Prepare for spin, seeing as Bush most likely isn't smart enough to know what an AMD is - only that Iran possess's 216 AMDs, and oil.
With Blair gone, its hard to judge what the Brits will do, though it would be fun if they reused their old FUD, informing the public about how fast Iran could launch their AMD's at london.
This AskSlashdot sure doesn't warranty the front page, or even BEING ASKED. Seriously, I wish I was older so I could say slashdot's gone downhill. The question asker has obviously not thought out his question, or have any point on it. His criteria aren't accurate or consistant - he asks why games still have levels, and states seamless play as being the apparent end all (when its pretty damn clear that its not).
The Metroid Prime series (which I'm a big fan of) ALL HAVE LEVELS - even the ones on a continuous world like Prime and Echoes have levels. you just walk between them. Nor is it seamless - there are frequent cutscenes where I am outside of my control - but does it bug me that I lose control of myself, in order to have a cool looking sequence where Samus has a western style stand-off with Dark Samus in a sci-fi reactor room? No, that sequence looked rad. Could they have had that sequence if it didn't break the seam and have a cutscene? No.
Half life similarly, while seamless, has pretty obvious levels, just once again, you walk between them - in HL2 there is the antlion cave level, leading to the outdoor antlion guard showdown, leading to the fetching the car stage, driving around getting ambushed, Fight the Helicopter in the Crate Yard (or whatever you want to call it). Continous, yes, levels, yes.
So why aren't some games seamless, and why do games still have levels?
Because seamless and level-less aren't the end all of game design - they are an option, that like all other things you can put in a game, are awesome where appropriate, and are just suckful when they get put where they don't belong.
Zonk, your standards seem to be pretty low, how about the next front page question be "Why Doesn't Every Author Write Books Like Phillip Pullman?"
Slashdot Mirror
Prepare for spin, seeing as Bush most likely isn't smart enough to know what an AMD is - only that Iran possess's 216 AMDs, and oil. With Blair gone, its hard to judge what the Brits will do, though it would be fun if they reused their old FUD, informing the public about how fast Iran could launch their AMD's at london.
This AskSlashdot sure doesn't warranty the front page, or even BEING ASKED. Seriously, I wish I was older so I could say slashdot's gone downhill. The question asker has obviously not thought out his question, or have any point on it. His criteria aren't accurate or consistant - he asks why games still have levels, and states seamless play as being the apparent end all (when its pretty damn clear that its not). The Metroid Prime series (which I'm a big fan of) ALL HAVE LEVELS - even the ones on a continuous world like Prime and Echoes have levels. you just walk between them. Nor is it seamless - there are frequent cutscenes where I am outside of my control - but does it bug me that I lose control of myself, in order to have a cool looking sequence where Samus has a western style stand-off with Dark Samus in a sci-fi reactor room? No, that sequence looked rad. Could they have had that sequence if it didn't break the seam and have a cutscene? No. Half life similarly, while seamless, has pretty obvious levels, just once again, you walk between them - in HL2 there is the antlion cave level, leading to the outdoor antlion guard showdown, leading to the fetching the car stage, driving around getting ambushed, Fight the Helicopter in the Crate Yard (or whatever you want to call it). Continous, yes, levels, yes. So why aren't some games seamless, and why do games still have levels? Because seamless and level-less aren't the end all of game design - they are an option, that like all other things you can put in a game, are awesome where appropriate, and are just suckful when they get put where they don't belong. Zonk, your standards seem to be pretty low, how about the next front page question be "Why Doesn't Every Author Write Books Like Phillip Pullman?"