> Perhaps something from the Diablo series, if > you consider them RPGs? There were a bunch of > uber-weapons that weren't swords.
Yes, but all weapons had "gold" and "yellow" versions. And if you were a barbarian and not dual-wielding 2-handed swords, you were definitely "role playing". (I always thought the barb should be able to specialize in dual-wielding 2-handers of any single type, like large hammers. Why limit it only to 2-handed swords?)
The single-player CRPG is not dead; I personally much prefer an interactive story wherein I play the hero(es) over a massively immersive, alternate world wherein 90% of the entities I encounter are collectively the heroes. I imagine a simple distinction between those people who "merely" want to experience a unique world and those of us who are more interested in involved plotlines and character development.
I think it goes much beyond that. In single-player games, they can let you feel like the super-hero (or wizard or fighter) the likes of which MMORPG's can't match.
The ultimate example of this is being a Jedi in one of the various Star Wars games. Single-player, like the excellent Knights of the Old Republic series, you gain power and more power and more power. You feel every bit the elite Jedi that they're supposed to be. In the MMORPG Star Wars: Galaxies, you're lucky if you can even get to be a baby Jedi after a year of grinding. Then more mind numbing grinding. Where's the "special feeling"?
In other words, in single player games, everybody gets the vorpal sword, the light sabre, the gatling gun and rocket launcher. And they have real power. In MMORPG's, some guy with a gatling gun mows at you for 3 points of damage x 10 times, your health bar moves by 1/8. Ummmm, wow.
> And seriously, in real life noone says they > have "coding skill level 31" or something,
In real life, you aren't bound by "class balancing", either; a genius can run rings around a dope. A smart guy may also be big and strong -- he doesn't have to be weak to "balance out".
Furthermore, the best swordsman who ever lived probably would be lucky to win 99 out of 100 bouts against a healthy man who just picked up a sword for the first time.
And he'd die to 5 such guys all at once. And we won't even get into guns, not called the "Great Equalizer" for nothing.
> OTOH roleplaying is a term that comes from pre- > computer limitations, almost all computer > games involve playing a role these days and the > involved simulations clearly surpass what the > GM settled with a d20 back then.
Eh? I have yet to see a computer game that surpassed the mind's eye when playing pen-n-paper D&D in the mid '70's.
The most advanced modern games still barely tackle 1% of what you can do with a real human GM (or DM as we called 'em.)
And we won't even get into the idiocy of MMORPGs compared to a GM. The only remotely exciting thing, invasions, are few and far between, if they exist at all. Sorry if it messes up your plans to go camp some orcs, or messes up your mule's cross-continental journey to resupply your camping wizard. Man, if we could only get a spell to kick such complainers about invasions in the balls, man that would be nice.
Ahh, but that's what made it great. I'll take that over the retardicy of WCIII's "upkeep" and other similar nonsense. Well-designed, it was the rate of material production that slowed things -- not the outragous false limits.
For god's sake, WCIII had two, count 'em, two ways to limit production -- "upkeep", and number of houses. If you've gotta do that, the game is not well-designed. Running against limits should not feel like a slap in the face by a game designer who isn't doing his job. When production is at the core of why these games are fun, you'll understand why this is wrong.
BTW, I forgot to mention Dungeon Keeper I, which I'd put with those two at the pinnacle of awesomeness. The original WC and Starcraft pull up the 2nd level of goodness after those three, along with Dungeon Keeper II.
DK I was magnificent. I can recall racing my imps to fortify the walls only 1 block ahead of the tunneling dwarven heroes. What fun! DK II lost some of the magic by altering this and allowing busting through of fortified walls. Still good, but not as good.
For a real thrill, try playing it only using warning traps, guard posts, and the emergency call siren/standard thingie, and skip picking up and dropping your minions (which was probably not part of the original design, but needed to be added due to the frustration of the other items not working quite properly.)
> The units were 3d and the terrain was 2d. It > worked for back then, but nowadays we need > everything 3d.
Actually, although the terrain was a 2d picture, it was actually 3d in that you could use elevation to your advantage. And actually to your advantage -- unlike the POS code named Warcraft III, where in the entire game I found only one place where I could put a tower where it would outshoot a stupid mobile meatwagon.
And that was probably an oversight on the lame game designers.
Nah, you can take WCII's "upkeep" and shove it. That game tried to forcibly simulate Sacrifice's more squad-based RTS feel and failed miserably. You can't have both. Either it's a squad-based RTS or it's an overwhelming force RTS. WCIII tried both and failed at both, even if it was visually spectacular. The emperor has no clothes, and WCIII was not that great a game.
And don't say I don't know what I'm talking about. Did you know in the original WC, it took approximately 630 spear chucks to destroy the endgame's main fort?
Best RTS: TA 1 (and I'm joyous I now have to add a 1 to that!)
Ummmm...no. Again, you are confusing free market vs. government intervention. From the very article you cite:
In 1907 AT&T president Theodore Vail proposed that a formal monopoly would be more efficient. The federal government accepted this principle, initially in the Kingsbury Commitment of 1913.
It still exists on my work machine, which is highly irritating.
More important is the inability to force-delete a file by, say, holding down control and dragging to the trash. Many are the times I could have cleaned up my machine were I able to do that.
I'll risk some poorly written program crashing because a file evaporated out from under it, thanks, when compared to the hell that is spyware.
> The number to pay attention to is the Modified Mercalli Intensity rating.
Sorry, this is Hollywood. "It's a 4 on the Modified Mercalli Intensity rating!" just doesn't have the dramatic impact of "It's an 8 point oh on the Richter scale!"
> Heavy corruption in the government is the norm > in most of the world
About 15 years ago, I recall college students in India rioting. They were protesting the government plan of setting aside something like 50% of the government jobs for the lowest caste(s), which made up like that percentage of the population.
College students rioting "in the wrong direction" against progressive social policy?!?!?
Well, an Indian buddy explained to me, the government jobs are the good, high paying ones. For example, a building inspector typically charges a 10% bribe fee on the cost of the building.
So...yeah. Massive corruption is the norm in third world democracies. Imagine in non-free nations that have never known freedom how bad it would be. Iraq, e.g.
No, but in the first 30 minutes Seoul will be either nuked, or more likely thousands killed as all kinds of long-range cannons are trained on it. It wouldn't last too long before destroyed by the US, but in those crucial first 30 minutes or so who knows how many thousands would be killed in Seoul.
A US preemptive strike is already known that it would have to take out such cannons in the first few minutes. Hence a preemptive strike is largely out of the question unless NK really does something stupid like start selling nukes or nukes on missles.
> However, if I own a car and drive it, I am > obligated (by the government in its capacity as > lawmaker) to pay the insurance tax to some entity.
While that is splitting hairs on the definition of tax, what the government is really doing is de facto declaring you driving without insurance as being reckless with other people's lives and property. Those laws are there because people without insurance would cause accidents (as anybody would from time to time), and the victims had no financial recourse because the person had no insurance and no substantial assets.
Are you sure this is correct? Neither party is privleged in the transaction, as is seen by states typically also applying sales transactions to exchange of goods for goods (based on fair market value.)
It is party neutral. It's just that most companies charge the consumer (hey, dopey, you voted for the tax, you pay it. We're not!) but sometimes companies do have "we pay your sales tax" sales.
I suppose some states, with ignorant, subgenius politicians, never realized this and crafted laws the wrong way.
Even if the sales tax is 8.25% in the zip code, the 2% local sales tax may be due to different local taxing authorities depending on the address. For example, you could have a city sales tax and a county sales tax for sales outside the city. So the company would have to be able to determine which taxing jurisdiction in order to properly remit the local sales taxes collected.
I call bullshit!
No, not on you. On politicians!
I say we round 'em up and gut 'em. Whose with me boys?
And that's a misunderstanding of the nature of sales tax.
The tax is on the transaction. Neither party is the one who must pay it legally. By convention the retail customer pays it. However, some stores do have "we pay your sales tax" sales from time to time.
You will see states try to collect sales taxes on things like farm trades of good for goods. No dollars are involved, but you are still expected to pay the sales tax based on a fair market rate for the exchanged goods. In this example it's much more obvious that neither party is of an advantaged position, as Einstein might say, than when the trade is goods for dollars. It's all stuff for stuff, from the state's point of view.
Having said that, I'm sure there are some states with mentally challenged politicians who do not realize this, and try to word things such that the store paying the tax (instead of the customer) amounted to giving the customer money, and hence was income to the customer, and hence the custo...
God damn it I hate politicians! DIE LIKE PIGS IN HELL!
No, seriously. I wanna hear your fat cracklin' as it lies on the relatively dense lava, which you won't sink into, unlike the movies.
> The obvious/. response would be: put Linux and > KDE (or Gnome if you swing that way) on them > and the 'aren't even remotely as easy to use' > complaint is solved or at least highly mitigated.
I was about to reply to the OT, as follows:
But while they are priced like consumer electronics, the machines still aren't even remotely as easy to use
Put Linux on it! That'll solve the problem!...and hope for a few Funny points. However, then I thought I'd read first some responses. Little did I know the very first response would post, seriously, a suggestion that Linux would solve the ease-of-use problem.
Yes, I guess it's about as easy to use (a stretch) if you happen to have a Linux guru living next door.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's hope this expert recommends every possible measure of heavy handed socialist nonsense. We need their economy crushed so as to be noncompetitive.
> Perhaps something from the Diablo series, if
> you consider them RPGs? There were a bunch of
> uber-weapons that weren't swords.
Yes, but all weapons had "gold" and "yellow" versions. And if you were a barbarian and not dual-wielding 2-handed swords, you were definitely "role playing". (I always thought the barb should be able to specialize in dual-wielding 2-handers of any single type, like large hammers. Why limit it only to 2-handed swords?)
I think it goes much beyond that. In single-player games, they can let you feel like the super-hero (or wizard or fighter) the likes of which MMORPG's can't match.
The ultimate example of this is being a Jedi in one of the various Star Wars games. Single-player, like the excellent Knights of the Old Republic series, you gain power and more power and more power. You feel every bit the elite Jedi that they're supposed to be. In the MMORPG Star Wars: Galaxies, you're lucky if you can even get to be a baby Jedi after a year of grinding. Then more mind numbing grinding. Where's the "special feeling"?
In other words, in single player games, everybody gets the vorpal sword, the light sabre, the gatling gun and rocket launcher. And they have real power. In MMORPG's, some guy with a gatling gun mows at you for 3 points of damage x 10 times, your health bar moves by 1/8. Ummmm, wow.
> And seriously, in real life noone says they
> have "coding skill level 31" or something,
In real life, you aren't bound by "class balancing", either; a genius can run rings around a dope. A smart guy may also be big and strong -- he doesn't have to be weak to "balance out".
Furthermore, the best swordsman who ever lived probably would be lucky to win 99 out of 100 bouts against a healthy man who just picked up a sword for the first time.
And he'd die to 5 such guys all at once. And we won't even get into guns, not called the "Great Equalizer" for nothing.
So there are other differences as well as speech!
> OTOH roleplaying is a term that comes from pre-
> computer limitations, almost all computer
> games involve playing a role these days and the
> involved simulations clearly surpass what the
> GM settled with a d20 back then.
Eh? I have yet to see a computer game that surpassed the mind's eye when playing pen-n-paper D&D in the mid '70's.
The most advanced modern games still barely tackle 1% of what you can do with a real human GM (or DM as we called 'em.)
And we won't even get into the idiocy of MMORPGs compared to a GM. The only remotely exciting thing, invasions, are few and far between, if they exist at all. Sorry if it messes up your plans to go camp some orcs, or messes up your mule's cross-continental journey to resupply your camping wizard. Man, if we could only get a spell to kick such complainers about invasions in the balls, man that would be nice.
Ahh, but that's what made it great. I'll take that over the retardicy of WCIII's "upkeep" and other similar nonsense. Well-designed, it was the rate of material production that slowed things -- not the outragous false limits.
For god's sake, WCIII had two, count 'em, two ways to limit production -- "upkeep", and number of houses. If you've gotta do that, the game is not well-designed. Running against limits should not feel like a slap in the face by a game designer who isn't doing his job. When production is at the core of why these games are fun, you'll understand why this is wrong.
Oops, I meant WCIII's "upkeep". A lame concept.
BTW, I forgot to mention Dungeon Keeper I, which I'd put with those two at the pinnacle of awesomeness. The original WC and Starcraft pull up the 2nd level of goodness after those three, along with Dungeon Keeper II.
DK I was magnificent. I can recall racing my imps to fortify the walls only 1 block ahead of the tunneling dwarven heroes. What fun! DK II lost some of the magic by altering this and allowing busting through of fortified walls. Still good, but not as good.
For a real thrill, try playing it only using warning traps, guard posts, and the emergency call siren/standard thingie, and skip picking up and dropping your minions (which was probably not part of the original design, but needed to be added due to the frustration of the other items not working quite properly.)
> The units were 3d and the terrain was 2d. It
> worked for back then, but nowadays we need
> everything 3d.
Actually, although the terrain was a 2d picture, it was actually 3d in that you could use elevation to your advantage. And actually to your advantage -- unlike the POS code named Warcraft III, where in the entire game I found only one place where I could put a tower where it would outshoot a stupid mobile meatwagon.
And that was probably an oversight on the lame game designers.
Nah, you can take WCII's "upkeep" and shove it. That game tried to forcibly simulate Sacrifice's more squad-based RTS feel and failed miserably. You can't have both. Either it's a squad-based RTS or it's an overwhelming force RTS. WCIII tried both and failed at both, even if it was visually spectacular. The emperor has no clothes, and WCIII was not that great a game.
And don't say I don't know what I'm talking about. Did you know in the original WC, it took approximately 630 spear chucks to destroy the endgame's main fort?
Best RTS: TA 1 (and I'm joyous I now have to add a 1 to that!)
Second best: Sacrifice
Both completely replayed many times.
Yeah, you could say I'm looking forward to it.
And that a government implementation might not be the most efficient surprises people just why now?
:rollseyes.
At least it's not like proposed socialist medicine where competitors are outlawed.
Curiously how people seem to desire something so vitally much more important to be government owned, lock, stock, and barrel.
...but when Intel wants to do this to track counterfeit or stolen chips, oh how you'll howl!
> At this time in tech history, I think it's to
> a writer's advantage to give away their work online,
That may be, but it's still up to the writer to do this, not for people to steal his work, ummmmm, "for his own good."
> True. They also did nothing when Americans
> killed untold number of Vietnamese, and also
> when Americans bombed unreal amount of countries.
"Please don't invade these countries with murderous dictators." Yep, sounds like something the UN would say. Thwarting this is bad because...?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T
Ummmm...no. Again, you are confusing free market vs. government intervention. From the very article you cite:
> the DC Comics game
:rollseyes
* a_Street_Thug_with_kryptonite_in_his_pocket punches YOU for 8 points of damage!
* You have died.
Yeah, I can't wait.
It still exists on my work machine, which is highly irritating.
More important is the inability to force-delete a file by, say, holding down control and dragging to the trash. Many are the times I could have cleaned up my machine were I able to do that.
I'll risk some poorly written program crashing because a file evaporated out from under it, thanks, when compared to the hell that is spyware.
> The number to pay attention to is the Modified Mercalli Intensity rating.
Sorry, this is Hollywood. "It's a 4 on the Modified Mercalli Intensity rating!" just doesn't have the dramatic impact of "It's an 8 point oh on the Richter scale!"
> Heavy corruption in the government is the norm
> in most of the world
About 15 years ago, I recall college students in India rioting. They were protesting the government plan of setting aside something like 50% of the government jobs for the lowest caste(s), which made up like that percentage of the population.
College students rioting "in the wrong direction" against progressive social policy?!?!?
Well, an Indian buddy explained to me, the government jobs are the good, high paying ones. For example, a building inspector typically charges a 10% bribe fee on the cost of the building.
So...yeah. Massive corruption is the norm in third world democracies. Imagine in non-free nations that have never known freedom how bad it would be. Iraq, e.g.
No, but in the first 30 minutes Seoul will be either nuked, or more likely thousands killed as all kinds of long-range cannons are trained on it. It wouldn't last too long before destroyed by the US, but in those crucial first 30 minutes or so who knows how many thousands would be killed in Seoul.
A US preemptive strike is already known that it would have to take out such cannons in the first few minutes. Hence a preemptive strike is largely out of the question unless NK really does something stupid like start selling nukes or nukes on missles.
> However, if I own a car and drive it, I am
> obligated (by the government in its capacity as
> lawmaker) to pay the insurance tax to some entity.
While that is splitting hairs on the definition of tax, what the government is really doing is de facto declaring you driving without insurance as being reckless with other people's lives and property. Those laws are there because people without insurance would cause accidents (as anybody would from time to time), and the victims had no financial recourse because the person had no insurance and no substantial assets.
> the more we risk having truly draconian (and
> incredibly brain-dead) solutions imposed by
> Congress or the courts.
You don't think it will end up this way no matter what?
How's the mohair subsidy doin'?
Again, are you sure about this? The tax is on the transaction. Why would it be on the customer? The customer is not privleged in the transaction.
> Sales taxes are consumer taxes.
Are you sure this is correct? Neither party is privleged in the transaction, as is seen by states typically also applying sales transactions to exchange of goods for goods (based on fair market value.)
It is party neutral. It's just that most companies charge the consumer (hey, dopey, you voted for the tax, you pay it. We're not!) but sometimes companies do have "we pay your sales tax" sales.
I suppose some states, with ignorant, subgenius politicians, never realized this and crafted laws the wrong way.
I call bullshit!
No, not on you. On politicians!
I say we round 'em up and gut 'em. Whose with me boys?
And that's a misunderstanding of the nature of sales tax.
The tax is on the transaction. Neither party is the one who must pay it legally. By convention the retail customer pays it. However, some stores do have "we pay your sales tax" sales from time to time.
You will see states try to collect sales taxes on things like farm trades of good for goods. No dollars are involved, but you are still expected to pay the sales tax based on a fair market rate for the exchanged goods. In this example it's much more obvious that neither party is of an advantaged position, as Einstein might say, than when the trade is goods for dollars. It's all stuff for stuff, from the state's point of view.
Having said that, I'm sure there are some states with mentally challenged politicians who do not realize this, and try to word things such that the store paying the tax (instead of the customer) amounted to giving the customer money, and hence was income to the customer, and hence the custo...
God damn it I hate politicians! DIE LIKE PIGS IN HELL!
No, seriously. I wanna hear your fat cracklin' as it lies on the relatively dense lava, which you won't sink into, unlike the movies.
> KDE (or Gnome if you swing that way) on them
> and the 'aren't even remotely as easy to use'
> complaint is solved or at least highly mitigated.
I was about to reply to the OT, as follows:
Put Linux on it! That'll solve the problem!
Yes, I guess it's about as easy to use (a stretch) if you happen to have a Linux guru living next door.
Do not flame. Read my