You are right that the current MMO structure is time = better character, but exactly where is the new route you seem to think you suggested?
Charge per hour played? What will that do to change the equation? It just saves money for people who play less hours than the cut off point.
Provide alternate dungeons that can be completed in shorter time? All that means it the hardcore gamer will take the fast route and be able to complete the task even more times than the casual player.
You haven't broken any link between time and character. It may even be a link that can't be broken, not with any of the resources available today and its parallels to our "real" lives.
Why do you go into dungeon X for the 13th time? It's to get a new piece of equipment, or help a friend do the same. Now what if we break the link, what if spending more time doing the dungeon doesn't net you any gain, why would you ever go back after you had completed it once? To see the pretty graphics again? I doubt it. So now you need a new area to keep your interest. And since hardcore gamers chew through content, you either need to have new areas being added on a daily basis, or you need to say goodbye to the hardcore gamers.
And maybe that is what it will take. A company to finally say "Hardcore gamers, come play, tear through everything we have, but when you're done, don't bother bitching for new content, just leave. We don't want you here."
Unless someone can find a way to let character expansion/growth not be tied to time played.
Would you explain bookmarking? From my Google search it seems that it's just like it sounds, letting you return to the last spot you listened to in an audio file. But is it something you set yourself or just the system/program remembering your last spot?
I don't know about iPods, but iTunes is remembering the last place I was at for all my podcasts.
For me, if you want to hold a professional job, you need to look professional.
I find this funny simply because the definition of "look professional" changes over time. It is slow to change, but it does change. Where I work the dress code requires slacks/khakis and a shirt with a collar, aka "business casual". If you had walked in dressed like that 15 years ago, it better have been the weekend or your last day.
So while the business world of today may not look kindly on piercings and visible tats, who knows what will be acceptable 5-10 years from now. Will you be arguing from a new perspective when that time comes or sticking to your "2005 dress code" opinion?
Who is right? Those people with their dress codes or those with their own style? What if the changes in business world dress code from 20 years ago to today isn't a reflection of fashion trends so much as an acknowledgement of individuals, it just happens to be slow to change as it is quite the behemoth. Maybe we could have a world where skill and attitude, instead of choice of clothing label, dictated business relationships if people would just let go of their preconceived notions of what is neccessary for the world to go round. I grew up in a world where my dad had to wear a suit and tie everyday, and the people in their khakis were unprofessional, what world will my kids grow up in?
How do you figure? Daniel Radcliffe was 15 during the filming of this movie and Harry is 14 in the book, not exactly a huge gap there. At the rate they have the films scheduled for release the actor will remain within a year or two of the character for atleast the next couple movies. I know kids change a lot during puberty, but I have a hard time believing that a couple years difference between the character and the actor will be earth shattering in terms of believability. As another poster pointed out, we routinely have shows and movies with 20-somethings playing teens.
I'm not saying OS X is or isn't more secure than Windows, Linux, etc., but this vulnerability doesn't negate the argument you brought up at all. If Mac users had said OS X was completely, 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt secure and had no vulnerabilities, then you would have a point. As it stands, you can still be the most secure if you have less vulnerabilities than the others.
That was a nice speech, now try answering the question. How do you propose a 1 hour drama show balances realism and entertainment when it comes to situations that, in real life, take quite a bit of time (DNA processing, fingerprint match searches, etc.)?
You'll get no argument from me that psuedo-science and techno-babble is lazy and a cop out, and I said as much in my previous post, but that doesn't change the fact that it IS entertainment, and in the process of telling a story, said story must move forward.
I have two thoughts on this. First, I hear you. We've already started to read the stories of juries who expect case evidence akin to what they see in CSI, etc. The unrealistic techniques can make you cringe or even take you right out of the show as well.
Second, let it go. What do you propose they do instead on 1-hr tv dramas? Should they show the tech prepare the sample for DNA testing, then fade to black and when they come back to the tech have the words "One week later" at the bottom of the screen? Should they start scanning the figerprint DB, cut away to a seperate story thread, then cut back to the tech still watching the screen, cut away, cut back to the screen (the tech wandered off), cut away, cut back "One week later", ad nauseum?
Maybe all the CSI shows can just work one case a season, like 24, the we can get something more realistic.
When the new McFish Griddle Whopper flops because of poor marketing, is that also unjust to the McFish Griddle Whopper researcher? Seems like a stretch
Just before this you said that "'Unjust' is a subjective term", so by your definition it is not a stretch if that is the way the person describing it feels. It also means that it is appropriate for the article's blurb which was written by a fan and gives his opinion.
I was pretty much trying to play devil's advocate here, but I have to disagree with you.
First, the game rules say you can't buy virtual items with real money, but it does not automatically follow that doing so equates to "instant gratification". If you want to qualify your remark and say that it is instant gratification for your character, that is one thing, but we don't live in a vacuum and you cannot always seperate the player from the character. The player did work for that money (I'm assuming no lottery/inheritance here), so in the overall scope of a person's life, there is no instant gratification for buying these items. Break the rules of the game, yes. Make the game easier for that player/character, yes. And as I said before; instant gratification for the character, yes. But again, that is not the whole picture.
Second, while all money spends the same, I defy you to honestly give some thought to your last statment and still tell me you are right. You are saying that if I win $30,000 dollars from a lottery and buy a car with it, that is the same if I go to work 5-6 days a week, 8-12 hours a day, save my money, take out a loan, and then buy the car? Remember, we are talking in terms of gratification, not whether your money is the same color either way.
I don't think that is a fair comparison. Popcorn and soda are not part of the movie entertainment, and the money from them goes to the theater, not to the studio. Out of the last ten theater movies I've seen, I bought food at one. And that was because I missed dinner.
If we stay with your calculations, we need to add food and drink you consume while playing the game, plus gas for travel to the store where you bought the game (or ISP monthly cost divided by the time it took you to d/l it). Also add the cost on the water bill when you use the bathroom, electricity cost to power your TV and console or computer, and on and on. None of these things are brought up in the article.
You need to do movie ticket cost vs. game cost. And we won't even get into the world of: if it takes 10 hours for 2 people to beat a non co-op game, is that five hours of entertainment each? I know it's not nearly as entertaining to sit and watch other people play games.
Additionally, you are comparing two completely seperate worlds of entertainment, one is an experience you go to while the other is something you enjoy at home. Now calculate the cost/entertainment for a family of 5 to watch a $12 DVD (don't forget about the extras on the DVD or the rewatchability if it's a good movie). How does that stack up versus the $50 game?
IMO, no. I've never read the books and I watched both parts. I wish I hadn't. I actually stopped watching the first part 3/4 of the way through and only finished it (and watched the 2nd part) because I knew I'd be wondering what happened if I didn't.
The acting was sub-par (a few exceptions but they did nothing to elevate the level of those around them). The effects were horrible. And that's even taking into consideration that this was made for TV.
Also, as someone who has never read the books and only knew that this was supposed to be a story about a boy who could be come the most powerful wizard ever and save the world (I think I read something to that effect somewhere) I was VERY dissapointed in the lack of magic used.
I won't even get into the disjointedness/pacing of the story.
Steam allows automatic patching, so once a bug is found and fixed, it can be applied immediately; no more having to search for patches.
Steam is far from the first system with an auto-patcher. If you are just saying this is nice, fine, but I've seen too many posts where people point this out as if no one had tried it before Steam.
You can install the games on as many computers as you want; you just can't play them on more than one computer at a time.
How is this different than any other game ever created?
Steam allows for a delivery system that I think most people (those who have high-speed internet connections, anyway) would agree is much more convenient than having to buy CDs from a store and then having to make sure that you don't lose or damage the CDs.
Yes and no. Downloads are nice but I don't think we've reached the point where they are more convenient than buying from a store. Not on something like this. Maybe more convenient than buying from an online store and having it shipped, but I can drive to Best Buy and back in under 20min. Will my Steam D/L be done by then? Maybe one day, but we aren't there yet. And yes, I have a high speed connection.
And the most important of all (that so many people seem to overlook or forget): After activation, you do not have to be connected to internet to play the Steam-based games; just start Steam in off-line mode.
Head over to the Steam-Powered forums. Close your eyes and click a thread. Chances are you'll hit one where people say the instructions for activating off-line mode don't work. But even if it works perfectly, that is not the only complaint about the online requirement for activation. As you said; "that so many people seem to overlook or forget" is the point that people who bought the physical box edition and only care about the single player game have a brand new set of coasters without that online activation. Of course there are still arguments to be made against this, but all the Steam supporters seem to gloss over this fact and just address the ability to turn on off-line mode.
Here is the problem as I see it. The Steam detractors have been a bit too harsh sometimes, but I'm actually inclined to give them a small bit of leeway since they did spend money here. However, the Steam supporters are TOO forgiving of Steam. No one said you can't support Steam AND make some noise about its problems. A lot of Steam supporters talk about how "this is the first of its kind, of course it will have bugs, we just have to wait for them to get worked out, it's always like this in the beginning". Who do you think is going to be a bigger catalyst for that change, for the improvement of Steam; the people who scream, yell, and demand that the problems are unacceptable, or the people who sit idly by and accept everything as perfect? Whether you think everything is perfect or not isn't the point, if you are being quiet about it, that is the same as saying there is nothing wrong. We need to find the middle ground between the two groups.
Who said stop trying? They said stop promising, stop hyping. If developers want to shoot for the stars, more power to them. I want them to try and make the best games possible. Just don't sell me on a ton of features that could possibly be pulled because you can't get them implemented for whatever reason (time, tech, etc.).
Make the game, get the features in, then sell them to me.
Re:Now that does not make sense?
on
Star Wars on DVD
·
· Score: 1
[Spoilers ahead...if you've just come out from under your rock]
I had read that they are saying Anakin "dies" in Ep. III during the battle with Obi and that Vader is just a zombie. So the ghost Anakin shows up as how he was when he died.
I saw this explanation on the same site that I first saw the new RotJ footage (they had a quicktime of the new Anakin appearing next to Obi and Yoda). Normally I'd say this is crap...but this is the man that made Greedo shoot first.
What device can do this? I looked at the Roku you linked to and didn't see any mention of this kind of feature. Also, wouldn't doing this mean that iTunes was playing 2 songs at once? Or you would have to run 2 instances of iTunes. I didn't think either of those was possible.
You could always have a 2nd PC with iTunes, share your library from the main computer, and have the 2nd stream to the other Airport Express.
Reading comprehension > you. (Disclaimer: If English is not your first language then disregard that remark.)
He didn't say: "Congress cannot legislate the advance of technology." He said that the advance of technology cannot be legislated and he directed the comment as though speaking to Congress.
The response was that the advance of technology can be legislated, and the respondent used President Kenedy as an example.
Maybe your uncited research shows this, but my observations have been that people drive worse when on mobile phones. Not that they were driving all that great to begin with, but whenever someone is going extremely slow or making idiotic, erratic, and dangerous lane changes 9 times out of 10 they are on a mobile phone.
Well, in the interest of discussion and not flaming, I think this is something we need. The technology has to start somewhere, so why not something simple, like controlling a mp3 player from a console on your sleeve? From there they think of different items to integrate and new ways to do it, hopefully improving on the last design until we have full computers as part of the thread of the clothing, fully washable too. And who knows where it leads.
Besides, I think NEED is hard to define when it isn't food or shelter. This is something I'd want though. I've gone snowboarding with the MD player in the pocket designed for it (slot for headphone cable and all). Yeah it works, but I had to unzip the pocket everytime I wanted to forward/reverse. That was the first attempt at convienence, next is the Amp jacket, no more unzipping the pocket. Imagine what will come after that?
The things we need? They will come after the market driven things we want. The medical community realising the benefits of something designed for fashion and adapting it to their needs. Or from the research done by these very same companies making snowboarding jackets. The money for R&D has to come from somewhere. And not everyone is dedicated to pure science for the advancement of humankind. Some people just want to make a buck.
Slashdot Mirror
A cautionary tale for your animal-waged war...
we3
You are right that the current MMO structure is time = better character, but exactly where is the new route you seem to think you suggested?
Charge per hour played? What will that do to change the equation? It just saves money for people who play less hours than the cut off point.
Provide alternate dungeons that can be completed in shorter time? All that means it the hardcore gamer will take the fast route and be able to complete the task even more times than the casual player.
You haven't broken any link between time and character. It may even be a link that can't be broken, not with any of the resources available today and its parallels to our "real" lives.
Why do you go into dungeon X for the 13th time? It's to get a new piece of equipment, or help a friend do the same. Now what if we break the link, what if spending more time doing the dungeon doesn't net you any gain, why would you ever go back after you had completed it once? To see the pretty graphics again? I doubt it. So now you need a new area to keep your interest. And since hardcore gamers chew through content, you either need to have new areas being added on a daily basis, or you need to say goodbye to the hardcore gamers.
And maybe that is what it will take. A company to finally say "Hardcore gamers, come play, tear through everything we have, but when you're done, don't bother bitching for new content, just leave. We don't want you here."
Unless someone can find a way to let character expansion/growth not be tied to time played.
Would you explain bookmarking? From my Google search it seems that it's just like it sounds, letting you return to the last spot you listened to in an audio file. But is it something you set yourself or just the system/program remembering your last spot?
I don't know about iPods, but iTunes is remembering the last place I was at for all my podcasts.
Click and drag the RSS/XML link on the podcast's webpage into the Podcast section of iTunes. It will add it and update with the available files.
I find this funny simply because the definition of "look professional" changes over time. It is slow to change, but it does change. Where I work the dress code requires slacks/khakis and a shirt with a collar, aka "business casual". If you had walked in dressed like that 15 years ago, it better have been the weekend or your last day.
So while the business world of today may not look kindly on piercings and visible tats, who knows what will be acceptable 5-10 years from now. Will you be arguing from a new perspective when that time comes or sticking to your "2005 dress code" opinion?
Who is right? Those people with their dress codes or those with their own style? What if the changes in business world dress code from 20 years ago to today isn't a reflection of fashion trends so much as an acknowledgement of individuals, it just happens to be slow to change as it is quite the behemoth. Maybe we could have a world where skill and attitude, instead of choice of clothing label, dictated business relationships if people would just let go of their preconceived notions of what is neccessary for the world to go round. I grew up in a world where my dad had to wear a suit and tie everyday, and the people in their khakis were unprofessional, what world will my kids grow up in?
How do you figure? Daniel Radcliffe was 15 during the filming of this movie and Harry is 14 in the book, not exactly a huge gap there. At the rate they have the films scheduled for release the actor will remain within a year or two of the character for atleast the next couple movies. I know kids change a lot during puberty, but I have a hard time believing that a couple years difference between the character and the actor will be earth shattering in terms of believability. As another poster pointed out, we routinely have shows and movies with 20-somethings playing teens.
I'm not saying OS X is or isn't more secure than Windows, Linux, etc., but this vulnerability doesn't negate the argument you brought up at all. If Mac users had said OS X was completely, 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt secure and had no vulnerabilities, then you would have a point. As it stands, you can still be the most secure if you have less vulnerabilities than the others.
That was a nice speech, now try answering the question. How do you propose a 1 hour drama show balances realism and entertainment when it comes to situations that, in real life, take quite a bit of time (DNA processing, fingerprint match searches, etc.)?
You'll get no argument from me that psuedo-science and techno-babble is lazy and a cop out, and I said as much in my previous post, but that doesn't change the fact that it IS entertainment, and in the process of telling a story, said story must move forward.
Actually this irritates me so much.
I have two thoughts on this. First, I hear you. We've already started to read the stories of juries who expect case evidence akin to what they see in CSI, etc. The unrealistic techniques can make you cringe or even take you right out of the show as well.
Second, let it go. What do you propose they do instead on 1-hr tv dramas? Should they show the tech prepare the sample for DNA testing, then fade to black and when they come back to the tech have the words "One week later" at the bottom of the screen? Should they start scanning the figerprint DB, cut away to a seperate story thread, then cut back to the tech still watching the screen, cut away, cut back to the screen (the tech wandered off), cut away, cut back "One week later", ad nauseum?
Maybe all the CSI shows can just work one case a season, like 24, the we can get something more realistic.
Just before this you said that "'Unjust' is a subjective term", so by your definition it is not a stretch if that is the way the person describing it feels. It also means that it is appropriate for the article's blurb which was written by a fan and gives his opinion.
Want your change for the 2 cents?
I was pretty much trying to play devil's advocate here, but I have to disagree with you.
First, the game rules say you can't buy virtual items with real money, but it does not automatically follow that doing so equates to "instant gratification". If you want to qualify your remark and say that it is instant gratification for your character, that is one thing, but we don't live in a vacuum and you cannot always seperate the player from the character. The player did work for that money (I'm assuming no lottery/inheritance here), so in the overall scope of a person's life, there is no instant gratification for buying these items. Break the rules of the game, yes. Make the game easier for that player/character, yes. And as I said before; instant gratification for the character, yes. But again, that is not the whole picture.
Second, while all money spends the same, I defy you to honestly give some thought to your last statment and still tell me you are right. You are saying that if I win $30,000 dollars from a lottery and buy a car with it, that is the same if I go to work 5-6 days a week, 8-12 hours a day, save my money, take out a loan, and then buy the car? Remember, we are talking in terms of gratification, not whether your money is the same color either way.
Is it "instant gratification" if you had to go to a job for 40+ hours a week to earn the money used to buy the virtual items?
Last Wishes
Sorry to ruin your attempt at sarcasm.
I don't think that is a fair comparison. Popcorn and soda are not part of the movie entertainment, and the money from them goes to the theater, not to the studio. Out of the last ten theater movies I've seen, I bought food at one. And that was because I missed dinner.
If we stay with your calculations, we need to add food and drink you consume while playing the game, plus gas for travel to the store where you bought the game (or ISP monthly cost divided by the time it took you to d/l it). Also add the cost on the water bill when you use the bathroom, electricity cost to power your TV and console or computer, and on and on. None of these things are brought up in the article.
You need to do movie ticket cost vs. game cost. And we won't even get into the world of: if it takes 10 hours for 2 people to beat a non co-op game, is that five hours of entertainment each? I know it's not nearly as entertaining to sit and watch other people play games.
Additionally, you are comparing two completely seperate worlds of entertainment, one is an experience you go to while the other is something you enjoy at home. Now calculate the cost/entertainment for a family of 5 to watch a $12 DVD (don't forget about the extras on the DVD or the rewatchability if it's a good movie). How does that stack up versus the $50 game?
Fun, huh?
IMO, no. I've never read the books and I watched both parts. I wish I hadn't. I actually stopped watching the first part 3/4 of the way through and only finished it (and watched the 2nd part) because I knew I'd be wondering what happened if I didn't.
The acting was sub-par (a few exceptions but they did nothing to elevate the level of those around them). The effects were horrible. And that's even taking into consideration that this was made for TV.
Also, as someone who has never read the books and only knew that this was supposed to be a story about a boy who could be come the most powerful wizard ever and save the world (I think I read something to that effect somewhere) I was VERY dissapointed in the lack of magic used.
I won't even get into the disjointedness/pacing of the story.
What are they going to do - at the end of the movie, print out the ending in text like the actual games do?
Yes, it's called "the credits". You see them in movies that don't have [CAM] or [TS] in the title.
Steam is far from the first system with an auto-patcher. If you are just saying this is nice, fine, but I've seen too many posts where people point this out as if no one had tried it before Steam.
How is this different than any other game ever created?
Yes and no. Downloads are nice but I don't think we've reached the point where they are more convenient than buying from a store. Not on something like this. Maybe more convenient than buying from an online store and having it shipped, but I can drive to Best Buy and back in under 20min. Will my Steam D/L be done by then? Maybe one day, but we aren't there yet. And yes, I have a high speed connection.
Head over to the Steam-Powered forums. Close your eyes and click a thread. Chances are you'll hit one where people say the instructions for activating off-line mode don't work. But even if it works perfectly, that is not the only complaint about the online requirement for activation. As you said; "that so many people seem to overlook or forget" is the point that people who bought the physical box edition and only care about the single player game have a brand new set of coasters without that online activation. Of course there are still arguments to be made against this, but all the Steam supporters seem to gloss over this fact and just address the ability to turn on off-line mode.
Here is the problem as I see it. The Steam detractors have been a bit too harsh sometimes, but I'm actually inclined to give them a small bit of leeway since they did spend money here. However, the Steam supporters are TOO forgiving of Steam. No one said you can't support Steam AND make some noise about its problems. A lot of Steam supporters talk about how "this is the first of its kind, of course it will have bugs, we just have to wait for them to get worked out, it's always like this in the beginning". Who do you think is going to be a bigger catalyst for that change, for the improvement of Steam; the people who scream, yell, and demand that the problems are unacceptable, or the people who sit idly by and accept everything as perfect? Whether you think everything is perfect or not isn't the point, if you are being quiet about it, that is the same as saying there is nothing wrong. We need to find the middle ground between the two groups.
Who said stop trying? They said stop promising, stop hyping. If developers want to shoot for the stars, more power to them. I want them to try and make the best games possible. Just don't sell me on a ton of features that could possibly be pulled because you can't get them implemented for whatever reason (time, tech, etc.).
Make the game, get the features in, then sell them to me.
[Spoilers ahead...if you've just come out from under your rock]
I had read that they are saying Anakin "dies" in Ep. III during the battle with Obi and that Vader is just a zombie. So the ghost Anakin shows up as how he was when he died.
I saw this explanation on the same site that I first saw the new RotJ footage (they had a quicktime of the new Anakin appearing next to Obi and Yoda). Normally I'd say this is crap...but this is the man that made Greedo shoot first.
Just found the footage. See for yourself.
**Possible spolier info below**
If you consider features of the vehicle as spoilers. Supposedly the new batmobile works, and is able to jump 40ft when it gets up to 220/mph.
Article on a showing.
What device can do this? I looked at the Roku you linked to and didn't see any mention of this kind of feature. Also, wouldn't doing this mean that iTunes was playing 2 songs at once? Or you would have to run 2 instances of iTunes. I didn't think either of those was possible.
You could always have a 2nd PC with iTunes, share your library from the main computer, and have the 2nd stream to the other Airport Express.
Reading comprehension > you. (Disclaimer: If English is not your first language then disregard that remark.)
He didn't say: "Congress cannot legislate the advance of technology." He said that the advance of technology cannot be legislated and he directed the comment as though speaking to Congress.
The response was that the advance of technology can be legislated, and the respondent used President Kenedy as an example.
Bit clearer now?
Maybe your uncited research shows this, but my observations have been that people drive worse when on mobile phones. Not that they were driving all that great to begin with, but whenever someone is going extremely slow or making idiotic, erratic, and dangerous lane changes 9 times out of 10 they are on a mobile phone.
Well, in the interest of discussion and not flaming, I think this is something we need. The technology has to start somewhere, so why not something simple, like controlling a mp3 player from a console on your sleeve? From there they think of different items to integrate and new ways to do it, hopefully improving on the last design until we have full computers as part of the thread of the clothing, fully washable too. And who knows where it leads.
Besides, I think NEED is hard to define when it isn't food or shelter. This is something I'd want though. I've gone snowboarding with the MD player in the pocket designed for it (slot for headphone cable and all). Yeah it works, but I had to unzip the pocket everytime I wanted to forward/reverse. That was the first attempt at convienence, next is the Amp jacket, no more unzipping the pocket. Imagine what will come after that?
The things we need? They will come after the market driven things we want. The medical community realising the benefits of something designed for fashion and adapting it to their needs. Or from the research done by these very same companies making snowboarding jackets. The money for R&D has to come from somewhere. And not everyone is dedicated to pure science for the advancement of humankind. Some people just want to make a buck.
Hmm....not sure what I do here. Do I tell you to RTFA or do I congratulate you for upholding a Slashdot tradition?