Hurray iPhone 4! Oh wait...

Note: I'll admit that I've been far from kind to Apple in more personal conversations with people I know with regards to this whole thing, so I'll try and be nicer and more fair here. That is the better thing to do, after all.

There's actually a decent chance that not many of you have heard about this whole situation in general, but here's a quick bullet-point summary:

• New iPhone 4 is released, looks very nice and performs nicely and sells a whopping 1.7ish million units in the first three days
• People begin to notice their signal degrades severely, especially when the phone is held in their left hand
• Problem is traced to the bottom-left corner of the phone where there is a gap between the two antennas that can be bridged by touching that area of the phone
• People complain, a few class-action lawsuits filed
• Steve Jobs tells people: You're holding it wrong, hold the phone differently (not verbatim)
• Apple at first denies the problem, refuses to "appease" (their word choice, not mine) the horde customers with free $30 "bumpers" which were conveniently released along with the phone which covers the antenna and eliminates any and all issues with reception and the antenna
• Tests run by Anandtech show that the phone does show significant signal attenuation, but the phone does indeed perform better then previous iPhones and also that covering the antenna does fix all issues
• More complaining, more evidence mounts against the antenna design and other stuff
• Apple continues to be silent, but then announces a software update that should display the signal strength more accurately, however they neglect to mention that the update still won't fix the issue of the actual signal degrading when the antennas are bridged via human touch. No worries though, not all people were silly enough to blindly believe Apple had magically found a way to fix the problem.
• In fact, Apple hasn't fixed the problem and may not for the foreseeable future, see below

From Gizmodo's article "AppleCare: The iPhone 4 Update won't Solve the Antenna Problem":

We called AppleCare three times today to confirm it. We told them that we were experiencing voice quality problems and call drops, as well as problems with internet access. Their response was immediate and unequivocal, the same in the three cases:

• There is an antenna interference problem when you hold the iPhone 4 in a certain way (the tests by Anandtech and many demonstration videos in the internet show that the signal drop will happen every time when you touch the phone's dead spot, on the left bottom corner).

• One solution is to hold the phone differently, avoiding to touch the left bottom corner of the phone (coincidentally, this is how models hold the iPhone 4 in most of Apple's promotional material).

• The other other solution is to buy a case or one of Apple's $30 bumpers (we are hosting a petition to ask Apple for free cases. You can sign it here).

• The incoming software update will not fix this antenna problem, only change the way the phone displays the available signal, make it more accurate.

There you go everyone. Straight from AppleCare reps themselves. Having the antenna on the outside of the phone does cause issues with reception and the software update won't fix the update and was never meant to (big "duh" on that one). Their response to the situation, as it was initially, is still "tough luck, deal with it, and hold the phone differently".

Figures.

I'm not as upset about the actual design of the phone as I am at Apple's handling of the situation. Hell, I actually like this phone. The design is admittedly very slick, it has good hardware and the interface is nice. However, if a company won't back their product and help their customers and would rather refuse to "appease" (their word choice, not mine) the horde - I mean - its customers by offering them the simplest solution, a free bumper (which I think is way overpriced at $30) or SOMETHING, then it just makes the experience with the product worse in the end because you realize that the company that made it seems to care more about its own image and the product image than the people who paid for it and therefore contributed to the company's livelihood in the end.

So, there ya have it. If you have an iPhone 4, Apple doesn't want you to just enjoy it, they want you to deal with it. Good phone, but it has an unfortunate case of "two steps forward, one step backward". At least there's a net gain in progress, right?

Apple's politics and the way it deals with these kinds of situations is pretty obnoxious. Their products are good, but their PR is far from matching the quality of the company's products. It'll be tough for some to swallow, but Apple seems to no longer be fighting Big Brother, they are now more like Big Brother itself today (Jon Stewart brilliantly pointed this out earlier this year and I pretty much stand where he does: I'll admit that I like the products now, but really, what's going on, Apple?). That's an entirely different conversation that I won't get into. Just think about it though.

This all makes for a more convincing argument to switch over to an Android OS phone further down the line, especially since the newer offerings simply kick a whole hell of a lot of ass. Who knows though, some Android phone maker may drop a bomb of a defect in some phone, but I'd at least have more options to go to aside from just one from Apple.

For now though, I'll enjoy my iPhone 4 - and deal with it because aside from the handling of the whole situation with this product, it is a pretty good piece of kit (Otterbox, please hurry up and release your cases for it!).

I'd just like to add that I don't mean to bash the actual iPhone 4 and I especially mean no offense to the people who bought it with their hard-earned cash. It is a legitimately cool product and serves its purpose really well. The issue that I have with this whole thing is Apple's handling of the situation (and some other things in general), not so much the actual product.

I realize that Apple has its reasons for operating the way it does, but I choose to respectfully disagree with their practices and offer my opinions. There are thousands of other write-ups about how others disagree with Apple's business practices, but I won't go any further into that here. As it would also be unfair to single Apple out on this one, it should also be noted that Apple is certainly not the only company to handle things as such. Also, to its credit, Apple is offering to waive the restocking fee for now for those who are unsatisfied with the iPhone 4. So there ya have it. We'll see where things go from here I guess.

Toyota has a long uphill journey from here.

All right, for those of you who know me, you'll be quick to point out that I am not a particular fan of Toyota because I find their cars to be rather mundane to drive and that a lot of their drivers on the road tend to be rather, well, slow. I will not deny this, but I should also mention that I am a performance-minded gearhead, so of course Toyotas won't appeal to me. I otherwise consider Toyotas to be a good option for transportation, as long as you don't hope to get there in a spirited manner. Granted, that "good option" is facing some serious issues right now.

This isn't usually the kind of stuff I'd write about, but I figured this was too big to ignore.

Take a look at the following articles:
-NHTSA: Toyota legally obligated to halt sales
-GM Woos Fearful Toyota Owners With New Round of Incentives

For those of you who aren't aware of the situation, Toyota has been in the spotlight in automotive news because of the recent-ish discovery of an issue with regards to stuck accelerator pedals/throttles. Naturally, such an issue is very dangerous. In fact, there have been more than a few reported cases of deaths because of the problem.

Consider this:

You're driving on the interstate and suddenly your Toyota Camry's accelerator pedal gets stuck and the next thing you know, you're going over 100. What do you do? You can't hit the brakes because with the car going so fast and the engine still getting gas from the stuck accelerator, you'll only roast your brakes. Maybe turn the key and shut off the engine? Unlikely, because some newer Toyotas have push-button start systems. You can turn off the engine though by holding down the button for three seconds or so. The problem there is that if you're going 100 MPH, you'll also travel approximately 440 feet in the 3 seconds it takes for the engine to shut off. That's an awfully long distance to be traveling that speed. Let's also not forget the distance required to stop the car if you're going that fast.

I believe putting the car in neutral and hitting the brakes may be a solution, but I've heard that some newer Toyotas do NOT have physical linkage between the gear selector and transmission. This means that the transmission is told what to do via electronic signals based on the selected setting via the gear selector. This doesn't sound too bad, however as a safety feature to prevent people from grenading their engines, it was also programmed such that if the gear shift lever were moved to neutral while the car was accelerating, the command would be ignored so that the engine would not rev freely (to say, redline) for extended periods of time which would of course, destroy the engine. If you ask me, I'd rather have the engine be toast than crash into something at ridiculous speeds. Better to lose the engine than the entire car and potentially some lives. And anyway, isn't that what fuel cuts/rev limiters are for? To stop the engine from over-revving? Granted, damage will still be done, but fuel cuts/rev limiters definitely stop the damage from being done too quickly.

So, as you can imagine, this is a pretty big problem for Toyota drivers, other cars on the road with the faulty Toyotas, and of course, Toyota.

Anyway, with this in the spotlight, Toyota initially blamed the problem on faulty floormats that would somehow accidentally be moved over the gas pedals and hold them down. The NHTSA called Toyota on their bluff as the floormats were basically a quick excuse for a big problem that seriously needed fixing. If anything though, it did work to stall things as Toyota was likely working on a real solution at the time. That recall for the floormats involved around 3.8 million vehicles. Definitely a HUGE recall.

Fast forward a bit, and the true problem has been found. It was indeed the design of the gas pedals that was the problem. Apparently gas pedals produced from supplier CTS Corp. in Elkhart, Indiana were faulty in design whereas the interchangeable part from Japan-based Densco is just fine. CTS Corp. is only in the picture because it is cheaper to get the parts from them for U.S.-produced Toyotas. This means that JDM-produced (Japanese Domestic Market) Toyotas and Lexuses (Lexii?) are not going to have the stuck accelerator pedal issue. With the problem found and the solution at hand though, Toyota is having problems finding a way to procure enough gas pedals to fix all of the cars from Densco and CTS Corp. alone. They'll no doubt have find other suppliers to help meet the extra demand for parts to fix the problem.

That said, Toyota has had to issue a stop-sale on all affected vehicles as well as suspend production in their factories so that they can fix/replace the required parts. This now brings the total number of affected vehicles to a staggering 6.6 million (approx.).

Toyota now finds itself in a PR shitstorm as well as in a deep hole trying to find a way to get enough fixed pedals to remedy the issue in their cars that are on the road, on dealer lots, in storage, and yet-to-be-produced in their factories. Even car rental companies find themselves with some problems as they've removed their Toyota rental vehicles from their fleets for the time being.

Is this perhaps because Toyota grew too big too fast? Maybe. Can you blame them though for wanting to be so big and to sell so many cars? Not really. It's business after all, right? I just hope Toyota and other automakers have learned something from this. Cars will always have their problems, but it's best to own up to those issues right away and not try to excuse the issue initially as something smaller than it really is because now Toyota's reputation for reliability is not only hurt, but also their trustworthiness. By initially blaming the problem on floor mats and now suddenly saying the issue is something else, they've basically lied. At least they don't seem to be lying this time when they say the issue is with the gas pedal itself. To lie about something that has actually resulted in death for some people will usually be perceived negatively by the public. Just a hunch, you know.

At least one other car company is taking advantage of the situation though. GM is going to offer special rebates and finance rates for people looking to buy a GM vehicle as long as those potential buyers can prove that they own or are leasing a Toyota. Interesting, to say the least. I've yet to read or hear anything about other car makers offering similar incentives. I'd bet money though that they are thinking about it.

Toyota has been the poster child for reliable, safe vehicles for a while now, but they have now fallen far from where they were even just half a year ago. This will no doubt deal a huge blow to their reputation and of course, sales. I wish them the best and good luck in fixing the problem as well as recovering from this fiasco.

EDIT:

Toyota's woes have grown as they've added more vehicles to the recall:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/27/autos/toyota_recall_expanded/

In all, effected vehicles are:

2008-2010 Highlander

2009-2010 Corolla

2009-2010 Venza

2009-2010 Matrix

2009-2010 Pontiac Vibe.

"General Motors' Pontiac car is included in the recall because the Vibe and Toyota's Matrix are similar vehicles that were produced under a partnership between the two companies." (From the article)

Vehicles from the original recall:

2007-2010 Toyota Camry

2005-2010 Avalon

2004-2009 Prius

2010 Tacoma

2007-2010 Tundra

2007-2010 Lexus ES350

2006-2010 IS250 and IS350.

Demon's Souls

You might hate it, but you'll love it too

Demon's Souls Japanese game cover (Image found using Google image search)

I suppose I'd call this a mini review, but it'd be more accurately described as a write-up of my first impressions of the game.

For those of you who haven't heard of this game, I'll just go ahead and throw this out there. This game is hard. You are guaranteed to die in this game and you are meant to die a lot. I can say for sure that even someone with the sharpest reflexes will die at least once. Why so sure? Because you are killed off at the end of the tutorial and sent to the beginning, the hub, of the game: The Nexus.


Even if you do beat the first boss in the tutorial, you'll run into this guy where you'll me certain death. (Image from Neoseeker)

To add to the fun, when you die, you are not sent back to a checkpoint. You are sent back to the beginning of the level you were playing. Not only that, every monster/demon you killed is respawned.

So what the heck is so fun about that? Sounds repetetive, right? You run through a level, you kill a lot of stuff, but if you die, you're sent back to the start and you have to do it all over again!

Well, for starters, this game forces you to learn from your mistakes. Since all enemies are respawned, it should be noted that they are respawned in the exact same places that they were before. So when you run through the level again, you know what to do and what to avoid. You know how to better fight so that you don't face as many injuries or death again.

This game essentially follows a more classic formula that newer games have all but forgotten. I found that it was best said in a review from Play Magazine:

"Unless you have been around since the 8-bit days, your experience of games has probably been pretty forgiving. 8-Bit games were more punishing in part because they were shorter; developers extended the life of their titles by padding the play-time with death. A difficult learning-curve meant more time spent with a title. But when games got memory cards and save points, replay was replaced with filler content. Then, when games targeted the mainstream market, they became easier still. Now, games feature unlimited continues as a given; the length of a title is not determined by how many times you play it, but simply how long it takes to physically get from the beginning of the title to the end.

Demon's Souls, on the other hand, is as long as you are stupid. Its length will be determined by how impetuous you are. Demon's Souls does not tolerate impatience. A castle filled with sword-weilding skeletons, where flying sting-rays throw thunderous shards of stone from the sky, would not turn a blind eye to a poorly-armored idiot charging its gates. So, take your time, select some good gear. Pay attention to your surroundings. And don't run in screaming your own name. Because Demon's Souls takes itself very seriously."

So basically, this game is awesome for reasons which were previously found mostly in games from decades ago. To make such a game by that old formula and give it some modern visuals and controls is simply the most refreshing thing I've experienced ever since I started playing games regularly over a decade ago, I really mean it!

Here's the big question though, being a guy who never played those old-school uber-difficult games, am I enjoying myself with Demon's Souls? Is my patience holding up against this game? Have I destroyed my PS3 controllers and put a hole in my TV screen?

The answers: Yes, yes, and no. I'm having a ton of fun with this game, my patience has been holding up just fine (if anything this game is teaching me patience to a different degree), and my PS3 controllers and TV are just fine.

As of writing this, I have only beaten the first level and its boss in Demon's Souls. I've also played through most of the second level 3-4 times. I say most of the second level because so far I've died on the way to the boss and was actually killed by the boss in my last run-through. I've yet to try it again.


This is the boss for the second level in the game. He's pretty tough, just a bit.

So, you wonder, if I've only beaten the first level and played through most of the second level a few times, just how much game time have I logged so far? The answer, my friends, is four. That's right, it's taken me four hours to complete, let's say, 1.9 levels. It may sound ludicrous to some of you, but trust me, it's been awesome so far and I look forward to playing this game all the time.

Here's the thing, the numerous times you die and the repetition and the lack of checkpoints serve a very good purpose. They make the player feel a sense of mortality and a need to actually pay attention and think when playing a game, as opposed to the newer "twitch" games such as Call of Duty 4 or Team Fortress 2 (both of which I love to play).

You need to approach your enemies carefully. You need to time your blocks and attacks properly. In the end, you are rewarded with victory knowing that you came out on top because you earned it. If you make just one or two too many mistakes, you will instantly regret them. The game will take your mistakes and knock you down and kick your ass. This seriously encourages a more serious and thoughtful gaming experience that can't really be found in many other places.

Let's not forget that when you die you're sent back to the beginning of the level, with all enemies respawned! This really emphasizes the need to be thoughtful, serious, and careful as you progress. This in particular also really adds to that sense of mortality that your character in the game has, because if you die, you have to do everything again.

I recall on one occasion specifically, where I found myself in a pincer attack (enemies on both sides) when I stepped out of a doorway and into a narrow corridor. I frantically ran to the right so that I could try and get past one of my foes, and I did. However, there were two more waiting for me. Bad idea. So basically at this point I had TWO enemies on each side. In the end, I stabbed two of them with a spear, ran by again, had all four of them in front of me, started slashing away with a sword while blocking when needed, and got away with just a sliver of health left. During the fight though, I kept on thinking about how much I did not want my character to die, and that I even felt desperate in my attempts to stay alive, but it felt great when I came out in one piece.

Situations like this are one of the main things that make the game shine. You get ambushed, what do you to? You try to take action so that things are fair or so that you'll have an advantage, but then the game slaps you in the face. What do you do then? You adjust your tactics and take the challenge. As you fight, you really fight with a sense of urgency and a desire to survive, because you know that if you lose this fight, you have to do everything again (although you will know better when you return). No checkpoints for you, that'd be too forgiving. No pausing, that gives you too much time to sit and think. Enemies will not pause and fight you one on one (like Assassin's Creed) and they will not pause for too long as they fight you, that'd be too easy. The enemies in this game are out to get you, and the game does not try to hide that fact.

I even forgot to mention, that when you die, you respawn in "soul form". In this form, you only have half of your health. Great, right? To get your body back you have to beat a boss or help another person beat a boss in their world.

There's a lot of interactivity between players both directly and indirectly. I won't go too far in detail here, but you can leave hints for other players. You can't leave anything inappropriate as you choose from a preset list of hints or messages. If you leave a bad message, it won't be rated well by other players and it will disappear faster than better-rated messages. If another player recommends your message, some of your health is replenished. Also, when you see other ghostly apparitions while you play, they are actually other players in their own worlds playing the game. There are ways to join these players in their world also. Lastly, as far as I can remember, you will also see several blood splatters on the ground as you progress. If you touch these, you will actually see a replay of another player's death who died there. This can be very helpful by allowing you see potential challenges up ahead.

There is so much more to say, but I'll go on and refer you to the GameSpot review, as it covers all I've said here but in more detail in some areas:


Just to reiterate, this game is hard. I sometimes even find it cruel. I've even wished for checkpoints. But when I come out of situations victorious, it all makes sense. The difficulty and gameplay design decisions are all very much deliberate and intended.

This game is the hardest and most rewarding game I've ever played. Even after just beating one level, I wonder why games like this aren't around much, but then I realize it's because most gamers now are used to being given a lot of slack.

Play this game and you'll find everything else, well, far too simple and easy. You may even consider other gamers pansies if they complain about this game and consider it to not be "well-made". Those people have either not played this game or they couldn't take the difficulty. On the contrary, this game is one of the most well-made I've ever played, and reviews listed at metacritic.com and gamerankings.com agree (for the most part, except for those few that complain about the difficulty and lack of checkpoints, figures). Honestly, not having checkpoints and having things be so hard does not detract from the experience. If anything, it adds to the experience and even immerses you even deeper into the game, just knowing that you really have to fight hard and intelligently if you want to make it.

This spiritual successor to the similarly unforgiving and difficult PS1 game King's Field (which I haven't played, but have heard a lot about), gets my stamp of approval. With a great story, excellent and refreshing gameplay, and great visuals, I give it a 9.5/10, given what I've played so far.

If you're looking to get a PS3 (in case Killzone 2 or Metal Gear Solid 4 weren't good enough reasons), this game would be a good excuse to. Let's not forget that Uncharted 2 also game out this week!

On an unrelated note, everyone's favorite trio of gearheads will be back with a new season of Top Gear on November 15th!

-Allen

EDIT:
IGN has posted their video review of Demon's Souls, in case any of you are curious, here it is:

More Demon's Souls Info

Unfortunate news...

The following news story is relevant to my previous blog post in a most unfortunate way...

IU student struck, killed on campus
Posted: Sep 09, 2009 4:50 PM EDT
Updated: Sep 09, 2009 6:59 PM EDT

Bloomington - An Indiana University student was struck and killed by a car on the IU campus Wednesday afternoon.

It happened on Fee Lane at around 2:30 pm. Police say a 19-year-old male student was driving southbound when he struck another student, also a 19-year-old male, who was walking eastbound across Fee Lane. The street was closed while police investigated the scene. It has since reopened.

At this point it isn't known if the victim died at the scene or in the hospital. The driver is not believed to be injured.

I wrote about how both drivers and pedestrians should both be more careful just last week.

The fact that this happened so shortly after I wrote that blog entry honestly disturbs me and upsets me. Granted, I did not expect my message to get out to everyone, I think it's unfortunate that these things still happen.

It is also unfortunate that this occurrence will serve as a reminder and as a warning that everyone driving or walking around campus should be more careful. It's unfortunate because I believe this shouldn't have happened, and people shouldn't need for something like this to happen for them to think about being more careful. Perhaps not everyone needed to be warned or reminded, but there are always people who do.

I had a New York driver (saw their license plate) honk at me as I turned right off of 10th on to Fee Lane. I wasn't going particularly slow, but I wasn't speeding either. I don't know why they honked at me, but it became apparent that they were just being impatient after I turned off of Fee Lane. The driver, in a white Jeep, decided to hit the throttle and accelerate quite quickly only to need to brake again within 100 feet because there was another slower car in front of them. Really? You can all figure out the many ways that driver's lack of patience was undesirable. It is unnecessary for me to elaborate, but with drivers like that on this campus am I really surprised that something like this was bound to happen? Unfortunately, no.

Can everyone please just be a bit more careful getting around on campus? And everywhere else, really?

Again, drivers, please be more aware of your surroundings and slow down for goodness' sake, especially if there are a lot of pedestrians around. You won't impress anyone by driving fast on campus, so no need to show off.

Pedestrians, please be mindful of the crosswalks and crossing indicators at each intersection, ESPECIALLY around 10th and Jordan and 10th and Fee. And of course, be more observant of cars turning on to the street and when crossing the street when you're walking from behind a vehicle that may have otherwise hidden you from view before.

That aside, may the victim rest in peace and may the driver find some peace within themselves and try not to become overwhelmed with grief.

My thoughts are with the families of those involved.

Honestly though, it's just upsetting, really.

A note to young scholars walking out and about campus and drivers...

Look both ways, or you may get creamed like this guy. Darwin smiled upon this incident, but clearly all other parties in this photo are quite distressed. Here's hoping that everyone came out of this okay. And here's hoping that the person who got hit went about the American way and sued the driver's ass. (Found using Google Image search)

To whom it may concern:

School is back and many people are out and about walking to class.

If you are crossing 10th Street in front of the Herman B Wells Library on IU's campus, please take note and remember to do the following:
-Look both ways before crossing the street.

That's it. No more to add to that list.

Although there is more to say:
This morning I almost introduced 20 or so people (including one on a bike) to my car's front bumper (and potentially the hood and tires and underbody work). Why? I was going a moderate speed as I had just turned left from Jordan Ave. onto 10th St. Then, out of no where, a shload of students came out of the woodwork from behind cars that were stopped on 10th St. in line to get to the intersection of 10th and Jordan. You should note that it's hard for drivers to see that you'll be entering the street in front of them because you're literally coming out of nowhere from behind a car. Other drivers may not be going slow enough to stop their car in time before you find yourself tattooed in the face with a VW, Ford, Honda, you name it, logo.

Now, I can't blame you for the lack of visibility when trying to cross the street when you're standing behind a car, but is it too much effort to try and look AROUND the car you're standing next to so that you may determine if it is safe to cross or not?

I had to do two "almost" brake checks within 30 feet because of people who decided to cross the street and assume that I would stop my car for them. Thankfully, they assumed correctly. However, the more often this occurs, the more tempted I am to allow natural selection to take its course (not really, but it's occurred in my mind as a joke). Granted, if I hadn't stopped and just kept going I could have earned around 400 points (plus multipliers), but come on. Please. The fight between a pedestrian and a 3000-4000 pound rolling mass of metal is not going to be a pretty one.

It is for such reasons that jaywalking is illegal in some areas, but we all know that pedestrians on the IU campus jaywalk like they're getting paid for it, which is fine. Just be more cautious when doing so. As I said before, it is very difficult to see you coming when you are crossing the street from behind a car that otherwise made it impossible to see you before.

So ladies, gentlemen, young scholars, please do as you were told as a young child. Look both ways before crossing the street. I'll give you a bonus tip:
-If you look both ways and determine that your crossing of the street may cause a driver to need to slow down or stop, it may not be the best idea to cross the street at that time. Wait for a bigger gap between you and a car for a safer crossing.

This applies to all roads and intersections, not just 10th St. in front of the main library, that's just the intersection/street with the most offenders that I've noticed.

Yes, I am writing this as a complaint, but I hope that this isn't just brushed off because I'll be damned if I hear about a student getting hit by a car because they crossed the street when they could have been more careful.

Drivers and pedestrians alike: Please be more careful. Don't upset your parents or the driver who may hit you. Darwin may smile upon your misfortune, but most others will not be so happy.

So drivers: Be more observant and perhaps drive a bit slower where there is heavy foot traffic.

Pedestrians: Be more observant of other cars, especially when you are crossing the street from behind an object which hid you from view from other drivers.

Here's the note to try and make this more politically correct since modern society is so obsessed with doing so (heaven forbid I upset anyone): Yes, I inserted some rather sadistic and cynical humor, but that is because that is the kind of guy I am. The humor is not meant to be taken seriously, but the message is.

The end.

--Allen

Fan boys, who's right? I say nobody.

Note: Sorry for the extended absence. I've been very busy and very sick and am only now starting to feel a little better. Hopefully I'll be updating this more frequently now.

Moving on,,,

Fan boys (and/or girls). You'll find them everywhere defending just about anything. The question is, who's right?

The short answer to that question would be: Nobody.

Here's a longer answer:
As it would relate to this blog, there are fan boys to be found in the automotive world as well as the video game world.

Most commonly in the automotive world you find the Dometics (given my location, American cars) vs Imports (everyone else) arguments. But then you could narrow that down more to Japanese cars vs. European cars vs. American cars. Then with video games you largely have the PS3 vs. XBox 360 vs. PC fights. Generally the PC always wins (in terms of graphics anyway), so it's mostly between the PS3 and the XBox 360 nowadays because nobody's PS3 has an advantage over someone else's PS3. Same goes for the XBox 360.

Gearheads (or Petrolheads)
So what is the big deal with comparing cars based on where they come from? I'd say it's because cars from different places do tend to have certain characteristics that are most commonly associated with where they come from.

Japanese cars are known for reliability, efficiency, and advanced technology. American cars are known for simplicity and raw muscle. European cars are known for engineering and refinement.

So it's not too hard to see why these cars have so many different followers.

But really, what makes these cars better than one another? Here are three cars that are more or less competitors:

(Pictures from RSportsCars.com)
First we have the Ford GT40, then the Ferrari F430, and finally the Nissan GT-R. Here are some basic specs for the three cars:
Ford GT
Engine: Supercharged 5.4L V8
Horsepower/Torque: 500 hp @ 6000 rpm/500 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm
0-60: 3.8s
Top Speed: 205mph

Ferrari F430
Engine: Naturally-Aspiriated 4.3L V8
Horsepower/Torque: 490 hp @ 8500 rpm/343 lb-ft @ 5250 rpm
0-60: 4.0s
Top Speed: ~196mpg

Nissan GT-R
Engine: Bi-Turbo 3.8L V6
Horsepower/Torque: 480 hp @ 6400 rpm/430 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm
0-60: ~3.5s (reports vary from as low as 3.3s to as high as 3.8s)
Top Speed: ~192 mph (Nissan claimed, Motor Trend reached 195 in their own tests)

For all intents and purposes, these cars are direct competitors. Many of you may disagree, but in terms of general performance, I believe they are close enough. The way these cars are built also represent the areas they come from.

The American Ford GT40 is all muscle with a blown American V8, all power, all speed, no questions. The Ferrari F430 gets its power from a refined N/A V8 that delivers more than 100 horsepower/liter of displacement and delivers a driving experience that is about the passion of driving with speed and control. The Nissan GT-R represents the efficiency of small displacement engines that deliver big on power, augmented by the use of advanced control systems and computers.

These cars may be considered competitors and people looking to buy may cross-shop these cars as well (even though their prices do vary).

But the question is, which one is better?

The Ford GT40 is no doubt a great car that is definitely fast and can handle corners competently, but it is likely to be the worst of the bunch in terms of handling and control. The Ferrari is no exception either, but it is slower than the GT40, but it arguably handles better in the corners. The GT-R as well will launch so hard the driver will be fused into the seat, but will run out of steam towards the top end. However, the GT-R will without a doubt handle really well and is arguably the easiest-to-drive car of the bunch because of its advanced AWD system and electronic driving aids. With the GT-R, one just has to drive, point the car in the direction they want to go, and let the car sort the rest of it out.

With that said, you could say the GT40 would appeal more to those who are all about American power and speed. The Ferrari would appeal more to those who are about a very connected driving experience between the driver and the car. The GT-R would appeal more to those who appreciate blisteringly quick acceleration, but also technologically-advanced cars and physics-defying handling.

So wait, doesn't that mean these cars appeal to three mostly different kinds of people? Wouldn't that mean we're trying to compare apples to oranges to... umm... plums here? Doesn't that mean no car is necessarily better than the other?

So if none of these cars are necessarily better than the other, wouldn't that mean that none of the fanboys for these cars are right when they say theirs is the best?

That's right. No fan boy is right. They may defend the car they like as if it's the best thing since sliced bread, but if you ask me, none of them are right. I may have a preference between these three cars as to which one I'd have if I had to pick one, but I like all three of them for different reasons because they are three very different cars.

The bottom line here is that with fan boys, nobody is right. What it comes down to every single time is this: personal preference. Too bad not everybody realizes this, so I'm still sure to see the arguments between domestic car fans and import car fans, or European cars vs. Japanese cars vs. American cars. Oh well.

Gamers
As mentioned before, the big argument between video gamers is mostly between XBox 360 and Playstation 3. The PC is being left out of this because people from all camps agree that the PC generally delivers the best graphics and gameplay experience.

So here we go:

(Pictures found via Google Image Search)

To be honest, I am more of a PC gamer than a PS3 or XBox 360 gamer, so this part of this entry may not be too thorough.

First, game selection:
The PS3 definitely has fewer games than the XBox 360. Part of this is because the 360 has been out longer but also because the PS3 is reportedly harder to develop for. However, the game selection isn't that big of a deal as long as the games being offered are good.

If I had to pick, I'd have to give the edge to the XBox 360 right now, but the PS3 has quickly caught up with releases like Little Big Planet, Metal Gear Solid 4, and pretty soon Killzone 2. The 360 though has games like Halo, Gears of War, and Project Gotham Racing.

As far as games to come, the 360 is getting Star Ocean 4 and Final Fantasy XIII (surprise!). For the PS3, Killzone 2, Final Fantasy XIII, and Final Fantasy XIII: Versus (or something to that effect). These are games that I am interested in, so this certainly isn't a comprehensive listing. If I had to choose, I'd say it's a dead heat. I love the Star Ocean series and I'm really excited to see the next FF games on PS3.

So for me, the two consoles in terms of game selections and futures, it's pretty much a dead heat.

Now, console hardware:
The PS3 is reported to have a more advanced processor, built-in hard drive, and blu-ray drive as well. This meant that the PS3 initially came as a more complete package.

The XBox 360 didn't originally include the hard drive and reportedly doesn't have as good of a processor as the PS3, but due to it being easier to develop for the 360, the games for the 360 have been able to match up well to the PS3 and vice versa.

The PS3 gets a slight advantage here though because it has more potential with its more sophisticated processor and blu-ray drive. While the full graphics-processing capability of the PS3 have yet to be unleashed (but will be soon, I imagine), the games still look really good on both consoles. With the blu-ray drive, games can be bigger and have higher quality textures and visuals stored on the disk. Metal Gear Solid 4, for example, had so many voice overs, high quality audio, high quality textures and visuals, that it's been said it would be impossible to port the game to XBox 360 and still deliver the same experience that PS3 MGS4 players get.

For the most part though, games released on both systems when compared more often than not give the XBox 360 the advantage in terms of graphical quality. More often though, I'm seeing that things are pretty even between the PS3 and XBox 360.

360 fans will frequently argue that the PS3's graphics aren't as good. For the most part, I'd have to say that it's unfortunately true. But I believe that is because developers don't take the time to refine the game for the PS3's different hardware and therefore release what is more or less a half-assed port from the XBox 360. I wouldn't say this is entirely the developers' faults as they may be working under a strict timeline. However, I do not believe that the PS3 has 'worse graphics' is a valid argument.

Lots of games out now and certainly upcoming show that when a developer takes the time and effort to make a good-looking game, it can look very good on the PS3, run well, and more than likely be better than it would be on XBox 360.

Here's a few examples (watch these in HD, or else they won't look good no matter what you try):
-Metal Gear Solid 4 GC Trailer
-Metal Gear Solid 4 Gamers Night Trailer
-Uncharted 2: Among Thieves Trailer (I've been told that this is all in-game real-time rendering)
-Killzone 2: Visit Helghan Trailer (I've played the Killzone 2 demo and I can say that I believe it looks better than Gears of War 2 and easily better than Halo 3. And yes, I've played and beaten Gears 2 and Halo 3 as well).

So you see, when developers actually develop games for the PS3 and take the time to utilize the hardware, then it's clear that good-looking games can be made as well as games that are good in general as well. So it clearly isn't impossible for good-looking, 'good-running', and overall good PS3 games to be made. I understand that sometimes restrictions from the game engines being used cause issues with development, but I believe that a developer should be able to create games of equal quality for both consoles if they put in the time and effort. So basically, I believe that it's not the fault of the consoles if a game is worse on one console compared to the other, but I believe it is the developers' faults or rather the fault of the schedules they are forced to work on.

So in this case, I have to give the heads up to the PS3 in terms of hardware and
graphics, that is, when developers properly harness the power the PS3 has to offer. Let's not forget also that the blu-ray drive in the PS3 also plays blu-ray movies, which has certainly come in handy for me.

Console exclusives:
Among the exclusive titles that I love on the XBox 360 are:
-Halo 3
-Gears of War (2)
-Project Gotham Racing 4
-(soon to come) Star Ocean 4
If it weren't for those games, I would not have any reason to own an XBox 360.

Then for the PS3:
-Killzone 2
-Metal Gear Solid 4
-Little Big Planet
-(coming later) Final Fantasy XIII (and Versus)
-(coming later) God of War III
If it weren't for these games, I'd have no reason to own a PS3. Yes, I know FFXIII is coming to 360, but there is another FFXIII game that is coming out for only the PS3. I honestly don't blame Square Enix for releasing FFXIII on 360 as well in order to reach a broader audience, but I'm glad to see they are still releasing some kind of PS3 exclusive.

But alas, there are games on both consoles. All of these games are similar in some ways but also very different. So again, we find ourselves asking, which is better? My answer? You guessed it: Neither.

Both consoles offer very different experiences through the games they have to offer. So once again, it comes down to personal preference, and of course as long as people have their own preferences, they will more than likely try to sway people one way or the other so like it is with automotive arguments, the video game console war is unlikely to ever end as well.

I personally have a PS3 and an XBox 360 and I enjoy playing both of them a lot.

But in general, getting back to the point of this blog entry, no fan boy is right when they say what they like is better than something else. It's just a matter of what YOU like. YOU should put your hard-earned money down on what YOU want, not what someone else wants.

So sorry fan boys, none of you are right about anything. The things you support are not the best things since sliced bread. You just like what you like, and that's the one thing you're right about. Honestly though, I find it annoying when these 'fan boys' are so blindly following what they believe that they can't even attempt to see the other side of things. Oh well! I believe that if you're stuck on something, you won't get anywhere because you're just that, stuck. More power to them. I'll leave them alone, no problem, because they like what they like. I have no reason to try and change what they think.

Obviously I have my own preferences and clearly in this blog I am telling you what I think about cars and video games, but I don't expect to impress my views upon you and agree with me on anything. I only write this in order to get my opinions and thoughts out there and nothing else. If you agree with me, great. If you don't, then I'd be interested in knowing why as long as the conversation can be mature.

-G&G Allen

To-do list:
-Why I think GM did it all wrong.
-Game copy protection, what I think is the best way
-The Porsche Cayman, why it's not that great of a car (even though I say it is... what?)
-The many cars I've driven, some thoughts.
-Diesel? Hybrid? Natural Gas? Hydrogen? What I think is better.

Has Honda gone the way of Toyota?

The NSX concept car. This design drew a lot of criticism because, well, it didn't look that good. For an NSX, this new concept seemed so conservative and tame. I would have to agree. It doesn't look that great. (image from LeftLane News)

Here's an article that has brought much sadness to many car enthusiasts: The cancellation of the NSX program.

Edit: The NSX program may not be as dead as I thought.


The NSX replacement made it to prototype testing, but it won't go any further. It sounded really good too (watch the video from the article linked) Maybe further down the road? Hopefully, but unlikely. (image from Edmunds.com InsideLine)

But then, more recently, even more bad news from Honda: The end of the S2000... with only rumors that it will be replaced, but it seems unlikely.


The last offering for RWD sports car nuts from Honda for the foreseeable future, the Honda S2000 CR. Very sad, indeed. (image from Edmunds.com InsideLine)

What may be worse yet, is that Honda has even stepped out of Formula 1. Yikes! This is all understandable though, as the global crisis with economies and such has led to a shift in demands and such. So Honda must be focusing more on alternative-fuel vehicles and whatnot (more on what I think about that in a later blog entry).

So what does that leave in the Honda lineup of vehicles for those who like sports cars? Nothing.

There's always the Honda Civic Si, but it just won't drive like the rear wheel drive sports cars of Honda's past, which now unfortunately features a discontinued S2000 and a canceled front-engined V10 NSX replacement.

Before you Honda Civic Si fans get on my case, I do admit that it is a great car. I even seriously considered one before deciding on a VW GTI. However, I don't like the idea of revving the nuts out of the engine to get any torque. Plus, the Si doesn't have the same kind of weight balance that the RWD S2000 does.

Getting to the point of this article though, with the cancellation and discontinuing of these great sports cars, does that mean Honda has essentially become another Toyota?


The Toyota MR2 Spyder. Not much of a looker, if you ask me. It wasn't even that fast. It did benefit from a mid-mounted engine though. (image from Consumer Guide)

Toyota's last sports car that was on the market was the MR2 Spyder for the 2005 model year. After that, it was gone. If you ask me, the MR2 Spyder wasn't really anything that special. The MR2 before it was better and better yet, the Supra was truly desirable.


The Toyota Supra. Gosh, this car was awesome. A well-tuned Supra today is just epic. However, I should note that I am a Nissan Skyline (the Supra's competitor) guy. If you're wondering, I like the R34 Skyline more than Nissan's latest GT-R. Too bad it's so hard to get Nissan Skylines in the United States. (image from Consumer Guide)

Honda unfortunately looks like it's going the same direction. The S2000 being a great car and its NSX being something that many dreamed of, too bad they're not coming back.

That leaves Honda, like Toyota, offering just a selection of compact cars, family sedans, and SUVs out on the market.

Some of you may point to Acura and Lexus, but let's be honest, those cars are built for and marketed more as luxury cars. I'm talking about rear wheel drive sports cars. Not luxury vehicles with 'sport tuning'.

Don't even get me started on the Lexus IS-F. That thing sounds good and goes fast, but it's still a Lexus. The front end looks awkward and the stacked exhaust on the back is FAKE. The BMW M3 does a much better job at being a sports car.


Of all the companies that would take a shortcut, I would have never expected it to be Lexus. Especially on a car that's meant to be their ambassador into the world of high-powered expensive sports cars! This car was built to match, if not exceed, the capabilities of the BMW M3. If you want to do that, you should also match BMW's attention to detail. This fake exhaust tip setup on the rear end really doesn't help at all. It's plain awful. If you're going to go for a 'unique look', you should follow through all the way. (image from AutoSpies.com)

Anyway, with that said, it would seem that indeed, Honda has essentially gone the way of Toyota. Thankfully though, Honda hasn't gone on and made their cars super cushy and soft like Toyota has.

Don't get me wrong, Toyota makes great cars for getting people around to where they want to be and in comfort. However, Toyotas in general are generally not that great for drivers who may occasionally like to push the car around a bit. Toyotas are just too soft and don't offer much feedback for the driver. It is for that reason that I'm not much of a fan of Toyota. Their cars are too tame.

Honda, on the other hand, still offers a generally good driving experience. However, it would seem that Honda has landed more on the side of comfort than sporting potential with its cars as of late. The only cars they offer now that even hint at sportiness is the Honda Civic Si and the Honda Accord Coupe. The latter of the two, by the way, looks absolutely stunning if you ask me. That pretty much leaves Mazda and Nissan making 'sporty' family vehicles. Mazda, by the way, with their new Mazda 6 sedan has done an amazing job with that car. It looks great and from what I've heard, drives really well.

On a side note though, I do find it unfortunate that Honda seems to have lost some of its touch in terms of styling. Just take a look at the following examples:

What the heck is up with the grille on this thing? It looks awkward to me. I liked the look of the previous Pilot more. (image from Consumer Guide)


Honda's first truck offering worked out pretty nicely. However, the truck itself looks a bit strange to me. I don't like how the hood kind of dips down toward the grille. From the side, it looks like an Escalade truck, which to me, is NOT a good thing as I am not a fan of Cadillac Escalades.(image from Consumer Guide)


The face of this car, as on the Pilot, just looks really awkward to me. I think it's the stacked look of the silver with the Honda logo and the black bit under it. I don't like it. The previous CR-V looked better overall if you ask me. Thankfully Honda's sedans and coupes still look good. (image from Consumer Guide)


Ohhh wait, they don't! I don't know what Honda/Acura were thinking with this front grille shield-looking thing that dips down and holds the Acura logo. Way too shiny, way too big. There is a car dealership though that has tried painting this shield thing to match the color of the car, and I must say, it looks better that way (unfrotunately, I can't find pictures of that right now). (image from Consumer Guide)

With that said, it seems that with Honda and Toyota out of the picture for making sports cars, that leaves Mazda and Nissan to duke it out with RWD sports cars and Mitsubishi and Subaru for AWD sports cars. That's fine with me, but as a consumer, I think it's always good to have options. It's just too bad Honda has stepped out of the picture. I hope they come back.

-G&G Allen

P.S.
I had the chance to try out the GTI in the snow recently (I'd estimate between 3-5 inches of powdery snow). I was thinking that low profile tires with a wide track (225/40/18) would perform horribly, but the OEM Dunlop SP Sport AS 01 tires did just fine! In fact, I'd say they did REALLY well. The ESP kicked in, but the car was great. No real surprises. I am simply amazed at just how well ESP really works. I was skeptical before, but since I have a car that actually has it as a feature, I'm completely sold. Granted the ESP won't save a bad driver from crashing, it will help a competent driver through bad road conditions. In the area where I live I'd say all wheel drive isn't needed. It would help, but it really isn't necessary if people are looking to buy a car and don't want to spend the extra money or have the extra weight of an AWD system. Of course, if you live further up north, AWD would be a must. But I'd take RWD with snow tires any day if I had the choice (and money, haha).

To-Do List:
-Fanboys and their belief that they all have the best thing since sliced bread. Who's right?
-Why I think GM did it all wrong.
-Game copy protection, what I think is the best way
-The Porsche Cayman, why it's not that great of a car (even though I say it is... what?)
-The many cars I've driven, some thoughts.
-Diesel? Hybrid? Natural Gas? Hydrogen? What I think is better.