Flawed Designer(s): The waves of extinctions and vast numbers of extinct species suggest that the designer(s) were flawed in their designs. It would seem that the designer(s) thought that velociraptors, plesiosaurs, trilobites, Homo erectus, etc. were good ideas, but then changed their mind(s) or found they created creatures that were too flawed to survive.
That's just multiples designers with a change of focus brought on by the marketing department later on. They decided to go with less hair on the women, and smaller lizards. The entire first line had to be scraped, but it sold better in the end.
I could live with giant colossi roaming the planet...yeah...I could. If they're not hurting me or other people...why not? They'd be like a natural wonder....like being in awe. I wouldn't want to get attacked by a great white shark, but I don't go seeking them out to kill them because they *might* kill me. I'm in awe of them.
Agreed. However, as the game goes on, you start to notice that these colossi are living in the ruins of a human civilisation, that you are the only human around, and that they are VERY agressive towards us squishies (well, maybe they heard your character is on a rampage, dunno yet), so I'm getting to feeling less bad about destroying a wonder, and a bit good about the fact that it was I, the guy with the magic sword and the really good knees, who stumbled on their lair, rather than some chump who'd get trampled in 5 seconds flat.
I remember when the most popular video games were abstract adventures about eating dots or jumping over mushrooms. The more I was being asked to adopt a perspective of sociopathy, the less I played until the point where I found I had given up altogether on games.
Because mindlessly swallowing pills that make you see ghosts, and eating weird mushrooms as you stomp countless turtles to death were such healthier activities than killing giant stone monsters!
So...someone that I know is "dead?" and I'm supposed to go kill 16 other beings because she might revive? Why in the world would I go kill 16 beings because one being is dead?....especially since (according to some reviews I've read) many of the colossi aren't aggressive toward me at all until I attack them. So I'm supposed to wander around and provoke fights with creatures so I can kill them....because *sob* someone I know is dead? Perhaps, after the fact, I'll find out that they colossi were really "bad guys", but I don't know many people who would kill as a preemptive strike. They want proof first that someone is a "bad guy". How many people would head out on a killing mission just because they're told to do so...because someone they know is dead? (yeah..I know...it's just a game) Anyway....the gameplay might be awesome, but what's the rationale for doing any of it in the first place?
I'm in the middle of playing it, and I sorta feel bad everytime I kill a collossus. The cutscenese when they die really make it sad, too... the music, the way it's shown.
And I'm loving it. What other game makes you think about these things? Can't think of one right now...
The motivation is love, BTW, you don't personally care because she's dead when the game start, but your character cares, he cares enough to fight stone giants for her... that says a lot about how motivated he is. Have you ever played Risk and thought about all those lil' soldiers you're killing with those dice throws? Ever played Street Fighter and felt bad about travelling the world, kicking the shit out of people? Ever feel any remorse for shooting all those germans in various FPS? Those soldiers just wanted to defend the fatherland, they didn't ask for some G.I. to come and snipe them in the 'nads! No?
I think that it's incredible that this game makes me feel ambiguous about killing giant monsters... think about it, those temples, those bridges... they are human size, the Collossi didn't build them... where are the people who did? Could you live in a place where giants stomp around? Some of them don't notice you until you climb them, but others try to kill you as soon as you get near them.
"Fight monsters to save girl"? Nah, pretty much the same.;- ) But now they're big stone monsters instead of multitudes of smoke monsters.
What I meant was that it feels a lot like Ico, the look, the gameplay, etc. If you couldn't enjoy the masterpiece that was Ico, for reasons which are your own, then I wouldn't expect you to enjoy the sequel. Though, mileage may vary... meh, use the usual strategy: Rent it first.
In my books Ico is one of the most overrated games for the PS2. Sure, it's got a very special look and technically it's well executed, but the game itself was fairly standard fare [...] I guess the game just never connected with me.
I hope Shadow of the Colossus will be different,
Since I'm glad it's not, I would recommend you keep your money for games with a less subtle appeal.
TPM stands for "Tensão Pré-Menstrual", which is the Portuguese term for Pre-Menstrual Syndrome. Exactly why hackers would want to get by those TPM protections is beyond me.
"Purple Stain", by Red Hot Chili Peppers:
To finger paint is not a sin I put my middle finger in Your monthly blood is what I win Im in your house now let me spin*
it would almost seem as though anything with an acronym such as "Digital Rights Management" would be designed to protect your digital rights. It's entirely misleading.
Yes it is. That's the point, it's got a double plus good word in it's title, so it must be good! For other examples of this: PATRIOT act and "operation [adjective] freedom"... how could ANYONE oppose them without appearing anti-freedom to the uninformed?
I do object to commercial enterprises refusing to sell me something and insisting that I can't copy it. It might be their intellectual property but it's my culture, dammit.
Ah, but the owners of the Disney Vault disagree... and it so happens that they also own some key lawmakers. They like creating artificial scarcity in order to raise the asking price. It pleases them. The law of supply and demand is a lot of fun when you controll the supply.
Actually ID is a doubt: "we don't think that evolutions explains...blah blah" How it got from a doubt to saying: "somebody must have created life forms as they are" it's beyond me.
Actually, I.D. is obfuscated religious belief. It does not start with a doubt, it creates a doubt in a science that contradicts the belief.
Evolution is a fact: The fossil record and the living record show it. The theory of evolution explains how this came to be, the religious beliefs about a creator that made it that way on purpose are undermined by the better explanation, so they wage a war on the science, since it undermines their irrational beliefs.
These people putting stickers on textbooks are the same kind of people who wouldn't look into Gallileo's telescope. They don't want to see what the universe is really like, they want to believe that it is as they have been told.
There's also a fair bit of pride : They want to be special, they want to be above all other animals, they want to be godly. They don't want to be nothing more than clever apes.
Don't you mean "Intelligent Design whackos or Evolutionist whackos"?...or maybe we could (gasp!) be courteous and try "Intelligent Design proponents or Evolutionists"?
No, rather: "Intelligent Design proponents orScientists".
the "remix culture." And articles on the inside are all about Creative Commons, Remixing ideas, Freeing IP (not addresses). Right now it seems culture is in an "unstable state."
I don't mind that right now we are remixing the culture of the past, recycling isn't just for paper and plastic. What is at issue here is that they are erasing the culture of the past, and replacing it with the "unstable state".
To me, the final cut for music should be when they put it out on CD
I have the Push It single from Garbage, with 3 different versions on it. Some songs I like I gather as many different versions of the song as possible.
There is no such thing as a "final" version of a song. There is the version you like most, the version you first heard. No "final" version. A song should be sung, kept alive, dynamic, not set in stone, as if it were dead.
Not some 45 second edit of the song, playing the backdrop for a [brand of car] commercial.
That I agree with, but then again, I don't mind if the artist is alive to eat tonight because he sold the song. Although people near Janis Joplin's grave must have been wondering what that tremor was when Mercedes used her song in their commercial.
Perhaps the US should follow the lead of the EU and UN members on that one?
First: They're following the US lead.
Secondly, it doesn't show, but the U.S.A. is a member of the UN, a founding member no less! With a permanent seat on the security council and everything! Who'd a thunk, right?
Finally, did I say I was allright with them doing it? Or did I say to either STFU about how evil these countries are, or to stop being accomplices to what they do? That's right, the STFU one.
its not wrong for individuals and companies to trade with individuals and companies in another country. Governments on both sides should get the hell of their way. Just because the Chinese and Iranian *governments* have human rights abuses doesn't give you the right or anyone else the right to decide who can trade *privately* with people in those countries.
Slashdot Mirror
Flawed Designer(s): The waves of extinctions and vast numbers of extinct species suggest that the designer(s) were flawed in their designs. It would seem that the designer(s) thought that velociraptors, plesiosaurs, trilobites, Homo erectus, etc. were good ideas, but then changed their mind(s) or found they created creatures that were too flawed to survive.
That's just multiples designers with a change of focus brought on by the marketing department later on. They decided to go with less hair on the women, and smaller lizards. The entire first line had to be scraped, but it sold better in the end.
I could live with giant colossi roaming the planet...yeah...I could. If they're not hurting me or other people...why not? They'd be like a natural wonder....like being in awe. I wouldn't want to get attacked by a great white shark, but I don't go seeking them out to kill them because they *might* kill me. I'm in awe of them.
Agreed.
However, as the game goes on, you start to notice that these colossi are living in the ruins of a human civilisation, that you are the only human around, and that they are VERY agressive towards us squishies (well, maybe they heard your character is on a rampage, dunno yet), so I'm getting to feeling less bad about destroying a wonder, and a bit good about the fact that it was I, the guy with the magic sword and the really good knees, who stumbled on their lair, rather than some chump who'd get trampled in 5 seconds flat.
I remember when the most popular video games were abstract adventures about eating dots or jumping over mushrooms. The more I was being asked to adopt a perspective of sociopathy, the less I played until the point where I found I had given up altogether on games.
Because mindlessly swallowing pills that make you see ghosts, and eating weird mushrooms as you stomp countless turtles to death were such healthier activities than killing giant stone monsters!
So...someone that I know is "dead?" and I'm supposed to go kill 16 other beings because she might revive? Why in the world would I go kill 16 beings because one being is dead? ....especially since (according to some reviews I've read) many of the colossi aren't aggressive toward me at all until I attack them. So I'm supposed to wander around and provoke fights with creatures so I can kill them....because *sob* someone I know is dead? Perhaps, after the fact, I'll find out that they colossi were really "bad guys", but I don't know many people who would kill as a preemptive strike. They want proof first that someone is a "bad guy". How many people would head out on a killing mission just because they're told to do so...because someone they know is dead? (yeah..I know...it's just a game) Anyway....the gameplay might be awesome, but what's the rationale for doing any of it in the first place?
I'm in the middle of playing it, and I sorta feel bad everytime I kill a collossus.
The cutscenese when they die really make it sad, too... the music, the way it's shown.
And I'm loving it. What other game makes you think about these things? Can't think of one right now...
The motivation is love, BTW, you don't personally care because she's dead when the game start, but your character cares, he cares enough to fight stone giants for her... that says a lot about how motivated he is. Have you ever played Risk and thought about all those lil' soldiers you're killing with those dice throws? Ever played Street Fighter and felt bad about travelling the world, kicking the shit out of people? Ever feel any remorse for shooting all those germans in various FPS? Those soldiers just wanted to defend the fatherland, they didn't ask for some G.I. to come and snipe them in the 'nads! No?
I think that it's incredible that this game makes me feel ambiguous about killing giant monsters... think about it, those temples, those bridges... they are human size, the Collossi didn't build them... where are the people who did? Could you live in a place where giants stomp around? Some of them don't notice you until you climb them, but others try to kill you as soon as you get near them.
The premise is certainly different
;- )
"Fight monsters to save girl"? Nah, pretty much the same.
But now they're big stone monsters instead of multitudes of smoke monsters.
What I meant was that it feels a lot like Ico, the look, the gameplay, etc. If you couldn't enjoy the masterpiece that was Ico, for reasons which are your own, then I wouldn't expect you to enjoy the sequel. Though, mileage may vary... meh, use the usual strategy: Rent it first.
In my books Ico is one of the most overrated games for the PS2. Sure, it's got a very special look and technically it's well executed, but the game itself was fairly standard fare [...]
I guess the game just never connected with me.
I hope Shadow of the Colossus will be different,
Since I'm glad it's not, I would recommend you keep your money for games with a less subtle appeal.
As for the flaws, here's my rundown:
[...]
4) Small color palette, mostly browns and greens.
That's not a flaw, that's an artistic choice.
http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/?t=archives&date= 2005-10-31
: )
"Purple Stain", by Red Hot Chili Peppers:
*not an endorsement
Heh. This reminds me of the opening scene in Max Barry's novel, Jennifer Government.
Read his blog, his insane scheme (people getting shot over shoe sales) actually hapened in real life!
It's scary when marketers read dystopic science fiction and think "good idea!".
Where are we keeping the real editors?
;-)
In the real newspapers
They keep going for it after it stops paying? Funny, we hear that octopus are smart because they don't.
Someone confused "memory" with "intelligence" again.
You mean "operation [remote nation full of brown people] freedom".
I think they were calling it "enduring" freedom at some point.
it would almost seem as though anything with an acronym such as "Digital Rights Management" would be designed to protect your digital rights. It's entirely misleading.
Yes it is.
That's the point, it's got a double plus good word in it's title, so it must be good!
For other examples of this: PATRIOT act and "operation [adjective] freedom"... how could ANYONE oppose them without appearing anti-freedom to the uninformed?
I do object to commercial enterprises refusing to sell me something and insisting that I can't copy it.
It might be their intellectual property but it's my culture, dammit.
Ah, but the owners of the Disney Vault disagree... and it so happens that they also own some key lawmakers.
They like creating artificial scarcity in order to raise the asking price. It pleases them. The law of supply and demand is a lot of fun when you controll the supply.
Actually ID is a doubt: "we don't think that evolutions explains...blah blah"
How it got from a doubt to saying: "somebody must have created life forms as they are" it's beyond me.
Actually, I.D. is obfuscated religious belief. It does not start with a doubt, it creates a doubt in a science that contradicts the belief.
Evolution is a fact: The fossil record and the living record show it.
The theory of evolution explains how this came to be, the religious beliefs about a creator that made it that way on purpose are undermined by the better explanation, so they wage a war on the science, since it undermines their irrational beliefs.
These people putting stickers on textbooks are the same kind of people who wouldn't look into Gallileo's telescope. They don't want to see what the universe is really like, they want to believe that it is as they have been told.
There's also a fair bit of pride : They want to be special, they want to be above all other animals, they want to be godly. They don't want to be nothing more than clever apes.
Don't you mean "Intelligent Design whackos or Evolutionist whackos"? ...or maybe we could (gasp!) be courteous and try "Intelligent Design proponents or Evolutionists"?
No, rather: "Intelligent Design proponents or Scientists".
either a fundamentalist [...] or delusional.
That is somewhat redundant : )
The phrases "evolution" and "survival of the fittest" were first introduced in these follow-on editions.
1. Darwin's creation evolved over time to become more complex and better adapted to it's predators? I am SHOCKED!
2. Evolution? Are you sure? Because I think Lamarck was using this decades before Charles D.
the "remix culture." And articles on the inside are all about Creative Commons, Remixing ideas, Freeing IP (not addresses). Right now it seems culture is in an "unstable state."
I don't mind that right now we are remixing the culture of the past, recycling isn't just for paper and plastic.
What is at issue here is that they are erasing the culture of the past, and replacing it with the "unstable state".
Do we ever learn to stop making video games about blockbuster movies?
Not as long as they keep selling, no.
To me, the final cut for music should be when they put it out on CD
I have the Push It single from Garbage, with 3 different versions on it.
Some songs I like I gather as many different versions of the song as possible.
There is no such thing as a "final" version of a song. There is the version you like most, the version you first heard. No "final" version. A song should be sung, kept alive, dynamic, not set in stone, as if it were dead.
Not some 45 second edit of the song, playing the backdrop for a [brand of car] commercial.
That I agree with, but then again, I don't mind if the artist is alive to eat tonight because he sold the song. Although people near Janis Joplin's grave must have been wondering what that tremor was when Mercedes used her song in their commercial.
Perhaps the US should follow the lead of the EU and UN members on that one?
First: They're following the US lead.
Secondly, it doesn't show, but the U.S.A. is a member of the UN, a founding member no less! With a permanent seat on the security council and everything! Who'd a thunk, right?
Finally, did I say I was allright with them doing it? Or did I say to either STFU about how evil these countries are, or to stop being accomplices to what they do? That's right, the STFU one.
its not wrong for individuals and companies to trade with individuals and companies in another country. Governments on both sides should get the hell of their way. Just because the Chinese and Iranian *governments* have human rights abuses doesn't give you the right or anyone else the right to decide who can trade *privately* with people in those countries.
Slave labour: It's just business!
In 500 years, you've got a 100% chance of being struck by a bus.
Ah, you too have foreseen the murderous roboBus revolt of 2505!
The horror...