I probably shouldn't bother since you're hiding behind AC, but...
"short pre-chewed existance"? I'm probably older than you are. I started gaming in 1981. How about you? I had pong. I was there for the great crash of 83 (I even owned a copy of ET, the game that did it). I wore multiple NES and and SNES consoles. I gamed in glorious 12" orange CGA monochrome. I had boot disks. how much of the above stuff have you ever played outside of an emulator?
I've played at least half the games or more on your list, and there are some good ones on there, and some incredibly overrated ones. Not to mention that you're missing a lot. Where are your gold box SSI games? Where is Tie Fighter? Where is Wizardry? Where is Might and Magic? Where is Civilization and Master of Orion and Master of Magic? Warcraft 2? C&C1/Red Alert?
Sir, I know good gaming.
The funny thing is, you pretty much came up with a list of the most highly rated at-the-time list of games from 1980(ish) to 1999, while I listed some of the more highly rated games in the decade hence. There is no difference between your list and my list except the decades we are considering, which was the -entire point of my post-, how many good games have come out in the past 10 years in duke's genre that have one-upped what duke forever is trying to do (aside from showing pixelated boobies of course).
Because they can take a joke. You already ranted about the game earlier and obviously never took to its politically incorrect humor because you feel the need to remind us of how you're too mature for it.
Where did you get that from? The part where I suggested truly funny alternatives in B&B, SP, or army of darkness? I love politically incorrect humor. it just has to be, you know, funny. duke interacting with pixelated strippers? not funny. not even really pushing boundaries. It's just like "hey, 13 year olds, wouldn't this be cool?" you wanna push some politically correctness that is actually funny? go watch some reruns of drawn together.
You probably didn't like the Grand Theft Auto games either, or Mortal Kombat, or any other controversial game that walks the edges of social acceptability--something I consider important for entertainment to do or else it becomes stale whitebread.
As a matter of fact, GT1 was an amusing concept but not a particularly good game for more than a few minutes. I never tried GT2 as it looked like more of the same. I played GT3 a bit at a friend's place and thought it was a pretty decent improvement on the concept. Never played vice city or san andreas. I bought GT4 for two different consoles so it's up to you whether I thought it was a quality product or not.
MK 1 wasn't a much of a fighting game in my opinion, relying on "omg real people" and "omg blood" more than being a well balanced yet varied fighter. MK2 was much improvement in this area. MK3 suffered from character bloat, but was still a fairly polished version of the concept.
What I'm trying to say is that a game can't -rely- on being controversial in order to take its stab at being considered a classic. It has to still be a good game. Witness BMXXX. Sure it was a very controversial game, yet it was also a horrible game, so nobody cared.
or, if you've been following the development of the game, on and off, for the past decade, as I have, with comparisons to other developers who have lost focus in feature bloat hell, with rotating programmers, artists, and designers trying to polish up the same product, you'd understand why an extremely long development time is almost always bad for a game unless very specific criteria are met, of which duke forever is laughably far away from.
sorry I didn't spell it out for you. I can elaborate more if you really wish.
If you think that those are bad games, I'm really curious what you think is a good shooter. Have you basically been sitting around for 12 years waiting for another duke game?
I'm wondering if you're even truly a gamer, since you seem to be shunning the cream of the crop of products released in the past few years. If you like shooters -or- RPGs, mass effect 1 & 2 are great games, and if you're a fan of both genres it is damn near a masterpiece. I can't think of a better duo of games released in a long long time.
Say what you want about the lack of realism or the shortness of the campaign, the modern warfare series has among the best cinematic insertion elements in gaming history, and can still produce emotional responses in today's jaded gamers.
What are you playing that's better, I'm honestly curious.
Mass Effect is the reason why shooters suck? Modern Warfare is the reason why shooters suck?
Really?
Duke 3d wasn't fun. Duke 3d was a polished doom-esque experience with some quirky weapons and completely forced humor. It was an interesting alternative to doom/quake until Quake 2 came out, at which point Duke's failure to actually be a -good game- in and of itself was completely evident.
People are looking at duke 3d through the rose colored glasses of nearly a decade and a half. it really wasn't a very good game when you stack it up against what came immediately after. It really wasn't even that great a game compared to what was out at the time it was on top of the world!
That's exactly what the 1st game was, and I still to this day do not understand why people thought it was so great.
"it has a shrink ray and a freeze gun!" so? I don't know about you, but there's nothing I love more than when I'm about to kill somebody and they use a cheap gimmick on me.
"it has a jetpack!" ever play starsiege: tribes? That's how you make a shooter with jetpacks.
"but it's funny!" no. Go watch some beavis and butthead or early south park for that brand of humor if you really want funny, or hell go re-watch evil dead 2 and army of darkness for the funny that duke obviously really wishes he could be.
Oh wait, it was garbage compared to other games out at the time, and this one has been in development hell 3x as long.
It'll be lucky to garner a solid 70% average. While this has been in development, we got half-life 1 and 2, gears of war, several halos, freakin mass effect, Modern warfare. Hell even borderlands.
It won't be hard for this thing to exceed my expectations, because I expect it to be crap.
I've seen what teenagers are doing today. Moreover at 33 I am still young enough to remember what I did when I was a teenager.
Conclusion: Teenagers know jack.
You want the pulse of pop culture? Find out what the 25-year-old musicians are composing, what the 30-year-old authors are writing, and what the 35-year-old directors are filming.
If you want to know what teenagers are into, just find out what the 50-year-old advertisement industry executives are churning out.
The Hobbit I could see. I picked up the Hobbit at age 12 and thoroughly enjoyed it. I then tried to read Fellowship and promptly banged into a brick wall of boredom. I tried a few years later in college as a young adult, and this time Tom Bombadil ground the experience to a halt.
It wasn't until I actually got the unabridged audio book version in my 20s to listen to while working that I was able to finally hear the full story.
Don't get me wrong, it's not a -reading- thing. It's a Tolkein thing. LOTR, and Fellowship especially, is a real tough read. During the times I couldn't bring myself to plod through Fellowship, I read the entire narnia series, the entire dragonlance series (at that time), and any number of other sci-fi/fantasy books. If your kids stuck with Tolkein, more power to them.
I believe that GP is referring to court cases where the federal government has successfully perverted the intrastate commerce law to apply to intrastate commerce by arguing that by purposely choosing not to sell out of state, the party they are attempting to strongarm is somehow affecting the market prices, etc, therefore the feds have jurisdiction.
up until that decision, the argument "the commerce cause will let us do anything we want" was mostly just fluff. scary fluff, but still fluff nonetheless. now however, post-decisions, it's apparently completely true. The federal government CAN do anything it wants unless all 3 of the following are true: 1. it specifically directly violates the constitution 2. somebody is willing to "make a federal case out of it" 3. the supreme court is willing to ignore the federal attorney's arguments
How do you jive "never intended to be signed into law" with the fact that it passed the Texas house -already- and, when the US attorney general of Texas said "you can't pass a state law that violates federal law" They basically said "really? watch us do it." It wasn't until the TSA basically strongarmed/blackmailed the state legislature when they brought out it's "Pass it and we'll ground every flight into and out of Texas, see how well your citizens like you then" that -some- of the senators backed down. Unfortunately, it was enough that the law would have failed so it was withdrawn.
Having a bill withdrawn is politically much more expedient than having it fail.
Call it an infection then, using the generic term, instead of viral infection if you really want to, but that's just being pedantic. The "but macs don't get viruses" contingent has always truly meant and implied, if not outright stated, that OSX was not subject to the same malicious software infections that windows was. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. This isn't a presidential impeachment, we're not required to define what "is" means. Everybody knows what "viruses" in this context means.
Just like with humans, be it a viral infection, a bacterial infection, or even a fungal infection, the general layperson doesn't care what is causing the problem. They just want it fixed. The only person who cares exactly what is causing the problem is the person (doctor for humans, technician for computers) who is trying to fix it. The layperson just knows that they are "sick'. Likewise, the mac user just knows that their computer is "sick" and "this sort of thing isn't supposed to happen to macs".
I would say that wishing extra burden, task, and hardship upon people "because I think they can handle it", that you would surely not wish upon yourself or your peers, probably classifies as "hate".
I was working under the understanding that his point was such a list may finally get people to respect privacy and it's value, not that such a list already existed or was an analogy for an existing list.
How much did you pay in taxes last year? How much do you think the google founders paid in taxes last year?
I bet they paid a lot more than you, didn't they. probably several times what you paid. if you're a normal joe like me, they probably paid several dozen or even several hundred times what you and I paid. Do they get several hundred times the use (compared to you and I) out of public resources that they pay for? Probably not.
"Extra tax breaks" have to be taken in context. They are tax relief for people who are already paying a disproportionately high burden. The top 1% of wage earners are paying roughly 30% of their income in various taxes (income, estate, gas, sales, etc), which is interestingly enough almost exactly the same as the middle class, who are paying roughly 31% of their income in taxes. Percentage-wise, they are the same as us. However, if you look at it from an absolute value scenario, that same top 1% of wage earners is paying greater than 20% of the total taxes collected in the country. If you had 100 workers that needed to build 100 houses, and ONE GUY built 20 houses on his own, wouldn't you think that guy deserves a break?
People hate the rich out of jealousy, pure and simple. Nothing more, nothing less. "I don't have that much money, so they shouldn't either!"
How is it any more wrong than what you are doing? Your computer is consuming precious energy and destroying the planet. You probably have the lights on, where do you think the energy for that is coming from? Did you walk to work? If not, then you probably used fuel on your way in. Have you ever gone on vacation, how did you get there? do you own anything made out of wood? a tree was chopped down to make that. how much energy was expended to make your house? your car? your computer? your various other toys?
we all expend resources. that's what modern humans DO. we use stuff. if you've got a problem with other people using resources, when they pay the going market rate, and that use does not directly deprive you of anything, perhaps you should rethink your place in modern society. Maybe the life of a monk in a mountain temple would be more suited.
Slashdot Mirror
SquareEnix has a HUGE head start on either of them.
I swore I read somewhere that Halo 3 was the last one, and that's why they went the prequel route after that.
Maybe I'm misremembering.
Has Johnny Depp signed on for 40 million yet (I may be cross-remembering my "our series is done at 3" press releases here)?
I probably shouldn't bother since you're hiding behind AC, but...
"short pre-chewed existance"? I'm probably older than you are. I started gaming in 1981. How about you? I had pong. I was there for the great crash of 83 (I even owned a copy of ET, the game that did it). I wore multiple NES and and SNES consoles. I gamed in glorious 12" orange CGA monochrome. I had boot disks. how much of the above stuff have you ever played outside of an emulator?
I've played at least half the games or more on your list, and there are some good ones on there, and some incredibly overrated ones. Not to mention that you're missing a lot. Where are your gold box SSI games? Where is Tie Fighter? Where is Wizardry? Where is Might and Magic? Where is Civilization and Master of Orion and Master of Magic? Warcraft 2? C&C1/Red Alert?
Sir, I know good gaming.
The funny thing is, you pretty much came up with a list of the most highly rated at-the-time list of games from 1980(ish) to 1999, while I listed some of the more highly rated games in the decade hence. There is no difference between your list and my list except the decades we are considering, which was the -entire point of my post-, how many good games have come out in the past 10 years in duke's genre that have one-upped what duke forever is trying to do (aside from showing pixelated boobies of course).
Shadow Warrior.
you haven't beaten it yet?
I honestly found it more fun than duke, but that's a relative scale there.
Because they can take a joke. You already ranted about the game earlier and obviously never took to its politically incorrect humor because you feel the need to remind us of how you're too mature for it.
Where did you get that from? The part where I suggested truly funny alternatives in B&B, SP, or army of darkness? I love politically incorrect humor. it just has to be, you know, funny. duke interacting with pixelated strippers? not funny. not even really pushing boundaries. It's just like "hey, 13 year olds, wouldn't this be cool?" you wanna push some politically correctness that is actually funny? go watch some reruns of drawn together.
You probably didn't like the Grand Theft Auto games either, or Mortal Kombat, or any other controversial game that walks the edges of social acceptability--something I consider important for entertainment to do or else it becomes stale whitebread.
As a matter of fact, GT1 was an amusing concept but not a particularly good game for more than a few minutes. I never tried GT2 as it looked like more of the same. I played GT3 a bit at a friend's place and thought it was a pretty decent improvement on the concept. Never played vice city or san andreas. I bought GT4 for two different consoles so it's up to you whether I thought it was a quality product or not.
MK 1 wasn't a much of a fighting game in my opinion, relying on "omg real people" and "omg blood" more than being a well balanced yet varied fighter. MK2 was much improvement in this area. MK3 suffered from character bloat, but was still a fairly polished version of the concept.
What I'm trying to say is that a game can't -rely- on being controversial in order to take its stab at being considered a classic. It has to still be a good game. Witness BMXXX. Sure it was a very controversial game, yet it was also a horrible game, so nobody cared.
or, if you've been following the development of the game, on and off, for the past decade, as I have, with comparisons to other developers who have lost focus in feature bloat hell, with rotating programmers, artists, and designers trying to polish up the same product, you'd understand why an extremely long development time is almost always bad for a game unless very specific criteria are met, of which duke forever is laughably far away from.
sorry I didn't spell it out for you. I can elaborate more if you really wish.
If you think that those are bad games, I'm really curious what you think is a good shooter. Have you basically been sitting around for 12 years waiting for another duke game?
I'm wondering if you're even truly a gamer, since you seem to be shunning the cream of the crop of products released in the past few years. If you like shooters -or- RPGs, mass effect 1 & 2 are great games, and if you're a fan of both genres it is damn near a masterpiece. I can't think of a better duo of games released in a long long time.
Say what you want about the lack of realism or the shortness of the campaign, the modern warfare series has among the best cinematic insertion elements in gaming history, and can still produce emotional responses in today's jaded gamers.
What are you playing that's better, I'm honestly curious.
Mass Effect is the reason why shooters suck?
Modern Warfare is the reason why shooters suck?
Really?
Duke 3d wasn't fun. Duke 3d was a polished doom-esque experience with some quirky weapons and completely forced humor. It was an interesting alternative to doom/quake until Quake 2 came out, at which point Duke's failure to actually be a -good game- in and of itself was completely evident.
People are looking at duke 3d through the rose colored glasses of nearly a decade and a half. it really wasn't a very good game when you stack it up against what came immediately after. It really wasn't even that great a game compared to what was out at the time it was on top of the world!
That's exactly what the 1st game was, and I still to this day do not understand why people thought it was so great.
"it has a shrink ray and a freeze gun!"
so? I don't know about you, but there's nothing I love more than when I'm about to kill somebody and they use a cheap gimmick on me.
"it has a jetpack!"
ever play starsiege: tribes? That's how you make a shooter with jetpacks.
"but it's funny!"
no. Go watch some beavis and butthead or early south park for that brand of humor if you really want funny, or hell go re-watch evil dead 2 and army of darkness for the funny that duke obviously really wishes he could be.
Thats higher res than when I used to play Might & Magic 1 on a orange monochrome compaq 286! more fluid engine too. very impressive!
Oh wait, it was garbage compared to other games out at the time, and this one has been in development hell 3x as long.
It'll be lucky to garner a solid 70% average. While this has been in development, we got half-life 1 and 2, gears of war, several halos, freakin mass effect, Modern warfare. Hell even borderlands.
It won't be hard for this thing to exceed my expectations, because I expect it to be crap.
I've seen what teenagers are doing today. Moreover at 33 I am still young enough to remember what I did when I was a teenager.
Conclusion: Teenagers know jack.
You want the pulse of pop culture? Find out what the 25-year-old musicians are composing, what the 30-year-old authors are writing, and what the 35-year-old directors are filming.
If you want to know what teenagers are into, just find out what the 50-year-old advertisement industry executives are churning out.
your kids read LOTR? really?
The Hobbit I could see. I picked up the Hobbit at age 12 and thoroughly enjoyed it. I then tried to read Fellowship and promptly banged into a brick wall of boredom. I tried a few years later in college as a young adult, and this time Tom Bombadil ground the experience to a halt.
It wasn't until I actually got the unabridged audio book version in my 20s to listen to while working that I was able to finally hear the full story.
Don't get me wrong, it's not a -reading- thing. It's a Tolkein thing. LOTR, and Fellowship especially, is a real tough read. During the times I couldn't bring myself to plod through Fellowship, I read the entire narnia series, the entire dragonlance series (at that time), and any number of other sci-fi/fantasy books. If your kids stuck with Tolkein, more power to them.
Manga readers are more highly regarded than comics readers? since when?
he is a meta-troll.
I believe that GP is referring to court cases where the federal government has successfully perverted the intrastate commerce law to apply to intrastate commerce by arguing that by purposely choosing not to sell out of state, the party they are attempting to strongarm is somehow affecting the market prices, etc, therefore the feds have jurisdiction.
up until that decision, the argument "the commerce cause will let us do anything we want" was mostly just fluff. scary fluff, but still fluff nonetheless. now however, post-decisions, it's apparently completely true. The federal government CAN do anything it wants unless all 3 of the following are true:
1. it specifically directly violates the constitution
2. somebody is willing to "make a federal case out of it"
3. the supreme court is willing to ignore the federal attorney's arguments
How do you jive "never intended to be signed into law" with the fact that it passed the Texas house -already- and, when the US attorney general of Texas said "you can't pass a state law that violates federal law" They basically said "really? watch us do it." It wasn't until the TSA basically strongarmed/blackmailed the state legislature when they brought out it's "Pass it and we'll ground every flight into and out of Texas, see how well your citizens like you then" that -some- of the senators backed down. Unfortunately, it was enough that the law would have failed so it was withdrawn.
Having a bill withdrawn is politically much more expedient than having it fail.
when your own sig file outs you as a shill/troll, I really have to wonder what the internet is coming to.
We've got from people trolling legitimate users, to trolls trolling trolls, to trolls trolling themselves.
Call it an infection then, using the generic term, instead of viral infection if you really want to, but that's just being pedantic. The "but macs don't get viruses" contingent has always truly meant and implied, if not outright stated, that OSX was not subject to the same malicious software infections that windows was. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. This isn't a presidential impeachment, we're not required to define what "is" means. Everybody knows what "viruses" in this context means.
Just like with humans, be it a viral infection, a bacterial infection, or even a fungal infection, the general layperson doesn't care what is causing the problem. They just want it fixed. The only person who cares exactly what is causing the problem is the person (doctor for humans, technician for computers) who is trying to fix it. The layperson just knows that they are "sick'. Likewise, the mac user just knows that their computer is "sick" and "this sort of thing isn't supposed to happen to macs".
If you're downloading gigabytes of data, you should not be doing it over the cellular network.
I can't think of a safer way to surf porn from work.
I would say that wishing extra burden, task, and hardship upon people "because I think they can handle it", that you would surely not wish upon yourself or your peers, probably classifies as "hate".
I was working under the understanding that his point was such a list may finally get people to respect privacy and it's value, not that such a list already existed or was an analogy for an existing list.
How much did you pay in taxes last year?
How much do you think the google founders paid in taxes last year?
I bet they paid a lot more than you, didn't they. probably several times what you paid. if you're a normal joe like me, they probably paid several dozen or even several hundred times what you and I paid. Do they get several hundred times the use (compared to you and I) out of public resources that they pay for? Probably not.
"Extra tax breaks" have to be taken in context. They are tax relief for people who are already paying a disproportionately high burden. The top 1% of wage earners are paying roughly 30% of their income in various taxes (income, estate, gas, sales, etc), which is interestingly enough almost exactly the same as the middle class, who are paying roughly 31% of their income in taxes. Percentage-wise, they are the same as us. However, if you look at it from an absolute value scenario, that same top 1% of wage earners is paying greater than 20% of the total taxes collected in the country. If you had 100 workers that needed to build 100 houses, and ONE GUY built 20 houses on his own, wouldn't you think that guy deserves a break?
People hate the rich out of jealousy, pure and simple. Nothing more, nothing less. "I don't have that much money, so they shouldn't either!"
I'm pretty sure you completely missed his point.
How is it any more wrong than what you are doing? Your computer is consuming precious energy and destroying the planet. You probably have the lights on, where do you think the energy for that is coming from? Did you walk to work? If not, then you probably used fuel on your way in. Have you ever gone on vacation, how did you get there? do you own anything made out of wood? a tree was chopped down to make that. how much energy was expended to make your house? your car? your computer? your various other toys?
we all expend resources. that's what modern humans DO. we use stuff. if you've got a problem with other people using resources, when they pay the going market rate, and that use does not directly deprive you of anything, perhaps you should rethink your place in modern society. Maybe the life of a monk in a mountain temple would be more suited.