I really can't agree with that. I've used an iPhone extensively (well, iPod Touch, which is the same user experience), and I've used my Droid extensively. In my opinion, there's no real difference between the two, except for the fact that the iPhone has those nice rounded edges and other such things that make the UI look very sleek.
I don't know if I'd call "Not being a dumb ass" as super-tasking.
Pretty much. I wouldn't trust myself to text and drive, but talking and driving, while still being able to focus on what's going on the road, is not fucking hard. I do think hands-free devices are useful, because you remove the temptation to focus on "not dropping my phone" rather than driving, but other than that it's really damn trivial. I have no idea how people have so much trouble with this.
So, I don't like what you like, and that's because I suck at first person shooters and should go back to $other_game. Yes, that certainly is a mature, carefully-considered response.
And I wasn't "stuck" on a point about being a kid, I was simply trying to point out how your assumption about age is wrong, and musing that my assumption about age was wrong as well. In other words, I was trying to have a discussion.
Then play a game which doesn't have those things. Otherwise, you're having an event which supposedly tests your skill at Smash Bros, but you aren't actually playing Smash Bros.
I also disagree that items turn Smash Bros into roulette. They're simply another factor to contend with, and you can overcome unfavorable item distribution with skillful play.
I agree that it's a matter of opinion, my point to my friend (and I suppose, in my post above as well) is that if we consider "realism" the goal (as my friend does), we miss the mark. We need to consider "fun" the goal, and then decide how best to accomplish it, which may or may not be realism.
Realism can indeed lead to fun for many people, but what I find is that a lot of people will confuse realism as the goal, rather than a means to the goal. When you restrict your thinking in that way, you close off whole classes of games which are fun precisely because they're unrealistic. Sure, they won't appeal to all gamers who crave realism, but they will probably appeal to many.
The kid is exactly right. I can go outside to get reality, what I want in a game is just enough realism to help my suspension of disbelief, but no more. If I found the reality fun, I'd be doing that, so I would never want a perfect emulation of reality in my game. I refused to play hardcore mode in CoD 4, because it simply sucked all the fun out of the game when you would instantly die and have no way of knowing where you got shot from.
Oh, and for the record, it isn't "kids" that want a lack of realism. I'm 25, so while I couldn't be called old, I'm certainly not a kid any more either. In fact, until your post, I would've guessed that it was only kids that wanted such "realism" (quote marks used because even "realistic games" usually aren't realistic, including MW1 and 2), but that apparently isn't true either. I suppose it's foolish to try to draw age boundaries, people like what they like.
Yeah, TFA reminds me of a discussion I've had more than once with a friend of mine. Whenever he and I disagree on whether something is good in a game (example: CoD 4's hardcore mode), he'll usually defend it on the basis of "it's more realistic". My point to him, every time, is so what? It's not fun, and the goal isn't to be realistic, it's to be fun.
It would be extremely realistic if the game destroyed itself the first time you died, but people would be furious. No one actually wants a realistic game, although they might say they do. What they want is a game which has realistic elements which make it more fun. But most gamers don't think this through, so they think they want realism, when they would actually hate it.
Unfortunately, it's not limited to MW2. There are a ton of Smash Bros players who insist on playing with items off, on a flat stage with nothing happening. In other words, taking out all the interesting parts of the game to promote "skill". Well, you know what? True skill is the ability to win the game that actually exists, not the game you wish existed (and try to create through your arbitrary restrictions).
I haven't played MW2 (and won't until they stop charging $60 for the PC version), but I was kind of hoping that the "omg n00b tube!!11" crowd from CoD 4 would have gone away so the rest of us could actually have fun playing the real game. I guess that was too much to hope for, eh?
Yes, but for a lot of games, split-screen sucks. Not only do you have only a portion of the screen, but your friends are probably cheating by looking at your screen to see where you are. There are games which are reasonable to play with local multiplayer, but for most, I'd just as soon not play at all... so I wouldn't really call that an "advantage" for consoles.
Personally, I'm not so concerned about the "company could assert some ownership over my device" angle, so much as the "I'm not on call so my Blackberry is at home, good luck reaching me" angle. I try to keep work out of my personal life as much as possible, no way in hell am I going to get work mail on my personal smartphone.
$700 is not all that much for someone making or paying Western wages
Whoa, dude. It's definitely a decent sum depending on a lot of factors (what you do, where you live, etc). I make a pretty good amount for my area at $35k/year... but $700 would be pushing two weeks' net pay for me (net pay is $970 atm, with taxes withheld and insurance premiums and such).
Ubuntu would only show weakness in allowing proprietary drivers to determine their progress.
Fuck. That. Shit. A software developer's job is to deliver the best software possible to the end users, not to play bullshit political games with other developers.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps we did have a problem with that? I hate those things, and I hate the government thinking they can mandate that I have insurance. That's my damn choice, not theirs.
I hate to break it to you, but just because you don't get off on violence doesn't mean you can't enjoy games that have violence in them, or even feel that violence is necessary in certain contexts. Just as a WW2 movie (unless it was solely focusing on the politics of the era) wouldn't make sense without some killing, so do certain kinds of games not make sense without some degree of violence.
That anybody over the age of 14 doesn't grasp this I find amazing.:P
It is not logical to assert the existence of God, nor is it logical to assert his non-existence.
Thank God*! I was starting to think I was the only person who realized this. I realize that there are those who fallaciously claim that because you can't disprove God, God must exist. The fact that they misuse the inability to disprove God's existence, however, is not license to ignore that inability, as so many atheists seem to think.
*No irony intended, I just can't think of another grateful interjection offhand.
The only problem I've encountered was with the nForce network card on my old motherboard. I don't know if this is nVidia's fault, or Microsoft's, but it worked just fine in Vista, and as soon as I installed Windows 7, it became prone to randomly disconnecting for 10-15 seconds at a time. Others are having this issue too, as I found when trying to do some research to help myself. I don't really care whose fault it is, but hopefully they find a fix for it soon (I wound up upgrading to a new motherboard a week ago anyway, so it's not an issue for me any more... thank God).
That's computers. You can buy an nVidia GTX 295 this year, but they'll have a new card out next year, so why bother when you could wait for that instead? You can buy a Core i7 this year, but Intel will have a faster one out next year, so why bother when you could wait for that instead?
Anyone who buys components for their computer (whether it's the hardware or the OS) should have learned long ago that what you buy will be outdated soon, and you just have to live with that. Buy based on what's available now, not what's in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
The iPhone is more pleasant to use than Android.
I really can't agree with that. I've used an iPhone extensively (well, iPod Touch, which is the same user experience), and I've used my Droid extensively. In my opinion, there's no real difference between the two, except for the fact that the iPhone has those nice rounded edges and other such things that make the UI look very sleek.
I don't know if I'd call "Not being a dumb ass" as super-tasking.
Pretty much. I wouldn't trust myself to text and drive, but talking and driving, while still being able to focus on what's going on the road, is not fucking hard. I do think hands-free devices are useful, because you remove the temptation to focus on "not dropping my phone" rather than driving, but other than that it's really damn trivial. I have no idea how people have so much trouble with this.
So, I don't like what you like, and that's because I suck at first person shooters and should go back to $other_game. Yes, that certainly is a mature, carefully-considered response.
And I wasn't "stuck" on a point about being a kid, I was simply trying to point out how your assumption about age is wrong, and musing that my assumption about age was wrong as well. In other words, I was trying to have a discussion.
Then play a game which doesn't have those things. Otherwise, you're having an event which supposedly tests your skill at Smash Bros, but you aren't actually playing Smash Bros.
I also disagree that items turn Smash Bros into roulette. They're simply another factor to contend with, and you can overcome unfavorable item distribution with skillful play.
I agree that it's a matter of opinion, my point to my friend (and I suppose, in my post above as well) is that if we consider "realism" the goal (as my friend does), we miss the mark. We need to consider "fun" the goal, and then decide how best to accomplish it, which may or may not be realism.
Realism can indeed lead to fun for many people, but what I find is that a lot of people will confuse realism as the goal, rather than a means to the goal. When you restrict your thinking in that way, you close off whole classes of games which are fun precisely because they're unrealistic. Sure, they won't appeal to all gamers who crave realism, but they will probably appeal to many.
The kid is exactly right. I can go outside to get reality, what I want in a game is just enough realism to help my suspension of disbelief, but no more. If I found the reality fun, I'd be doing that, so I would never want a perfect emulation of reality in my game. I refused to play hardcore mode in CoD 4, because it simply sucked all the fun out of the game when you would instantly die and have no way of knowing where you got shot from.
Oh, and for the record, it isn't "kids" that want a lack of realism. I'm 25, so while I couldn't be called old, I'm certainly not a kid any more either. In fact, until your post, I would've guessed that it was only kids that wanted such "realism" (quote marks used because even "realistic games" usually aren't realistic, including MW1 and 2), but that apparently isn't true either. I suppose it's foolish to try to draw age boundaries, people like what they like.
Yeah, TFA reminds me of a discussion I've had more than once with a friend of mine. Whenever he and I disagree on whether something is good in a game (example: CoD 4's hardcore mode), he'll usually defend it on the basis of "it's more realistic". My point to him, every time, is so what? It's not fun, and the goal isn't to be realistic, it's to be fun.
It would be extremely realistic if the game destroyed itself the first time you died, but people would be furious. No one actually wants a realistic game, although they might say they do. What they want is a game which has realistic elements which make it more fun. But most gamers don't think this through, so they think they want realism, when they would actually hate it.
Unfortunately, it's not limited to MW2. There are a ton of Smash Bros players who insist on playing with items off, on a flat stage with nothing happening. In other words, taking out all the interesting parts of the game to promote "skill". Well, you know what? True skill is the ability to win the game that actually exists, not the game you wish existed (and try to create through your arbitrary restrictions).
I haven't played MW2 (and won't until they stop charging $60 for the PC version), but I was kind of hoping that the "omg n00b tube!!11" crowd from CoD 4 would have gone away so the rest of us could actually have fun playing the real game. I guess that was too much to hope for, eh?
No, not really. Talents still specialize your character as much as they ever did.
Yes, but for a lot of games, split-screen sucks. Not only do you have only a portion of the screen, but your friends are probably cheating by looking at your screen to see where you are. There are games which are reasonable to play with local multiplayer, but for most, I'd just as soon not play at all... so I wouldn't really call that an "advantage" for consoles.
Incorrect. It is right on every level.
Personally, I'm not so concerned about the "company could assert some ownership over my device" angle, so much as the "I'm not on call so my Blackberry is at home, good luck reaching me" angle. I try to keep work out of my personal life as much as possible, no way in hell am I going to get work mail on my personal smartphone.
$700 is not all that much for someone making or paying Western wages
Whoa, dude. It's definitely a decent sum depending on a lot of factors (what you do, where you live, etc). I make a pretty good amount for my area at $35k/year... but $700 would be pushing two weeks' net pay for me (net pay is $970 atm, with taxes withheld and insurance premiums and such).
I wouldn't call this an ad. This is legitimately really fucking cool.
Ubuntu would only show weakness in allowing proprietary drivers to determine their progress.
Fuck. That. Shit. A software developer's job is to deliver the best software possible to the end users, not to play bullshit political games with other developers.
Perfect? That girl is too damn skinny. Someone send her a box of donuts, for God's sake!
It wasn't until mass effect/dragon age that Bioware really got back on track to making good games again.
You forgot KOTOR, but yeah... NWN's campaign really bit. I enjoyed the gameplay, but the plot was mind-numbingly stupid.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps we did have a problem with that? I hate those things, and I hate the government thinking they can mandate that I have insurance. That's my damn choice, not theirs.
I see the reasons why it's better, I simply feel that it's always necessary to ask.
I hate to break it to you, but just because you don't get off on violence doesn't mean you can't enjoy games that have violence in them, or even feel that violence is necessary in certain contexts. Just as a WW2 movie (unless it was solely focusing on the politics of the era) wouldn't make sense without some killing, so do certain kinds of games not make sense without some degree of violence.
That anybody over the age of 14 doesn't grasp this I find amazing. :P
It is not logical to assert the existence of God, nor is it logical to assert his non-existence.
Thank God*! I was starting to think I was the only person who realized this. I realize that there are those who fallaciously claim that because you can't disprove God, God must exist. The fact that they misuse the inability to disprove God's existence, however, is not license to ignore that inability, as so many atheists seem to think.
*No irony intended, I just can't think of another grateful interjection offhand.
Perhaps the owner had a mental slip while trying to warn the world not to steal his wife?
Yes, you do.
The only problem I've encountered was with the nForce network card on my old motherboard. I don't know if this is nVidia's fault, or Microsoft's, but it worked just fine in Vista, and as soon as I installed Windows 7, it became prone to randomly disconnecting for 10-15 seconds at a time. Others are having this issue too, as I found when trying to do some research to help myself. I don't really care whose fault it is, but hopefully they find a fix for it soon (I wound up upgrading to a new motherboard a week ago anyway, so it's not an issue for me any more... thank God).
That's computers. You can buy an nVidia GTX 295 this year, but they'll have a new card out next year, so why bother when you could wait for that instead? You can buy a Core i7 this year, but Intel will have a faster one out next year, so why bother when you could wait for that instead?
Anyone who buys components for their computer (whether it's the hardware or the OS) should have learned long ago that what you buy will be outdated soon, and you just have to live with that. Buy based on what's available now, not what's in the future.