You seem to be attributing a level of support or agreement with his post. I didn't really read any evidence of that in his word choice. It seems to me he was attempting to be purely informative (as his positive moderation reflects).
In fact, an astute reader might infer that the only reason AC posted at all was due to the grandparent poster's ironic use of the word "dogmatic".
Whether or not the definition of atheism says lack of belief in god or not, many atheists do in fact treat their belief system with as much fervor as religious people. These are basically the "evangelical atheists", those who do not simply disbelieve god, but go about trying to prove god does not exist to all those around them, and remove all references and information regarding religion around them.
Personally, I think it's just as false to believe that it's impossible for a god-like intelligence to exist as there is to believe that one definitely exists without proof. If there's no evidence in either direction (because the evidence is basically impossible to prove in either direction, since it would basically be an entity greater than and existing outside of the observable universe) then it really can't be disproven or proven in either direction.
Going back to the original topic, however, no religious dogma should ever be taught in a science class. Science does have a specific definition, which "intelligent design" and creation myths cannot possibly ever fit into, because both are unprovable and untestable. People forget (or never learn) that science is not a belief system. Science is a process by which man uses controlled experiments and observable data to learn how the universe behaves. Evolution is science because there have been testable experiments and observable phenomenon that support it, and, importantly, because it can be disproven. ID/creationism are not science because they cannot be disproven (barring a time machine or a chat with a superdimensional intelligence that can control genes with his mind).
I only saw it because it happened to be on HBO. I really had no preconceived notions of the movie other than it was created by Mike Judge and that some people on slashdot seemed to like it. It was clever in some parts, funny in some parts, but overall it was really bland and mediocre. Office Space was genius, Beavis and Butthead was funny at the time but doesn't really have staying power, and King of the Hill has some moments of genius/hilarity but is generally very bland and uninteresting. So basically what I'm saying is that after watching it without much preconception, I think it's overrated.
Of course I think Firefly and the new Battlestar Galactica both suck, so it's not like I'll find many people around here who agrees with me.
One company basically has a monopoly on internet connectivity for the entire country. It's bad enough that Blizzard Software didn't find it profitable to even attempt to set up servers there. I forget the name of the company but I'm sure Google can help you.
I already bought and watched it, and it's good, but my problem (and my brother's) is that it's just too long. It's paced like an episode of the TV show, but it's 90 minutes long, and so it just feels like it drags on and on like it will never end.
That was our only complaint, though, and it is minor.
This reads like someone's college English thesis that started with the concept of "how can I pass off a video game as literature and make my teacher buy it without realizing I'm completely bullshitting the entire thing because I don't feel like researching a real work of fiction and would rather just reference a video game I played".
In other words, the last ditch effort written the night of the deadline just to get some kind of grade.
Respec costs existed originally to give meaning to the talent choices you made. It used to take a lot of effort to get the 100g to respec twice weekly. Now you can get it in 30 minutes doing daily quests once a week. It was obviously a conscious decision for them not to increase the max respec value with the expansion.
So yeah, now it is more of a gold sink, although the cost of changing still makes people think about their talent choices more thoroughly, I think. It's just not as restrictive.
Ideally, players would rarely respec. I don't know if the 33% heal -> damage conversion will help with this or not. I have a strong feeling that a lot of people are going to have level 80 deathknight grinding alts come Wrath.
Run out before 70? I hit 70 with 3/4 of Shadowmoon, half of Blade's Edge, and all of Netherstorm's quests undone. In fact, I financed my epic flying mount simply by completing all the quests I had left. If anything I felt the leveling curve was too generous. I was completing a lot of quests after they had turned green, without doing any kind of grinding and only what I consider a "normal" amount of instance runs (1-3 times each, usually closer to 1).
Good luck getting anyone to do any instances or elite quests whatsoever in a game where you can solo easily if dying gives you an xp penalty.
Honestly, no xp loss for death is one of the very reasons that wow is so much more popular than eq. People don't like having their time wasted. Especially if it's not their fault. People like being able to take risks without it destroying hours of xp gain.
This game has always, and will always begin at level cap. It's the way it's designed. Slowing people up by making the leveling process longer and more annoying with xp penalties does not serve that purpose.
As someone who quit 3 months after the game came out, immediately after hitting the level cap, you really aren't qualified to make any determinations as to what would be best for the game. Obviously you thought leveling was the entire game, and missed out on the real game. Granted, back then level 60 wasn't as good as it became later, or any where near as good as level cap at 70, but then again you wouldn't know that, now would you?
Comparing the Source engine games that are going to be big budget retail games from seasoned developers, rather than just total conversions available only through Steam, to the list of Unreal 3 engine titles, and I think you'll understand my point a bit better.
I (and just about every other high schooler who got interested in FPS level design EVER) did this in highschool. I guess that makes me a terrorist. What's the statute of limitations on this kind of thing? Hopefully over 7 years.
Whether you agree with Blizzard's methods or not, the person who submitted this article, and most of the people supporting it, are just people who cheat/bot or write cheats/bots who are worried that they may actually have retribution for their actions. That's really what I was describing as "sad". At least if you're going to do something, have the guts to admit you're doing it, instead of hiding behind alternate reasoning to justify it.
If you believe you have some right to cheat, just come out and say it. Don't try to mask it as some invasion of privacy or exploitation of the law to get other people behind you, even if both of those were true. Or at LEAST don't use crap that was debunked two years ago as "evidence" to support you.
It's sad that people can't just either play and enjoy the game the way it's intended or simply not play. That they have to cheat, and then when Blizzard tries to protect the integrity of their game, come up with bullshit like this to try and justify their cheating. It's just a game. If you really feel you have to cheat at it, you should simply not play, because it defeats the purpose of the game. You destroy the experience not only for yourself, but you cheapen it for those around you.
It's one thing to cheat, but then to turn around and try to morally justify it like this, is just pathetic. This has nothing to do with software freedom. Blizzard is simply using the tools before them to try and protect the integrity of their game.
While he states that Apple's computer sales were taken out of context when compared to the entire market, he makes no effort to put them in context compared to other companies/products. He only later compares them against themselves showing that they stayed the same for a few years then increased a bit. If you're going to tell me that the way everyone compare's Apple's computer sales to the market or other companies is wrong, you should also tell me the right way to compare them.
I'm still having fun. Not all games are fun for all people. There is still stuff or you to do. Apparently, it's way too much stuff for you to do.
You've said yourself, you're not going to play anymore, because there's too much stuff. Why would they create more stuff for you if you're just going to quit because there's already too much stuff.
It's not the first time Blizzard has put money before fans, it's just the first time that they have created a game of a style that you are not a fan of.
Always playing with the idea that "I'll be able to meet Rexxar one day"
Level 30-35. Desolace.
"I'll be able to go to Blackrock Spire"
Level 50-60. You can do quests around it and relating to it starting around level 45.
"I'll be able to visit the site of Grom's death"
Level 20-25. Ashenvale Forest.
You don't have to be ridiculously high level to see a lot of the lore in WoW, you just have to know where to look.
As for the lack of low level expansion content, think about it from a business sense. You, as a player, have still not accessed probably 75% of WoW's content. There is no monetary incentive for them to give you more content. You don't order dinner when you've barely started on breakfast. If you don't like the game, no amount of content is going to solve that. And if you're not willing to keep playing, that tells me you simply do not like the gameplay. Getting to level 60 is not hard. Even without playing that much, you will get there eventually. Level 70 is even easier because the quests and instances are more engaging and interesting, and better designed and flow much better, and are easier to do in 1 hour chunks.
Anyway, the new Draenei and Blood Elf starting zones are the best designed starting zones in the game by far, if that means anything to you.
Other than the new races and the new starting areas (which are awesome, actually, if brief), no, there is not really much new content, if any, for someone who is not level 60.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be attributing a level of support or agreement with his post. I didn't really read any evidence of that in his word choice. It seems to me he was attempting to be purely informative (as his positive moderation reflects).
In fact, an astute reader might infer that the only reason AC posted at all was due to the grandparent poster's ironic use of the word "dogmatic".
Whether or not the definition of atheism says lack of belief in god or not, many atheists do in fact treat their belief system with as much fervor as religious people. These are basically the "evangelical atheists", those who do not simply disbelieve god, but go about trying to prove god does not exist to all those around them, and remove all references and information regarding religion around them.
Personally, I think it's just as false to believe that it's impossible for a god-like intelligence to exist as there is to believe that one definitely exists without proof. If there's no evidence in either direction (because the evidence is basically impossible to prove in either direction, since it would basically be an entity greater than and existing outside of the observable universe) then it really can't be disproven or proven in either direction.
Going back to the original topic, however, no religious dogma should ever be taught in a science class. Science does have a specific definition, which "intelligent design" and creation myths cannot possibly ever fit into, because both are unprovable and untestable. People forget (or never learn) that science is not a belief system. Science is a process by which man uses controlled experiments and observable data to learn how the universe behaves. Evolution is science because there have been testable experiments and observable phenomenon that support it, and, importantly, because it can be disproven. ID/creationism are not science because they cannot be disproven (barring a time machine or a chat with a superdimensional intelligence that can control genes with his mind).
Damn, you just posted with the level of thought of a 14 year old and got +5 insightful. Bravo.
I only saw it because it happened to be on HBO. I really had no preconceived notions of the movie other than it was created by Mike Judge and that some people on slashdot seemed to like it. It was clever in some parts, funny in some parts, but overall it was really bland and mediocre. Office Space was genius, Beavis and Butthead was funny at the time but doesn't really have staying power, and King of the Hill has some moments of genius/hilarity but is generally very bland and uninteresting. So basically what I'm saying is that after watching it without much preconception, I think it's overrated.
Of course I think Firefly and the new Battlestar Galactica both suck, so it's not like I'll find many people around here who agrees with me.
One company basically has a monopoly on internet connectivity for the entire country. It's bad enough that Blizzard Software didn't find it profitable to even attempt to set up servers there. I forget the name of the company but I'm sure Google can help you.
Good luck playing any violent video games. Australians don't believe in free speech.
I already bought and watched it, and it's good, but my problem (and my brother's) is that it's just too long. It's paced like an episode of the TV show, but it's 90 minutes long, and so it just feels like it drags on and on like it will never end.
That was our only complaint, though, and it is minor.
This reads like someone's college English thesis that started with the concept of "how can I pass off a video game as literature and make my teacher buy it without realizing I'm completely bullshitting the entire thing because I don't feel like researching a real work of fiction and would rather just reference a video game I played".
In other words, the last ditch effort written the night of the deadline just to get some kind of grade.
Slashdot accounts are free and take less than a minute to create.
Respec costs existed originally to give meaning to the talent choices you made. It used to take a lot of effort to get the 100g to respec twice weekly. Now you can get it in 30 minutes doing daily quests once a week. It was obviously a conscious decision for them not to increase the max respec value with the expansion.
So yeah, now it is more of a gold sink, although the cost of changing still makes people think about their talent choices more thoroughly, I think. It's just not as restrictive.
Ideally, players would rarely respec. I don't know if the 33% heal -> damage conversion will help with this or not. I have a strong feeling that a lot of people are going to have level 80 deathknight grinding alts come Wrath.
Run out before 70? I hit 70 with 3/4 of Shadowmoon, half of Blade's Edge, and all of Netherstorm's quests undone. In fact, I financed my epic flying mount simply by completing all the quests I had left. If anything I felt the leveling curve was too generous. I was completing a lot of quests after they had turned green, without doing any kind of grinding and only what I consider a "normal" amount of instance runs (1-3 times each, usually closer to 1).
Good luck getting anyone to do any instances or elite quests whatsoever in a game where you can solo easily if dying gives you an xp penalty.
Honestly, no xp loss for death is one of the very reasons that wow is so much more popular than eq. People don't like having their time wasted. Especially if it's not their fault. People like being able to take risks without it destroying hours of xp gain.
This game has always, and will always begin at level cap. It's the way it's designed. Slowing people up by making the leveling process longer and more annoying with xp penalties does not serve that purpose.
As someone who quit 3 months after the game came out, immediately after hitting the level cap, you really aren't qualified to make any determinations as to what would be best for the game. Obviously you thought leveling was the entire game, and missed out on the real game. Granted, back then level 60 wasn't as good as it became later, or any where near as good as level cap at 70, but then again you wouldn't know that, now would you?
Comparing the Source engine games that are going to be big budget retail games from seasoned developers, rather than just total conversions available only through Steam, to the list of Unreal 3 engine titles, and I think you'll understand my point a bit better.
Valve? Huh? Unreal3 is the only engine of the 3 I've seen licensed in any meaningful quantity.
This is an example of why it's important to know how to distinguish homonyms.
I don't think necrophilia counts as rape.
I (and just about every other high schooler who got interested in FPS level design EVER) did this in highschool. I guess that makes me a terrorist. What's the statute of limitations on this kind of thing? Hopefully over 7 years.
Whether you agree with Blizzard's methods or not, the person who submitted this article, and most of the people supporting it, are just people who cheat/bot or write cheats/bots who are worried that they may actually have retribution for their actions. That's really what I was describing as "sad". At least if you're going to do something, have the guts to admit you're doing it, instead of hiding behind alternate reasoning to justify it.
If you believe you have some right to cheat, just come out and say it. Don't try to mask it as some invasion of privacy or exploitation of the law to get other people behind you, even if both of those were true. Or at LEAST don't use crap that was debunked two years ago as "evidence" to support you.
It's sad that people can't just either play and enjoy the game the way it's intended or simply not play. That they have to cheat, and then when Blizzard tries to protect the integrity of their game, come up with bullshit like this to try and justify their cheating. It's just a game. If you really feel you have to cheat at it, you should simply not play, because it defeats the purpose of the game. You destroy the experience not only for yourself, but you cheapen it for those around you.
It's one thing to cheat, but then to turn around and try to morally justify it like this, is just pathetic. This has nothing to do with software freedom. Blizzard is simply using the tools before them to try and protect the integrity of their game.
While he states that Apple's computer sales were taken out of context when compared to the entire market, he makes no effort to put them in context compared to other companies/products. He only later compares them against themselves showing that they stayed the same for a few years then increased a bit. If you're going to tell me that the way everyone compare's Apple's computer sales to the market or other companies is wrong, you should also tell me the right way to compare them.
I'm still having fun. Not all games are fun for all people. There is still stuff or you to do. Apparently, it's way too much stuff for you to do.
You've said yourself, you're not going to play anymore, because there's too much stuff. Why would they create more stuff for you if you're just going to quit because there's already too much stuff.
It's not the first time Blizzard has put money before fans, it's just the first time that they have created a game of a style that you are not a fan of.
Level 30-35. Desolace.
Level 50-60. You can do quests around it and relating to it starting around level 45.
Level 20-25. Ashenvale Forest.
You don't have to be ridiculously high level to see a lot of the lore in WoW, you just have to know where to look.
As for the lack of low level expansion content, think about it from a business sense. You, as a player, have still not accessed probably 75% of WoW's content. There is no monetary incentive for them to give you more content. You don't order dinner when you've barely started on breakfast. If you don't like the game, no amount of content is going to solve that. And if you're not willing to keep playing, that tells me you simply do not like the gameplay. Getting to level 60 is not hard. Even without playing that much, you will get there eventually. Level 70 is even easier because the quests and instances are more engaging and interesting, and better designed and flow much better, and are easier to do in 1 hour chunks.
Anyway, the new Draenei and Blood Elf starting zones are the best designed starting zones in the game by far, if that means anything to you.
Other than the new races and the new starting areas (which are awesome, actually, if brief), no, there is not really much new content, if any, for someone who is not level 60.
Believe it or not, Pokemon started as a Gameboy game in Japan, years before the card game was created.
"TFC" was covered in the "Quake" section under Team Fortress.
Learn your history.