted Nov 22, 2008 5:42 pm PT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 7 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 18Nov 08

  Miyamoto's Midlife Crisis

  Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong: these names have long been revered among the gaming community. They are all great, and they all share one man in common: Shigeru Miyamoto.
  
  
  
  Donkey Kong and Mario both debuted in the arcade game Donkey Kong in 1981. Mario was then known as Jumpman, though (the popular Pac Man had started a trend of naming characters as something-man). The arcade game was a sensation and is still hailed by many as one of the best of all time, as evidenced by the 2007 movie The King of Kong: A Fistfull of Quarters. And while games are built by a team, it would be no exaggeration to say that the man responsible for such a game was Shigeru Miyamoto. He not only crafted an incredibly challenging, smart, and addictive game; but he was also the first to ever incorporate the concept of a story in a videogame (read Chris Kohler's Power-Up: How Japanese Video Games Gave the World an Extra Life). Donkey Kong captures the damsel, Jumpman must then rescue her. Simple as it was, it was a story, and the first one in videogame history.
  
  
  
  Mario came to be better loved than his apish counterpart, though (mainly because Mario was the character controlled by the player, and Donkey Kong the bad guy), and soon got some games of his own. Most memorable among them is 1985's Super Mario Bros., which is currently still the best-selling game of all time (over 40 million copies to date). It's simple mechanics yet deep gameplay were an instant hit, and it's no exaggeration to say that it alone restored the videogame industry from its ashes after the death of Atari. Miyamoto had done it again.
  
  
  
  Then came The Legend of Zelda. The original NES game, while popular was too difficult (at the time) to become as mainstream as other Miyamoto franchises, but it was nontheless great. But after SNES's The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, and of course, N64's The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, currently the best rated game of all time, Zelda had become a juggernaut all on its own. Through the Zelda series, Miyamoto has crafted a timeless gameplay formula with a timeless story to match.

  But what of Miyamoto now? Since the inception of the Wii into the industry, Miyamoto has dedicated his time to such projects as Wii Fit and most recently Wii Music, the latter of which has sold under 81,000 copies in October (according to GameSpot). Truly he did also give us Super Mario Galaxy (curently the third best rated game of all time), but titles like the Marios and Zeldas of old are becoming few and far between. Miyamoto's (and Nintendo's) current projects are constantly leaving something to be desired.

  Where do Miyamoto and Nintendo wish to head? The industry has changed drastically in the last few years, and Miyamoto seems to have changed with them. Miyamoto is acting as if though he's hit a midlife crisis. He's trying new, unwieldy videogame designs; he's leaving behind the things he's most known for; he seems out of focus; he's even dressing like a midlife crisis (a tacky combination of colorful T-shirts with a sports coat on top).
  
  
  
  Regardless of what is driving Miyamoto (and Nintendo) right now, it is clear he must refocus. We owe most of what the videogame industry is right now to him and his franchises, and we can't afford to lose him. Sure, we'll have Calls of Duty and Gears of Wars for some time to come, but where will the Marios, Donkey Kongs, and Zeldas be?

  The industry needs you, Miyamoto-sensei. Please, come back to us.
  
  

  Originally from my other blog at jcbonilla.wordpress.com.

  • Posted Nov 18, 2008 12:47 pm PT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 4 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 13May 08

  Good-bye, Ocarina of Time

  I just can't help but feel that Grand Theft Auto IV's rise to glory is overblown. How can a game whose main goal is to provide a violent and sexual power fantasy mostly geared towards adult males be considered even better than a game whose main goal is to provide a beautiful, emotional experience that everyone can enjoy? The latter description refers to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, which was recently bested by GTAIV as the best rated game of all time after almost 10 years.

  GTAIV, while providing inmersive gameplay and wonderful though-out mechanics is still a game that puts providing a power fantasy over providing a deep, emotional experience (and accomplishes it well). In other words, whatever such experience may result from GTAIV is a side-effect, not the main, intended effect. OoT, on the other hand, while providing an epic power fantasy as The Hero of Time, is still a game that puts providing a wholesome deep, emotional experience over providing said fantasy (and accomplishes it well). In other words, whatever power fantasy may rersult from OoT is a side-effect, not the main, intended effect.

  By "deep, emotional experience" I mean an experience where experimenting emotions such as happiness, sadness, sorrow, sympathy, apathy, awe, etc. is the intended purpose. "Power fantasies" themselves do not provide these experiences, since they aim to make people feel the "rush" and "glory" of being the best at something, or being (by definition) powerful in some sense. The "power fantasy" appeals to feelings that are simple and physical, the "deep, emotional experience" appeals to emotions that are complex and mental (unique to human nature).

  So while GTAIV can provide the emotional experience, it certainly seeks to provide the power fantasy before anything else. OoT, on the other hand, may provide the power fantasy as a side-effect, but it clearly aims to provide the emotional experience first and foremost with its storytelling and character development.

  This is not to say shooters can't have different priorities: Gears of War, BioShock, and the Metal Gear, Metrod Prime and Half-Life series all have the emotional experience first, and the power fantasy second, since they all shine first and foremost for their atmospheres, stories, and cast of characters, and second (a very close second) for whatever power fantasy they may provide. The fact that all these games take place in fictional worlds may very well be an indicator of how poorly the industry has managed to project realistic shooter experiences so far.

  Fictional worlds can have power fantasies as first priority as well: Halo 2 and Resistance: Fall of Man are good examples. While the Halo series as a whole is strongly story-driven, in Halo 2 the focus clearly shifted to providing the (online) power fantasy over the emotional experience.

  So the question I'd like answered is this: which is more important, the power fantasy or the emotional experience? To this current age in videogame culture, which is most important? The choice is apparently the power fantasy, if GTAIV's scores are to be believed. Then, is this really the kind of videogame culture we want? Opinions are kindly welcomed.

  To me, the best games provide both, but the emotional experience must come first. That's what a masterpiece is all about: providing both, with the emotional experience as first priority. Great games with power fantasy as first priority are always remembered, but quickly put away or resold. Great games with emotional experiences as first priority are also always remembered, but are also usually preserved much longer than other games, both in our shelves in our minds.

  • Posted May 13, 2008 9:08 am PT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 17 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts »