I don't think it was an irresponsible review at all - reading it actually got me more psyched about the game than I was before.
I agree that the character customization gripe is fairly minor, however regarding the racially restricted zones gamespy merely indicated that it could be a source of frustration. I tend to agree. I will be playing with other friends in the game (real world friends) and I will get very annoyed if I am prevented from grouping with them due to these restricted zones.
I am guessing that the restricted zones will be fairly limited, but I can certainly understand why gamespy thinks it could be an issue. In any case I am glad that Blizzard will have the concern brought to their attention at this point, rather than after release.
Not such a bad idea - but would we want the first man or woman on mars to be a convicted criminal? And for an obviously serious crime? Sure they may get the job done, but we would be reading about them and learning about them for decades (like Neil Armstrong).
Another thought that has struck me about this whole affair, is that even if we find someone willing to go on the one way trip, would the public accept such a sacrifice? A lot of people are against suicide and euthanasia, and this would come very close to qualifying. I am just wondering how much of the public would rather we didn't go at all, if we had to go in this fashion?
lol, and at the end of your five years what will they do when you tell them "Nup - turns out living the high life is pretty great!" ???
They can't really throw you in the spaceship and wish you good luck - and it isn't like a court would uphold a contractual obligation to kill yourself (at least one would assume not).
I'm not saying that you wouldn't be prepared to go through with it - but I am not sure that they would be willing to take your word for it...
Find a terminally ill cancer patient who would rather do something spectacular and go out in style, as compared to slowly dying a painful death... (for example).
My point is that I am sure you could find many perfectly sane people willing to undertake such a mission.
Tell me about it - that Yoda scene was the sort of thing you would expect from a parody... Especially as at the end he hunches back over his crutch.
If they really wanted a fast fight scene, it would be better if he just threw his sword around with the force - they could have had his sword make all the same movements as it did (essentially the same fight) but show Yoda in deep concentration using the force to move it.
I even heard that the CGI guys for the movie hated the Yoda fight so much that on their own time they came up with a few alternate fight scenes for Lucas - but in his infinite 'wisdom', he remained true to his 'vision'.
And by default the C buttons were used for strafing and looking up and down. Until Halo I think most/all games combined looking left and right and moving forward and back on the same stick. Since Halo everyone seems to be adopting Bungie's control scheme (so even if they didn't invent it, they made it popular).
Anyway, look I could be wrong in saying that Halo is the first FPS to use that control scheme, (but I cannot think of another that used it first) but in any case it was the first FPS game on a console where the controls felt comfortable.
The controls feel natural, you don't feel constrained by the controller, and you don't yearn for a mouse. Perhaps you have had better luck with other console FPS games, but until Halo I never found one that controlled right - and most people I have talked to agree.
Well considering that the Nintendo 64 only had one stick, I find it hard to see how Rare used two sticks for control...
The Bond games have all had you move forward and back with the left stick, and look left and right with the left stick; while looking up and down with the right stick, and strafing left and right with the right stick.
Timesplitters does the same, and Brute Force came after Halo (and even borrowed code).
I am not sure what FPS games came out for the PS2 prior to Halo's release, but as far as I know, Halo is one of the first games to have used dual-sticks for control, and the first I know of to put all the movement on the left stick, and all the view control on the right.
It wasn't what it did, but how it did it. Every piece in the game just fit. The entire game is great fun from start to finish, and has more replay than any other FPS I have played. Sure nothing in the game was revolutionary - but why is it that people seem to think that a game needs to be revolutionary to be good?
Mario Brothers 3 is better than 2 is better than 1, and yet it was merely an evolution of the game. Should we say that Mario 1 was the better game because it was original? Give credit where credit is due - the guys at Bungie have put together the best FPS game ever, and the mere fact that other people have done FPS games before them doesn't detract from that.
The great things Halo did: - Recharging shields (it changes the way you play the game) - Limited to two weapons (makes playing on a console much easier, as well as forcing you to think) - Button solely for grenade (why has nobody ever done this before?) - Great AI, both enemy and human assist - Seamless integration of foot combat, vehicles, gun turrets etc... - Best control scheme on a console, ever (it plays nearly as well on a console, as it does on a PC - better perhaps - and every FPS since has copied its control scheme) - Melee attack (so satisfying) - Co-op (double the fun)
Anyway, Halo does mark a huge milestone in console gaming, even if it is not as big a one in PC gaming. Prior to Halo I think there were a lot of people that didn't think you could have a proper FPS game on a console - but Halo changed all that (Goldeneye was fun and all, but nobody can claim it was as playable as a PC FPS).
I don't see what is so very insightful about your post - terrorists will continue to use whatever means and weapons acheive their ends. If tomorrow it is just as easy to highjack a plane as it was 3 years ago, then they will do so again.
Obviously once you increase security around planes to the point that they no longer pose an easy target, then terrorists will no longer take advantage of them.
However it is a little silly to say don't bother increasing the security, because once you have increased security terrorists won't even try - without doing the former, you don't ensure the latter.
Is it just me, or does it seem that the big review sites (IGN, Gamespy and Gamespot) are beginning to pity Nokia just a little and are trying to say something or anything nice about the piece of junk?
I remember IGN slammed the N-Gage after it was shown at E3, and wrote many articles about how badly designed it was, and how useless it was etc... and then a few months later they suddenly wrote an article in its defence, saying that "they aren't sure why everyone is giving it such a hard time" (forgetting that they gave it a harder time than anyone else).
Now Gamespy is doing the same thing. Having said nothing nice about the system prior to release, or at release - they have suddenly written an article in its defence. And look at what they wrote - they say nothing about it having a good design (because it doesn't); or about it having good games (because they suck); or about being able to play it for longer than 2 hours (you cannot); or any of the other things that make a decent system.
I just find it amusing that having witnessed how badly it flopped (as it deserved to) Gamespy and co are trying to soften its fall.
In Australia, the two general elements of any crime are: 1) mens rea (the criminal mind/intent) 2) actus reus (the criminal act)
The reason the two work in combination is that generally a crime is only so because you intended to do it. For instance with shoplifting, if something honestly fell into your bag/pocket (forget how it could happen) and you walked out of the store, then you have taken the thing without paying for it (which is technically shoplifting) but if you didn't intend to do it, then you shouldn't be guilty of theft. Similarly with murder/manslaughter - you only murder someone if you intended to kill them, if you didn't mean to kill them, then you are charged with manslaughter instead (to reflect the difference in intent).
We have some crimes where merely performing the act consitutes a crime (eg speeding), but none that I can think of where the intent but not the act makes one so. The fact that you can be charged for what you are thinking scares me more than a little:(
Most current movies depict acts varying from slightly illegal to extremely illegal - those are allowed. Many TV shows depict things ranging from somewhat legal, to dubiously legal - those are allowed. An awful lot of books these days either involve things that are illegal, or are so completely removed from this world/government that their legality doesn't matter - those are allowed.
Why should our imaginations not take us where we want them to?
As far as I know, merely thinking of an illegal act does not make your a criminal. Nor does the intent to commit an illegal act. The only time you become criminally liable is once you actually commit the act... let people live out their fantasies in a computer game, provided they don't do it in real life.
Plus for many, the computer game isn't even their fantasy - it is just fun to play...
Well it would be handy to have an edit ability that extends for at least a short period of time. Yes I know you are ment to use 'preview', but really - who does?...
I seem to remember Bungie saying that Ghost in the Shell was a large part of the inspiration for 'Oni' (which happens to be one of my all time favorite games). Oni was also an action-shooter (with most of the emphasis on martial arts) and from the screen shots, this new game looks kinda similar. Then again, who can tell from still screens...
I'm not entirely sure what your point was. It seemed to me that you were suggesting that tips are an essential part of the cost of eating out, but that they are not included in the cost, nor should they be.
As far as I can see, if the tip is expected, and as you point out, unavoidable - then why not just increase the price of the food/service and do away with tips?
I live in a country where tips are not mandatory (but unfortunately it is becomming that way) and I can tell you that I never tip unless there is exceptional service. If the individual serving me has done their job above and beyond the call of duty, and really improved the experience - then I tip. Else I view it as them performing their job, much the way I perform my job.
My boss does not 'tip' me for doing my work - but of course I may get a bonus if I do an especially good job.
You seem to have the mindset that a lot of people in the service industry have - that you are entitled to your tip, and god dammit you are going to get it. Sorry, if you don't earn it, you shouldn't get it.
Furthermore, I dispute your claim that the service industry is somehow an especially difficult, or trying job. If you do not find you like smiling at people, then don't take the job - you knew what was expected. The fact that you are not rude to customers does not entitle you to extra money, you simply did your job and would be fired if you were rude. The fact that you can serve 15 people at a time does not impress me either - if you couldn't they would either get more waiters, or get a more efficient employee. Other jobs are just as taxing (often moreso) as waitering; and other jobs are just as unpleasant (or moreso) than waitering - why waiters should take a job and then complain about what they do is beyond me.
The *only* defense I see to your point of view is the one that the minimum wage is reduced for jobs that have tips. I don't think this should be the case - and in my country it isn't. But I think tips should be reserved for flawless service, otherwise it isn't a reward, is it?
Look the attitude of the American's is completely fair - more than that, the Australian and the New Zealand government are not complaining. The guy is a moron and he got what he has deserved.
The guy had no real contingency plan - he decided to fly over and if he couldn't make it he thought he would drop in on the yanks... I have heard he was only carrying slightly more fuel than necessary for his trip, and didn't notify the American's that they were his backup plan.
In contrast, there is a female aviator who is planning on doing a similar leg, and she has over the last few months been preparing her flight by making fuel dumps along the way. Many other people who have done similar trips have been entirely self-sufficient, and have provided contingency plans for themselves.
This idiot decided to just make the flight, and he did nothing to ensure his success or provide for failure. He deserves what he is getting (actually he is geting more than he deserves) - which as other people have already pointed out is food and accomodation, along with provisions to get he and his plane back home.
I have read comments here stating that the reason for not refueling him is to discourage tourism - I think it is actually to discourage people relying on the base as a backup. They don't want to be seen as a contingency plan for anyone, and I think that is fair enough.
There are more than enough responsible adventurers out there, we don't need to pander to the lazy ones.
Ummm not to mention the obvious or anything, but another common character between the two you seem to have forgotten is "The Hobbit" himself... Bilbo!!!
Not that I expect them to reuse the guy they had in LoTR...
They don't count - the only online version that has a number is FF-XI and people bitched at Square when they decided to give it one.
Anyway FF wasn't the point of my post, rather an example - 11 of the FF games are singleplayer only. There are hundreds of other games out there that are single player only, FF was just one, I am sure you can use your imagination and think up others.
I don't agree - halo is a single-player game at heart, with a multiplayer mode rushed and tacked on before it shipped. It just so happens that the multiplayer element is great fun, but I think the focus was very much on single-player.
As to the story, I don't know what you expected, but I for one found it extremely detailed and interesting, and all of my friends feel the same way. There are even 3 novels based around the game, so it isn't like the story was lacking...
A: Because not all games are good multiplayer. For instance take any installment in the Final Fantasy series - all of them acclaimed games, and all of them single player only. Apart from the obvious fact that none of them are on the xbox, even if they were they would not have live support.
Many great games will never be multiplayer, and never have live support - discounting all that don't will really limit your selection.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it was an irresponsible review at all - reading it actually got me more psyched about the game than I was before.
I agree that the character customization gripe is fairly minor, however regarding the racially restricted zones gamespy merely indicated that it could be a source of frustration. I tend to agree. I will be playing with other friends in the game (real world friends) and I will get very annoyed if I am prevented from grouping with them due to these restricted zones.
I am guessing that the restricted zones will be fairly limited, but I can certainly understand why gamespy thinks it could be an issue. In any case I am glad that Blizzard will have the concern brought to their attention at this point, rather than after release.
Not such a bad idea - but would we want the first man or woman on mars to be a convicted criminal? And for an obviously serious crime? Sure they may get the job done, but we would be reading about them and learning about them for decades (like Neil Armstrong).
Another thought that has struck me about this whole affair, is that even if we find someone willing to go on the one way trip, would the public accept such a sacrifice? A lot of people are against suicide and euthanasia, and this would come very close to qualifying. I am just wondering how much of the public would rather we didn't go at all, if we had to go in this fashion?
lol, and at the end of your five years what will they do when you tell them "Nup - turns out living the high life is pretty great!" ???
They can't really throw you in the spaceship and wish you good luck - and it isn't like a court would uphold a contractual obligation to kill yourself (at least one would assume not).
I'm not saying that you wouldn't be prepared to go through with it - but I am not sure that they would be willing to take your word for it...
Find a terminally ill cancer patient who would rather do something spectacular and go out in style, as compared to slowly dying a painful death... (for example).
My point is that I am sure you could find many perfectly sane people willing to undertake such a mission.
Tell me about it - that Yoda scene was the sort of thing you would expect from a parody... Especially as at the end he hunches back over his crutch.
If they really wanted a fast fight scene, it would be better if he just threw his sword around with the force - they could have had his sword make all the same movements as it did (essentially the same fight) but show Yoda in deep concentration using the force to move it.
I even heard that the CGI guys for the movie hated the Yoda fight so much that on their own time they came up with a few alternate fight scenes for Lucas - but in his infinite 'wisdom', he remained true to his 'vision'.
And by default the C buttons were used for strafing and looking up and down. Until Halo I think most/all games combined looking left and right and moving forward and back on the same stick. Since Halo everyone seems to be adopting Bungie's control scheme (so even if they didn't invent it, they made it popular).
Anyway, look I could be wrong in saying that Halo is the first FPS to use that control scheme, (but I cannot think of another that used it first) but in any case it was the first FPS game on a console where the controls felt comfortable.
The controls feel natural, you don't feel constrained by the controller, and you don't yearn for a mouse. Perhaps you have had better luck with other console FPS games, but until Halo I never found one that controlled right - and most people I have talked to agree.
Well considering that the Nintendo 64 only had one stick, I find it hard to see how Rare used two sticks for control...
The Bond games have all had you move forward and back with the left stick, and look left and right with the left stick; while looking up and down with the right stick, and strafing left and right with the right stick.
Timesplitters does the same, and Brute Force came after Halo (and even borrowed code).
I am not sure what FPS games came out for the PS2 prior to Halo's release, but as far as I know, Halo is one of the first games to have used dual-sticks for control, and the first I know of to put all the movement on the left stick, and all the view control on the right.
It wasn't what it did, but how it did it. Every piece in the game just fit. The entire game is great fun from start to finish, and has more replay than any other FPS I have played. Sure nothing in the game was revolutionary - but why is it that people seem to think that a game needs to be revolutionary to be good?
Mario Brothers 3 is better than 2 is better than 1, and yet it was merely an evolution of the game. Should we say that Mario 1 was the better game because it was original? Give credit where credit is due - the guys at Bungie have put together the best FPS game ever, and the mere fact that other people have done FPS games before them doesn't detract from that.
The great things Halo did:
- Recharging shields (it changes the way you play the game)
- Limited to two weapons (makes playing on a console much easier, as well as forcing you to think)
- Button solely for grenade (why has nobody ever done this before?)
- Great AI, both enemy and human assist
- Seamless integration of foot combat, vehicles, gun turrets etc...
- Best control scheme on a console, ever (it plays nearly as well on a console, as it does on a PC - better perhaps - and every FPS since has copied its control scheme)
- Melee attack (so satisfying)
- Co-op (double the fun)
Anyway, Halo does mark a huge milestone in console gaming, even if it is not as big a one in PC gaming. Prior to Halo I think there were a lot of people that didn't think you could have a proper FPS game on a console - but Halo changed all that (Goldeneye was fun and all, but nobody can claim it was as playable as a PC FPS).
Surely they had to do similar research during WW-II when they used the bouncing bomb to blow up the dams? That would date back 60 years or so now.
For anyone who doesn't know what I am talking about, I highly recommend the movie 'The Dam Busters' (although I cannot vouch for its accuracy).
I don't see what is so very insightful about your post - terrorists will continue to use whatever means and weapons acheive their ends. If tomorrow it is just as easy to highjack a plane as it was 3 years ago, then they will do so again.
Obviously once you increase security around planes to the point that they no longer pose an easy target, then terrorists will no longer take advantage of them.
However it is a little silly to say don't bother increasing the security, because once you have increased security terrorists won't even try - without doing the former, you don't ensure the latter.
Is it just me, or does it seem that the big review sites (IGN, Gamespy and Gamespot) are beginning to pity Nokia just a little and are trying to say something or anything nice about the piece of junk?
I remember IGN slammed the N-Gage after it was shown at E3, and wrote many articles about how badly designed it was, and how useless it was etc... and then a few months later they suddenly wrote an article in its defence, saying that "they aren't sure why everyone is giving it such a hard time" (forgetting that they gave it a harder time than anyone else).
Now Gamespy is doing the same thing. Having said nothing nice about the system prior to release, or at release - they have suddenly written an article in its defence. And look at what they wrote - they say nothing about it having a good design (because it doesn't); or about it having good games (because they suck); or about being able to play it for longer than 2 hours (you cannot); or any of the other things that make a decent system.
I just find it amusing that having witnessed how badly it flopped (as it deserved to) Gamespy and co are trying to soften its fall.
Oh, never knew that. That really is scary.
:(
In Australia, the two general elements of any crime are:
1) mens rea (the criminal mind/intent)
2) actus reus (the criminal act)
The reason the two work in combination is that generally a crime is only so because you intended to do it. For instance with shoplifting, if something honestly fell into your bag/pocket (forget how it could happen) and you walked out of the store, then you have taken the thing without paying for it (which is technically shoplifting) but if you didn't intend to do it, then you shouldn't be guilty of theft. Similarly with murder/manslaughter - you only murder someone if you intended to kill them, if you didn't mean to kill them, then you are charged with manslaughter instead (to reflect the difference in intent).
We have some crimes where merely performing the act consitutes a crime (eg speeding), but none that I can think of where the intent but not the act makes one so. The fact that you can be charged for what you are thinking scares me more than a little
Most current movies depict acts varying from slightly illegal to extremely illegal - those are allowed. Many TV shows depict things ranging from somewhat legal, to dubiously legal - those are allowed. An awful lot of books these days either involve things that are illegal, or are so completely removed from this world/government that their legality doesn't matter - those are allowed.
Why should our imaginations not take us where we want them to?
As far as I know, merely thinking of an illegal act does not make your a criminal. Nor does the intent to commit an illegal act. The only time you become criminally liable is once you actually commit the act... let people live out their fantasies in a computer game, provided they don't do it in real life.
Plus for many, the computer game isn't even their fantasy - it is just fun to play...
Well it would be handy to have an edit ability that extends for at least a short period of time. Yes I know you are ment to use 'preview', but really - who does?...
I seem to remember Bungie saying that Ghost in the Shell was a large part of the inspiration for 'Oni' (which happens to be one of my all time favorite games). Oni was also an action-shooter (with most of the emphasis on martial arts) and from the screen shots, this new game looks kinda similar. Then again, who can tell from still screens...
I'm not entirely sure what your point was. It seemed to me that you were suggesting that tips are an essential part of the cost of eating out, but that they are not included in the cost, nor should they be.
As far as I can see, if the tip is expected, and as you point out, unavoidable - then why not just increase the price of the food/service and do away with tips?
I live in a country where tips are not mandatory (but unfortunately it is becomming that way) and I can tell you that I never tip unless there is exceptional service. If the individual serving me has done their job above and beyond the call of duty, and really improved the experience - then I tip. Else I view it as them performing their job, much the way I perform my job.
My boss does not 'tip' me for doing my work - but of course I may get a bonus if I do an especially good job.
You seem to have the mindset that a lot of people in the service industry have - that you are entitled to your tip, and god dammit you are going to get it. Sorry, if you don't earn it, you shouldn't get it.
Furthermore, I dispute your claim that the service industry is somehow an especially difficult, or trying job. If you do not find you like smiling at people, then don't take the job - you knew what was expected. The fact that you are not rude to customers does not entitle you to extra money, you simply did your job and would be fired if you were rude. The fact that you can serve 15 people at a time does not impress me either - if you couldn't they would either get more waiters, or get a more efficient employee. Other jobs are just as taxing (often moreso) as waitering; and other jobs are just as unpleasant (or moreso) than waitering - why waiters should take a job and then complain about what they do is beyond me.
The *only* defense I see to your point of view is the one that the minimum wage is reduced for jobs that have tips. I don't think this should be the case - and in my country it isn't. But I think tips should be reserved for flawless service, otherwise it isn't a reward, is it?
Look the attitude of the American's is completely fair - more than that, the Australian and the New Zealand government are not complaining. The guy is a moron and he got what he has deserved.
The guy had no real contingency plan - he decided to fly over and if he couldn't make it he thought he would drop in on the yanks... I have heard he was only carrying slightly more fuel than necessary for his trip, and didn't notify the American's that they were his backup plan.
In contrast, there is a female aviator who is planning on doing a similar leg, and she has over the last few months been preparing her flight by making fuel dumps along the way. Many other people who have done similar trips have been entirely self-sufficient, and have provided contingency plans for themselves.
This idiot decided to just make the flight, and he did nothing to ensure his success or provide for failure. He deserves what he is getting (actually he is geting more than he deserves) - which as other people have already pointed out is food and accomodation, along with provisions to get he and his plane back home.
I have read comments here stating that the reason for not refueling him is to discourage tourism - I think it is actually to discourage people relying on the base as a backup. They don't want to be seen as a contingency plan for anyone, and I think that is fair enough.
There are more than enough responsible adventurers out there, we don't need to pander to the lazy ones.
With your help... if you think what he did was so wrong, why didn't you say or do anything?
Watching it happen and doing nothing, is half as bad as doing it yourself.
Ummm not to mention the obvious or anything, but another common character between the two you seem to have forgotten is "The Hobbit" himself... Bilbo!!!
Not that I expect them to reuse the guy they had in LoTR...
Seeing my framerate made me realize I was going to have to get a new pc... ;)
They don't count - the only online version that has a number is FF-XI and people bitched at Square when they decided to give it one.
Anyway FF wasn't the point of my post, rather an example - 11 of the FF games are singleplayer only. There are hundreds of other games out there that are single player only, FF was just one, I am sure you can use your imagination and think up others.
I don't agree - halo is a single-player game at heart, with a multiplayer mode rushed and tacked on before it shipped. It just so happens that the multiplayer element is great fun, but I think the focus was very much on single-player.
As to the story, I don't know what you expected, but I for one found it extremely detailed and interesting, and all of my friends feel the same way. There are even 3 novels based around the game, so it isn't like the story was lacking...
Q: Why waste $50?
A: Because not all games are good multiplayer. For instance take any installment in the Final Fantasy series - all of them acclaimed games, and all of them single player only. Apart from the obvious fact that none of them are on the xbox, even if they were they would not have live support.
Many great games will never be multiplayer, and never have live support - discounting all that don't will really limit your selection.
Dudes how can a comment be overrated if it was never rated? Either mod offtopic, or flamebait or whatever - but overrated?
I think I hear the sheep calling...