Amazon releases e-book reader

E-books are not a new concept. They were written about in some science fiction stories decades ago, the first early ones were turned out in the late 1990’s, and by the beginning of the 21st century, e-books were here to stay. The trick, though, was creating an e-book reader that was easy to use, affordable, used minimal power, and would have a long life. To date, there has been no e-book reader that has been able to do all these things, and very few have even been able to do a majority of these things-the only thing that has ever come close is the books Google digitized, and even then most of them are only previewable, with only very few avaliable in their full versions. This new e-book reader released by Amazon, called “Kindle”, could easily fail like all the others before it have; but it holds promise that it will not.

As of right now, the Kindle Store has more then 90,000 e-books to select from, compared to about 20,000 from Sony’s e-book store. But Amazon’s eventual goal is to digitize every single printed book. No small undertaking for one of the world’s largest Internet retailers.  The Kindle also has a basic web browser that can be used to do simple tasks such as checking email and viewing rudimentary websites. The Kindle is $400, and it is light and uses very little power-an absolute must for e-book readers produced today. The average new hardcover book costs about $10 at the Kindle store, while older books cost about half that. The Kindle can hold up to 200 books, and(for monthly fees) can subscribe to newspapers, magazines, and blogs. A memory card can be inserted that can hold thousands more books, just like the ones for cameras that allow thousands more pictures.

All in all, the Kindle could be a very promising machine-and it could be the predecessor to an entire generation of e-book readers. This is Kolametal, signing off.

Guitar Hero 3 and Rock Band: Which is better?

With the release of Harmonix’s music game Rock Band, Neversoft’s Guitar Hero series has some competition. But which game is truly better? Guitar Hero III has the leg up on experience and name recognition-the first two games alone made $360 million for Neversoft. But Rock Band is getting its name out there, being featured in Wednesday’s Ctrl-Alt-Del comic strip. Who holds the upper hand?

Music wise, the both games have good selections. Anyone who was ever anyone in rock history is in either Guitar Hero III or Rock Band. Both games are equal in that respect. As for gameplay, Rock Band takes many of the features that made Guitar Hero so popular and improves upon them-think of it has something like “Guitar Hero 3.5“. I’ll throw gameplay to Rock Band, which has a superior co-op mode and a single player mode similar to Guitar Hero’s, only slightly improved. As for realism, I think we have another tie here; both games seem at least decently real, and in most cases more real then that. Of course, it isn’t the same as actually being up on stage, but nothing can replicate that.

One thing that, in my opinion, is a problem with Rock Band is that, to play the game, the user must buy the entire bundle of Rock Band instruments-no standard controllers. With GH3, there is an option between a standard controller or a guitar controller. That definetely makes a difference in my mind, because that makes Rock Band more expensive and clumsy then GH3.

So who’s the winner? If I had to pick between the two, it would be Guitar Hero III. But that’s for you to decide-this is one of those things where it comes down to a matter of personal preference. This is Kolametal, signing off…hope you enjoyed!

“Manhunt 2″ to get AO rating again?

A group of United States lawmakers consisting of senators Sam Brownback(R-KS), Joe Lieberman(I-CT), Evan Bayh(D-IN), and Hillary Clinton(D-NY) are officially protesting ESRB’s decision to rate the extremely violent(so violent it earned a ban in the UK and Ireland) video game Manhunt 2 “M”, after the game’s developers stripped off some of the more violent bits(including a castration scene) that originally earned it an “AO”, or Adults Only rating, a rating which has been earned by only a single game before: Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. At close examintation, the list of senators isn’t a surprise: Lieberman and Clinton have always been for video game censorship, Brownback is a major figure on the Christian Right, and Bayh will follow Clinton in her lead because he wants the vice presidential slot on the Democratic ticket next year.

What bothers me about this is that none of the senators seem to have done their research: Manhunt 2 is obviously violent. No one is disputing that. But the game developers cut out the most violent scenes from their title and were fairly rerated by ESRB. And I’d also like to point this out: have any of the senators played Manhunt 2? I doubt it. And besides, an “M” rating is essentially equivelent to an “R” rated movie, and yet there is no call from the Senate to rate Saw IV “NC-17″. Lawmakers today are out of touch with the forefront of technology, specifically video games and the Internet. For example, today I played a couple missions of Call of Duty 4. Just because I did does not mean I want to go out and shoot people. There is no video game on the market today that does not have at least three films more violent then it. And the vast, vast majority of games do not show the same amount of sex and nudity the average raunchy sex comedy does at the movies.

In the end, it boils down to the fact that lawmakers are out of touch with the public. Should a 10 year old be able to go into a store and buy Manhunt 2? Probably not. But that is why the current rating system is there. Sens. Lieberman, Brownback, Clinton, and Bayh need to rethink this after a careful review of the fact. Video game censorship is a growing issue today. And it is not going away, at least in the foreseeable future. This is Kolametal, signing off-hope you enjoyed!

« Previous Page — Next Page »