For evidence, look at HL2: almost no cut-scenes at all. And yet I still maintain that, in spite of the fact that this is hyped so much, it's a horrible thing. HL and HL2 have awful storytelling compared to other games because of their idiotic insistence of not using cut scenes. Cut scenes are the most immersive, dramatic way to tell a story, and it's for those damn good reasons that games still use them.
1. Are you an American? If so, fine. If not, let me explain something to you. Watching thousands of people die in a terrorist attack is certainly horrifying whoever you are. But when it's your own country attacked, and your own countrymen dying, it's different in a way that would have been impossible for me to articulate before 9/11. You only really understand when it happens to you. I don't mean to sound patronizing about this -- I didn't understand it either, before 9/11. Very few Americans did. Of course, I knew all about Pearl Harbor, for example; but I suddenly realized how Americans of the time *felt* when they saw those newsreels and heard the radio broadcasts. That's our "perspective." Actually, I am an American, and I was 16 (certainly old enough to understand what happened and its full impact) at the time of the 9/11 attacks. There was no emotional resonance for me whatsoever, and I think that people who did get all teary-eyed about it should probably try to keep things a bit more in perspective. Aside from the clumsy efforts our government has put forth as an answer to the attacks (or used the attacks as an excuse for, if you're of that mind), 9/11 has had no impact on me whatsoever. I think it was thoroughly overhyped by the media, and, in fact, all concerned. The fact that there was nothing on TV besides that coverage for a full 24, maybe 48 hours was nothing short of ridiculous.
Maybe people will think I'm trolling, but that's honestly not my intent here. I really think that the so-called emotional impact of that event was due to people choosing to let it impact them, not because it had any real meaning in itself.
Fanboy vision. The only difference between the two versions is achievements, which, I'm sorry, does not make a game better. If they're your thing, fine, but they have no bearing on the quality of the game, for better or for worse.
I also tend to dispute in general that the 360 has compelling exclusives. They have Halo 3, Forza 2, and DoA 4. I can't think of any other game which is exclusive to the 360 that's actually a really good, gotta-play game in its genre. I think the "PS3 doesn't have good games, 360 does" myth is pure bullshit.
Well, as far as I understand it, the 8800 GTS is third-best, behind the GTX, and GTX Ultra. I realize that the GTS is probably theoretically supposed to be more powerful than the GT.
And Will Wright is also full of crap. He may be a respected game designer (and Lord knows, I don't know why, SimCity is the only good thing he ever made), but he isn't the final authority on what does or doesn't make things "next-gen". That's up to, if anyone, the masses to decide. The masses seem to have decided that next-gen means better graphics, so that's the definition that we should go with.
And while I respect your opinion that the Wii is so much better, I definitely disagree. I have all three next-gen consoles, and a high-end PC, and the Wii doesn't provide a better experience than the other three (note: not worse, either). The only game that uses the Wiimote well that I have is Wii Sports, in every other game it's just a gimmick, which doesn't bring anything to the game that a regular controller wouldn't. Maybe when developers utilize the Wiimote well, we'll have something better. For now, we have a console with games which play slightly differently, but are essentially the same games as before. The control differences in the Wii, compared to other platforms, are more miniscule than people say the graphics differences between the Xbox and the Xbox 360 are. It simply isn't more fun, it's equally fun.
I love my Wii, I'm very glad I have one, but it's overhyped to death. Its potential doesn't mean a damn thing, because no one has used it well since Wii Sports.
Why the hell wouldn't you still play War3? There hasn't been another strategy game like it (that I'm aware of). Maybe people will quit War3 for SC2 (although probably not), but those who like the gameplay in War3 don't have anything to lure them away.
Well, the GTS isn't the "best", so that wouldn't be a consideration. There is another reason though. I already have an 8800 GTS, so if I want to ever go SLI, I'll be getting another of the same card I have already. Not that I wouldn't like to get a GT for cheaper, but a second GTS would still be cheaper than two GTs.
Uh, yes. Duh. Very simple, very possible explanation right off the top of my head: he could just not use Linux. This may be a shocking concept to someone immersed in the Linux world, but those of us who don't use it (me, for one) simply don't give a damn about what is or isn't available for it. If, then, you're given bad information, you have almost no incentive to go verify it, and will be misinformed. You make it sound like someone who's knowledgeable in one computing-related area automatically is, or even wants to, be knowledgeable at all about something else just because it's also computing-related. This is not, in fact, necessarily true.
Apple has no reason to hire astroturfers, so that suggestion is ludicrous as well. Why the hell would Apple hire astroturfers when they have fanboys (it's ok, Apple fans, I'm not accusing all of you, just some) as insanely rabid as they do? Apple zealots put all other zealots to shame.
It's ok, it was worth it. Someone has to call them out, and if I have to burn karma to do it, so be it. Downmodding because you disagree is cowardly, and hurts all of us by encouraging minority viewpoints not to speak up. I realistically can't hope to change these people's poor behavior by chastising them, but it does feel good to vent, so meh.
He's not misinformed You have no proof of that. Hell, proof aside, you can't even begin to know that. You're guessing at the intent of someone who you probably have never even met before, there's no way to tell.
...and there's no -1 Astroturf option, so Troll's the next best choice. You know, far too many posters on slashdot are so quick to cry astroturfing. Think about that accusation for half a second. If he's an astroturfer, he's pretty poor at it. He has bad things to say about Microsoft, and even suggests that Apple might be a good alternative. The man says, "Well, Microsoft is bad, sure, but Linux isn't necessarily the best choice," and you cry astroturf? That's the most laughable astroturfing claim I've ever heard. I hope that Microsoft would have more sense than to hire undercover PR guys who would bash their business practices, and promote their competition.
So basically, your "logic" is that anyone that expresses a reservation about Linux must be getting paid to do so. Glad to know that level-headedness still prevails on teh intarwebz.
You obviously agree with him Actually, I neither agree nor disagree. I just don't want to see someone called a troll just for apparent disagreement. I don't know the state of Linux apps as it pertains to school use, nor, as I don't run a school's IT department, am I inclined to find out. The point is, at worst, this guy is misinformed, not a troll.
That's not true at all. There are people (generally speaking) who learn by figuring things out for themselves, and there are people who learn by memorizing procedures. Those who figure things out for themselves will have no trouble going from Windows to any other OS, especially not another Windows OS. Those who memorize procedures will be just as confused going from Linux to anything else as they would be going from Windows to Linux. The weak link here is the people, it has nothing to do with the environment they use.
Not true. Even assuming Vista will be a complete flop for the company (a big assmption, my bet is that eventually people will shut up about it), it's not like they don't have the margin of error to absorb that. They made ME, which is pretty much the most universally hated OS ever, and are still going strong. A failure of Vista by no means will mean any sort of failure for Microsoft as a whole.
But Valve didn't do nothing wrong. They turned off the games of customers who had legal, paid-for versions of their game. These people bought the game, it worked, and then Valve retroactively turned off the game which they had already paid for. If the copies were misrepresented, sure, the buyers have a beef with the middlemen, but they also have a valid complaint with Valve, who is crooked enough to deny them the game that they paid for. That's wrong, and the fact that Valve did so after the fact makes it also tantamount to stealing from them. Valve's suggestion, furthermore, that they go out and buy US copies of the game, is laughable.
Valve is whining about the fact that someone imported goods, then punishing them for it, then having the audacity to tell them that they should give Valve MORE money. I could have some sympathy for Valve if they were offering to reimburse customers for the cost of the already paid-for game, and saying that if they want to play Orange Box, they need to get a US copy, but taking the game away and giving nothing is completely asinine, and crooked.
But nooooo, you are going to copy the game and play it anyway. That makes you a hypocrite. I didn't necessarily say play. I don't like the vast majority of their games (HL, ugh), I just want to hurt a company in any way I can. Since the best way to hurt them I can think of is to copy their games, whether I play it or not, that's what I'm doing. I quite honestly fail to see what's so hypocritical about this. I believe in buying games/software/music/movies I like, to support the developer. I legally own most of my stuff. But when a company treats their customers like Valve has, the gloves come off, and it's time to try to hurt, rather than help, them.
No. The deal finders mistook a lower valued version for a higher valued version. Or perhaps the deal finders were scammed by middlemen who misrepresented the products. These deal finders now understand the phrase "a deal that is too good to be true". When you engage in such deals you should not be surprised to find that you have bought stolen or counterfeit goods. Yes, counterfeit. If the locked Russian/Thai version was sold to US/EU customers then it is counterfeit, a misrepresentation, much like a 2.4 GHz CPU that is remarked as a 3.0 GHz CPU. No. Valve is screwing over paying customers, plain and simple. They may not like it that people are buying from another market, but that's tough shit. I agree with what the other poster said, if they didn't want it to cross national borders, just make the local copies only in that language. If the servers (for TF2) are segregated by languages (say, like WoW does for their different markets), certainly it shouldn't play on the US servers. But not letting people play the game that they paid for is completely asinine, even if it goes against the intent Valve had. I guess they should do a better job of making sure that the games aren't appealing to people in other countries if they don't want those people to buy it.
I was a reasonably happy Valve customer. I had some misgivings about Steam, but nonetheless, I own copies of CS:S and Portal, and enjoy the hell out of both of them. Now, though, I swear before every deity and authority figure in existence that Valve isn't going to get another cent out of me, because of how they've chosen to treat customers. In fact, I intend to do my best to pirate all their games from now on out of spite. Valve deserves to crash and burn spectacularly.
No, "illegally downloading music" would be correct, as would "illegal downloading of music". Illegally would modify downloading, but "of music" is not something you can download, thus "illegally downloading of music" is pretty hellaciously incorrect.
I am, indeed, a guitarist, although quite amateur and unpracticed (I unfortunately haven't played my Strat in 3 or 4 years, although I should get back to it). The name is actually an old one that I reused (I'll let you guess when it's from;)).
That aside, I learned to cope with the lack of hammerons/pull-offs in GH1 by strumming all the time. In GH2, the solos are too blistering for me to be able to finger. Example: the beginning of the solo in Free Bird, where you get a pattern of B-Y-R-Y, repeating for quite a while. I can't play that. My fingers just can't move quickly and accurately enough (Can you tell I was never a great guitarist? I could do it if it was two alternating notes, but my motor skills aren't up to snuff for this one), so I fail out very quickly after that part. And the solos in GH2 tend to be longer, for that matter. Maybe I just didn't have a lot of patience for it (I got good at GH1 when I was jobless, so I literally spent all day playing GH, which was not the case when GH2 came out), but GH2 feels incredibly hard to me compared to GH1.
It isn't my job to defend a non claim. If you are, as many people have already pointed out in this discussion already, merely rejecting evidence, then you're communicating poorly. Using a term which already has meaning, and adding another meaning to it, does not mean (no pun intended) that people should automatically infer your added meaning. In fact, it should be no surprise to you that people do not make such an inference. Interpreting "There is no God" to mean a claim for the non-existence of God is the simplest, most rational thing to do. (To all my fellow atheists who are of the opinion that there's no evidence to believe in God: I would suggest something sensible, like "I don't believe in God", and expounding upon it if asked, rather than the common practice.)
If that's not the case, then the burden of proof is certainly on you, much as the burden of proof is on anyone who says "There is a God". Unless you wish to admit that such a claim is a belief, not fact, the burden of proof is on you when you make the claim.
So you're communicating badly, or dodging the burden of proof. Either way, you seem wrong to me.
It's not science at all. Sure, science provides us with a definition of alive, but that isn't what matters. Not to sound like a Star Trek plot, but we're after a definition for the purposes of ethics. If, for example, one were to change scientific definitions such that someone with a genetic defect was not considered human, ethically, we would still consider that person a human, and treat them as such. For the purposes of determining whether or not aborting a pregnancy is killing a human being, science doesn't really apply, just as it wouldn't apply in the scenario I just mentioned.
Science is concerned with establishing a system of facts, and not how we should treat situations, so science has limited to no value in a debate of morals.
I play Guitar Hero to play songs I actually enjoy listening to. I am not about to play a song I hate, no matter how challenging or fun it is to play. Not to mention that in Guitar Hero 2, I feel that the harder songs aren't even fun to play due to being so hard (I have no aversion to hard, I cleared GH1 on expert after all, but GH2 is too damn hard for my taste).
Disagree. Guitar Hero 2 has the worst set of all the games by a long shot, in my book. Too much damn metal, I can't stand playing about half the songs in that game. GH3 may or may not be a lot better, but at least GH1 and GH 80s had more than 50% tolerable songs.
I think you've spent too much time in Catholic school. I spent no time in Catholic, or Christian for that matter, school. I do probably spend too much time reading the news. One doesn't have to be of a certain ideological stance to have lack of faith in their fellow man.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe people will think I'm trolling, but that's honestly not my intent here. I really think that the so-called emotional impact of that event was due to people choosing to let it impact them, not because it had any real meaning in itself.
I also tend to dispute in general that the 360 has compelling exclusives. They have Halo 3, Forza 2, and DoA 4. I can't think of any other game which is exclusive to the 360 that's actually a really good, gotta-play game in its genre. I think the "PS3 doesn't have good games, 360 does" myth is pure bullshit.
Well, as far as I understand it, the 8800 GTS is third-best, behind the GTX, and GTX Ultra. I realize that the GTS is probably theoretically supposed to be more powerful than the GT.
And while I respect your opinion that the Wii is so much better, I definitely disagree. I have all three next-gen consoles, and a high-end PC, and the Wii doesn't provide a better experience than the other three (note: not worse, either). The only game that uses the Wiimote well that I have is Wii Sports, in every other game it's just a gimmick, which doesn't bring anything to the game that a regular controller wouldn't. Maybe when developers utilize the Wiimote well, we'll have something better. For now, we have a console with games which play slightly differently, but are essentially the same games as before. The control differences in the Wii, compared to other platforms, are more miniscule than people say the graphics differences between the Xbox and the Xbox 360 are. It simply isn't more fun, it's equally fun.
I love my Wii, I'm very glad I have one, but it's overhyped to death. Its potential doesn't mean a damn thing, because no one has used it well since Wii Sports.
Why the hell wouldn't you still play War3? There hasn't been another strategy game like it (that I'm aware of). Maybe people will quit War3 for SC2 (although probably not), but those who like the gameplay in War3 don't have anything to lure them away.
Well, the GTS isn't the "best", so that wouldn't be a consideration. There is another reason though. I already have an 8800 GTS, so if I want to ever go SLI, I'll be getting another of the same card I have already. Not that I wouldn't like to get a GT for cheaper, but a second GTS would still be cheaper than two GTs.
Uh, yes. Duh. Very simple, very possible explanation right off the top of my head: he could just not use Linux. This may be a shocking concept to someone immersed in the Linux world, but those of us who don't use it (me, for one) simply don't give a damn about what is or isn't available for it. If, then, you're given bad information, you have almost no incentive to go verify it, and will be misinformed. You make it sound like someone who's knowledgeable in one computing-related area automatically is, or even wants to, be knowledgeable at all about something else just because it's also computing-related. This is not, in fact, necessarily true.
Apple has no reason to hire astroturfers, so that suggestion is ludicrous as well. Why the hell would Apple hire astroturfers when they have fanboys (it's ok, Apple fans, I'm not accusing all of you, just some) as insanely rabid as they do? Apple zealots put all other zealots to shame.
It's ok, it was worth it. Someone has to call them out, and if I have to burn karma to do it, so be it. Downmodding because you disagree is cowardly, and hurts all of us by encouraging minority viewpoints not to speak up. I realistically can't hope to change these people's poor behavior by chastising them, but it does feel good to vent, so meh.
...and there's no -1 Astroturf option, so Troll's the next best choice. You know, far too many posters on slashdot are so quick to cry astroturfing. Think about that accusation for half a second. If he's an astroturfer, he's pretty poor at it. He has bad things to say about Microsoft, and even suggests that Apple might be a good alternative. The man says, "Well, Microsoft is bad, sure, but Linux isn't necessarily the best choice," and you cry astroturf? That's the most laughable astroturfing claim I've ever heard. I hope that Microsoft would have more sense than to hire undercover PR guys who would bash their business practices, and promote their competition.So basically, your "logic" is that anyone that expresses a reservation about Linux must be getting paid to do so. Glad to know that level-headedness still prevails on teh intarwebz.
That's not true at all. There are people (generally speaking) who learn by figuring things out for themselves, and there are people who learn by memorizing procedures. Those who figure things out for themselves will have no trouble going from Windows to any other OS, especially not another Windows OS. Those who memorize procedures will be just as confused going from Linux to anything else as they would be going from Windows to Linux. The weak link here is the people, it has nothing to do with the environment they use.
Not true. Even assuming Vista will be a complete flop for the company (a big assmption, my bet is that eventually people will shut up about it), it's not like they don't have the margin of error to absorb that. They made ME, which is pretty much the most universally hated OS ever, and are still going strong. A failure of Vista by no means will mean any sort of failure for Microsoft as a whole.
Valve is whining about the fact that someone imported goods, then punishing them for it, then having the audacity to tell them that they should give Valve MORE money. I could have some sympathy for Valve if they were offering to reimburse customers for the cost of the already paid-for game, and saying that if they want to play Orange Box, they need to get a US copy, but taking the game away and giving nothing is completely asinine, and crooked.
I was a reasonably happy Valve customer. I had some misgivings about Steam, but nonetheless, I own copies of CS:S and Portal, and enjoy the hell out of both of them. Now, though, I swear before every deity and authority figure in existence that Valve isn't going to get another cent out of me, because of how they've chosen to treat customers. In fact, I intend to do my best to pirate all their games from now on out of spite. Valve deserves to crash and burn spectacularly.
No, "illegally downloading music" would be correct, as would "illegal downloading of music". Illegally would modify downloading, but "of music" is not something you can download, thus "illegally downloading of music" is pretty hellaciously incorrect.
That aside, I learned to cope with the lack of hammerons/pull-offs in GH1 by strumming all the time. In GH2, the solos are too blistering for me to be able to finger. Example: the beginning of the solo in Free Bird, where you get a pattern of B-Y-R-Y, repeating for quite a while. I can't play that. My fingers just can't move quickly and accurately enough (Can you tell I was never a great guitarist? I could do it if it was two alternating notes, but my motor skills aren't up to snuff for this one), so I fail out very quickly after that part. And the solos in GH2 tend to be longer, for that matter. Maybe I just didn't have a lot of patience for it (I got good at GH1 when I was jobless, so I literally spent all day playing GH, which was not the case when GH2 came out), but GH2 feels incredibly hard to me compared to GH1.
If that's not the case, then the burden of proof is certainly on you, much as the burden of proof is on anyone who says "There is a God". Unless you wish to admit that such a claim is a belief, not fact, the burden of proof is on you when you make the claim.
So you're communicating badly, or dodging the burden of proof. Either way, you seem wrong to me.
Science is concerned with establishing a system of facts, and not how we should treat situations, so science has limited to no value in a debate of morals.
I play Guitar Hero to play songs I actually enjoy listening to. I am not about to play a song I hate, no matter how challenging or fun it is to play. Not to mention that in Guitar Hero 2, I feel that the harder songs aren't even fun to play due to being so hard (I have no aversion to hard, I cleared GH1 on expert after all, but GH2 is too damn hard for my taste).
Disagree. Guitar Hero 2 has the worst set of all the games by a long shot, in my book. Too much damn metal, I can't stand playing about half the songs in that game. GH3 may or may not be a lot better, but at least GH1 and GH 80s had more than 50% tolerable songs.