FF ramblings

[ria_oaks]

I happened to check Rpgamer.com a few minutes ago and noticed that FFIII:DS comes out today (I haven't really been keeping track...). I'm probably just being too over-emotional, but this day feels rather historic in the RPG world - the last Final Fantasy that wasn't released in the US is finally here. I checked, and it's been approximately 16.5 years since FFIII was released in Japan - well, better late than never, I guess. XD I mean sure, I played it years ago on a translated ROM and I won't be buying this version anytime soon (lack of a DS... and lack of time to play. woe.), but it's still cool to think that it's here. It's sort of a pity that the original version of the game will never make it here, most likely (how hard would it have been to include the orignal version in the new game, really...?), but the new version looks pretty spiffy. Hopefully I'll get to play it someday.

3 FF games in the past 2 weeks, 2 of which are new to the US (FFXII and FFIII:DS) and one of which only ever made it here in a mangled fashion (FFV Advance) - makes me miss the days when I could play all the time... I haven't really been into gaming as much the last few years, largely because of a. lack of time during school, b. other interests take up my free time, and c. i'm lazy., but I still get excited hearing about games and still want to play when I get the chance. I'm way behind on all the games I'm playing, but I still plan to ask for either FFXII or Disgaea 2 for Christmas (leaning towards the latter - FFXII will be easy enough to find for years to come, and it'll get cheap fairly quickly, whereas Disgaea 2 will start disappearing soon...). I am sorely tempted by FFXII, though - it's been getting fantastic reviews, and hell, it's FFXII! We've been waiting for this game for years, and it's finally here... and I really can't justify the time or money to get it. Part of me, too, is still a bit uncertain about it - but most of the reviews have said that the game is nothing like (and much better than) anything we've seen of it to this point, including the demo. I plan to give it a chance eventually, but can't do it yet.

And... I'm procrastinating. Back to my Farscape paper... it's due tomorrow at 9, so I need to get moving. Up to 5 pages, need about 12 - and I'm still blathering on about the context, haven't even gotten to analysing the series itself! Ehehehe. baaack to work.

Comments

[ria-oaks.livejournal.com]

Seinfeld's hard to get tired of. :) Though some episodes I'm kinda sick of; seem em too many times. That's the problem with Friends for me - I've seen nearly all the episodes WAY too many times. Like, 10-20 I think. At least. -_-

I'm tempted by this shiny digital TV... maybe someday we'll get a big widescreen HDTV and look into it. Does what you have mean that you also get one of this nifty tivo-like boxes that let you record stuff and record live TV? You know, for all that I know too much about TV, this side of thing leaves me drawing a blank...

[bk635.livejournal.com]

Analog TV/Standard Cable = What you have. No DVR (the TiVo thing) available.

Digital TV = Next step up. Includes about 30-40 extra channels. Ability to add single channels or channel theme packs (drama, science, movies, etc), and Canadian and US timeshifting, for extra monthly fee. Access to Pay-Per-View and Shaw Video on Demand. Access to about 30 music channels, each covering a different genre. You also get a comprehensive Program Guide. Digital TV requires a receiver box, and Shaw offers two kinds: $100 standard digital receiver with no extra features; and a $325 digital receiver with built-in PVR (the TiVo thing).

HDTV = Next step up. Includes all of what Digital TV offers and options available to Digital TV users (see above), in addition to channels broadcast in HD. The amount of HD channels you get is based on what HD package you have (HD Basic, HD Plus, or HD Basic + Sports). Requires an HD receiver box, and Shaw offers two kinds: $450 standard HD receiver with no extra features; and a $700 receiver with built-in PVR (HD-PVR).

[ria-oaks.livejournal.com]

Ahh, okay, thanks.. that makes sense. :) And HDTV requires an actual physical HDTV as well, right? Does digital require a different type of TV?

*iz a n00b*

[bk635.livejournal.com]

Yes, HDTV requires an actual TV capable of displaying the high definition signal. Your TV needs either an HDMI port or component cable ports to connect the HD reciever box to the TV. An HDMI connection is (to date) the best connection from a piece of audio/video equipment to a TV you can use. A connection made using component cables is (now) the second best, and won't provide the absolute best picture-quality, at least when compared to HDMI. Connecting your PS2 to your TV using component cables, by the way, makes the console give the best picture/display quality that it can for PS2 games. Most newer TVs can accept all sorts of connections, and the old flat-screen TV in my room has an HDMI port, so you're looking at TV's from about 2002-present, I guess.

Digital does not require a different type of TV. I remember we had digital TV for a while, and it worked on both CRT TV's we used to have. The digital reciever box has both coaxial cable ports and composite ports, so you can use either one. A lot of older TV's probably have both. Using composite cables to connect your PS2 to your TV is also the second best way to do it, and I think the PS2 actually comes with composite cables (Fucking Sony made me go out and spend $30 on component cables because they're sold seperately)..

HDMI looks like a USB plug thing. Component cables are colored red, green, and blue; their respective imputs on the TV are similarly colored. Composite cables are colored yellow, white, and red, and their respective inputs on the TV are similarly colored, as well.