But false? Only in terms of game exclusivity, and that's an entirely artificial difference. No it's not. If you want to play a certain game and it exists only under one console (or PC) you're going to buy that fucking game along with the console. You're not going to say "Well, I already own a PC. If I buy an X-box that would be redudant because and X-Box and PC have the same hardware." Give me a break, console's always were similar to PC's. Just because one console is more similar to a PC than another doesn't make it all of the sudden redundant.
Precisely. Your talking about 'gamers'. A lot of people on slashdot aren't gamers at all, nevermind casual gamers. And on the flipside, a lot of gamers have never heard of slashdot. The two groups aren't one in the same. Slashdot is a website for nerds. Nerds generally play video games. Yeah, there are exceptions. But I'm sure only a small minority of slashdot never played a video game. The OP was orginally pointing out that slashdot's opinion of video games is different than the gamers' opinions that he knows in real life. This is hardly silly and definately true.
If you ever read gaming magazines, they don't give a Wii fanboys a warm fuzzy feeling that slashdot does. They are actually pretty unbiased and give all consoles (and PC games) an equal amount of coverage.
It sounds like the guy who wrote the article just wanted some attention. He probably just thought of the most incorrect statement he could make and went with it.
Here are some more statements he could have made that would grab people's attention:
"Games with animals turn gamers to bestiality" "Wii games should cost $500" "Gamers might contract gonnorhea from the PS3" "One-Dimensional Games: An untapped market" "GTA4 should not have cars in it."
That's because Chess doesn't have a storyline. One of my favorite things about Starcraft was the interesting story behind the game, and I am really looking foward to seeing what happens next.
From what I've heard there won't be a unit limit for groups in Starcraft 2. So I think your wishes may come true. I think it will be a good thing overall.
Just because a game isn't as realistic as other games doesn't mean it isn't fun. You might as well be complaining about the lack of realism when you take a peice in a game of chess.
"What!?!? The knight doesn't chop the bishop's head off as his horse sprints into the square?" This game sucks!"
I'm sure there's probably some chess video game out there that has animations, but do we see flocks of people switching from an old school chess board to a new animated chess video game?
You're asking for a different game. Alot of the stuff you ask for is in Company of Heroes in some shape or form. While I like Company of Heroes, I want Starcraft 2 to stick to what made Starcraft fun: simple, fun gameplay. When you start adding the realism of one random one shot kills but with random missing, you will see alot quick, boring fights, and special abilities become worthless. Not to mention luck will become a huge factor, and Starcraft already had enough luck involved in the equation.
Blizzard added heroes with experience and upgrades for Warcraft III, and it really didn't make the game any more fun for me. Regardless, I'm sure you will be able to add RPG elements with the scenario editor, as I remember there were many RPG custom maps made for Starcraft.
I'm glad they seem to be getting rid of the group size limit. I think the group size limit made large battles somewhat more complicated then necessary, and gave players who mastered group control a huge advantage over others.
Did you not read the initial announcement? They are implementing a new matchmaking system. I'm sure it will be easy for players to find other people with equal abilities and have fun.
Its like the Bible. Did it happen, probably, but did it happen how people recounted it? Probably not. Yeah, when Jesus turned water to wine he actaully was just mixing water with Kool-Aid.
Oh, and the creation story in Genesis has a couple minor discrepencies, it actually took eight days for God to create the Universe, not seven. And, he actaully used a thigh bone to create women, not a rib.
If you bothered clicking on the link, you would have seen that "Super Mario Brothers" on the NES sold over 40 million copies, the most any game has ever sold.
Why someone would mod you insightful is beyond me.
When you can predict next month's weather with scientific accuracy then and only then will you be allowed to predict what it will be like in a 100 or 1000 years. There's a difference between predicting the weather and predicting climate trends. Just because a weatherman can't predict the exact temperature of a specific locataion, doesn't mean climatologists can't get a good estimate of what the climate will be in a general area. It's pretty simple really: The planet is getting warmer and will most likely continue to get warmer. If the atmosphere gets warmer, the polar ice caps will melt. If the polar ice caps melt, large and most likely violent climate changes will occur. Yeah I'm not citing sources, but use some common sense. If the ice caps melt, water levels will rise and threaten coastal cities, this is a pretty basic fact.
There might be a possibility that the skeptics are right, and it won't be that bad. But what if they're wrong? Is it worth putting our future in jeopardy just because there's a possiblity things "won't be so bad?"
So now, we have a Jewish zombie made of bread and wine?
Or would the term "golem" be more appropriate? Wow, all this flesh-eating zombie talk is making me reconsider being christian (I'm currently agnostic). When I come back from church, I can tell my friends that I just ate the flesh and drank the blood of a zombie, who we worshiped by telepathing our thoughts to an omnipotent power. I can also talk about how this zombie is also a ghost, and can cast "Heal" and "Cure" on to people, restoring their hitpoints and sight. Then I will mention how this badass Zombie-Ghost-Jew will someday come back from the netherworld and will totally flip out on the non-believers by summoning four horsemen (think Knights of The Round divided by 3) to destroy everything and rain hell-fire (aka casting "Meteor") on all of planet earth.
Fucking badass! It's alot better than saying "I just came back from church."
No, you get a PC that is slightly better than a MacBook. Yeah I know that YOU don't like windows machines. But you're a small minority. Most people are willing to get PC's to play the games they want.
Where am I going to put that card in my laptop? You said that your next machine would only have intel graphics. You can probably spend a little extra cash when you buy your machine to have it come with a NVIDIA/ATI card. It is possible to replace laptop video cards as well.
It would just get bored if it was the same female all the time, but kept going when presented with new ones *shrug* Keep on slagging my opinions and claiming I have faulty data, while you yourself are spouting a load of subjective nonce.. it's always amusing to see people try that on (especially when they can't spell non sequitur) You might want to use paragraphs and check your posts for run-on sentences before you start pointing out spelling errors.
1. Either make me pay a monthly fee, or make me pay for the client, not both. Charging for both makes it seem like you're not convinced I'll want to keep playing. By all means have a CD distributed in stores at a price that covers costs; it's just the phenomenon of paying $50 for the chance to pay another $10 that doesn't make sense. That's a good suggestion, but if a company knows that they can get away with charging $50 for the client, they'll do it.
2. If you can't make the client free, make it transferable, so I can sell it if I decide I don't want to keep playing. There's no way I'm going to spend $50 on a game I may not even like, if I can't resell it to get back some of the cash. How are you going to sell back a game, when you have already know the unique cd key. You can just buy a game, write down the cd-key, and return it. The next person who buys that used game will get the pleasure of sharing an account with a stranger. I'm sure you can implement a system where users can return the game and recieve money, but it will cost the developers alot money. I don't think a software company is going to spend money in order to give money back to their users.
3. Include Mac and Linux. I don't run Windows and won't run Windows. There are millions of us, and we have very few MMORPG choices right now, so it's an easier niche for you to get into than the more saturated Windows market. You refuse to use windows? That's your choice. Unfortunately, a large majority of people chose windwos. It's a significant effort for a developer to maintain/debug software for three different platforms. It's rarely cost effecient for them to expand their market a few percentage points.
4. Make it possible to play the entire game in cooperative mode. I have zero interest in deathmatches. That's fine, most games do that these days though.
5. I prefer SF to fantasy, yet most RPGs are fantasy. I guess it's easier to artificially limit the players and work around plot issues when you have magic around and a lack of fast long distance transport and communication technologies. I'm currently praying for a Starcraft MMO RPG/RTS hybrid.
6. Don't riddle the game with spyware and have an abusive EULA. Yeah, WoW got away with it, but that's no excuse. Any large company is going to do this. They have defend themselves against lawsuits, and make sure users don't find loophools in the system to make a bad experience for other customers.
7. Don't require bleeding-edge hardware. My next machine is probably going to be a laptop with Intel graphics. You really can't spend an extra $50-100 for a decent ATI/NVIDIA card? I can understand not wanting to buy the top-notch $500 cards, but if you're at all interested in games I don't understand how such a small investment would be such an issue. I thought WoW's requirements hit it right on the button. It was pretty light on requirements, even for when it first came out. But there were just enough polygons, and the art was done well enough to keep me immersed.
The Sims has outsold StarCraft almost 2 to 1...does that make it a better game? It might. Generally games that are more fun have a better chance of selling then games that suck. Crazy concept isn't it? Yeah there's alot of shitty games out their that ride on the popularity of their previous releases or movies, but if the original title sucks it's probably not going to sell. Have you ever played Sims? Maybe it's really fun.
Looking at subscription numbers for MMO's is actually a good benchmark for judging the game's quality. People have to continue paying money if they want to keep playing it, and generally stop paying for it if they are dissapointed. It's a better benchmark than comparing sheer number of copies sold because even if the buyer thinks the game sucks, he still counts as a person who bought a copy.
StarCraft is a clickfest. Starcarft is a clickfest? Welcome to the realm of RTS's, bud. Actually, once you get good enough you use key binding more than clicking. Regardless, if it's realtime, you are more successful when you produce more units and micromanage them more. Any real time strategy game gives at least a small advantage to people who act faster. If you don't like that aspect of games, go play chess, risk, Civ, or any other turn-based games.
You want to talk about intuitive? Intuitive is when I move a marine out of the path of a slow-moving projectile, he doesn't get hit. Intuitive is NOT seeing that projectile strike the ground where he was standing, and still manage to injure him. I was talking about the intuitiveness of GUI's, you're talking about realism. If you prefer realism that's fine by me. I play games to escape reality. I can point out of lot of unrealistic, nonsensical, aspects in the other games (close combat in CoH? give me a break) but we're talking about games here.
Well obviously you prefer "more sophisticated" games (except for TA which has very little depth compared to pretty much any RTS). It doesn't mean they are better. Eve-online is way more "sophisticated" than World of Warcraft (well at least in the respect it is very confusing when you first start out and has an unintuitive GUI), but it's subscriber base is very weak in comparison.
Starcarft may be "dumbed down" (or as I like to say: "not uneccessarily convoluted with a unintuitive controls, features, and options") but as you said, it was fun. I play games to have fun. I guess I'm just dumb, simplistic, neanderthal.
but FAR from being the best in its genre at anything. There's a few dozen magazines, websites, and institutions that disagree with you:
To each their own. The gathering resources part of Stracraft is what makes it more interesting, IMO. If you can get a bunch of expansions up qiuck without your opponent doing anything about it, you can overtake him with shear brute force due to your financial advantage. However, this comes at a huge risk because you'll have lower defense early on, and if he manages to take your expansions out, you'll be screwed. Myth is more of a tactics game than a strategy game (although Starcraft requires a fair amount of tactics and micromanagement) as well. I enjoyed the myth games, but I found the variety of units to be lacking, and the multiplayer is quite repetitive compared to stacraft.
What's really new is apparently there was only one astronaut that was used for all those missions? I knew it, the moon landing was fake! NASA can't even keep their number of astronauts consistent.
I don't know of any passages in the Bible that clearly state that abortion is murder.
Me neither, but every time I get in to a discussion with a pro-life advocate, they usually bring their religion when trying to explain why they believe abortion is murder.
There isn't any 'equating' about it. Is it human?
Defintion of Human:
1. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people: human frailty. 2. consisting of people: the human race. 3. of or pertaining to the social aspect of people: human affairs. 4. sympathetic; humane: a warmly human understanding. -noun 5. a human being.
I don't see where a fertilized egg would clearly fit in to the definition above. Maybe 1, but then a statue of a human could fit under 1 as well. I don't think anyone has gone to jail for murdering a statue. You see, the definition of human isn't clear. That's when religious views come into play. Religious people usually believe a soul is infused with an egg when it's fertilized, therefore making it human. Non-religious people see the egg as something that has very little human characteristics at that point in time, therefore it generally leads them to believe that it won't become human until a later time.
You seem pretty focused on the religious aspect. I didn't say that any religious issue should be the determining factor in abortion's legality, simply whether or not the fetus is human.
It's the religous aspect that has dichotomized this debate. Whether you say it or not, religion has a huge affect on abortion laws today.
It's generally their religious beliefs that leads them to the conclusion that abortion is murder. Pro-lifers trying to make abortion illegal under the idea that their religion tells them it's murder is the equivalent of them telling everyone else , "My religious beliefs are superior to yours, so we have the right to take freedom of choice from you."
Abortion isn't the only thing that various religions equate to murder. Should all of those actions/thoughts be illegal too?
Slashdot Mirror
If you ever read gaming magazines, they don't give a Wii fanboys a warm fuzzy feeling that slashdot does. They are actually pretty unbiased and give all consoles (and PC games) an equal amount of coverage.
It sounds like the guy who wrote the article just wanted some attention. He probably just thought of the most incorrect statement he could make and went with it.
Here are some more statements he could have made that would grab people's attention:
"Games with animals turn gamers to bestiality"
"Wii games should cost $500"
"Gamers might contract gonnorhea from the PS3"
"One-Dimensional Games: An untapped market"
"GTA4 should not have cars in it."
then Eve-Online would be obliterating World of Warcraft's subscription numbers.
That's because Chess doesn't have a storyline. One of my favorite things about Starcraft was the interesting story behind the game, and I am really looking foward to seeing what happens next.
From what I've heard there won't be a unit limit for groups in Starcraft 2. So I think your wishes may come true. I think it will be a good thing overall.
Just because a game isn't as realistic as other games doesn't mean it isn't fun. You might as well be complaining about the lack of realism when you take a peice in a game of chess.
"What!?!? The knight doesn't chop the bishop's head off as his horse sprints into the square?" This game sucks!"
I'm sure there's probably some chess video game out there that has animations, but do we see flocks of people switching from an old school chess board to a new animated chess video game?
You're asking for a different game. Alot of the stuff you ask for is in Company of Heroes in some shape or form. While I like Company of Heroes, I want Starcraft 2 to stick to what made Starcraft fun: simple, fun gameplay. When you start adding the realism of one random one shot kills but with random missing, you will see alot quick, boring fights, and special abilities become worthless. Not to mention luck will become a huge factor, and Starcraft already had enough luck involved in the equation.
Blizzard added heroes with experience and upgrades for Warcraft III, and it really didn't make the game any more fun for me. Regardless, I'm sure you will be able to add RPG elements with the scenario editor, as I remember there were many RPG custom maps made for Starcraft.
I'm glad they seem to be getting rid of the group size limit. I think the group size limit made large battles somewhat more complicated then necessary, and gave players who mastered group control a huge advantage over others.
Warcraft's group size limit was 4. And you couldn't box select. Still was a pretty fun game though.
Did you not read the initial announcement? They are implementing a new matchmaking system. I'm sure it will be easy for players to find other people with equal abilities and have fun.
Oh, and the creation story in Genesis has a couple minor discrepencies, it actually took eight days for God to create the Universe, not seven. And, he actaully used a thigh bone to create women, not a rib.
Oops.
If you bothered clicking on the link, you would have seen that "Super Mario Brothers" on the NES sold over 40 million copies, the most any game has ever sold.
Why someone would mod you insightful is beyond me.
There might be a possibility that the skeptics are right, and it won't be that bad. But what if they're wrong? Is it worth putting our future in jeopardy just because there's a possiblity things "won't be so bad?"
On which FF iteration did Sakimoto take over the musical score from Uematsu?
Or would the term "golem" be more appropriate? Wow, all this flesh-eating zombie talk is making me reconsider being christian (I'm currently agnostic). When I come back from church, I can tell my friends that I just ate the flesh and drank the blood of a zombie, who we worshiped by telepathing our thoughts to an omnipotent power. I can also talk about how this zombie is also a ghost, and can cast "Heal" and "Cure" on to people, restoring their hitpoints and sight. Then I will mention how this badass Zombie-Ghost-Jew will someday come back from the netherworld and will totally flip out on the non-believers by summoning four horsemen (think Knights of The Round divided by 3) to destroy everything and rain hell-fire (aka casting "Meteor") on all of planet earth.
Fucking badass! It's alot better than saying "I just came back from church."
No, you get a PC that is slightly better than a MacBook. Yeah I know that YOU don't like windows machines. But you're a small minority. Most people are willing to get PC's to play the games they want.
Not that I'm saying that's a bad thing (or that you're wrong), but do you have the statistics/numbers/evidence to back up that claim?
Looking at subscription numbers for MMO's is actually a good benchmark for judging the game's quality. People have to continue paying money if they want to keep playing it, and generally stop paying for it if they are dissapointed. It's a better benchmark than comparing sheer number of copies sold because even if the buyer thinks the game sucks, he still counts as a person who bought a copy. StarCraft is a clickfest. Starcarft is a clickfest? Welcome to the realm of RTS's, bud. Actually, once you get good enough you use key binding more than clicking. Regardless, if it's realtime, you are more successful when you produce more units and micromanage them more. Any real time strategy game gives at least a small advantage to people who act faster. If you don't like that aspect of games, go play chess, risk, Civ, or any other turn-based games. You want to talk about intuitive? Intuitive is when I move a marine out of the path of a slow-moving projectile, he doesn't get hit. Intuitive is NOT seeing that projectile strike the ground where he was standing, and still manage to injure him. I was talking about the intuitiveness of GUI's, you're talking about realism. If you prefer realism that's fine by me. I play games to escape reality. I can point out of lot of unrealistic, nonsensical, aspects in the other games (close combat in CoH? give me a break) but we're talking about games here.
Starcarft may be "dumbed down" (or as I like to say: "not uneccessarily convoluted with a unintuitive controls, features, and options") but as you said, it was fun. I play games to have fun. I guess I'm just dumb, simplistic, neanderthal. but FAR from being the best in its genre at anything. There's a few dozen magazines, websites, and institutions that disagree with you:
http://www.blizzard.com/inblizz/awards.shtml#sc
To each their own. The gathering resources part of Stracraft is what makes it more interesting, IMO. If you can get a bunch of expansions up qiuck without your opponent doing anything about it, you can overtake him with shear brute force due to your financial advantage. However, this comes at a huge risk because you'll have lower defense early on, and if he manages to take your expansions out, you'll be screwed. Myth is more of a tactics game than a strategy game (although Starcraft requires a fair amount of tactics and micromanagement) as well. I enjoyed the myth games, but I found the variety of units to be lacking, and the multiplayer is quite repetitive compared to stacraft.
What's really new is apparently there was only one astronaut that was used for all those missions? I knew it, the moon landing was fake! NASA can't even keep their number of astronauts consistent.
I don't know of any passages in the Bible that clearly state that abortion is murder.
Me neither, but every time I get in to a discussion with a pro-life advocate, they usually bring their religion when trying to explain why they believe abortion is murder.
There isn't any 'equating' about it. Is it human?
Defintion of Human:
1. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people: human frailty.
2. consisting of people: the human race.
3. of or pertaining to the social aspect of people: human affairs.
4. sympathetic; humane: a warmly human understanding.
-noun
5. a human being.
I don't see where a fertilized egg would clearly fit in to the definition above. Maybe 1, but then a statue of a human could fit under 1 as well. I don't think anyone has gone to jail for murdering a statue. You see, the definition of human isn't clear. That's when religious views come into play. Religious people usually believe a soul is infused with an egg when it's fertilized, therefore making it human. Non-religious people see the egg as something that has very little human characteristics at that point in time, therefore it generally leads them to believe that it won't become human until a later time.
You seem pretty focused on the religious aspect. I didn't say that any religious issue should be the determining factor in abortion's legality, simply whether or not the fetus is human.
It's the religous aspect that has dichotomized this debate. Whether you say it or not, religion has a huge affect on abortion laws today.
It's generally their religious beliefs that leads them to the conclusion that abortion is murder. Pro-lifers trying to make abortion illegal under the idea that their religion tells them it's murder is the equivalent of them telling everyone else , "My religious beliefs are superior to yours, so we have the right to take freedom of choice from you."
Abortion isn't the only thing that various religions equate to murder. Should all of those actions/thoughts be illegal too?