Archive for July, 2008

The peasants are growing restless!

Monday, July 21st, 2008

A few days ago I reported that North America is part of the technology Third World. We have some of the slowest internet access at some of the highest prices in the world, some of the lowest adoption rates and highest service plans for cell phone service, and a new charge on incoming text messages threatens to leave Canada without text messaging. Well, it seems that the peasants are growing restless, and they’re tired of living in the Third World! This is the courageous story of how the people are fighting back against the powerful monopolies who control our access to technology.

The day after I wrote that post, an article appeared in the Ottawa Citizen about Industry Minister Jim Prentice’s demand that Bell and Telus explain why they will be charging 15 cents per incoming text message. I had estimated that an average text message is about 100 bytes of data, therefor the bandwidth required to handle the entire country’s text messages is about 4.2 GB, or roughly the bandwidth that I’m allowed to use per day with my 7 megabit “high speed” internet access, for which I pay $1.60 per day. My ISP apparently makes a profit on that $1.60 a day, so surely I must be horribly incorrect in my estimate of Canada’s text messaging bandwidth if Bell and Telus expect to be paid 15 cents for each of those 45 million messages per day, or $6.75 million. But, there it is on page A10.

Wireless technology expert Ken Chase said he doesn’t accept the rationale from Bell and Telus that the volume of text messages places great demands on the networks. The consultant with the Toronto-based firm Heavy Computing said that while 45.3 million text messages sounds like a lot, the amount of space this takes up on a network is related costs to a telecom company are miniscule.

A text message sent via mobile phone can be no more than 160 characters, and each character is about a byte. If 45 million text messages are sent throughout Canada every day and each message is about 100 characters, this totals 4.5 gigabytes.

Source: Ottawa Citizen, July 10, 2008

So, there you have it. I said 4.2 GB, and wireless technology expert Ken Chase says 4.5 GB. I couldn’t have been much closer than that, could I? It’s simply a fact that text messages cost telecom companies almost nothing, and the idea of charging people any amount for receiving them, especially spam, is outrageous. Bravo to Mr. Chase, and the Ottawa Citizen, for drawing the public’s attention to this nonsense.

Also, the same day that I wrote that post, which was critical of Rogers for charging $60 to $150 per month for the iPhone, Rogers bowed to public pressure and lowered the price! Rogers will now offer a $30 per month plan with a 6 GB bandwidth limit. Voice plans start at $20 per month, and the system access fee is $6.95 a month, so you can now have a 3G iPhone with 6 GB of bandwidth for as little as $56.95 per month, plus tax. There’s still no unlimited option, but at least 6 GB is a reasonable amount of data, and it will allow the iPhone to be used as Apple intended: to surf the internet and watch movies and listen to music. Don’t get too excited, though. The offer expires on August 31.

What’s interesting is that, even with the lower rates, Canada is still the second most expensive country in the world to own an iPhone.

Despite the better prices and service terms temporarily being offered by Rogers Communications Inc. for Apple Inc.’s iPhone 3G, Canadians will still be paying nearly the highest overall cost for the device in the world.

Rogers announced its new rates on Wednesday but has not yet published them on its website.

According to CBCNews.ca’s iPhone iNdex, which compares basic service plans from the 27 carriers in 21 countries that have announced pricing for the device’s launch on Friday, Canadians who buy the device before Aug. 31 will be faced with a total minimum cost of $2,176 US over the course of the three-year deal they must sign with Rogers. That is second only to the $2,554 US customers of Vodafone will pay in Italy with their two-year service agreement.

Source: CBC.ca, July 10, 2008 Link

You know, I could own and operate a car for three years for $2176. It would probably have to be at least 15 years old, and it would have to be small enough to have very low fuel consumption, and I wouldn’t be able to go on long road trips. Oh, right, then there’s insurance. Okay, maybe three years is a bit of a stretch, but you see my point. If you’re a young person, would you rather have an iPhone or a car? The choice is yours.

Anyway, Canadians aren’t the only ones who are fighting to get out of the technology Third World. The battle is also heating up in the United States where, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin wants to take action against Comcast for interfering with web traffic such as BitTorrent downloads.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin, staking out new regulatory ground on the Internet, said yesterday that he would seek an enforcement action against Comcast Corp. for slowing down heavy Internet users who were downloading movies and other large data files.

The Philadelphia company used “too blunt an instrument” in managing its network and didn’t adequately disclose its bandwidth restrictions to subscribers, Martin said. “You can’t limit consumers that way.”

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer, July 10, 2008

The FCC is finally standing up for net neutrality in the United States, while the debate has barely begun in Canada. At least Google threw its weight behind the pro-neutrality side. I can only hope that Canada manages to prevent ISPs from arbitrarily deciding which applications and services get to have bandwidth and which ones don’t. Where do we live, Communist China? Yes, I know, I lose respect for almost any argument when someone compares this land of the free to a Communist dictatorship, but I stand by this analogy. China has censors who decide what websites its citizens are allowed to visit, and this is essentially the same thing. Bell thinks that it has the right to decide what you can and can’t do with the internet, and that’s an idea that is so far divorced from reality that it could scarcely have been proposed in a nation like ours. That is exactly the kind of heavy-handed control that China imposes on its citizens, and I won’t stand for it in this country.

So, the news is less bleak than it was. There’s a chance that Jim Prentice may be able to do something about the text messaging fees, net neutrality may yet come to North America, and the iPhone may someday become affordable in Canada.

A quick update

Saturday, July 19th, 2008

I went to my local grocery store the other day and I saw something that I’ve never seen before: there were Nintendo Wiis in the display case. Almost two years after launch, I’ve finally seen a Nintendo Wii on a store shelf. And not just one, but nine of them! And get this: when I went back the next day, they were all still there. Is it possible that supply has finally caught up with demand? Spooky.

We knew that there was supply because the Wii is currently outselling the PS3 and Xbox 360 combined, and yet the demand was obviously still greater than the supply because they simply couldn’t be found on store shelves. It’s quite something to be #1 by a large margin, and still be completely sold out of product. Demand may yet exceed supply again by Christmas, making the Wii impossible to find for a third Christmas in a row, but, for the first time ever, it’s possible to just walk into a store and buy a Wii. If you’re planning on buying one for Christmas, play it safe and buy one now.

Also, I made some phone calls today and got three more games liberated. I’ll update their status on the site once the authors send the files and licenses to my email. The formal announcement is expected on Tuesday.

I’ve spent almost no money this year as a result of unanticipated unemployment, but a local gentleman was selling some irreplaceable pieces of computer history recently, and I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to add them to my little archival museum.

He was selling an original IBM PC (the model 5150)! This is the first ever PC, the computer that all modern PCs are based on. It featured an Intel 8088 processor clocked at 4.77 MHz, a copy of BASIC written into ROM, a green monochrome monitor, two 5.25″ floppy drives, and no hard drive. Here it is.

The original PC

It still works, and it was $120. I call that a great deal! I also purchased an Apple Macintosh 512K for $60. It has a built-in white monochrome monitor, a 3.5″ floppy drive, a mouse(!), and no hard drive. It features a Motorola 68000 processor clocked at 8 MHz, and was the second ever Macintosh computer, after the original Macintosh 128K. This baby came packed with 512K of RAM, hence the name. It was $60, another great deal.

He was such a nice guy that he threw in an old 8″ floppy disk for free. This one appears to be double sided, double density, meaning that it stored 980 KB when formatted with CP/M, and a whopping 1.2 MB when formatted with MS-DOS! That density debuted in 1977, the year before 360 KB 5.25″ floppy disks came out and took over the market. 1.2 MB 5.25″ floppy disks were introduced in 1982. How amazing is it that this ancient floppy disk format had the same capacity as the largest-ever 5.25″ floppy disks, and essentially the same capacity as the 3.5″ floppy disks that we still use today?

Anyway, check out my 8 inch floppy disk. Isn’t it shiny?

8 inch floppy disk

This thing is almost as big as the entire Macintosh 512K! You really couldn’t have put an 8″ floppy drive in one of these things.

8 inch floppy on a Macintosh 512K

I also bought four loose 8086 processors and 8088 processors, which is kind of neat. There was also a bunch of add-in cards for the Macintosh, including a card that had a Z80 processor that allowed you to run a copy of CP/M on a Mac. How cool is that?

Finally, I purchased a whole bunch of software over the weekend that I’m going to be reviewing soon. It will be fun.

Kicking some monkey butt

Thursday, July 10th, 2008

Back in December I wrote about a game called Monkey Kick Off, which you can read about here. While others had posted clips of themselves kicking the ball into the 6000 to 7000 range, I was only able to kick the ball 5806 meters. Of course, I was able to produce videos of myself kicking the ball into the 6000+ range (and even 9 872 171 meters) after cracking the video playback encryption. You can produce a code to “prove” a kick of any distance you want, but I actually proved my 5806 meter kick with a screenshot.

So, I haven’t played the game for months, and yesterday I suddenly had the urge to play again. I hoped that the long break would give me a new perspective on the game. It took a while to remember the timing to get a 5000+ meter kick, but I was eventually able to get two kicks over 5500 meters. My record didn’t seem likely to fall, so I gave up for the night. Tonight I took another shot at it, and I got a really good kick within a few minutes. The first bounce landed well past 1000, the second bounce landed well past 2000, and the third bounce just barely broke 3000. That’s generally the criteria for a great kick, but the ball can already be running out height by that point and can run out of momentum in the Monkey Village. Then the ball was still bouncing off the screen in the 4000 zone, and I realized that I had just kicked a new record. I wasn’t surprised when I saw the counter turn from red to green, indicating a new record, but I was shocked when I saw the ground turn purple.

5963 meters

I knew that the 6000 zone had purple ground and the space ship from Monkey Lander from the fake playback videos that I and others have been able to create, but this is the first time I’ve ever seen it in full 640×480 resolution in-game. I still didn’t break 6000, but I got enough of the 6000 zone onto the screen to see the whole space ship. I can now say that a kick of 6000 meters is probably possible. Here’s the URL to see me kick the ball 5963 meters.

Just for fun, let’s analyze why this kick went so much farther than my previous kick. The code for my kick of 5806 meters was qporqUottouuUorFBoUBopptotFBuo4KA9hmoEsut, which we can translate to 21,329,55,669,380,90,115,5806,DOSGuy,7465. The code for my kick of 5963 meters was qqorpEotEouEUorFBoUBopqqotUuro4KA9hmoEurB, which translates as 22,317,57,679,380,90,122,5963,DOSGuy,7630. The stats for the kicks are as follows:

Old New
Kick height 21 22
Gravity 329 317
Kick angle 55 57
Power 669 679
Unknown 380 380
Throw angle 90 90
Throw height 115 122
Score 5806 5963
Name DOSGuy DOSGuy
Checksum 7465 7630

The kick height of 22 means that the ball was slightly higher in the air when I kicked it, which explains why the angle was slightly higher at 57° instead of 55. Kicks are always farther when the second number is lower, but I was never able to figure out if it represents gravity, atmospheric density, or wind resistance. At any rate, the conditions were more favourable on this kick than the last one, which is a good start. The real story is having the power increase from 669 to 679, which is probably because the ball was falling from a throw height of 122 instead of 115. I knew as soon as I saw it that this was a very high throw. So it seems to just come down to the fact that the ball was thrown especially high, and the timing of my kick produced a good angle.

Now let’s abuse the replay code to find out how I could have kicked this ball better. If I had waited a split second longer and kicked the ball at a height of 21 instead of 22, producing an angle of 55° instead of 57, would the ball have gone farther or shorter? Let’s mess with the code and replay the result. The ball only went 5841 meters! Of course, the power (in theory) would have been slightly higher if I had let the ball fall for that extra split second, but it seems like 57° is just a better angle to kick from. When my record was record was 5633, the kick height was also 22, the power was 671 (higher than the 669 on my kick of 5806), but the angle was only 50°. I can only guess at the numbers if I were to have kicked the ball at 23 instead of 22, but let’s assume that my kick angle would have been 59°, and power would have decreased to 675. The replay video shows that the kick would have gone 5904 meters. If the power had remained unchanged at 679, the replay shows that it still only would have gone 5974 meters, for a gain of 11 meters. Basically, I got all of that one. The angle was perfect, and the throw height and second variable were both favourable. It doesn’t look like a kick of 6000 was possible on this throw, and I don’t know if the ball goes any higher than 122. Is 6000 possible? It’s a definite maybe, nothing more. It definitely looks like I came pretty close to having a perfect kick.

Living in a technology Third World country

Wednesday, July 9th, 2008

I’ve been living in a region that has sub-standard internet access and cell phone service for many years, and I hardly ever think about it. From time to time, I wonder if we’ve allowed ourselves to fall behind because of ignorance, apathy, or resignation. In the beginning, I’m sure it was ignorance. Now that the media has informed the population, I believe the cause is resignation. We now live in the technology Third World. The region I’m referring to is North America.

People in Canada and the United States have been aware for years that we pay some of the highest prices for some of the slowest internet access in the world. When First World regions like Europe and Japan move to 20 megabit, 50 megabit, and eventually 100 megabit internet access, Canadian and American providers boosted speeds to the 5 to 7 megabit range. While other nations paid roughly $30 per month for speeds up to 20 times faster than ours, we helplessly watched our rates increase to almost $50 per month.

We understand how it got to be this way. In most parts of North America, there are only two choices for high speed internet: the phone company and the cable company. They have a monopoly and can charge as much, and provide as little service, as they want. Slowing our internet access to 1/20th of the speed of access in First World technology nations has saved the telecom companies billions of dollars in equipment purchases, but still they claim that we’re using too much bandwidth. ISPs like Comcast, Bell Canada and Rogers have throttled internet traffic that they claim uses too much bandwidth, such as BitTorrent.

Presumably Comcast planned to invoke the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to protect themselves because they could claim that BitTorrent is used to illegally share copyrighted material. The reality is quite different. Legitimate websites have used BitTorrent to distribute their legal content for years, allowing them to distribute movies and webisodes that they couldn’t afford to distribute on their own hosting packages. What’s interesting is that even large corporations have started taking advantage of BitTorrent. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, or CBC, was Canada’s first national television network and is a crown corporation, meaning that it is owned and operated by the Government of Canada. They recently distributed episodes of Canada’s Next Great Prime Minster using BitTorrent. When Bell Canada customers had difficulty getting copies of the show, Bell’s BitTorrent throttling gained national media attention and led to a public inquiry. Google claims that Bell’s throttling is illegal in a complaint they made to the CRTC.

Google Inc. says Bell Canada Inc. is breaking Canadian telecommunications law by slowing certain internet traffic, and is urging the CRTC to take action against the company.

“Bell claims its throttling of peer-to-peer applications is a reasonable form of network management. Google respectfully disagrees. Network management does not include Canadian carriers’ blocking or degrading lawful applications that consumers wish to use,” the company wrote in a 15-page submission to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, which was made public over the weekend.

“From consumer, competition and innovation perspectives, throttling applications that consumers choose is inconsistent with a content and application-neutral internet, and a violation of Canadian telecommunications law, which forbids unfair discrimination and undue or unreasonable preferences and requires that regulation be technologically and competitively neutral.” Link

Net neutrality is a reasonably new issue in Canada, but it will likely soon become law in the United States. But throttling internet access to reduce their bandwidth requirements is only scratching the surface. Both Bell Canada and Rogers now limit the amount of bandwidth customers can use on all of their internet products. Slower tiers are limited to 2 GB of combined upstream and downstream bandwidth per month, while the most expensive tiers are limited to 95 and 100 GB per month. The cost of exceeding that limit can be up to $5 per GB. American ISPs like Time Warner Cable are apparently planning to place bandwidth limits on their services, too.

The technology gap between North America and the rest of the world also extends to cell phone service. Everyone knows that North Americans pay much higher rates for cell phone service than Europeans, so it’s hardly necessary to go into that. We’ve all seen the numbers. The average Rogers cell phone contract is $75.15 per month, while the average annual cost of cellphone service to a medium user in Denmark is $91.63. Yes, many North Americans already pay more per month than Europeans pay per year for cell phone service. But that just isn’t enough for Canadian cell phone providers.

While Americans are eagerly awaiting the arrival of the new 3G iPhone, there is outrage that the lower price of the new phones is more than offset by the increased monthly service rate from $20 per month to $30. Oh, to have that problem. Here in Canada, Rogers is also about to introduce the 3G iPhone. Plans range from $60 to $150 per month, plus the $6.95 system access fee, and there is no unlimited plan. While AT&T charges just $60 per month for their unlimited plan, Rogers’ cheapest plan will cost more than AT&T’s most expensive plan. Rogers is terrified that if they had an unlimited plan, customers might use gigabytes of bandwidth per month and force them to spend millions of dollars on new equipment. But, since the iPhone will come with a 3 year commitment, the minimum commitment for iPhone service is $2160 per customer. If Rogers signs up 500,000 customers, which is within the realm of possibility, they’ll make between $1 billion and $2.7 billion during those three years. That’s not enough to buy new equipment to meet the bandwidth needs of those customers?

But Rogers isn’t alone in their bandwidth misery. This morning Canadian news media started reporting that Bell and Telus will begin to charge 15 cents per incoming text message, even when the message is spam. Customer outrage was swift, with customers posting in forums that they can’t control who sends them a message. Cell phone spam is increasing, and having to pay for it could make the cost of owning a cell phone prohibitively expensive. Many customers will have no choice but to remove text messaging from their service packages, sending them even deeper into the technology Third World. Is Canada really about to lose text messaging? Is it true that we can’t afford it?

Let me do some math for you. Text is the simplest form of data that you can send. Each character represents one byte of information, so a 10 character text message is 10 bytes worth of data (plus header information to identify the sender and the recipient). Text messages are necessarily short, but let’s say that each text message is 100 bytes in length. Canadians send 45 million text messages per day, so that’s about 4.2 GB per day. If my calculation is correct (and it might not be), the entire nation of Canada sends about 4.2 GB of text messages per day. That’s less data than you can fit on a single layer DVD, and is roughly equal to the amount of bandwidth that I’m allowed to use each day with my internet service, for which I pay about $1.60 per day. It’s text, people! As I hinted a moment ago, text messages are so small that the sender and recipient information in the header is larger than the message itself. Our entire country’s text messages could be handled by a single router if they were transmitted over wires instead of broadcast from cell phone towers.

Ah, that’s true! Cell phone technology is quite different from the wired internet, so it’s not fair to compare the cost of delivering 4.2 GB of data over the airwaves to the cost of delivering 1s and 0s over fibre optic cables and copper wires. But wait a second, isn’t the sender paying for the message? So Bell and Telus want to charge both the sender and the recipient! But here’s where the potential for abuse comes in. The sender might have a package that includes unlimited outgoing text messages, and they could maliciously send hundreds or thousands of text messages to someone to stick them with the bill. Someone could bombard you with text messages to be a bully, or as revenge for breaking up with them, and you would be the one paying for those messages. 1000 unwanted messages from your ex-boyfriend, or your new boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend, will set you back $150.

Okay, so even though there are only three major cell phone providers in Canada, meaning that there’s a 1 in 3 chance that your provider is charging both the sender and the recipient for the message, there will still be times when your cell phone provider sends you a text message that they didn’t charge the sender for, so they need that 15 cents from the recipient, right? Does it cost them 15 cents to send 100 bytes of data from a cell phone tower? Of course not! The truth is, transmitting your voice over a cell phone requires several kilobytes per second of data transmission, and 19 million Canadians have cell phones. If the average subscriber talks on their cell phone for half an hour per day (and they might not), Canadians send 9.5 million hours (34.2 billion seconds) worth of voice data per day, and there’s enough bandwidth for all of that. So, a text message uses about 100 times less bandwidth than a single second of voice transmission. Math time! If Canadians spend 34.2 billion seconds per day on their cell phones, transmitting data at a rate of 10k per second, that’s about 318.5 TB of voice transmission per day, or 77 653 times more bandwidth than the text messages are using. That means that text messages represent 0.001% of all the bandwidth transmitted by cell phone towers per day. The fact that the cell phone companies think that they can fool us into believing that it costs them 15 cents to deliver a 100 byte text message is so far beyond belief that it simply isn’t worth believing.

Judge Judy has a saying that goes, “If it doesn’t make sense, it isn’t true.” When Bell and Telus tell their customers that they “need” to charge 15 cents per incoming text message, that doesn’t make sense. How stupid do they think we are? Do they even think of us as humans? No one with a human level of intelligence would think that they incur an expense of even 1 cent per text message. This is a matter of truthiness, since I don’t have the ability to calculate the exact numbers for you, but I can say with absolute confidence that, in terms of total electricity, and the price of the equipment necessary to transmit all of Canada’s text messages divided by 45 million messages per day for the entire life of that equipment, the cost to cellphone service providers is less than a thousandth of a cent per message. That’s a markup 1 500 000%. No wonder they post multi-billion dollar profits every quarter. Can you imagine how many other products there are in the whole world that sell for 15 000 times more than it costs to produce them? If you have a lot of friends, or get a lot of spam, you’ll soon be paying more every month for your text messages than for your voice services. If your voice plan is $30 per month, you only need to receive 200 text messages (7 per day) before your text message bill will match it. Bell and Telus are going to charge more for the 0.001% of their bandwidth that’s consumed by text as they do for the 99.999% of their bandwidth that’s consumed by voice. And how do they justify that? Because they can get away with it. There are only three major cell phone providers in Canada, and now two of them are doing it. If you don’t like it, you can cancel your plan and pay up to $400 in early cancellation fees. Customers will simply remove text messaging from their plans and go back to old-fashioned voice transmission. Text messages in Canada? Don’t be absurd. We’re a technology Third World country!

So, to recap, Canadian and American ISPs provide internet service that is up to 20 times slower than most of the developed world (and slower than many developing countries as well), throttle traffic to reduce bandwith usage, and place monthly limits on their customers, while charging almost twice as much as ISPs in First World technology countries. At least two of the continent’s largest cell phone providers will soon charge you 15 cents every time someone sends you an unsolicited text message, and spam is threatening to destroy text messaging in Canada. We’re paying the highest prices in the world for the world’s worst service. We’re aware that it’s happening, we’re aware that our countries are lagging behind the rest of the world, and there’s nothing we can do about it because there aren’t any alternatives. It’s no longer ignorance or apathy, it’s resignation. North Americans have resigned themselves that ISPs and cell phone providers have a monopoly and can spend as little money on equipment, provide as little service, and charge as much money as they want and there’s absolutely nothing that anyone can do about it. We’ve slipped into the technology Third World and resigned ourselves that we no longer live in high tech countries. There’s not enough bandwidth and there never will be. We had the misfortune of being born in the wrong hemisphere. I’m simply astonished that the country that invented the internet would allow itself to have some of the slowest internet service in the world. I never thought that Canada and the U.S. would become Third World countries, but when it comes to technology, I watched it happen, and it happened fast.

The verdict is in on Super Mario Galaxy: it’s a game!

Tuesday, July 1st, 2008

Before I actually played Super Mario Galaxy, I read about it. There’s a lot to read. It was apparently the game of the year in 2007. It was given an A, 5/5, or 9.5 to 10/10 by every major magazine and website. They talked about how the game raises the bar and changes perceptions of what the Wii is capable of. It is the highest rated game of all time among 34 000 games on the review aggregator website, TopTenReviews. I’ve never seen such universal acclaim! This clearly was going to be the greatest game that I’ve ever played. Maybe even the best game ever!

Now, I have to tell you, I’ve waited a long time for this game. When Super Mario 64 came out, it was the best game ever. It remained one of the best games to ever be made for the Nintendo 64, and is still one of the best games of all time. I still play it and very much enjoy it. I’ve gotten incredibly good at it, but I entertain myself by choosing harder challenges. Where once I tried to collect every coin, now I try to complete courses without collecting ANY coins! Not every star can be collected coinless. A run where you collect as many stars as you can without collecting any coins or opening any cannons is called a coinless, cannonless run, which is one of the CC-less runs. There are also coinless, capless runs, the second form of CC-less run where you avoid hitting any of the switches. Then there are coinless, cannonless, capless runs, or CCC-less runs. I’ve undertaken all three, and gotten all of the stars that a human being can reasonably be expected to collect. There are a couple that can only be collected with superhuman playing skills, and at least one that can only be collected using save states and a re-recording emulator so that you can abuse the backwards longjump trick.

Suffice it to say that I’ve been a huge fan of the game ever since I bought it in on launch day in 1996. I never considered Super Mario Sunshine a sequel because he uses a water cannon to clean up the place. Or something. I’ve never played it. So, there was no Super Mario 64 2, and no Super Mario 64 sequel for the GameCube. It took 11 years and two consoles for Nintendo to finally make a sequel. I’ve been waiting a VERY long time for this.

When I started the game, I was greeted by the most obnoxious sound ever: Mario’s high pitched voice shouting, “Super Mario Galaxy!” Okay, that made me cringe. Whatever.

When I started the game, there was a strange interactive intro. Everyone is happy about this incredible meteor shower that’s going on and urging me to head to the castle. The Wiimote acts as a laser pointer, producing a star on the screen wherever I point it, which I can use to collect the star bits that are falling from the sky. That’s certainly a new type of interaction, though it seemed like kind of a worthless gimmick. Whatever. The intro is amazing!

First of all, the people who made this game know their Mario history. As I approach the castle, a fleet of airships attack while an updated version of the music from Super Mario 3 is played. Awesome! I love it. The first appearance of the airships since Mario 3, and a familiar tune is back. I love that kind of nostalgia. Bonus points for whoever came up with that idea.

The airships launch a realistic attack against the castle, and I feel like I’m really in a siege. This is the coolest intro ever. I can’t wait to start fighting.

When the intro is over, I’m taken to the Super Mario Galaxy version of the lobby in Super Mario 64. It’s some kind of space ship, and from here I’ll travel to galaxies throughout the universe. The princess who runs the place creates kind of a girly feel, but that’s forgivable. Let’s see what this game can do! (more…)