Uh... I have yet to play the FPS which was more than ~10-12 hours long (some are longer, some shorter, but it seems to fall in that range most of the time). 8 hours isn't a whole lot shorter than that. I've NEVER seen an FPS which has 30-40 hours of gameplay.
Halo bashing in a games topic? This is new and unheard-of.
Bungie could only manage to get Halo 3 to run at 640p resolution and not the minimum standard 720p for real next gen games. No one with a lick of sense gives a flying fuck. Unless you're counting the lines, rather than playing the game, you can't tell if there are 640 lines or 720. Give me a break.
Side by side screenshots of Halo 2 and Halo 3 had gamers scratching their heads as to which one was supposed to be the next gen game. BULLSHIT. This was true for the beta only. Playing the finished Halo 3, there's a clear improvement in graphical quality. You might want to get with the times on this one.
Bungie didn't bother to bring Halo 3 out of the dark ages of online gaming and implement dedicated servers.
And Bungie because of the lack of dedicated servers Halo 3 could only handle 16 players at a time for online games. There are pc shareware games with better online setups. Agreed 100%, but consoles aren't the place to be looking for good FPS multiplayer gaming anyways.
Nope, single player also runs only at 640p with the same last gen looking graphics. See above responses. No one cares, and the graphics look just fine.
The campaign is incredibly short and linear It's hardly "incredibly short" (took me 8ish hours), and every game ever made (except some RPGs) is linear. You can hardly bash Halo 3 for being what 90% of games are, buddy.
The Halo 3 story is easily one of the lamest even by the incredibly low fps genre standard I beg to differ. Halo 3's story was excellent.
But all in all, Pojut is 100% right. If you're going to bash a game for no reason, bash a game that isn't 4 months old. Hell, there are far more worthy targets out there if you're going to sit and unjustly bash old games. Bioshock (an excellent game, I might add) didn't live up to 1/4 of the hype heaped upon it (no game could have), so from a certain perspective, it's by far the most disappointing game of the year. Why don't you pick on that one while you're at it? I'll tell you why, because you're another idiotic anti-Halo fanboy. I've seen very reasonable arguments put forth as to why Halo isn't good, but yours isn't one of them.
It's a bit rich to call anyone who uses IE stupid, considering calling IE not a real browser is pretty stupid in itself. IE7 works beautifully, thank you very much. Bully for you if you want to use Firefox (or any other browser), but that doesn't mean you should come in here insulting IE users.
I thought the reason that you couldn't take pictures had nothing to do with copyright, and everything to do with flash harming the works of art (flash can be turned off, but better to prohibit photography altogether than deal with people who can't figure that out, I imagine).
"Zahi Hawass, who chairs Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, told the BBC the law would apply in all countries."
That's pretty astounding arrogance right there. Since when do one country's laws apply anywhere outside their borders? Not to mention that they have no right to try to "copyright" stuff that was made 3000 years ago, by people long-since dead.
Simple. There's absolutely no point in getting worked up over things that happened a couple thousand years ago. What good does it do? Will it undo the bad things that happened in the past? No, of course not. Then why should people be all pissed off about it? They should endeavor to make sure it doesn't happen again, of course, but that would be true whether or not there was ever a first incident.
The Christmas traditions are what they are, and everyone is welcome to partake in different traditions if they wish to. Apparently, most people don't. Tell me, how long has it been since Christmas was primarily a pagan celebration? It certainly was at one point, but that point wasn't any time in recent history (to my knowledge). Christmas, as we celebrate it today, is undeniably there because of Christian history. Would we celebrate it if Christianity hadn't come about? Possibly, but not like we celebrate it today, in all likelihood.
Anyway, I think that this whole debate is overthinking the issue a bit. It's a holiday, celebrate it how/if you like. If you don't want to celebrate it, just ignore it... that's what I do with holidays I don't celebrate (pretty much everything except Christmas and Thanksgiving).
The thing is, this work wasn't under warranty. That's why it's an especially bad case, the Apple store was keeping a part they replaced during non-warranty work.
Actually, I wasn't aware Apple's practice was standard. I assumed that it was standard to give people their parts back if they wanted them, because that's what makes sense... hell, it's what I did back when I worked at a computer shop. If Apple's way is the standard way, then they all deserve to get punished for treating their customers like that... I simply had no idea that the industry made poor customer treatment a standard. *shrug*
I haven't worked on Minis at all, but the desktops didn't get good (imo) until the G5. The G5 PowerMac is a *dream* to service, I love it. G4s and G3s, on the other hand... pure crap. I once fought with a G4 PowerMac to get the optical drive out for 20 minutes, I kid you not. After that experience, I tried to avoid them as much as possible... and of course, servicing an iMac is something you'd only wish upon someone you really hate.
At least the G5 PowerMacs are good. I approve of those computers, even if I don't use them.
Don't hate velcro, man. Not everyone who wears velcro shoes does so from lack of knowledge how to tie shoes. I wear velcro shoes, for the sheer laziness factor. Velcro is the unintelligent man's shoe, yes, but also the lazy man's shoe.
Hmm... I never said "MAC IS TEH SUCK", I said that Apple isn't serving their customers well, and should be properly shamed for it. That isn't a statement about the quality of their products, you know. What was the term you used to apply to me? I feel like it could be applied to you for your lack of reading comprehension. Oh, yes, that's it... "idiot". What an idiot. You didn't read TFA, and didn't read my post, apparently. Hey, whatever. Your time is yours to waste on unintelligent discussion.
It wasn't warranty work. Furthermore, if you'd read TFA, you'd have noticed that they told him his drive wasn't his anymore AFTER they replaced it and he signed the paper.
In any case, Apple owes it to their customers to give them their drive back, if it isn't warranty work. If it is, and Apple really wants that drive back so bad, they owe it to their customers to offer the option (at a small cost, obviously, although bonus points if it's free) of a thorough data scrub. Anything less than this is ludicrous.
If there's sensitive information on the drive, you have every right to want it back (especially if it wasn't warranty work). Apple deserves the highest possible mark of shame for this disregard for the security of their customers' information, it's absolutely not permissible.
The total number of devices is irrelevant. Cell phones, routers, and other embedded devices are set up once, and then mass-produced, so someone is easily able to make painstaking efforts to ensure security. On servers, this is also true, to a much lesser extent. On the desktop, it's almost never true (you and I care about making sure our machines are secure, but we're the vast minority of desktop users). The desktop area is where people care the least, and so it's the most attacked. Windows' dominance is in the same area, so it actually does have to do with numbers.
I have always maintained that if Linux, Mac OS, or any other operating system were to gain the huge majority Windows currently has, that OS would be plagued with malware problems too. There are some depressingly stupid users out there, and there's no way to patch the end user. I know people who would be willing to give a web site the root password to their Linux box (well, if they had one), as long as the web site said that it was necessary for something.
I don't believe in moderation against people you disagree with, just because you disagree. That's a principle I uphold when I moderate and meta-moderate (I've upheld countless "Insightful" mods for opinions I thought were the stupidest opinion in the world).
There can be a fine line between just moderation and censorship, but that doesn't mean I think that down-modding shouldn't take place. Not all trolls are a link to goatse, and I wouldn't want to see people stop moderating them. I don't think there's any contradiction in my opinions at all, thank you very much.
If Hillary believes in censoring games, she doesn't get my vote. It has nothing to do with games, specifically, but NO censorship from the government is acceptable, and it violates free speech. So I say this has a great deal to do with personal freedom, as Hillary's stance on games shows she's willing to step on the First Amendment. The Republican candidate would have to be pretty damn bad before I'd not vote for him in hopes of Hillary losing.
If you listen to an audio CD produced by a person who signed a contract with a megacorp and they let them tell them how to make their music more "saleable", then you don't listen to music (expression), you listen to some sounds designed to make you feel happy. If that's what you want to listen to, then it's okay. But please call it sound, not music. This simply isn't true. Music is nothing more than arrangement of pitches. There's nothing inherently artistic about it. Music can be viewed artistically, of course, but music is not in itself artistic. There's no reason (apart from your bias) that music should be called something else if it lacks artistic value (according to your definition, which, I might add, isn't the only one possible).
Yes, true, and they still pay for music now. However, it isn't true (at least not absolutely true, as the AC was making it out to be) to say that if you can't get the music for free, you'll buy it. Some will, but some won't. In fact, I'd put my money on most people not buying music that they can't get for free, but that's debateable.
Anyway, it's not absolutely true that people will buy that which they can't get for free, thus the AC was deliberately lying (or stupid, take your pick), thus trolling. Thus, your original indignation was kinda pointless.
Uh... it's a pretty obvious troll, given away by saying "if you couldn't get it for free, you'd be paying for it". We all know that isn't true for nearly all cases, although it may be true for some.
As Portal is available as a stand-alone game (that's how I bought it), and was mentioned by itself, not as part of the Orange Box, its length is a factor, imho (and Portal is a rip-off even at $20). But I guess you're free to look at it that way, it's not entirely invalid. I just disagree.
Uh... if you're going to take issue with one of my selections, you should say which game you have an issue with. I'm going to assume you're talking Halo 3.
I don't think Halo 3 is unacceptably short, and I don't even play multiplayer (I never did like Halo's multiplayer). I bought the game exclusively for the single-player, and was not disappointed, not in the least. Length is not an issue for me, at least not with this game.
Yeah, that's what we judge based on, or should. Portal isn't a sandbox game where exploration is an intrinsic part of the game, so exploration can't really be counted. Bonus missions, by the definition of "bonus", are not part of the main game, and so should not be considered in its length. I agree with the AC, Portal is criminally short (although I'd put it at 2-3 hours, not 1.5, for an initial play-through).
Slashdot Mirror
Uh... I have yet to play the FPS which was more than ~10-12 hours long (some are longer, some shorter, but it seems to fall in that range most of the time). 8 hours isn't a whole lot shorter than that. I've NEVER seen an FPS which has 30-40 hours of gameplay.
But all in all, Pojut is 100% right. If you're going to bash a game for no reason, bash a game that isn't 4 months old. Hell, there are far more worthy targets out there if you're going to sit and unjustly bash old games. Bioshock (an excellent game, I might add) didn't live up to 1/4 of the hype heaped upon it (no game could have), so from a certain perspective, it's by far the most disappointing game of the year. Why don't you pick on that one while you're at it? I'll tell you why, because you're another idiotic anti-Halo fanboy. I've seen very reasonable arguments put forth as to why Halo isn't good, but yours isn't one of them.
It's a bit rich to call anyone who uses IE stupid, considering calling IE not a real browser is pretty stupid in itself. IE7 works beautifully, thank you very much. Bully for you if you want to use Firefox (or any other browser), but that doesn't mean you should come in here insulting IE users.
Also, always good to see another Vista user. Now I'll have someone to get my back when I defend Vista against haters. ;)
I thought the reason that you couldn't take pictures had nothing to do with copyright, and everything to do with flash harming the works of art (flash can be turned off, but better to prohibit photography altogether than deal with people who can't figure that out, I imagine).
That's pretty astounding arrogance right there. Since when do one country's laws apply anywhere outside their borders? Not to mention that they have no right to try to "copyright" stuff that was made 3000 years ago, by people long-since dead.
The Christmas traditions are what they are, and everyone is welcome to partake in different traditions if they wish to. Apparently, most people don't. Tell me, how long has it been since Christmas was primarily a pagan celebration? It certainly was at one point, but that point wasn't any time in recent history (to my knowledge). Christmas, as we celebrate it today, is undeniably there because of Christian history. Would we celebrate it if Christianity hadn't come about? Possibly, but not like we celebrate it today, in all likelihood.
Anyway, I think that this whole debate is overthinking the issue a bit. It's a holiday, celebrate it how/if you like. If you don't want to celebrate it, just ignore it... that's what I do with holidays I don't celebrate (pretty much everything except Christmas and Thanksgiving).
The thing is, this work wasn't under warranty. That's why it's an especially bad case, the Apple store was keeping a part they replaced during non-warranty work.
Very true, but that doesn't, in my opinion, negate the consumer's right to have their drive back if they so choose.
Actually, I wasn't aware Apple's practice was standard. I assumed that it was standard to give people their parts back if they wanted them, because that's what makes sense... hell, it's what I did back when I worked at a computer shop. If Apple's way is the standard way, then they all deserve to get punished for treating their customers like that... I simply had no idea that the industry made poor customer treatment a standard. *shrug*
At least the G5 PowerMacs are good. I approve of those computers, even if I don't use them.
Don't hate velcro, man. Not everyone who wears velcro shoes does so from lack of knowledge how to tie shoes. I wear velcro shoes, for the sheer laziness factor. Velcro is the unintelligent man's shoe, yes, but also the lazy man's shoe.
Hmm... I never said "MAC IS TEH SUCK", I said that Apple isn't serving their customers well, and should be properly shamed for it. That isn't a statement about the quality of their products, you know. What was the term you used to apply to me? I feel like it could be applied to you for your lack of reading comprehension. Oh, yes, that's it... "idiot". What an idiot. You didn't read TFA, and didn't read my post, apparently. Hey, whatever. Your time is yours to waste on unintelligent discussion.
In any case, Apple owes it to their customers to give them their drive back, if it isn't warranty work. If it is, and Apple really wants that drive back so bad, they owe it to their customers to offer the option (at a small cost, obviously, although bonus points if it's free) of a thorough data scrub. Anything less than this is ludicrous.
If there's sensitive information on the drive, you have every right to want it back (especially if it wasn't warranty work). Apple deserves the highest possible mark of shame for this disregard for the security of their customers' information, it's absolutely not permissible.
Nah, it would still be a "series of tubes", since one could say that, in a sense, telescopes are tubes. ;)
I have always maintained that if Linux, Mac OS, or any other operating system were to gain the huge majority Windows currently has, that OS would be plagued with malware problems too. There are some depressingly stupid users out there, and there's no way to patch the end user. I know people who would be willing to give a web site the root password to their Linux box (well, if they had one), as long as the web site said that it was necessary for something.
There can be a fine line between just moderation and censorship, but that doesn't mean I think that down-modding shouldn't take place. Not all trolls are a link to goatse, and I wouldn't want to see people stop moderating them. I don't think there's any contradiction in my opinions at all, thank you very much.
If Hillary believes in censoring games, she doesn't get my vote. It has nothing to do with games, specifically, but NO censorship from the government is acceptable, and it violates free speech. So I say this has a great deal to do with personal freedom, as Hillary's stance on games shows she's willing to step on the First Amendment. The Republican candidate would have to be pretty damn bad before I'd not vote for him in hopes of Hillary losing.
Anyway, it's not absolutely true that people will buy that which they can't get for free, thus the AC was deliberately lying (or stupid, take your pick), thus trolling. Thus, your original indignation was kinda pointless.
Uh... it's a pretty obvious troll, given away by saying "if you couldn't get it for free, you'd be paying for it". We all know that isn't true for nearly all cases, although it may be true for some.
As Portal is available as a stand-alone game (that's how I bought it), and was mentioned by itself, not as part of the Orange Box, its length is a factor, imho (and Portal is a rip-off even at $20). But I guess you're free to look at it that way, it's not entirely invalid. I just disagree.
I don't think Halo 3 is unacceptably short, and I don't even play multiplayer (I never did like Halo's multiplayer). I bought the game exclusively for the single-player, and was not disappointed, not in the least. Length is not an issue for me, at least not with this game.
Yeah, that's what we judge based on, or should. Portal isn't a sandbox game where exploration is an intrinsic part of the game, so exploration can't really be counted. Bonus missions, by the definition of "bonus", are not part of the main game, and so should not be considered in its length. I agree with the AC, Portal is criminally short (although I'd put it at 2-3 hours, not 1.5, for an initial play-through).