My brother was pondering going there (although he wound up going to Northwestern College instead). I recall my dad saying, after visiting the campus with my brother, that it was in a rough neighborhood. Was it all that bad, in your experience? Just curious.
To be honest, I can't recall the context at all. I just thought it was worded in an awesome way, mostly because I think that the "new" units of measurement sound like some kind of baby talk, and if we must have new units for expressing computer space that we should come up with better names.
Yes. Anywhere you could buy (as in, a store) apps would have been an app store. The fact that there was no such establishment (to my knowledge) doesn't change the fact that it would have a generic term thrown around before Apple came to the party.
"app" is a generic term for an application, as "store" is a generic term for a place to buy things. There is nothing novel about Apple's supposed trademark, they are merely describing what their storefront is.
For the love of sanity, please let Amazon win this one. I don't know if I want to live in a country where justice is so blind that it allows trademarking the name of the category a thing belongs to as the proper name of that thing.
Prepare to have your mind blown: you can open-source the majority of your game while still having a proprietary engine. You can let people re-use your code, just not theirs.
The ROKR was a Motorola phone, with access to iTunes. Not an Apple Phone.
There's no way that is a true statement, not with Steve Jobs the consummate control freak at the head of Apple. He would never allow something like that to happen without plenty of input on his (or rather, his employees') part.
Not the real answer. The real answer is that there is a great cost to convert (as TFS correctly notes), and most will see no benefit from it. I don't ever work with anyone who uses metric units, nor do many others. The conversions aren't hard to learn, despite the fact that they're harder than the metric conversions. Why on earth would I WANT to go to the effort to convert? What do I get out of it?
MW2 and the Halo games are two good examples off the top of my head. Lots of asshats cheat at console games, just like lots of asshats cheat at PC games.
I think the issue here is one of assuming that your preference is universal - I personally hate Charles Dickens, but I don't assume that it's because he was incompetent, or that there's no reason he's popular.
I'm not really assuming it's universal, I guess. I'm not bothering much to qualify my statements that they're my opinion, but then again, neither is anyone who disagrees with me. If the majority opinion can be stated as if it were fact, I feel that I can state my position as if it were fact too. It's just how discussions about art tend to be, in my experience.
I'm curious, though - what would your examples of good story in FPS games be? Or good graphics (from the initial release period of HL2)?
Far Cry for graphics (as you noted, they were exceptional... exceptionally demanding, too, but I feel that graphics need to stand out that much for a game to be noteworthy solely for them). Halo (the main series) for story, which I'm sure many would love to crucify me for, as the opinion of the average internet gamer seems to tend towards the opinion that Halo is unrefined swill for the masses. Still, in a genre that doesn't always have the greatest of stories, Halo has a story that really grabbed me, which had depth, right from the beginning. It presented one of the most compelling tales I've ever seen, and had some great characters. When a story has characters who are so good, I find myself unconsciously becoming truly concerned in their plights, I consider that top-notch story. Not many games have had a story which drew me in emotionally as well as presenting a situation where I was eager to learn what happened next at every turn. The Halo games are one of the few examples, and I give them high praise for that.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You have a few misconceptions about what I'm actually saying. First off: I recognize that the gravity gun was quite novel. I'm saying that this mechanic, in itself, doesn't make the entire game noteworthy. It's a novel mechanic, but if your game is relying on mechanics to stand apart from the pack, it needs more than just that.
Second, I never claimed what you say I claimed. I do require something to set a game apart before I will recognize it as the cream of the crop, and game mechanics are but one possible way. Top-notch graphics are another (although they have to be truly excellent). Good story is another. The problem is that Valve games don't excel in any of these respects. They don't have great game mechanics to drive the game*, they have passable (but not great) graphics, and there isn't a Valve game in existence with a good story component. So what sets them apart? Nothing.
I like some Valve games quite a bit. But by and large, their games don't do anything to deserve the thundering praise they receive. If you believe the hype, nobody makes games nearly as good as Valve, and I stand by my opinion that they are a developer which thrives on "fun, but nothing special" games.
*Exceptions being TF2 and Portal. Portal has amazing game mechanics, which is what makes the game so special. TF2 also seems to be a damn good multiplayer game, even if I never will play it because I find the art style hideous.
What game mechanics did HL, HL2, or L4D bring that were novel and exciting? OK, HL2 had the gravity gun, but to call the game special over the gravity gun is pretty thin.
Sure it is. Since there's no objective measure for quality in this case, it's perfectly reasonable to use "overrated" to mean "I don't agree with the common assessment".
See, the problem is, I think that Valve's shooters aren't good (for the most part). The Half-Life games are mechanically not that special, so that's not a good reason to play them. All they have is story - and the story is told with the most retarded storytelling mechanic I've ever seen, the silent-protagonist-no-cut-scenes paradigm. It's impossible to get into the story because they tell it so badly (Portal has the same issue, but Portal is about the mechanics, not the story, which is good because there's damn near zero story). TF2 is mechanically very good, and I respect the gameplay it offers. I also think it has the worst art style I've seen in pretty much any game, which would bother me enough that I don't have an interest in it. L4D/L4D2 are amazing games which I love, but they don't scratch my FPS urge in the same way SoaSE scratches my RTS urge.
I consider Valve a highly overrated developer, to be honest. They have made a couple of really good games, but mostly I see them as producing mediocrity.
My favorite part was where he said that your profile will be used in the future to determine credit worthiness, and if you don't have one it will be created for you. I stopped reading right there. This man is off his rocker.
Or they simply have cheaper habits than you. I'm not a car nut (although if I had a fortune drop in my lap there are some cars I'd like to own), I have no reason to want a boat or a plane (no interest in either of those things), and even if I found an extravagant home I wanted, I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a home for myself that put a dent in $50 billion. I live by myself and have no desire to have a huge house I never use most of, and smaller houses are going to be reasonably priced even if you do trick them out.
I would do some things such as buy the best gaming rig I can put together, buy a few really nice guitars I've always wanted, and a few other small (for a billionaire) but extravagant (for my current income) purchases I've wanted. That's it, though. I would have a very hard time burning through that much money.
Also note that you said you'd invest or save, so you haven't run out of money in your scenario. You've just stopped spending what you have, to let it make you more money.
Slashdot Mirror
My brother was pondering going there (although he wound up going to Northwestern College instead). I recall my dad saying, after visiting the campus with my brother, that it was in a rough neighborhood. Was it all that bad, in your experience? Just curious.
To be honest, I can't recall the context at all. I just thought it was worded in an awesome way, mostly because I think that the "new" units of measurement sound like some kind of baby talk, and if we must have new units for expressing computer space that we should come up with better names.
Yes. Anywhere you could buy (as in, a store) apps would have been an app store. The fact that there was no such establishment (to my knowledge) doesn't change the fact that it would have a generic term thrown around before Apple came to the party.
"app" is a generic term for an application, as "store" is a generic term for a place to buy things. There is nothing novel about Apple's supposed trademark, they are merely describing what their storefront is.
People have been using the term "app" as an abbreviation for "application" for years and years. The term in no way originates with Apple.
For the love of sanity, please let Amazon win this one. I don't know if I want to live in a country where justice is so blind that it allows trademarking the name of the category a thing belongs to as the proper name of that thing.
Prepare to have your mind blown: you can open-source the majority of your game while still having a proprietary engine. You can let people re-use your code, just not theirs.
Oh shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-
No, "great" means "great". It doesn't mean that it ran barely tolerably, it ran great. Superbly. As well as it is possible to run.
The problem with this gentleman's perspective is that he believes the iPad is worth imitating.
The ROKR was a Motorola phone, with access to iTunes. Not an Apple Phone.
There's no way that is a true statement, not with Steve Jobs the consummate control freak at the head of Apple. He would never allow something like that to happen without plenty of input on his (or rather, his employees') part.
Any non-American (except for a few Brits, Aussies and Kanuks) think metric units are more "natural".
The OP is a non-American, so not really.
The great irony here is that you insulted yourself more than your countrymen.
Not the real answer. The real answer is that there is a great cost to convert (as TFS correctly notes), and most will see no benefit from it. I don't ever work with anyone who uses metric units, nor do many others. The conversions aren't hard to learn, despite the fact that they're harder than the metric conversions. Why on earth would I WANT to go to the effort to convert? What do I get out of it?
Yeah, but you're not factoring in the cost to move to an area where Verizon offers FiOS.
No. Halo 2, Halo 3 had cheaters and that wasn't even on PS3. MW2 was out long before GeoHot did his thing.
Are you serious?
MW2 and the Halo games are two good examples off the top of my head. Lots of asshats cheat at console games, just like lots of asshats cheat at PC games.
Console games have cheaters, too.
I think the issue here is one of assuming that your preference is universal - I personally hate Charles Dickens, but I don't assume that it's because he was incompetent, or that there's no reason he's popular.
I'm not really assuming it's universal, I guess. I'm not bothering much to qualify my statements that they're my opinion, but then again, neither is anyone who disagrees with me. If the majority opinion can be stated as if it were fact, I feel that I can state my position as if it were fact too. It's just how discussions about art tend to be, in my experience.
I'm curious, though - what would your examples of good story in FPS games be? Or good graphics (from the initial release period of HL2)?
Far Cry for graphics (as you noted, they were exceptional... exceptionally demanding, too, but I feel that graphics need to stand out that much for a game to be noteworthy solely for them). Halo (the main series) for story, which I'm sure many would love to crucify me for, as the opinion of the average internet gamer seems to tend towards the opinion that Halo is unrefined swill for the masses. Still, in a genre that doesn't always have the greatest of stories, Halo has a story that really grabbed me, which had depth, right from the beginning. It presented one of the most compelling tales I've ever seen, and had some great characters. When a story has characters who are so good, I find myself unconsciously becoming truly concerned in their plights, I consider that top-notch story. Not many games have had a story which drew me in emotionally as well as presenting a situation where I was eager to learn what happened next at every turn. The Halo games are one of the few examples, and I give them high praise for that.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You have a few misconceptions about what I'm actually saying. First off: I recognize that the gravity gun was quite novel. I'm saying that this mechanic, in itself, doesn't make the entire game noteworthy. It's a novel mechanic, but if your game is relying on mechanics to stand apart from the pack, it needs more than just that.
Second, I never claimed what you say I claimed. I do require something to set a game apart before I will recognize it as the cream of the crop, and game mechanics are but one possible way. Top-notch graphics are another (although they have to be truly excellent). Good story is another. The problem is that Valve games don't excel in any of these respects. They don't have great game mechanics to drive the game*, they have passable (but not great) graphics, and there isn't a Valve game in existence with a good story component. So what sets them apart? Nothing.
I like some Valve games quite a bit. But by and large, their games don't do anything to deserve the thundering praise they receive. If you believe the hype, nobody makes games nearly as good as Valve, and I stand by my opinion that they are a developer which thrives on "fun, but nothing special" games.
*Exceptions being TF2 and Portal. Portal has amazing game mechanics, which is what makes the game so special. TF2 also seems to be a damn good multiplayer game, even if I never will play it because I find the art style hideous.
What game mechanics did HL, HL2, or L4D bring that were novel and exciting? OK, HL2 had the gravity gun, but to call the game special over the gravity gun is pretty thin.
Sure it is. Since there's no objective measure for quality in this case, it's perfectly reasonable to use "overrated" to mean "I don't agree with the common assessment".
See, the problem is, I think that Valve's shooters aren't good (for the most part). The Half-Life games are mechanically not that special, so that's not a good reason to play them. All they have is story - and the story is told with the most retarded storytelling mechanic I've ever seen, the silent-protagonist-no-cut-scenes paradigm. It's impossible to get into the story because they tell it so badly (Portal has the same issue, but Portal is about the mechanics, not the story, which is good because there's damn near zero story). TF2 is mechanically very good, and I respect the gameplay it offers. I also think it has the worst art style I've seen in pretty much any game, which would bother me enough that I don't have an interest in it. L4D/L4D2 are amazing games which I love, but they don't scratch my FPS urge in the same way SoaSE scratches my RTS urge.
I consider Valve a highly overrated developer, to be honest. They have made a couple of really good games, but mostly I see them as producing mediocrity.
Galactic Civ 2 and Sins of a Solar Empire are both Stardock, and they're solid games. I wouldn't put them in the same category at Valve's stuff...
I would say they're much better than the majority of Valve's games (Portal excepted).
My favorite part was where he said that your profile will be used in the future to determine credit worthiness, and if you don't have one it will be created for you. I stopped reading right there. This man is off his rocker.
Or they simply have cheaper habits than you. I'm not a car nut (although if I had a fortune drop in my lap there are some cars I'd like to own), I have no reason to want a boat or a plane (no interest in either of those things), and even if I found an extravagant home I wanted, I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a home for myself that put a dent in $50 billion. I live by myself and have no desire to have a huge house I never use most of, and smaller houses are going to be reasonably priced even if you do trick them out.
I would do some things such as buy the best gaming rig I can put together, buy a few really nice guitars I've always wanted, and a few other small (for a billionaire) but extravagant (for my current income) purchases I've wanted. That's it, though. I would have a very hard time burning through that much money.
Also note that you said you'd invest or save, so you haven't run out of money in your scenario. You've just stopped spending what you have, to let it make you more money.