Er... ok. You confused me by extolling the virtues of PBS, but I suppose you could watch on a friend's TV. The point is, even if you don't like something, but a lot of people do, you'll really piss them off by taking it away just because you don't like it.
Ah, you are mistaken. You checked if she was in her right mind (is she watching the Game Show Channel?), and she was found to not be in her right mind (wtf, she is watching it!).;)
You know, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it should go away. I consider absolutely nothing on TV to be quality entertainment. The shows I like, I own on DVD (Futurama, TNG, DS9, etc). Once Voyager stopped producing new episodes, my interest in TV ceased--but you'd probably be pretty irritated if all TV went away just because I don't care for it.
Mandating operating system *is* an arbitrary term (regardless of their excuse) It really isn't. They don't have monitoring software, except on Windows, so he uses Windows. That's not arbitrary at all, that's merely a necessary consequence of the tools they have available. I'm glad they're making him use Windows, too, because I'd rather not have my tax dollars wasted on development of new ones just so criminals don't have to use an OS they don't like.
Please. I read TFA, and there's no indication in it that using Linux is critical to his work. There really seems to be nothing interfering with his livelihood here. As so many others have said, if he doesn't like Windows, tough. He broke the law. This is much more lenient than the alternatives (no computer at all, time in prison), and it's not like Windows is some horrible disease which will kill him from a few months' exposure. Hell, it's not even that expensive (which is where the car analogy fails: buying a new car is extremely expensive, buying a new OS is not).
a) I was merely trying to address your specific problem when I said it wasn't a horsepower issue. I was just saying that you have enough juice, except maybe for graphics, so it must be something else, if you wish to try to figure it out.
b) If the computer was released with inadequate hardware for the task, that's pretty solidly the OEM's fault. If they think the OS demands too much, hardware-wise, then they should release the computer with XP!
c) UAC is pretty bad, yeah. Just disable it, man. I know that the average user won't know to do this, but getting people we know to disable UAC goes a long way toward making the system better.
The system "hourglass" randomly pops up (a lot) and spins when there are no windows open or apps running. Again, this has to be something having to do with the way your system is set up. Mine doesn't do that, so it can't be Vista itself. Beyond that, I wouldn't begin to guess.
Well... I always understood that the reason it was so impressive that the Kessel Run was done in under 12 parsecs was because Han went through the Maw, a black hole cluster, to do it. That still doesn't explain what bearing this has on the speed of the Falcon, but if that's what Lucas meant (and not just expanded universe writers covering for him), he got it... right-ish.
how is it not a horsepower issue? Because my computer is comparable to yours in power (I have a really nice graphics card, but that issue could be bypassed if Aero was turned off, if that is indeed what's giving you trouble), and Vista runs smooth as silk. Thus, logic dictates that it must not be a horsepower issue, but something else.
After deleting various attempts at response to this, I realised it's pure flame bait for SS2 fans Bull. Just because he's saying the game looks overrated doesn't make it flamebait. He played the demo, and didn't like it. That's his right, don't call him out for something he didn't do. I can't wait to get my hands on the demo to try it, but even *I*, without having played it at all, think the potential is really high for the game to be overrated. I find it extremely hard to believe that the game can be as revolutionary and amazing as it's being made out to be (even if it does turn out to be a truly great game, it'll still fall short of what people are saying about it).
And Bioshock is actually very different from SS2. Art direction is completely caricatured (and consistently too, so not just some things look odd, *everything* is off kilter in a creepy way). The interface is simplified somewhat (detrimentally in my opinion - but I am a SS2 fan). The "magic" system (the best way to explain it) is much more useful (in SS2 it was an effort to use it, was an either-or choice in many cases - in Bioshock it is more deeply integrated). That really does sound like "SS2 with a new coat of paint to me". I didn't play SS1 or SS2, but a different art direction, and some refinement of game mechanics, does not make it very different.
It boils down to, Bioshock is not going to satisfy everyone. System Shock 2 was a great game, but a great many people completely failed to see it (or appreciate it). Those same people will probably miss out on full appreciation of Bioshock (and the hype is probably the only thing that will get them to *try* it before bagging it because of its lack of Multiplayer). Because we all know games without Multiplayer *must* be bad. There's some flamebait right there... assuming that anyone who doesn't like Bioshock either doesn't "get it", or will overlook it for being single-player only. Not to mention that unlike the GP, you actually called other games "gay", which is a pretty big red flag for trolling, as a rule of thumb.
You're obviously really excited for Bioshock, and that's cool... but it probably is overrated. The odds are hugely against it being the best game ever, or any of the other things it's been lauded as. That doesn't mean it's bad, just that the hype is too large.
Also, I just now (yes, a long time later...) noticed your title. You seem to have misunderstood me. I do NOT think Vista hate is just hype-driven. I think that there must be a certain portion of the hate which is hype-driven, and was musing about how big or small that portion might be. I'm not so naive as to say "HAY LOL U GUYS R ALL LYING ABOUT UR PROBLEMS WIT VISTA", and chalk all the hate up to hype.
There's something else wrong with your computer, then. Maybe a lack of a video card, and you have Aero on? Maybe a driver issue, who knows. I know that my computer is an Athlon 64 X2 4400, with 2 gigs of ram (roughly equivalent to what you just said), and Vista runs smooth as butter... so you're not running up against a horsepower issue.
While I agree that WoW lacks state and consequences, the same is essentially true of any RPG, to an extent. If you don't show up to a gaming session, the city might go boom, true. But if no one shows up except for the GM, nothing will happen. So there's still a lack of state and consequence, just to a lesser extent.
Of course, I do admit that what you say is a huge drawback in WoW, and other MMORPGs. It's a necessary evil, or else no one new would be able to play the game properly, but an evil nonetheless. What MMORPGs really need is to implement the world so that it appears differently to different people, depending on what you have and haven't done in the world. That might not be feasible, though, especially once there are a ton of players running around. Who knows, it might happen. If it does, that MMORPG will probably also be the best thing ever.
I'd consider it more sad that you feel the need to be a role playing elitist. What purpose does it serve? I'm not going to be able to convert anyone to seeing things the way I do, I'm just trying to get people to understand that a) the way they see things isn't the only way, and b) just because they don't see (quality x) in a game, doesn't mean it's not there for others.
Hopefully one day you (and others) stop being elitist, the world will be better for the rest of us then. Your way isn't the only correct way, dude.
Sorry dude, but I consider Warcraft lore (not just that in WoW, but across the Warcraft games in general) to be up there with LOTR.
And if people like something, then it isn't bad. Be elitist about it all you want. Something is only truly bad if no one likes it. There really is no clear delineation between "good" and "bad" like you claim, only what we like or don't like.
it's not Wizards that is dying off, it's the true roleplaying style of gaming. The "true roleplaying style of gaming" is only what you make it. What is dying, if anything, is YOUR definition of that concept. I'm sorry, but there is no one true path for a game to be an RPG.
How on earth are you supposed to roleplay killing the same raid bosses week after week? a) No one makes you do that.
b) You could also just ignore it, and accept that the game mechanics make things a little weird in that respect.
The only thing that changes in the game is that you may get better loot so you can move on to a new loot pinata. That is regrettable. I heard that LOTRO was going to do it properly, showing the world differently to players depending on what point in the story they had reached. That was VERY early in its development, though, so I don't know if that actually made it into the finished game. It'd be nice if games did that.
MMOs aren't really RPGs. It's so easy to be an elitist about what is and isn't an RPG. Look, I'll do it too: D&D isn't really an RPG, because it doesn't come with a story! It's just a ruleset for RPGs!
MMOs present you with a story (well, some do) which you are a character in, as well as character advancement through levelling and earning gear. That pretty much covers the checklist for RPGs, in my opinion.
Sounds like you didn't have a very good DM. Or, he had a DM who played the game that way, and that was the way they (the DM and the players) liked playing it. If that was the case, he/she was a great DM, not a poor one. A good DM is one who runs the game the way everyone wants to play it, not one who runs a roleplaying-heavy campaign, or a hack-and-slash campaign, or anything in between.
How is one of the most cliche fantasy ideas something that can capture the minds and hearts of the players? Simple... you're defending your people from attack. The enemy isn't very grand (at least not yet), but defending my people from those who wish to use and exploit them certainly captures my mind and heart. Later on, the Defias get even more nasty, and have a spy organization which succeeds in capturing the king. They're not just generic bandits, and they're one of the early villians. Later on, you fight demons who are trying to destroy the entire world you know and love--if that can't capture your imagination, I don't know what will, but meh.
Anyways, it's pretty asinine to say "some people love bad storylines and generic characters". That's going to vary from person to person. What you call bad storylines and generic characters, I call some of the best fantasy storytelling I've ever seen. If you don't like WoW's lore, that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that. You need to step away, however, from this idea that there IS no lore that anyone could possibly like, and that the grind is all there is to the game. If someone likes the lore that you dislike, that doesn't mean they "love bad storylines and generic characters", that means they don't see them as bad or generic. Again, the fact that you haven't found fulfillment in an MMO doesn't mean that it isn't there to be found for some... saying that people who like WoW are people who love "bad storylines", "generic characters", "level grinding", and "farming bosses" comes off as pretty elitist, to be perfectly honest.
Or, as offensive as this will be to the roleplaying purists out there, roleplaying in D&D just. Isn't. Fun. Combat in D&D is amazingly fun, I love that part. Sitting and trying to squeeze information out of, or bribe, etc etc etc, an npc is fucking boring. Roleplaying in WoW is fun because it's not heavy-handed like it is in D&D... if I want to really get into my character (which I don't all the time), it doesn't change my interaction with the world. I may swell with pride as my Draenei paladin runs around healing his fellow crash survivors, and really get into it, but in the end, the game is still the same fun game I know. The game doesn't go from "fun mode" to "boring mode" like D&D does, just because I want to roleplay a little.
Also, if you think WoW is just about 30 pieces of boar meat, you need to take a good, hard look at the game. Even early on, you get tasked with missions that are engaging (the zone of Westfall is a good example: you go there because the farmers are having trouble with bandits, slowly uncover the extent of their organization, and then, finally, travel to their hideout, and take down their leader, ending the threat once and for all). Later, it gets even better. The very fact that all this is there, if you wish to see it, indicates that the game isn't just about grinding and collecting widgets, like you accuse it. That's certainly a component of the game, because it's the easiest way to pace the game, but that's not what the game is all about. If you can't look past that, YOU aren't playing the game how it was designed and intended to be played, not anyone else. WoW has an extremely rich world, and quality story-telling... if you're willing to take notice of it.
On the other hand, even the best D&D setting, Forgotten Realms, pales in comparison to WoW. In terms of world design alone, WoW engages the imagination more.
The fact of the matter is, you're seeing what you want to see in WoW, not what's actually there. The game really is designed to encourage roleplaying and imagination, IF you wish to engage in those things. If you're content to passively take in the game, and grind out boar after boar, then it won't be very interesting... but that isn't the designers' fault. D&D, on the other hand, isn't designed to encourage anything, really, it's impossible for it to do so. If anything, the game's design encourages doing nothing but hack your way through it. The game is just a set of combat rules, it's up to you to create a world and a story around them. Many people can and do just that, but it's not because the game's design especially encourages it--the game's design just leaves it open for you to do so.
Nonsense. I've played WoW and D&D, and I roleplay more, and use my imagination more, in WoW. I have more fun roleplaying when I do roleplay, too. Just because your experience wasn't that way, doesn't mean it isn't possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Er... ok. You confused me by extolling the virtues of PBS, but I suppose you could watch on a friend's TV. The point is, even if you don't like something, but a lot of people do, you'll really piss them off by taking it away just because you don't like it.
Ah, you are mistaken. You checked if she was in her right mind (is she watching the Game Show Channel?), and she was found to not be in her right mind (wtf, she is watching it!). ;)
You know, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it should go away. I consider absolutely nothing on TV to be quality entertainment. The shows I like, I own on DVD (Futurama, TNG, DS9, etc). Once Voyager stopped producing new episodes, my interest in TV ceased--but you'd probably be pretty irritated if all TV went away just because I don't care for it.
Morgan: "Consider yourself on paid vacation." Hermes: *sob* "The ultimate penalty..."
The cost of a Windows OS would get you a processor. Maybe. Windows costs about $100. Also, cost comparison is done with subtraction, not division.
Please. I read TFA, and there's no indication in it that using Linux is critical to his work. There really seems to be nothing interfering with his livelihood here. As so many others have said, if he doesn't like Windows, tough. He broke the law. This is much more lenient than the alternatives (no computer at all, time in prison), and it's not like Windows is some horrible disease which will kill him from a few months' exposure. Hell, it's not even that expensive (which is where the car analogy fails: buying a new car is extremely expensive, buying a new OS is not).
Well... I always understood that the reason it was so impressive that the Kessel Run was done in under 12 parsecs was because Han went through the Maw, a black hole cluster, to do it. That still doesn't explain what bearing this has on the speed of the Falcon, but if that's what Lucas meant (and not just expanded universe writers covering for him), he got it... right-ish.
I started reading slashdot 4 years ago, but was too lazy to make an account for the longest time. And I'm 22.
You're obviously really excited for Bioshock, and that's cool... but it probably is overrated. The odds are hugely against it being the best game ever, or any of the other things it's been lauded as. That doesn't mean it's bad, just that the hype is too large.
Also, I just now (yes, a long time later...) noticed your title. You seem to have misunderstood me. I do NOT think Vista hate is just hype-driven. I think that there must be a certain portion of the hate which is hype-driven, and was musing about how big or small that portion might be. I'm not so naive as to say "HAY LOL U GUYS R ALL LYING ABOUT UR PROBLEMS WIT VISTA", and chalk all the hate up to hype.
There's something else wrong with your computer, then. Maybe a lack of a video card, and you have Aero on? Maybe a driver issue, who knows. I know that my computer is an Athlon 64 X2 4400, with 2 gigs of ram (roughly equivalent to what you just said), and Vista runs smooth as butter... so you're not running up against a horsepower issue.
Watch yourself, buddy. That sword you're swinging has two edges, and you just cut yourself. You didn't make ANY point.
Of course, I do admit that what you say is a huge drawback in WoW, and other MMORPGs. It's a necessary evil, or else no one new would be able to play the game properly, but an evil nonetheless. What MMORPGs really need is to implement the world so that it appears differently to different people, depending on what you have and haven't done in the world. That might not be feasible, though, especially once there are a ton of players running around. Who knows, it might happen. If it does, that MMORPG will probably also be the best thing ever.
Hopefully one day you (and others) stop being elitist, the world will be better for the rest of us then. Your way isn't the only correct way, dude.
And if people like something, then it isn't bad. Be elitist about it all you want. Something is only truly bad if no one likes it. There really is no clear delineation between "good" and "bad" like you claim, only what we like or don't like.
it's not Wizards that is dying off, it's the true roleplaying style of gaming. The "true roleplaying style of gaming" is only what you make it. What is dying, if anything, is YOUR definition of that concept. I'm sorry, but there is no one true path for a game to be an RPG.b) You could also just ignore it, and accept that the game mechanics make things a little weird in that respect.
The only thing that changes in the game is that you may get better loot so you can move on to a new loot pinata. That is regrettable. I heard that LOTRO was going to do it properly, showing the world differently to players depending on what point in the story they had reached. That was VERY early in its development, though, so I don't know if that actually made it into the finished game. It'd be nice if games did that. MMOs aren't really RPGs. It's so easy to be an elitist about what is and isn't an RPG. Look, I'll do it too: D&D isn't really an RPG, because it doesn't come with a story! It's just a ruleset for RPGs!MMOs present you with a story (well, some do) which you are a character in, as well as character advancement through levelling and earning gear. That pretty much covers the checklist for RPGs, in my opinion.
Anyways, it's pretty asinine to say "some people love bad storylines and generic characters". That's going to vary from person to person. What you call bad storylines and generic characters, I call some of the best fantasy storytelling I've ever seen. If you don't like WoW's lore, that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that. You need to step away, however, from this idea that there IS no lore that anyone could possibly like, and that the grind is all there is to the game. If someone likes the lore that you dislike, that doesn't mean they "love bad storylines and generic characters", that means they don't see them as bad or generic. Again, the fact that you haven't found fulfillment in an MMO doesn't mean that it isn't there to be found for some... saying that people who like WoW are people who love "bad storylines", "generic characters", "level grinding", and "farming bosses" comes off as pretty elitist, to be perfectly honest.
Also, if you think WoW is just about 30 pieces of boar meat, you need to take a good, hard look at the game. Even early on, you get tasked with missions that are engaging (the zone of Westfall is a good example: you go there because the farmers are having trouble with bandits, slowly uncover the extent of their organization, and then, finally, travel to their hideout, and take down their leader, ending the threat once and for all). Later, it gets even better. The very fact that all this is there, if you wish to see it, indicates that the game isn't just about grinding and collecting widgets, like you accuse it. That's certainly a component of the game, because it's the easiest way to pace the game, but that's not what the game is all about. If you can't look past that, YOU aren't playing the game how it was designed and intended to be played, not anyone else. WoW has an extremely rich world, and quality story-telling... if you're willing to take notice of it.
On the other hand, even the best D&D setting, Forgotten Realms, pales in comparison to WoW. In terms of world design alone, WoW engages the imagination more.
The fact of the matter is, you're seeing what you want to see in WoW, not what's actually there. The game really is designed to encourage roleplaying and imagination, IF you wish to engage in those things. If you're content to passively take in the game, and grind out boar after boar, then it won't be very interesting... but that isn't the designers' fault. D&D, on the other hand, isn't designed to encourage anything, really, it's impossible for it to do so. If anything, the game's design encourages doing nothing but hack your way through it. The game is just a set of combat rules, it's up to you to create a world and a story around them. Many people can and do just that, but it's not because the game's design especially encourages it--the game's design just leaves it open for you to do so.
Not to mention that if you want to add an extra skill for flavor, you're perfectly welcome to do so. Just gotta clear it with your DM.
Nonsense. I've played WoW and D&D, and I roleplay more, and use my imagination more, in WoW. I have more fun roleplaying when I do roleplay, too. Just because your experience wasn't that way, doesn't mean it isn't possible.