I trust the police more than I trust someone stupid enough to wear that shirt to the airport.
Also, aren't you equally as sheepish for believing that the police are covering something up, without knowing the entire story? Even if you don't read the words, the picture alone, of her shirt is damning enough, to me. So why can't i say she's lucky? or that she's an idiot? unless the photos have been doctored, because everyone is out to get technologically savvy Hawaiians...
Perhaps it was the story, and not the game play that make those games (mostly RPG's) so great. I still feel Chrono Trigger is the greatest game of all time.
Point taken, though, because i still play geometry wars at least an hour a day. I'm going to break 4 million someday, dammit.
I've seen this same post in every article related to video game tech and performance as of late, and it's really annoying.
For some reason, people feel the need to complain about game play in a post that has nothing to do with it- it has everything to do with technology. Yes, technology can open up (or close off) certain game play avenues, but that is hardly the point of TFA. Why you get +4 interesting for the same argument that is made over and over is beyond me, as I'd rate it off-topic.
Can't you just be pleased with an increase in a particular area of performance? I know you said you were looking forward to it, but after your rant/complaint it simple doesn't seem genuine.
Your argument in of itself is like complaining about faster computers coming out but you're pissed because you still use buggy software, with a computer you feel is plenty fast to run it. All I am hearing is "but what about my problems?". I mean, I don't care for the wii and it's "amazing game play" but i don't shit all over it, or complain about it's lack of HD support even if i feel that way about it. Do you know why? Because it has nothing to do with the article it's brought up in.
Are you of the mind that game play development and technical advances are two separate paths, and only one can be traversed at the expense of the other? If that's the case, I can understand your complaint. But, fortunately, it's not. And just because you feel games aren't fun to play or are not innovated enough has no bearing on this article, yet it's the first point you'll bring up. Many others have made good points about the introduction this advancement can (eventually) make to game play, but, again, you feel as if the rest is being neglected, and that we should all go back to our commodore 64's.
I want better and new game play too, but just because the geek working on it has come up with something better faster, doesn't mean we should all use it as an excuse to bitch about something else.
I think by "something wrong" he meant that basing profitability on another business is a bad business model. In this case, by building the ATT revenue into the pricing structure, it ties them to ATT's success as a business. It's usually not wise to have a business model like this. Kind of like trading on margin.
I could be wrong, and he might have meant something completely different, though. Who knows.
Also, what better way to target ads at users than to look through all of their stuff. Ok, so maybe it won't be that overhanded, but I'm wondering what the ulterior motive is here- especially if it's free storage, which TFA admittingly says it probably wont be.
You do realize these were released in the early 80s? I'm not saying that the movies are bad (i haven't seen them personally, but you've got me interested, along with what I've read from IMDB), but it doesn't really combat the idea that recent horror movies are made for a dollar, sold for 3.
I'll agree that there are movies of any genre that actually somehow transcend the money making motives of their (seemingly begrudgingly) producers, but for everyone one of those, there are easily 10 other's that don't. And I'm not even counting porn.
It's the same way with games, for every "AAA" title, there are a slew of simply bad games. But it's the same with painting, poetry, visual arts, performance art, etc.
I'm sure this is not going to be read, since it was a ways back, but i wanted to respond.
A cover system in itself is not a new concept. but the Gears cover system, and how important and vital it is in both single and multiplayer, changes the fundamental way that gears is played compared to pretty much any game I've played. Not to mention,it was the first game to really polish many other good ideas into great ones.
Seriously, i keep thinking of Chrono Trigger while reading this. It was one of the first games that made me feel emotions for characters. Not like the love for my parents, but the same amount of affection or "will" for a character to win as i see in an epic sports movie, or sad at the loss of a character equivalent to the death of character in a film.
I think it's unreasonable to only call a game art if it gives you lifelike emotions, as most mediums don't give me lifelike emotions, other than, well, life. I'm sure some people have stronger emotions to games than i do, which is fine- I just, again, feel a double standard is being applied for some reason.
I mean, to be honest, how many films are released just to make a quick buck? I know of several studios that will release 6-7 monster/zombie movies because of their low production costs and high return- yet what was the last artistic zombie movie you saw?
If someone can give me a reasonable explanation to why games are not art, that's fine, but all i see is a loose double standard being applied. Point out the shitty FPS while comparing it to the Mona Lisa, sure, that's a perfectly valid strawman.
Seriously, i can't think of many good reasons, aside that you can build something faster, and possibly test it in a more timely fashion. i guess it's like using a cheap hammer versus a really nice hammer that hits the nail for you.
You haven't heard of two of the biggest/most successful games to date on the xbox360, yet you feel comfortable judging and stereotyping the rest of them?
What exactly do you mean by same concepts? Do you mean, play the game? or do you mean shooter? Because i want to know exactly how the same concept of Gears has been done before? I'll concede that parts of the games are similar to previous concepts, after all, it does require user input.
The graphics are much better- But that is more immersing to me than doom was, and doom had the fact that I was a child without much experience in the gaming world- kind of like how scary movies scare you when you're younger, but not as much when you're older. Gears of war is the equivalent of scaring the shit out of me as an adult. Gears also had a modified cover system that's a lot different than games made in your 93-99 range.
What about the story that bioshock is telling? The ethical twist it puts on gameplay. Or the sheer fact that massive worlds add a new dimension to gameplay that were unavailable on your "golden aged" consoles? In this case, I can easily say that form led function, not the other way around.
I feel as if you want so badly for the games of the current age to be bad so you can live in nostalgia, or to rationalize some bitterness that you feel towards the gaming industry.
Every generation has games that push the boundaries or recreate them all together. Some will use games to paint a very vivid and beautiful picture, hence your graphic increases, but others will use them to tell a story we haven't heard yet or discover a place we haven't been.
What you're saying is that if something has been done before it's not worth doing again. You know, a lot of mobster movies were made before, but The Departed was one of the best.
I agree with most of what you say, but i do take great interest in collegiate and professional sports. Now, when the WSVG has a fantasy league and i can get the number one pick, we might have some more fan buy-in. until then, yeah, I'll play sitting on my couch.
The problem is, any study that doesn't involve WOW isn't very interesting to the outside world that has heard of wow (thanks, Southpark) but not something like DAoC.
I feel like there are so many interesting subjects to explore in the world of games and game development. A major one I'd be interested in is the development process compared to other (non-game) developers. If we had to guess, what CMMI level do you think game devs are? 0? 1? probably not a 4. I'm not saying they need to be, but how many games make deadlines nowadays?
The pay/play studies mentioned above would also be interesting. What about in game advertising for a free MMORPG? how about a study on that.
I agree tehre is too much attention on WOW, and i don't know what to do about it. perhaps I'll do my own study.
The thing about sequels in video games, however, is that it's simply brand recognition. It really doesn't have anything to do with the previous games in a lot of cases. Look at the Grand Theft Auto series- the games are all separate entities: different cities, different themes. Sure it's the same (boring?) game play over and over, but it can be a lot different.
Part of the fun of Bioshock is discovering the city, and also, to me, it was the moral/ethical battle that the game explored. The game play was simply a venue for that story to unfold. Don't get me wrong, it was a great venue to play through. But first and foremost there was a story to be told/acted out. And I think they could build another rapture and another interesting story to go along with it.
Disregard all of this if it comes out within a year and a half, though:-\
Part of your view is the problem. Web 2.0 isn't a "sexy new technology", it's a paradigm shift. I can do web 2.0 functionality without Ajax/javascript. it might not look as sexy as what other's are doing, but is still in the paradigm of web 2.0. All of my complaints, thus far, have been technology independent. It's like confusing SOA or SAS with some technology/platform, instead of the idea that it is.
Unfortunately, it happens every day. And i understand that Ajax/javascript might be in a lot of the apps that are being blocked by IT departments, but i think it's a healthy exercise to make the clarification between the technology and the theory.
It's that "responsible when right" part that's tricky, if you blow everything out of proportion into a "sky is falling," they are never wrong per se, and it makes life harder on the rest of us. This is not to say the sky is never falling, but add an "i think" to the end of it.
Unfortunately wading around security policies for weeks on end because some IT guy described my (obviously) low risk project as High (causing national harm?) on a Fips 199 assessment is the end result.
Wow, I'd mod you up to heaven if i could for this.
IT, understandably, needs to make sure things are done safely and are integrated with as few bumps as possible. But every interaction I've had with IT people has been a night mare. Very similar to what the parent was saying, and i have to agree with it.
To those calling Web 2.0 a buzzword, you are correct to some extent. But for those of you throwing out HIPAA and SOX as rebuttals, i feel you are equally as ignorant as the 'MBA' who is a fan of such and such a technology. Why the hell would i use collaborative web features or Ajax for health information, or my accounting practices? I don't know many who would.
Now, setting up a collaborative research database between my business partners and myself to share research? Awesome idea, too bad it'll take 3 years to get it out. And most of that isn't development time at all, since there are plenty of COTS products available.
It really is frustrating to see some great new technologies relegated to the back seat, at times. I'm all for security, I'm all for testing, and smooth implementations, but I'm not a fan of 3 week advances for meetings and then a guy who wants to apply his process without even asking what my project is or about.
Slashdot Mirror
I trust the police more than I trust someone stupid enough to wear that shirt to the airport.
Also, aren't you equally as sheepish for believing that the police are covering something up, without knowing the entire story? Even if you don't read the words, the picture alone, of her shirt is damning enough, to me. So why can't i say she's lucky? or that she's an idiot? unless the photos have been doctored, because everyone is out to get technologically savvy Hawaiians...
You're right, if they were wearing that thing I'd want to do it myself.
Perhaps it was the story, and not the game play that make those games (mostly RPG's) so great. I still feel Chrono Trigger is the greatest game of all time.
Point taken, though, because i still play geometry wars at least an hour a day. I'm going to break 4 million someday, dammit.
Actually lasts a wii bit less than 5 minutes for some people
*fixed
I've seen this same post in every article related to video game tech and performance as of late, and it's really annoying.
For some reason, people feel the need to complain about game play in a post that has nothing to do with it- it has everything to do with technology. Yes, technology can open up (or close off) certain game play avenues, but that is hardly the point of TFA. Why you get +4 interesting for the same argument that is made over and over is beyond me, as I'd rate it off-topic.
Can't you just be pleased with an increase in a particular area of performance? I know you said you were looking forward to it, but after your rant/complaint it simple doesn't seem genuine.
Your argument in of itself is like complaining about faster computers coming out but you're pissed because you still use buggy software, with a computer you feel is plenty fast to run it. All I am hearing is "but what about my problems?". I mean, I don't care for the wii and it's "amazing game play" but i don't shit all over it, or complain about it's lack of HD support even if i feel that way about it. Do you know why? Because it has nothing to do with the article it's brought up in.
Are you of the mind that game play development and technical advances are two separate paths, and only one can be traversed at the expense of the other? If that's the case, I can understand your complaint. But, fortunately, it's not. And just because you feel games aren't fun to play or are not innovated enough has no bearing on this article, yet it's the first point you'll bring up. Many others have made good points about the introduction this advancement can (eventually) make to game play, but, again, you feel as if the rest is being neglected, and that we should all go back to our commodore 64's.
I want better and new game play too, but just because the geek working on it has come up with something better faster, doesn't mean we should all use it as an excuse to bitch about something else.
I for one welcome our new ray-traced overlords.
XML is the answer.
I heard they were going to put it into a Steve Zissou signature knit hat.
I think by "something wrong" he meant that basing profitability on another business is a bad business model. In this case, by building the ATT revenue into the pricing structure, it ties them to ATT's success as a business. It's usually not wise to have a business model like this. Kind of like trading on margin.
I could be wrong, and he might have meant something completely different, though. Who knows.
yourname@facebook.com
I'm predicting it...
Also, what better way to target ads at users than to look through all of their stuff. Ok, so maybe it won't be that overhanded, but I'm wondering what the ulterior motive is here- especially if it's free storage, which TFA admittingly says it probably wont be.
What if you're watching the attack and laughing? is that performance art?
Might not be completely on topic, but it really is in the eyes of the beholder, i suppose. The same way i hate reality TV while others simply love it.
You do realize these were released in the early 80s? I'm not saying that the movies are bad (i haven't seen them personally, but you've got me interested, along with what I've read from IMDB), but it doesn't really combat the idea that recent horror movies are made for a dollar, sold for 3.
I'll agree that there are movies of any genre that actually somehow transcend the money making motives of their (seemingly begrudgingly) producers, but for everyone one of those, there are easily 10 other's that don't. And I'm not even counting porn.
It's the same way with games, for every "AAA" title, there are a slew of simply bad games. But it's the same with painting, poetry, visual arts, performance art, etc.
I'm sure this is not going to be read, since it was a ways back, but i wanted to respond.
A cover system in itself is not a new concept. but the Gears cover system, and how important and vital it is in both single and multiplayer, changes the fundamental way that gears is played compared to pretty much any game I've played. Not to mention,it was the first game to really polish many other good ideas into great ones.
You're damn right they are :-)
Seriously, i keep thinking of Chrono Trigger while reading this. It was one of the first games that made me feel emotions for characters. Not like the love for my parents, but the same amount of affection or "will" for a character to win as i see in an epic sports movie, or sad at the loss of a character equivalent to the death of character in a film.
I think it's unreasonable to only call a game art if it gives you lifelike emotions, as most mediums don't give me lifelike emotions, other than, well, life. I'm sure some people have stronger emotions to games than i do, which is fine- I just, again, feel a double standard is being applied for some reason.
I'd say the same about movies.
I mean, to be honest, how many films are released just to make a quick buck? I know of several studios that will release 6-7 monster/zombie movies because of their low production costs and high return- yet what was the last artistic zombie movie you saw?
If someone can give me a reasonable explanation to why games are not art, that's fine, but all i see is a loose double standard being applied. Point out the shitty FPS while comparing it to the Mona Lisa, sure, that's a perfectly valid strawman.
Testing/development work?
Seriously, i can't think of many good reasons, aside that you can build something faster, and possibly test it in a more timely fashion. i guess it's like using a cheap hammer versus a really nice hammer that hits the nail for you.
You haven't heard of two of the biggest/most successful games to date on the xbox360, yet you feel comfortable judging and stereotyping the rest of them?
What exactly do you mean by same concepts? Do you mean, play the game? or do you mean shooter? Because i want to know exactly how the same concept of Gears has been done before? I'll concede that parts of the games are similar to previous concepts, after all, it does require user input.
The graphics are much better- But that is more immersing to me than doom was, and doom had the fact that I was a child without much experience in the gaming world- kind of like how scary movies scare you when you're younger, but not as much when you're older. Gears of war is the equivalent of scaring the shit out of me as an adult. Gears also had a modified cover system that's a lot different than games made in your 93-99 range.
What about the story that bioshock is telling? The ethical twist it puts on gameplay. Or the sheer fact that massive worlds add a new dimension to gameplay that were unavailable on your "golden aged" consoles? In this case, I can easily say that form led function, not the other way around.
I feel as if you want so badly for the games of the current age to be bad so you can live in nostalgia, or to rationalize some bitterness that you feel towards the gaming industry.
Every generation has games that push the boundaries or recreate them all together. Some will use games to paint a very vivid and beautiful picture, hence your graphic increases, but others will use them to tell a story we haven't heard yet or discover a place we haven't been.
What you're saying is that if something has been done before it's not worth doing again. You know, a lot of mobster movies were made before, but The Departed was one of the best.
I agree with most of what you say, but i do take great interest in collegiate and professional sports. Now, when the WSVG has a fantasy league and i can get the number one pick, we might have some more fan buy-in. until then, yeah, I'll play sitting on my couch.
The problem is, any study that doesn't involve WOW isn't very interesting to the outside world that has heard of wow (thanks, Southpark) but not something like DAoC.
I feel like there are so many interesting subjects to explore in the world of games and game development. A major one I'd be interested in is the development process compared to other (non-game) developers. If we had to guess, what CMMI level do you think game devs are? 0? 1? probably not a 4. I'm not saying they need to be, but how many games make deadlines nowadays?
The pay/play studies mentioned above would also be interesting. What about in game advertising for a free MMORPG? how about a study on that.
I agree tehre is too much attention on WOW, and i don't know what to do about it. perhaps I'll do my own study.
The thing about sequels in video games, however, is that it's simply brand recognition. It really doesn't have anything to do with the previous games in a lot of cases. Look at the Grand Theft Auto series- the games are all separate entities: different cities, different themes. Sure it's the same (boring?) game play over and over, but it can be a lot different.
:-\
Part of the fun of Bioshock is discovering the city, and also, to me, it was the moral/ethical battle that the game explored. The game play was simply a venue for that story to unfold. Don't get me wrong, it was a great venue to play through. But first and foremost there was a story to be told/acted out. And I think they could build another rapture and another interesting story to go along with it.
Disregard all of this if it comes out within a year and a half, though
Part of your view is the problem. Web 2.0 isn't a "sexy new technology", it's a paradigm shift. I can do web 2.0 functionality without Ajax/javascript. it might not look as sexy as what other's are doing, but is still in the paradigm of web 2.0. All of my complaints, thus far, have been technology independent. It's like confusing SOA or SAS with some technology/platform, instead of the idea that it is.
Unfortunately, it happens every day. And i understand that Ajax/javascript might be in a lot of the apps that are being blocked by IT departments, but i think it's a healthy exercise to make the clarification between the technology and the theory.
I'm an idiot who can't select "plain ol' text". I won't judge anyone for ignoring that entire post.
It's that "responsible when right" part that's tricky, if you blow everything out of proportion into a "sky is falling," they are never wrong per se, and it makes life harder on the rest of us. This is not to say the sky is never falling, but add an "i think" to the end of it.
Unfortunately wading around security policies for weeks on end because some IT guy described my (obviously) low risk project as High (causing national harm?) on a Fips 199 assessment is the end result.
Wow, I'd mod you up to heaven if i could for this. IT, understandably, needs to make sure things are done safely and are integrated with as few bumps as possible. But every interaction I've had with IT people has been a night mare. Very similar to what the parent was saying, and i have to agree with it. To those calling Web 2.0 a buzzword, you are correct to some extent. But for those of you throwing out HIPAA and SOX as rebuttals, i feel you are equally as ignorant as the 'MBA' who is a fan of such and such a technology. Why the hell would i use collaborative web features or Ajax for health information, or my accounting practices? I don't know many who would. Now, setting up a collaborative research database between my business partners and myself to share research? Awesome idea, too bad it'll take 3 years to get it out. And most of that isn't development time at all, since there are plenty of COTS products available. It really is frustrating to see some great new technologies relegated to the back seat, at times. I'm all for security, I'm all for testing, and smooth implementations, but I'm not a fan of 3 week advances for meetings and then a guy who wants to apply his process without even asking what my project is or about.
But everyone agrees, the AWP is overpowered.