You're right... that is pretty damn simple. What would you prefer, that we go into a menu to do all those things? Everything I need to do in Halo is RIGHT THERE. No muss, no fuss. With the newer Xbox controllers, there's absolutely nothing to complain about in the control scheme, certainly not button assignments (well, I lied... I still like mouse+keyboard better than a gamepad for aiming).
I'm glad to see that you have somehow completely eliminated the possibility that anyone else in the world genuinely likes Halo, Mr. AC. Please let me in on your secrets!
(Hint: just because you don't like a game, doesn't have any bearing on what anyone else in the world thinks. If the one person in the world who liked "Game X" gave it a glowing review, that wouldn't be a paid-for review, even if he did disagree with the rest of the world. Everyone has a different opinion.)
My opinion is quite rational, thank you very much. There is exactly one feature I care about. That is to play games against other people (or with them, depending on the game). Sony, Nintendo, and the PC all offer this functionality for FREE (MMOs excepted, and I'm ok with that, because they're running a persistent world, so I get some extra value for my dollar). Until all platforms charge for online play, I will never pay Microsoft to play online.
That's not irrational at all, that's a simple comparison of Microsoft's cost to the costs of all their competitors.
Sign up for the online component. Note who charges and who doesn't. Also note which one sucks and which one doesn't. That's kind of a matter of opinion, but... I don't think the PS3's online service is bad. I don't think it's good either, it's just there. Besides, it'd have to suck incredibly badly before I'd pay for Xbox Live. Never. Not as long as I live. Not that I'm going to change Microsoft's approach, of course.
This isn't even about moving on from Fallout, really. These people are attached to Fallout 1/2. Fine. They want Fallout 3 to be exactly the same. Fine, if unrealistic. However, they're treating anyone who likes Fallout 3 (thus far) as if they must be a shill (among other things, like unnecessary personal attacks, but this is the one that irked me the most). Is it incomprehensible to these people that someone might actually DISAGREE with them? "Oh, you claim to like the first two games, and the third too... you're on Bethesda's payroll, buddy." That's sad, that their reasoning is so limited. Ironically enough, it's the same thing some (not most) Slashdotters have to say when someone says something good about Microsoft... but at least here, those trolls are in the minority. Most people here are willing to accept that someone might have a differing opinion from them, even if they can't possibly understand why.
Anyways, the failure of those rabid fanboys isn't that they haven't moved on from Fallout, per se, it's that they're too caught up in their own obsession to see anything else. Most Starcraft fans, for example, want Starcraft 2 to be as close to Starcraft as possible. However, they aren't going to decry any little itsy bitsy change from Starcraft, nor are they going to treat anyone who actually does like Starcraft 2 with such abject hostility.
Your analogy is flawed. Anyone who continues to invest time into games, no matter how many games they invest time into, no matter how much time they invest, is a gamer. Obviously, someone who plays a game once, and then never touches it again, isn't a gamer, however, someone who just plays Halo is. I'm sorry you don't like Halo, or whatever it is that causes you to use that horribly flawed analogy, but those people ARE gamers.
Uh... Office 2007 doesn't require Vista, dude. Not only that, but you don't need some sort of amazing computer to run Vista. Vista has its problems, but insane system requirements aren't one of them.
Yes, I play casually. I don't play for an eternity at a time, I've been gradually playing over the course of the past two years. I consider that casual.
You didn't play the same WoW I played if you think levelling is anything resembling a grind. I play casually, and still managed to hit 60, then 70, in short order. Levelling in WoW is the single biggest thing casual gamers do... when they do get to the level cap, they tend to complain that there's nothing left for them to do, as anything else requires a certain amount of time/effort invested to progress.
Please. Get off your violent pornography high horse for a second. Think about this: someone may make a game which is good on its own merits (gameplay concepts, story), but is also mind-numbingly violent. But according to you, anyone who plays this game, or wishes to, is an adolescent. You're just as stuck-up as the people who bash Nintendo for making "kiddie games". A game is either good, or bad, regardless (usually, anyways) of how violent or non-violent it is. Smart gamers recognize that, and wish to play the game on its merits, not based on the level of violence it has. That doesn't make them adolescents. You're lumping anyone who would ever wish to play a violent game (or merely to permit the sale of them, even if they aren't interested in said games) into the "adolescent" category, and that reeks of condescension.
Agreed, but that isn't the biggest problem, the biggest problem is that you can't release an AO game for any of the consoles. Both console makers and retailers need to open up to AO games if they're going to make any headway.
Hm, oddly enough I have the exact opposite opinion of you (granted, I didn't play 2-D Zelda games until after 3-D ones, so that may have an influence). I think Zelda does great in 3-D, but Mario 64 should never have seen the light of day. New Super Mario Bros was the first Mario game I considered remotely worth playing since SMW... that's kinda ouch (although I do recognize that most people disagree with me, of course... that still doesn't change the fact that I hate Mario in 3-D).
I don't particularly agree with most of your sentiments, but what gets me is:
They're absurdly sexist (yes, that matters) How so? This is, in my opinion, as far from the truth as it gets, please explain why you think this.
Also, wouldn't it have been better to use an unordered list, if they're in no particular order?;)
That depends on what aspect of the books you enjoy, really. The first two HP movies were supposedly the truest to the books, and I thought they flat-out sucked. The last three I enjoy, however, they don't convey the vivid and funderful quality of Potterworld nearly as well as the books do. Those books are made vastly more enjoyable, to me, by how richly detailed they are, something film simply doesn't have time to reproduce.
Well, not being American, I can't claim to know how old a 1st or even 7th grade child is, but I can tell you that saying that something isn't "supposed" to be read by someone until they hit a certain age is just silly.
I read the Chronicles of Narnia at about age five or six, I read 1984 when I was around 11, and I re-read them at later ages, too. Of course I picked up on aspects that I missed first time around when I looked at them again, but that doesn't mean that I didn't learn anything during the initial readings. Agreed. I read Brave New World when I was 12 or 13, and loved it. One doesn't need to be a certain age to enjoy good literature.
I'm reminded of a quote I heard, attributed to CS Lewis, in which he said that he found questions of how to write good children's books irritating. His philosophy was that one should strive to write good books, which could be enjoyed and approached by readers of all ages.
I disagree. I love Harry Potter to death, but there's a decent chance that if I'd started with the first book I wouldn't have bothered with the series. I started on the fourth, because my mom got it as a Christmas present for my younger brother the year it came out (what with the hype and all). I'm not sure why she figured it was a good idea to start him out on the fourth book, but in retrospect, I'm glad she did: the series doesn't pick up any real oomph, for me, until that book (possibly the third).
I really do suggest that you start with book #3 or #4, but if you must read them in order, at least try to stick it out that long.
I disagree. If this was a discussion about, say, a big hit sci-fi novel, would you accept it? My money's on yes, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Fantasy is a big interest of the stereotypical geek, and this is a huge event in the world of fantasy novels.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, I WISH it was a conspiracy involving tits.
I'm pretty damn sure WoW reminded me that I needed DX9 to run it. Blizzard may support the Mac, but I believe they use DirectX on Windows.
You're right... that is pretty damn simple. What would you prefer, that we go into a menu to do all those things? Everything I need to do in Halo is RIGHT THERE. No muss, no fuss. With the newer Xbox controllers, there's absolutely nothing to complain about in the control scheme, certainly not button assignments (well, I lied... I still like mouse+keyboard better than a gamepad for aiming).
(Hint: just because you don't like a game, doesn't have any bearing on what anyone else in the world thinks. If the one person in the world who liked "Game X" gave it a glowing review, that wouldn't be a paid-for review, even if he did disagree with the rest of the world. Everyone has a different opinion.)
I don't understand where you get this idea that we shouldn't support IE, or Vista, just because you don't like them.
That's not irrational at all, that's a simple comparison of Microsoft's cost to the costs of all their competitors.
Anyways, the failure of those rabid fanboys isn't that they haven't moved on from Fallout, per se, it's that they're too caught up in their own obsession to see anything else. Most Starcraft fans, for example, want Starcraft 2 to be as close to Starcraft as possible. However, they aren't going to decry any little itsy bitsy change from Starcraft, nor are they going to treat anyone who actually does like Starcraft 2 with such abject hostility.
Your analogy is flawed. Anyone who continues to invest time into games, no matter how many games they invest time into, no matter how much time they invest, is a gamer. Obviously, someone who plays a game once, and then never touches it again, isn't a gamer, however, someone who just plays Halo is. I'm sorry you don't like Halo, or whatever it is that causes you to use that horribly flawed analogy, but those people ARE gamers.
There's only one clone, Dwight is a natural kid. :P
Nah, more like this: r33b.net
That's good! Nixon's pro-war, and pro-family.
Uh... Office 2007 doesn't require Vista, dude. Not only that, but you don't need some sort of amazing computer to run Vista. Vista has its problems, but insane system requirements aren't one of them.
Time to write my old math profs with this new information...
Yes, I play casually. I don't play for an eternity at a time, I've been gradually playing over the course of the past two years. I consider that casual.
You didn't play the same WoW I played if you think levelling is anything resembling a grind. I play casually, and still managed to hit 60, then 70, in short order. Levelling in WoW is the single biggest thing casual gamers do... when they do get to the level cap, they tend to complain that there's nothing left for them to do, as anything else requires a certain amount of time/effort invested to progress.
Please. Get off your violent pornography high horse for a second. Think about this: someone may make a game which is good on its own merits (gameplay concepts, story), but is also mind-numbingly violent. But according to you, anyone who plays this game, or wishes to, is an adolescent. You're just as stuck-up as the people who bash Nintendo for making "kiddie games". A game is either good, or bad, regardless (usually, anyways) of how violent or non-violent it is. Smart gamers recognize that, and wish to play the game on its merits, not based on the level of violence it has. That doesn't make them adolescents. You're lumping anyone who would ever wish to play a violent game (or merely to permit the sale of them, even if they aren't interested in said games) into the "adolescent" category, and that reeks of condescension.
Agreed, but that isn't the biggest problem, the biggest problem is that you can't release an AO game for any of the consoles. Both console makers and retailers need to open up to AO games if they're going to make any headway.
Hm, oddly enough I have the exact opposite opinion of you (granted, I didn't play 2-D Zelda games until after 3-D ones, so that may have an influence). I think Zelda does great in 3-D, but Mario 64 should never have seen the light of day. New Super Mario Bros was the first Mario game I considered remotely worth playing since SMW... that's kinda ouch (although I do recognize that most people disagree with me, of course... that still doesn't change the fact that I hate Mario in 3-D).
Also, wouldn't it have been better to use an unordered list, if they're in no particular order? ;)
</lament>
That depends on what aspect of the books you enjoy, really. The first two HP movies were supposedly the truest to the books, and I thought they flat-out sucked. The last three I enjoy, however, they don't convey the vivid and funderful quality of Potterworld nearly as well as the books do. Those books are made vastly more enjoyable, to me, by how richly detailed they are, something film simply doesn't have time to reproduce.
I'm reminded of a quote I heard, attributed to CS Lewis, in which he said that he found questions of how to write good children's books irritating. His philosophy was that one should strive to write good books, which could be enjoyed and approached by readers of all ages.
I really do suggest that you start with book #3 or #4, but if you must read them in order, at least try to stick it out that long.
I disagree. If this was a discussion about, say, a big hit sci-fi novel, would you accept it? My money's on yes, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Fantasy is a big interest of the stereotypical geek, and this is a huge event in the world of fantasy novels.