Combining good ideas doesn't mean the result will be good. I like pickles and I like peanut butter.. but I wouldn't want a pickle and peanut butter sandwich. Or just because I like peanut butter and jelly doesn't mean I stop liking peanut butter by itself.
I was hoping more online games had come out. Not because I want to play more online games. I just want this "ONLINE IS THE FUTURE OF GAMING!!!" thing to die.. which it will once the console gamers realize online gaming really isn't all that exciting.
Fun, important part of gaming? Yes. The future of gaming? No.
Yeah, what a load! Giving the consumers a choice, what were they thinking! Don't they know we're all at the 1st grade level of education and can't even read the box, let alone decide which one we want?!
Like you said, who cares? My blog is just cheap therapy and a soap box. Got a problem with that? Then don't read it, I won't lose any sleep over it. No one is forcing you to read anyone's blog.
I prefer blogging over a private diary because there is the off chance that a friend or random person will read it and make a comment to me, and it will start a conversation. Conversing with other people helps me learn about myself and the world.
It had a chance. It's not like everyone saw a new system and immediately wrote it off without considering it. They heard about all of it's bad design decisions, lack of games, and the attitude of Nokia, then wrote it off. You don't need to experience something yourself to make a good decision about it.
It would not be nice to see the N-Gage succeed because it's not a good system. I would like to see some competition in the handheld market too, but not from a system like the N-Gage which brings nothing positive to the table.
The guy is set for life. You know that he's not going to work on something just for the money. He has the luxury of doing whatever he wants to do. That's all I ask of any game developer.. do what they want to do.. not what the fans want, not what will sell the most, just what you think is a good idea. Most likely you'll end up creating something that people will want to buy.
People put too much emphasis on story in games. There is no formula for what makes a great game. Some games are great because of the way they tell a story, some games are great because of the gameplay, some games are great because of the atmosphere, etc. Just because HL1 was a great game and told a decent story, doesn't mean every game that wants to be great should copy that.
Well, the key difference there is that the local flower shop isn't a publicly held company. Nintendo has an obligation to maximize their profits by whatever means necessary. In a perfect world, they could just fill their little niche, make a "good enough" profit and everyone would be happy. But that's not the way it is.
I read a lot of things that are book-length off my screen. It's more comfortable for me than holding a book open and trying to get comfortable. If I could get a digital copy with every book I buy, that would be awesome. I'd probably buy a lot more books than I do now.
Those stats are pretty meaningless in this discussion. Half-Life already has lots of great mods, and everyone already knows it's the most popular online game today. The question is, is it the most popular because it has lots of great mods, or does it have lots of great mods because it's the most popular? Those stats don't answer any questions.
Personally, I think it's a mix of both. HL is a great single player game, everyone who cared about PC gaming bought it. But it wouldn't have lasted without the mods.
CS was the saving grace, after that it was just everyone else wanting to copy it's success.
Anyway, in reply to the original post, there are some high quality mods for Quake 3. Urban Terror, Total Combat, Rocket Arena 3, Challenge Promode Arena(my personal favorite multiplayer FPS), and probably some others I'm not familiar with. Also, I'm kind of glad it's not as popular.. it's harder to find random people to play against, but it's also a lot less free of unexperienced idiots playing online games for the first time and treating it like an AOL chat room.
Maybe Valve realizes Microsoft will pay large sums of money to get a practically guarunteed hit game on the xbox.. so they're pretending to play hardball. They get a nice pile of cash for doing something they were probably going to do anyway.
I fully enjoyed Animal Crossing (and continue to fully enjoy it), and I don't own a GBA, scanner, or cards. Those things are just extra bonuses for people that own those products already.
They didn't take things out of the game to make them exclusive for the GBA linkup. They come up with ideas to use the GBA link so they can add something extra to the game. I don't see how that could be interpreted as a bad thing.
However, at E3 Nintendo did show a lot of games which require the GBA link to play at all. That does piss me off. Animal Crossing is not one of those games.
A DOS-style interface? Uplink didn't have one of those. Uplink was more of a graphical hacking interface type thing than a command line hacking type thing.
And what was with the "even on Playstation 2" remark? Is it harder to believe that it would have the feature on the PS2 than the xbox or GC?
What do you mean they have fewer and fewer? Compared to what? It's not like they tore down all their mild rides.
I do think you have a point though. There's a lot of enjoyment to be had in the less extreme rides. But really those are just filler, for me anyway. The reason I ride rollercoasters is to get the pants scared off of me. Just thinking about waiting in the queue line as I get closer and closer to getting on the ride.. your heart pounding like crazy before you even step into the coaster car.. damn. Now that's entertainment. With the mild rides, yeah they're fun too, but the fear factor isn't there and that's the main reason I ride coasters.
Well, it depends on what they want. Clearly Microsoft and Sony just want to gain the most market share. Nintendo is more worried about their bottom line since this is the only market they have. Despite being in a very close competition with Microsoft for 2nd place in the market worldwide, they make MUCH more money in this market than Microsoft does, and if I remember correctly, they even bring in a larger profit than Sony.
Sony wins the battle for the most market share, but how much does that really matter if you can't afford to stay in the market? *coughmicrosoftcough*
Not necessarily. If the development was short then I would assume they got the main development period done quickly. Then had plenty of time for bug testing because they didn't need to rush it out, because it hadn't been delayed a bunch of times.
With a game that's taken a very long time to develop, I would assume it was a very complicated game to make and took a long time and was delayed many times. So when they finally did get close to having a finished product, instead of going into the usual bug testing, they rushed it through to get it out as soon as possible.
Sorry, maybe it's just me.. but I find it hard to get excited about any newly relesed PC game. It's pretty much a guaruntee that it will have at least one major bug, and many minor ones. I'll get excited when the first patch is released. Especially with a game that has been in development a long time. That generally means they want to get it out as soon as every major feature is in, and don't have too much time for bug testing and the smaller things. It's a pity.
Slashdot Mirror
Combining good ideas doesn't mean the result will be good. I like pickles and I like peanut butter.. but I wouldn't want a pickle and peanut butter sandwich. Or just because I like peanut butter and jelly doesn't mean I stop liking peanut butter by itself.
How sad for you.. a 23 year old with a 14 year old's maturity. :P
I was hoping more online games had come out. Not because I want to play more online games. I just want this "ONLINE IS THE FUTURE OF GAMING!!!" thing to die.. which it will once the console gamers realize online gaming really isn't all that exciting.
Fun, important part of gaming? Yes. The future of gaming? No.
Yeah, what a load! Giving the consumers a choice, what were they thinking! Don't they know we're all at the 1st grade level of education and can't even read the box, let alone decide which one we want?!
I'm not suggesting that you only do one or the other. You can do both! Amazing, I know.
Like you said, who cares? My blog is just cheap therapy and a soap box. Got a problem with that? Then don't read it, I won't lose any sleep over it. No one is forcing you to read anyone's blog.
I prefer blogging over a private diary because there is the off chance that a friend or random person will read it and make a comment to me, and it will start a conversation. Conversing with other people helps me learn about myself and the world.
That would be great! Except the majority of internet users are still on dial-up and BitTorrent is terrible on dial-up (in my experience anyway).
It had a chance. It's not like everyone saw a new system and immediately wrote it off without considering it. They heard about all of it's bad design decisions, lack of games, and the attitude of Nokia, then wrote it off. You don't need to experience something yourself to make a good decision about it.
It would not be nice to see the N-Gage succeed because it's not a good system. I would like to see some competition in the handheld market too, but not from a system like the N-Gage which brings nothing positive to the table.
The guy is set for life. You know that he's not going to work on something just for the money. He has the luxury of doing whatever he wants to do. That's all I ask of any game developer.. do what they want to do.. not what the fans want, not what will sell the most, just what you think is a good idea. Most likely you'll end up creating something that people will want to buy.
People put too much emphasis on story in games. There is no formula for what makes a great game. Some games are great because of the way they tell a story, some games are great because of the gameplay, some games are great because of the atmosphere, etc. Just because HL1 was a great game and told a decent story, doesn't mean every game that wants to be great should copy that.
Well, the key difference there is that the local flower shop isn't a publicly held company. Nintendo has an obligation to maximize their profits by whatever means necessary. In a perfect world, they could just fill their little niche, make a "good enough" profit and everyone would be happy. But that's not the way it is.
I read a lot of things that are book-length off my screen. It's more comfortable for me than holding a book open and trying to get comfortable. If I could get a digital copy with every book I buy, that would be awesome. I'd probably buy a lot more books than I do now.
Er, sorry, I meant True Combat, not "Total Combat."
Those stats are pretty meaningless in this discussion. Half-Life already has lots of great mods, and everyone already knows it's the most popular online game today. The question is, is it the most popular because it has lots of great mods, or does it have lots of great mods because it's the most popular? Those stats don't answer any questions.
Personally, I think it's a mix of both. HL is a great single player game, everyone who cared about PC gaming bought it. But it wouldn't have lasted without the mods.
CS was the saving grace, after that it was just everyone else wanting to copy it's success.
Anyway, in reply to the original post, there are some high quality mods for Quake 3. Urban Terror, Total Combat, Rocket Arena 3, Challenge Promode Arena(my personal favorite multiplayer FPS), and probably some others I'm not familiar with. Also, I'm kind of glad it's not as popular.. it's harder to find random people to play against, but it's also a lot less free of unexperienced idiots playing online games for the first time and treating it like an AOL chat room.
Doom 3 is the engine for Quake 4, which is being developed by Raven Software (http://www.ravensoft.com/), creators of Jedi Knight 2.
Besides, Quake 3 is fun. It may not have been innovative or amazingly polished, but it is a good game.
Maybe Valve realizes Microsoft will pay large sums of money to get a practically guarunteed hit game on the xbox.. so they're pretending to play hardball. They get a nice pile of cash for doing something they were probably going to do anyway.
I fully enjoyed Animal Crossing (and continue to fully enjoy it), and I don't own a GBA, scanner, or cards. Those things are just extra bonuses for people that own those products already.
They didn't take things out of the game to make them exclusive for the GBA linkup. They come up with ideas to use the GBA link so they can add something extra to the game. I don't see how that could be interpreted as a bad thing.
However, at E3 Nintendo did show a lot of games which require the GBA link to play at all. That does piss me off. Animal Crossing is not one of those games.
And what was with the "even on Playstation 2" remark? Is it harder to believe that it would have the feature on the PS2 than the xbox or GC?
What do you mean they have fewer and fewer? Compared to what? It's not like they tore down all their mild rides.
I do think you have a point though. There's a lot of enjoyment to be had in the less extreme rides. But really those are just filler, for me anyway. The reason I ride rollercoasters is to get the pants scared off of me. Just thinking about waiting in the queue line as I get closer and closer to getting on the ride.. your heart pounding like crazy before you even step into the coaster car.. damn. Now that's entertainment. With the mild rides, yeah they're fun too, but the fear factor isn't there and that's the main reason I ride coasters.
What's next? Slashdot posts stories about warez releases?
Well, it depends on what they want. Clearly Microsoft and Sony just want to gain the most market share. Nintendo is more worried about their bottom line since this is the only market they have. Despite being in a very close competition with Microsoft for 2nd place in the market worldwide, they make MUCH more money in this market than Microsoft does, and if I remember correctly, they even bring in a larger profit than Sony.
Sony wins the battle for the most market share, but how much does that really matter if you can't afford to stay in the market? *coughmicrosoftcough*
That's good news. I hope I am wrong about PC game bugs this time ;)
Not necessarily. If the development was short then I would assume they got the main development period done quickly. Then had plenty of time for bug testing because they didn't need to rush it out, because it hadn't been delayed a bunch of times.
With a game that's taken a very long time to develop, I would assume it was a very complicated game to make and took a long time and was delayed many times. So when they finally did get close to having a finished product, instead of going into the usual bug testing, they rushed it through to get it out as soon as possible.
Sorry, maybe it's just me.. but I find it hard to get excited about any newly relesed PC game. It's pretty much a guaruntee that it will have at least one major bug, and many minor ones. I'll get excited when the first patch is released.
Especially with a game that has been in development a long time. That generally means they want to get it out as soon as every major feature is in, and don't have too much time for bug testing and the smaller things.
It's a pity.
What? It's a sad state of affairs that there are too many great games out there to play? That's crazy talk.
*would elaborate but this topic is too old and no one will read this anyway*