profit
n 1: the advantageous quality of being beneficial
Profit isn't necessarily monetary gains. I think even the fact that I play games on my computer means I get "profit," in that I enjoy the time spent on it.
Science can't get public support if the public doesn't know about it. Even in intimate stages like this it's better for us to know that something is being worked on, and something like this certainly has the potential to be "groundbreaking."
No, they really will. Yes, you have to install/log into Steam (whoever said that you wouldn't? It's still a Steam game...), but they will play on any computer. Hell, they'll even restore another account's game (if they have that game bought on their account). We use this at LAN parties all the time for people who don't have the newest updates... just back it up and copy it over.
I think Apple is afraid of a scenario like this:
1) Normal person (non-tech-minded) tries to install unsupported software and screws up Iphone
2) Normal person now has a broken Iphone and calls Apple tech support.
3) Apple tells them that they don't support that software nor the problems that can occur with it.
4) Normal person is frustrated and thinks that Apple should support him (even though realistically they can't) and thus is pissed, giving out bad word-of-mouth.
Yeah, because wanting to use your payed-for product however you want is "being cheap." Plus DRM doesn't even work, it's easy to bypass and really just makes things difficult for the actual paying customer (100% recycled argument, I know).
However, getting people to pay for an indie game is probably really freaking hard. Not only is it going to be virtually impossible to advertise due to the lack of funds, but most of the time it's actually easier to pirate the game than buy it. About 2 years ago I pirated Gumboy: Crazy Adventures (I have since bought it on Steam) because I liked it so much, but didn't have a credit card to buy it.
Annnd speaking of Steam, it really is an amazing platform to distribute indie games, though I don't know what kind of cut you get from selling it there though. Also, Penny-Arcade's Greenhouse site might become a good venue as well.
NCSoft's Aion is taking a stab at dispelling the myth that MMOs can be either beautiful or gameplay-rich, but not both.
Who ever thought that? I thought WoW was a very beautiful game (though not everybody liked the cartoony style) and the gameplay was very "rich." Where did this "myth" come from?
"Not only is it still working, but we are still getting audio from the iPod Touch in the connected speakers," the woman said. "You really don't see much of a coating or feel much of a coating."
Also:
A reporter tossed a Blackberry in a tub of water and it continued to play.
Really? I think In Rainbows is Radiohead's most accessible album (besides The Bends) to date. I wouldn't be afraid of playing "15 Step" or "Jigsaw Falling Into Place" to my parents, whose musical tastes aren't exactly broad.
Couldn't stand Kid A though... I mean I guess there was something there to be appreciated, but like you said, I really didn't enjoy it. I don't get why there's all this need for "experimental" albums... why do people think they have to create the weirdest possible stuff to be given good album reviews??
It's very difficult, if not impossible, to make a platformer like Prince of Persia in a "realistic environment." That's why it's a fantasy environment.
Sure, it can get a bit ridiculous. But the game is supposed to have its main focus on platforming (that's what PoP games have always focused on) and to have the fun platforming that we've all come to love, they have to be "different" environments.
However, I don't know how I feel about this new installment. I like the way the characters looked, but everything else didn't look that impressive.
It may have something to do with location as well. I know that people who had their routers lying on the floor had tons of problems (static buildup? Dust? I don't know anything about these kinds of things), but people put their routers up on desks or other raised surfaces, especially away from other electronic equipment (like the computer) they seem to work a bit better.
I doubt it's just me, but does anybody else, no matter how good a movie is, really dislike the ones made from books/games?
I tend to nitpick every single little thing that deviates from the game/book. I feel like if they're going to make a movie, they should either make a seamless transition of the book's storyline (this is why I hated the Harry Potter movies...) or just come up with an original idea.
I did see Fight Club before I read the book, and thoroughly enjoyed both (though the book was a little ruined by already knowing the ending). I'm sure that these kind of transitions are possible to do good, but they've got a lot of people to please from the get-go.
Just because you can't conceive of something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. You can't think of a way that something could be "beyond the physical" because... why? Because we haven't seen it before? What's wrong with, at the very least, acknowledging the possibility (as that's all I was suggesting you do)? Yes, perfectly explainable phenomena have been written off with supernatural causes, but I'm not saying you should do that. I'm just saying that you could say that "sure, maybe there is something else out there."
I'd mod this troll if I had points, and I'm agnostic...
Saying with conviction that "there is nothing metaphysical out there" is just as big of a leap of faith as saying there IS a god. To me the fact that there is anything that exists at all suggests that there is something metaphysical (at the very least relative to our universe), though obviously it can't be proven to the extent that you probably want due to the nature of metaphysics.
I kind of find it interesting that on Slashdot any raving religious lunatic condemning the ways of the faithless would be modded -5 Troll, but when somebody bashes religion they're given a nudge and a wink.
Why the hell are people so afraid of death? Because it's unknown? Or because they believe in hell and aren't confident they're not going to end up there? And even in the event that you simply stop existing, would that be so bad? It's not like you'd be around to experience it.
That said, why could anybody possibly think that this is going to be a good idea? Our population is already skyrocketing with people dying of "natural causes," what do people think is going to happen if they eliminate those deaths? Even if they forced sterilization of the "immortals" you'd still have youth having unplanned pregnancies, and you'd have a constantly increasing population with a much smaller death rate. Plus you have all the people who believe that God decreed that people should "go forth and multiply," and it's doubtful that they're going to stop doing that.
Likely, this will end up being an extremely expensive procedure that's given to the top elites, giving us even more of a gap between the rich and the poor.
Can we please start working on making the quality of life good for everyone rather than concentrating on improving it for the minuscule part of the population that already has amazing opportunities?
Here's the thing: a movie or a book (a story) costs $7. If you make the story the center of the game, the game is worth $7. Um... aren't you forgetting that there are other things in the game that might make the game worth more than $7? Bioshock was very story-centric, yet it was worth MUCH more than $7, and I'm actually quite happy with my $50 that I spent on it.
The difference between games and TV/books is that they're interactive. If your actions don't change how the story plays out, or if there is only one thing to DO, then you've basically got gameplay that's separate from the story. Sure, the story may make you want to keep playing, but then the gameplay is just a means to watch a movie (and considering how badly some games are voice acted and animated, not a particularly good on).
However, not until games can actually make your actions have actual, non-scripted consequences (or lots and lots and lots of scripted ones), games will have to be linear to tell a decent story. I don't think we have the technology to be able to do that yet (wait for AI).
Couldn't the "heightened creativity levels" have something to do with the fact that Dance Dance Revolution requires physical activity? I feel like coming to the conclusion that "video games make us more creative" is a bit presumptuous. If they used a game like WOW maybe...
Also, I couldn't find exactly how they measured creativity. How DO you measure something like that with a pre-made test?
Really? It ran fine on my Geforce 4200 at medium/high settings (2.4ghz p4, 1gb of ram) with framerates on average of 40fps.
The game engine was based off of OpenGL though, and at the time Nvidia's performance on that end was much better than ATI's. Not sure how it is now...
Re:This is why I don't like Master Chief/Solid Sna
on
Second Person
·
· Score: 1
I think it's much more difficult to create a good story without making the character you play an actual character in the story. Don't get me wrong, Half-Life has done an incredible job, but when you have all these characters who seem to really like this guy who doesn't talk (and in my case hits them all with grenades and crowbars). To me, having the one attribute of "courage" isn't enough to warrant Alex falling in love with Gordon Freeman.
Now if you had a way of having a character actually talk (ie participate in ways other than just shooting some people and listening to others) but still in some way carry out your (the player) actions as you would do them, then you might be able to craft a good story. However, this kind of game I think is out of the reach of our current game systems, as it would probably require a great bit of AI. But the experience would be amazing.
From Wikipedia's article on addiction: Addiction was a term used to describe a devotion, attachment, dedication, inclination, etc. Nowadays, however, the term addiction is used to describe a recurring compulsion by an individual to engage in some specific activity, despite harmful consequences to the individual's health, mental state or social life.
Just because it isn't an actual chemical change in your body doesn't mean it's not addicting. Things CAN and ARE psychologically addicting without being physically addicting (I'm pretty sure that Marijuana fits this as well).
Granted, those who do suffer a harmful change in their "health, mental state, or social life" usually have a bigger tendency to addiction than others who are able to play casually, but the game rewards (and sometimes requires) a large amount of play time, and it's very easy to spend lots and lots of your time playing when you should be studying for a test.
Slashdot Mirror
profit
n 1: the advantageous quality of being beneficial
Profit isn't necessarily monetary gains. I think even the fact that I play games on my computer means I get "profit," in that I enjoy the time spent on it.
Science can't get public support if the public doesn't know about it. Even in intimate stages like this it's better for us to know that something is being worked on, and something like this certainly has the potential to be "groundbreaking."
No, they really will. Yes, you have to install/log into Steam (whoever said that you wouldn't? It's still a Steam game...), but they will play on any computer. Hell, they'll even restore another account's game (if they have that game bought on their account). We use this at LAN parties all the time for people who don't have the newest updates... just back it up and copy it over.
I think Apple is afraid of a scenario like this:
1) Normal person (non-tech-minded) tries to install unsupported software and screws up Iphone
2) Normal person now has a broken Iphone and calls Apple tech support.
3) Apple tells them that they don't support that software nor the problems that can occur with it.
4) Normal person is frustrated and thinks that Apple should support him (even though realistically they can't) and thus is pissed, giving out bad word-of-mouth.
Yeah, because wanting to use your payed-for product however you want is "being cheap." Plus DRM doesn't even work, it's easy to bypass and really just makes things difficult for the actual paying customer (100% recycled argument, I know).
However, getting people to pay for an indie game is probably really freaking hard. Not only is it going to be virtually impossible to advertise due to the lack of funds, but most of the time it's actually easier to pirate the game than buy it. About 2 years ago I pirated Gumboy: Crazy Adventures (I have since bought it on Steam) because I liked it so much, but didn't have a credit card to buy it.
Annnd speaking of Steam, it really is an amazing platform to distribute indie games, though I don't know what kind of cut you get from selling it there though. Also, Penny-Arcade's Greenhouse site might become a good venue as well.
NCSoft's Aion is taking a stab at dispelling the myth that MMOs can be either beautiful or gameplay-rich, but not both.
Who ever thought that? I thought WoW was a very beautiful game (though not everybody liked the cartoony style) and the gameplay was very "rich." Where did this "myth" come from?
"Not only is it still working, but we are still getting audio from the iPod Touch in the connected speakers," the woman said. "You really don't see much of a coating or feel much of a coating."
Also:
A reporter tossed a Blackberry in a tub of water and it continued to play.
Seems like it works to me based on the article..
Really? I think In Rainbows is Radiohead's most accessible album (besides The Bends) to date. I wouldn't be afraid of playing "15 Step" or "Jigsaw Falling Into Place" to my parents, whose musical tastes aren't exactly broad.
Couldn't stand Kid A though... I mean I guess there was something there to be appreciated, but like you said, I really didn't enjoy it. I don't get why there's all this need for "experimental" albums... why do people think they have to create the weirdest possible stuff to be given good album reviews??
It's very difficult, if not impossible, to make a platformer like Prince of Persia in a "realistic environment." That's why it's a fantasy environment.
Sure, it can get a bit ridiculous. But the game is supposed to have its main focus on platforming (that's what PoP games have always focused on) and to have the fun platforming that we've all come to love, they have to be "different" environments.
However, I don't know how I feel about this new installment. I like the way the characters looked, but everything else didn't look that impressive.
It may have something to do with location as well. I know that people who had their routers lying on the floor had tons of problems (static buildup? Dust? I don't know anything about these kinds of things), but people put their routers up on desks or other raised surfaces, especially away from other electronic equipment (like the computer) they seem to work a bit better.
I doubt it's just me, but does anybody else, no matter how good a movie is, really dislike the ones made from books/games?
I tend to nitpick every single little thing that deviates from the game/book. I feel like if they're going to make a movie, they should either make a seamless transition of the book's storyline (this is why I hated the Harry Potter movies...) or just come up with an original idea.
I did see Fight Club before I read the book, and thoroughly enjoyed both (though the book was a little ruined by already knowing the ending). I'm sure that these kind of transitions are possible to do good, but they've got a lot of people to please from the get-go.
Just because you can't conceive of something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. You can't think of a way that something could be "beyond the physical" because... why? Because we haven't seen it before? What's wrong with, at the very least, acknowledging the possibility (as that's all I was suggesting you do)? Yes, perfectly explainable phenomena have been written off with supernatural causes, but I'm not saying you should do that. I'm just saying that you could say that "sure, maybe there is something else out there."
I'd mod this troll if I had points, and I'm agnostic...
Saying with conviction that "there is nothing metaphysical out there" is just as big of a leap of faith as saying there IS a god. To me the fact that there is anything that exists at all suggests that there is something metaphysical (at the very least relative to our universe), though obviously it can't be proven to the extent that you probably want due to the nature of metaphysics.
I kind of find it interesting that on Slashdot any raving religious lunatic condemning the ways of the faithless would be modded -5 Troll, but when somebody bashes religion they're given a nudge and a wink.
No freakin' way!
Why the hell are people so afraid of death? Because it's unknown? Or because they believe in hell and aren't confident they're not going to end up there? And even in the event that you simply stop existing, would that be so bad? It's not like you'd be around to experience it.
That said, why could anybody possibly think that this is going to be a good idea? Our population is already skyrocketing with people dying of "natural causes," what do people think is going to happen if they eliminate those deaths? Even if they forced sterilization of the "immortals" you'd still have youth having unplanned pregnancies, and you'd have a constantly increasing population with a much smaller death rate. Plus you have all the people who believe that God decreed that people should "go forth and multiply," and it's doubtful that they're going to stop doing that.
Likely, this will end up being an extremely expensive procedure that's given to the top elites, giving us even more of a gap between the rich and the poor.
Can we please start working on making the quality of life good for everyone rather than concentrating on improving it for the minuscule part of the population that already has amazing opportunities?
Just because we don't age doesn't mean we can't die.
Bullets will still kill us.
No, but tickets are noticed by your insurance carrier and do make your rates go up.
The difference between games and TV/books is that they're interactive. If your actions don't change how the story plays out, or if there is only one thing to DO, then you've basically got gameplay that's separate from the story. Sure, the story may make you want to keep playing, but then the gameplay is just a means to watch a movie (and considering how badly some games are voice acted and animated, not a particularly good on).
However, not until games can actually make your actions have actual, non-scripted consequences (or lots and lots and lots of scripted ones), games will have to be linear to tell a decent story. I don't think we have the technology to be able to do that yet (wait for AI).
Couldn't the "heightened creativity levels" have something to do with the fact that Dance Dance Revolution requires physical activity? I feel like coming to the conclusion that "video games make us more creative" is a bit presumptuous. If they used a game like WOW maybe...
Also, I couldn't find exactly how they measured creativity. How DO you measure something like that with a pre-made test?
CGI Free? Plasmids, large underwater city, and... I don't know, the BIG DADDIES? Though I'll agree, they'll probably overdo it.
Really? It ran fine on my Geforce 4200 at medium/high settings (2.4ghz p4, 1gb of ram) with framerates on average of 40fps. The game engine was based off of OpenGL though, and at the time Nvidia's performance on that end was much better than ATI's. Not sure how it is now...
I think it's much more difficult to create a good story without making the character you play an actual character in the story. Don't get me wrong, Half-Life has done an incredible job, but when you have all these characters who seem to really like this guy who doesn't talk (and in my case hits them all with grenades and crowbars). To me, having the one attribute of "courage" isn't enough to warrant Alex falling in love with Gordon Freeman. Now if you had a way of having a character actually talk (ie participate in ways other than just shooting some people and listening to others) but still in some way carry out your (the player) actions as you would do them, then you might be able to craft a good story. However, this kind of game I think is out of the reach of our current game systems, as it would probably require a great bit of AI. But the experience would be amazing.
From Wikipedia's article on addiction: Addiction was a term used to describe a devotion, attachment, dedication, inclination, etc. Nowadays, however, the term addiction is used to describe a recurring compulsion by an individual to engage in some specific activity, despite harmful consequences to the individual's health, mental state or social life.
Just because it isn't an actual chemical change in your body doesn't mean it's not addicting. Things CAN and ARE psychologically addicting without being physically addicting (I'm pretty sure that Marijuana fits this as well).
Granted, those who do suffer a harmful change in their "health, mental state, or social life" usually have a bigger tendency to addiction than others who are able to play casually, but the game rewards (and sometimes requires) a large amount of play time, and it's very easy to spend lots and lots of your time playing when you should be studying for a test.