I could be wrong... but I don't think that Youtube pays people to look for copyrighted works. The people who do that are the big companies that make the works (like Sony). They send a takedown notice to Youtube, Youtube removes the video.
That's like saying that you should have to pay somebody to constantly watch your car so that when people write chapters of Harry Potter in the dirt on it they can wash it off. They don't control what users put up.
The things that help us learn other things help us learn games too?
Pong seems like a simplistic example... it's easy to learn because it's... a very simple game. A more interesting way to look at this would be in FPS games... does playing paintball or airsoft in the real world transfer any sort of skill into FPS's?
The comparison of a song's chorus actually is moderately interesting. I wonder if games that we like are structured similarly...
I'll use VLC when they add some sort of full screen controls to seek within a movie, as WMP and WMPClassic has. Until then, having to get out of full screen just to seek to another part of the video is obnoxious.
So what you're saying is... if games were already free, for some reason people would pirate them?
More so, you're saying that if people could get 2 or 3 games for the current price of 1 game, that EVERYBODY would still continue to pirate?
Gimme a break! Of course there will still be people who pirate the really cheap games... I know friends who have pirated Gumboy. But to say that there's NO relevance at all is... just silly. Even when you earn $10/hr, a $50 game means 5 hours (more with taxes) of me working just to buy a game (I won't even go into quality). I'd buy more games in a heartbeat if they were a much lower price ($15-$30 I think is fair).
I think that his argument was based on his preceding statements. He said that bilingualism increases cognitive and memory skills (it does), and from that he noted that a bilingual programmer will probably be a bit better off than somebody with only 1 language under their belt. Just because you state your claim after the evidence doesn't make it any less of an argument.
Honestly, there's a certain number of zombies that, when exceeded, turn a game from a "Survival Horror" to just a plain ol' action game.
Left 4 Dead is a very fun, well-crafted game, but when I think "Survival Horror" I think of a game that isn't focused on combat but staying alive. This means painfully low ammo, little combat, and good use of tension. Left 4 Dead just throws you against X zombies who are all the same and then tosses in a few "boss" zombies here and there.
a great deal of that is due to really stupid enemy AI.
Is it really? What exactly do people want from AI in games? Everybody is always talking about AI that flanks, waits you out, does complex "strategies" to kill you, but when implemented it really is practically invisible.
The only time that AI is really a problem is when it has poor pathfinding. It's glaringly obvious when a enemy is running endlessly into a wall. But aside from that, you're really just shooting enemies. Sure, maybe they can take cover, go prone or crouch, or run away, but half of those "strategies" don't make a difference when you have 500% more health than they do.
Gimme a break, the weapons that you get aren't *that* much better than normal ones, and if you play hardcore a normal desert eagle kills someone just as fast as the golden one. This is exactly the kind of reward I'd like - minor, and easy for "new players" to get (most of the XP awards are for number of kills with certain weapons).
Good thing Steam isn't the only place you can buy it.
Maybe having to be on the internet is a "con" to some people, but seriously, this is 2009. If you have a PC that can play this game you are 90% likely (yes, made up stats) to have a half-decent internet connection.
I like that I can delete the game off my computer and not have to worry about keeping a CD and CD key laying around. Whenever I need to download it, it's there, and it downloads REALLY fast.
Have you ever played Sands of Time? Honestly, that game is the BEST 3D Platformer that I have ever played. This current PoP has the problem of always being too easy (because all 4 of the places you can go have the same difficulty due to the "open world"). However, SoT had almost no camera problems to speak of, the "rewind time" feature allowed the developers to make some very difficult levels (some of which were VERY hard to do on the first try) without becoming too frustrating, and the combat was excellent (you could attack straight on or use the environment). Not to mention that it actually has a decent story... nothing thought-provoking but still good.
Which takes us right back to the GP's original point: "You don't have to watch it."
But you kinda do.
Everyone holds out hope that the sequel MIGHT be good. The fact that it's related to a story you loved will be enough to at least make you download it to check it out. You can't KNOW that it'll be awful until you see it (though you can have a pretty good gut feeling).
You pay for movies, yet they have advertisements in the form of product placement everywhere. Granted, games are a bit more expensive than a DVD, but isn't it the same concept? Do people really care that the virtual bottled soda on the in-game table is labeled "Coca-Cola" rather than "Nuka-Cola" or some similarly made-up brand?
Left 4 Dead may be wildly popular, but I don't know if I'd even call it survival horror. I'm pretty easily freaked out (to the point that I won't go to horror movies with my girlfriend), and Left 4 Dead has yet to actually scare me.
If anything, I'd put it into just an Action/Shooter genre. You don't have to conserve ammo at all, and the moments that are supposed to "build tension" are really just moments where you know that thousands of zombies are going to come out of somewhere.
FEAR on the other hand scared the bejeezus out of me. If I decide I want to push my heart closer to a heart attack I'll definitely be picking up FEAR 2.
I never meant to say that that was the wrong say of saying it. I just meant to say that the voice actors clearly aren't used to saying it, and they seem to trip over themselves every time they do.
Been playing it, the PC version is perfectly fine.
It does seem much more "simplified" than SoT, WW, and TT. All you have to do to wallrun is jump into a wall (even if that's not really what you want to do), the story is very cliche, and dying really just sets you back to the last stable platform.
However, I haven't found any bugs, the game is beautiful, and the voice acting is good save for one thing - whenever the actors say "fertile." It sounds so weird and unnatural that it makes me want to blow up a dumpster full of babies. I don't think that this is a dialect thing, the actors just are clearly making a conscious effort to pronounce it fer-tile rather than their probably normal "fer-tle."
A waste of money? You make it sounds like the code for an extra input device is complex and time-consuming. It would just be a matter of getting the input devices and interpreting their keystrokes/mouseclicks/mouse movements. Certainly not a hard thing to code, probably wouldn't take more than an hour.
I don't know if those prices are the same in Euros, but it really isn't that expensive. I've seen people have computers that cost as much as a PS3 run "next-gen" graphics.
I agree. I've never had any problems with Steam, and I may have "pushed the limits" as far as using more than 1 computer at a time with it. I don't have to worry about keeping install CDs around, I have a nice friend system that I can access from ANY game, steam or non steam (the Steam Community Overlay is actually really cool), and they have a huge catalog of games that I can browse through.
I think that the people who have problems with Steam are in a very small minority. However, that's comparable to the "small minority" that have problems with DRM. However, IMO, Steam is a much better system.
Slashdot Mirror
I could be wrong... but I don't think that Youtube pays people to look for copyrighted works. The people who do that are the big companies that make the works (like Sony). They send a takedown notice to Youtube, Youtube removes the video.
That's like saying that you should have to pay somebody to constantly watch your car so that when people write chapters of Harry Potter in the dirt on it they can wash it off. They don't control what users put up.
I know... awful car analogy.
Actually, I found the mouse lag to be due to Vsync. Try turning it off.
The things that help us learn other things help us learn games too?
Pong seems like a simplistic example... it's easy to learn because it's... a very simple game. A more interesting way to look at this would be in FPS games... does playing paintball or airsoft in the real world transfer any sort of skill into FPS's?
The comparison of a song's chorus actually is moderately interesting. I wonder if games that we like are structured similarly...
I'll use VLC when they add some sort of full screen controls to seek within a movie, as WMP and WMPClassic has. Until then, having to get out of full screen just to seek to another part of the video is obnoxious.
So what you're saying is... if games were already free, for some reason people would pirate them?
More so, you're saying that if people could get 2 or 3 games for the current price of 1 game, that EVERYBODY would still continue to pirate?
Gimme a break! Of course there will still be people who pirate the really cheap games... I know friends who have pirated Gumboy. But to say that there's NO relevance at all is... just silly. Even when you earn $10/hr, a $50 game means 5 hours (more with taxes) of me working just to buy a game (I won't even go into quality). I'd buy more games in a heartbeat if they were a much lower price ($15-$30 I think is fair).
Above post = win.
This post = gets me that achievement.
I think that his argument was based on his preceding statements. He said that bilingualism increases cognitive and memory skills (it does), and from that he noted that a bilingual programmer will probably be a bit better off than somebody with only 1 language under their belt. Just because you state your claim after the evidence doesn't make it any less of an argument.
And that's exactly when I'll crack my games. Until then, Steam works great.
Honestly, there's a certain number of zombies that, when exceeded, turn a game from a "Survival Horror" to just a plain ol' action game.
Left 4 Dead is a very fun, well-crafted game, but when I think "Survival Horror" I think of a game that isn't focused on combat but staying alive. This means painfully low ammo, little combat, and good use of tension. Left 4 Dead just throws you against X zombies who are all the same and then tosses in a few "boss" zombies here and there.
a great deal of that is due to really stupid enemy AI.
Is it really? What exactly do people want from AI in games? Everybody is always talking about AI that flanks, waits you out, does complex "strategies" to kill you, but when implemented it really is practically invisible.
The only time that AI is really a problem is when it has poor pathfinding. It's glaringly obvious when a enemy is running endlessly into a wall. But aside from that, you're really just shooting enemies. Sure, maybe they can take cover, go prone or crouch, or run away, but half of those "strategies" don't make a difference when you have 500% more health than they do.
Gimme a break, the weapons that you get aren't *that* much better than normal ones, and if you play hardcore a normal desert eagle kills someone just as fast as the golden one. This is exactly the kind of reward I'd like - minor, and easy for "new players" to get (most of the XP awards are for number of kills with certain weapons).
Good thing Steam isn't the only place you can buy it.
Maybe having to be on the internet is a "con" to some people, but seriously, this is 2009. If you have a PC that can play this game you are 90% likely (yes, made up stats) to have a half-decent internet connection.
I like that I can delete the game off my computer and not have to worry about keeping a CD and CD key laying around. Whenever I need to download it, it's there, and it downloads REALLY fast.
LOL! Reading aloud breaks encryption? I love life right now.
Have you ever played Sands of Time? Honestly, that game is the BEST 3D Platformer that I have ever played. This current PoP has the problem of always being too easy (because all 4 of the places you can go have the same difficulty due to the "open world"). However, SoT had almost no camera problems to speak of, the "rewind time" feature allowed the developers to make some very difficult levels (some of which were VERY hard to do on the first try) without becoming too frustrating, and the combat was excellent (you could attack straight on or use the environment). Not to mention that it actually has a decent story... nothing thought-provoking but still good.
Which takes us right back to the GP's original point: "You don't have to watch it."
But you kinda do.
Everyone holds out hope that the sequel MIGHT be good. The fact that it's related to a story you loved will be enough to at least make you download it to check it out. You can't KNOW that it'll be awful until you see it (though you can have a pretty good gut feeling).
I like your play on words. "Torchered" is basically torture with torches, eh? Painful.
You pay for movies, yet they have advertisements in the form of product placement everywhere. Granted, games are a bit more expensive than a DVD, but isn't it the same concept? Do people really care that the virtual bottled soda on the in-game table is labeled "Coca-Cola" rather than "Nuka-Cola" or some similarly made-up brand?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEAR_2
Left 4 Dead may be wildly popular, but I don't know if I'd even call it survival horror. I'm pretty easily freaked out (to the point that I won't go to horror movies with my girlfriend), and Left 4 Dead has yet to actually scare me.
If anything, I'd put it into just an Action/Shooter genre. You don't have to conserve ammo at all, and the moments that are supposed to "build tension" are really just moments where you know that thousands of zombies are going to come out of somewhere.
FEAR on the other hand scared the bejeezus out of me. If I decide I want to push my heart closer to a heart attack I'll definitely be picking up FEAR 2.
I never meant to say that that was the wrong say of saying it. I just meant to say that the voice actors clearly aren't used to saying it, and they seem to trip over themselves every time they do.
Been playing it, the PC version is perfectly fine.
It does seem much more "simplified" than SoT, WW, and TT. All you have to do to wallrun is jump into a wall (even if that's not really what you want to do), the story is very cliche, and dying really just sets you back to the last stable platform.
However, I haven't found any bugs, the game is beautiful, and the voice acting is good save for one thing - whenever the actors say "fertile." It sounds so weird and unnatural that it makes me want to blow up a dumpster full of babies. I don't think that this is a dialect thing, the actors just are clearly making a conscious effort to pronounce it fer-tile rather than their probably normal "fer-tle."
A waste of money? You make it sounds like the code for an extra input device is complex and time-consuming. It would just be a matter of getting the input devices and interpreting their keystrokes/mouseclicks/mouse movements. Certainly not a hard thing to code, probably wouldn't take more than an hour.
Really? 1500 Euros??
You can build a computer that would run Crysis on medium without problems for about $600 (not including a monitor).
Motherboard - 80-100
Processor - 140-200
RAM - 60-80
Graphics card - 100-300
Power supply/Case - 100
Hard drive/CD drive - 70
I don't know if those prices are the same in Euros, but it really isn't that expensive. I've seen people have computers that cost as much as a PS3 run "next-gen" graphics.
I don't know, I tried to jam a CD with a bunch of PS3 roms on it into my DS and the damn thing broke!
I agree. I've never had any problems with Steam, and I may have "pushed the limits" as far as using more than 1 computer at a time with it. I don't have to worry about keeping install CDs around, I have a nice friend system that I can access from ANY game, steam or non steam (the Steam Community Overlay is actually really cool), and they have a huge catalog of games that I can browse through.
I think that the people who have problems with Steam are in a very small minority. However, that's comparable to the "small minority" that have problems with DRM. However, IMO, Steam is a much better system.