Black & White does this. However, since time proceeds faster than normal, a snow storm that lasts all night in the real world can end up lasting months in the game.
If my company can be held liable for defects in software, I suddenly have a *huge* economic argument to take to my bosses and say "this schedule is unrealistic. We're going to need more time/resources/etc to get this thing done *right* if you intend to distribute it"
What it really means is that the whole attitude the software industry has of "Release early, patch later" will have to undergo a significant shift.
Yeah, it hurts those slapjack coders who can't tell security from UI, but I tend to think that's a good thing as well.
You're right. You can. And if you want to play the crap that gets put into the video game store's "used games" bin, you're welcome to.
You want to play one of these games? It'll run you $2 - $6.
Hell, I think >$25,000 for a Porsche is too much as well, after all, it's just a car. Of course, what I think means bupkiss to the guys who actually provide the automobile.
Guess how much what you think is worth to the folks providing these games?
Mutli-Session support (you can have as many open as your computer will allow) Spell checker case sensitive help Hyperlink detection Clickable hyperlinks Option to conceal program while at work Option to disable URL detection - (useful if mucking from work) Option to disable ansi colours in game - (useful if mucking from work) Macros Highlights Gags Complete colour customisation Advanced Command History Save complete session text Load from file Record partial session Auto login for sessions using the "Connect name password" ansi colour support complete session scroll back user customisable colour/font on a per session basis sound for activity in another session or when application is minimised user specific settings reconnect on disconnection socks proxy and http proxy support keep alive signals restrict scroll back and history commands to save memory Online checking for news and updates! Autologging
Oh.. and free as in beer, though donations are accepted.
In both cases we see people that happen to know how to use a computer, don't like to actually be productive, have inflated opinions of themselves and their own ideas, and are socially inept.
Hell, to be honest, I'm more surprised that non-spammers read slashdot.
One thing both I and my wife agree on is that the original Doom is still, to this day, the most *satisfying* gameplay experience of any of the first person shooters. It's nowhere near as pretty, complex, scary, or even interesting as the newer ones when you get right down to it, but it's still the most satisfying.
This is for a number of reasons. The first and most common one that we can recount is the "one shot, one kill" effect that you can get as soon as you pick up the shotgun. And in fact, the level design emphasized this effect as the first level had a place where you open a door to be confronted by an imp at close range. Your first reaction is to jump and pull the the trigger - BOOM! Imp flies backwards, dead. It's immensely satisfying..something just scared the bejeebers out of you and you killed it, just like that. Talk about your instant gratification. And you could do this with basically all of the lower class enemies.
It seems most of the more recent FPS games require you to unload quite a few shots, even of some of the higher level weapons, before anything at all will fall down. Sure, they all have their one-shot, one-kill weapons, but typically these are specialized like a sniper rifle, which requires using a scope or aim-bot like abilities, or a rocket-launcher type of weapon, which you dare not use in close quarters because you'll likely take yourself out with it as well.
A second reason, though less obvious, is that the first few weapons in Doom are all simply more powerful versions of the previous one. Even Quake messed this up somewhat, in that one of the early weapons you pick up is the nail gun. While more powerful, it's also more specialized -- it works better with some enemies than others. Doom didn't make you think about that until you got quite a few levels in and picked up your first rocket launcher.
Together, these two things worked to make the game simple, satisfying, and gave it a great flow. You could run through the game and if you were good, you'd never have to stop to finish killing something. Your first shot was enough.
The one shot, one kill effect also had other bonuses in that when you started running into guys that you couldn't do that with, you inherently understood that you were dealing with something nastier. It felt more like a difference in kind, rather than (as with most of the newer games) a difference merely in degree.
The final thing about Doom was that the control was *smooth*. Unless you were playing on a bottom of the barrel computer, there was no question of what framerate you were getting, because you were getting enough.
It's a meta-format, giving you means to *create* a standardized format, once you start communicating with the other people in your industry who might want to use the same standards.
Not really any different from any other EDI format, except now coders can move their skill set from one corporation to another.
Actually, if you wanted it to be an even remotely valid test, you'd have to specifically avoid telling people what the economic system was. Only that way could you see the results as it would be on the real world where not everybody is a fan of "From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs", or "to the victor go the spoils".
After all, if you run an objectivist simulation with a bunch of objectivists in it, you probably won't get a ton of complaint as some of them get stuck at the bottom. On the other hand, we know even from today's society that a lot of people don't like to be stuck on the bottom.
A man making 30,001 dollars has to shoulder a greater burden when compared to his available income (That is, income left after necessities) than a man making 100,000.
Progressive tax works on the notion that each person will shoulder the same burden of taxation no matter what their income. The key is to remember that the burden is defined as the percentage of income left after the necessities are paid for.
See Magic: The Gathering for an example of emergent gameplay within a closed game.
It's where elements of the game combine to make something that was unexpected by the designer. Things such as ripping up a card to scatter over the table because the card says that if any piece of it touches another card, that card is buried. Or using a card's ability to "untap" a card on itself, as adding a second card makes doing so advantageous. Some of these techniques, when discovered, are banned by the designers. If that's not an indication of something "emerging" from the game, I'm not sure what is.
And using Deus Ex as an example of open gaming is stupid. Your second question is better. Open-ended games are those such as The Sims, most MMORPGS, and of course their brethren MUDs, and MOOs, etc.
If you're thinking you need more developer time to create an open ended game, you've missed the entire concept of what an open-ended game is. Perhaps a better term would be a "non-ending" game.
This doesn't rule out all games that have an end, however. For example, can GTA be played as a non-ending game? Indeed it can, if you ignore the goals and just make up your own (I want to steal a fleet of police cars..). The world is almost rich enough to handle that for a good long while. (And it should be noted, this is also an example of emergent gameplay -- gameplay of a type that wasn't expected by the designer.)
Now, the Oregon Institute claims that the bogus names were inserted by "enviro-pranksters", but if the petition is open to such "pranking" you have to wonder about the validity of the petition as a whole.
Beyond this, you also have to look at the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, http://www.oism.org which is the group that originate the petition. Their faculty has absolutely nobody who has specialized in studying environmental issues or climate issues. Instead, you have electrical engineers, surgeons, and chemists. Nothing wrong with that, but when they say one thing, and the specialists in the field say another, I'd prefer to trust the specialists.
We can also look at the other publications of the OISM, including their handbook "Nuclear War Survival Skills", and the "Fighting Chance Civil Defense" series.. things all originated by their founder, and supported and sold solely by their society. Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with any of this stuff, but looking at it and you see a group that has a very solid 1980s or early 1990s mindset - a mindset that saw environmentalism as a "radical" issue.
Now, because global warming has been so politicized, it's impossible to find a source that doesn't appear to have bias one way or the other. Of course, perhaps the bias is because one side is right, but that's difficult to tell for us laymen.
My choice then, is to side with the people who say that we should be taking steps to prevent a cataclysm, just in case they're right. Kind of like putting on seat-belts.. I may think that I'll never be in an accident, but that doesn't help me much if I wind up getting thrown through my windshield.
What I don't understand is people who get offended.
Personally, I'm happy when they ask to see photo id to go with my credit card. I know it doesn't mean a lot, since if someone has done a competent identity theft, they have their picture on a liscence that says its you, but it's just that one extra step that lets me know "Hey, this company actually has a clue."
That always figures into my future decisions on where I'm going to shop.
I've also run into a company on the net that won't let you make a first credit card purchase until you've supplied a fax of some type of identification. (Bank statements showing your address, but with the account number blacked out were acceptable) After that, they (supposedly) don't store your credit card number, just your name and address with an "authorized for CC" note.
When I have the choice of shopping there or somewhere else for the same product, I'll always return to that store, even though sometimes their prices can be a little more. Being security conscious is worth the extra expense to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Black & White does this.
However, since time proceeds faster than normal, a snow storm that lasts all night in the real world can end up lasting months in the game.
Perhaps because if it was well known it wouldn't be happening? Obviously somebody is missing the boat out there.
They have nothing to offer me that I can't provide for myself, at my own profit.
They have two things.
Radio airplay access, and brick-and-mortar franchise access.
Of course, given how much they charge you for these two things, you've probably got the better deal going.
Speaking as one, I *do* like the sound of it.
If my company can be held liable for defects in software, I suddenly have a *huge* economic argument to take to my bosses and say "this schedule is unrealistic. We're going to need more time/resources/etc to get this thing done *right* if you intend to distribute it"
What it really means is that the whole attitude the software industry has of "Release early, patch later" will have to undergo a significant shift.
Yeah, it hurts those slapjack coders who can't tell security from UI, but I tend to think that's a good thing as well.
Probably not.
If you look at the games they're offering, these aren't generally console games. They're the games you get in the full arcade machines.
You're right. You can.
And if you want to play the crap that gets put into the video game store's "used games" bin, you're welcome to.
You want to play one of these games? It'll run you $2 - $6.
Hell, I think >$25,000 for a Porsche is too much as well, after all, it's just a car. Of course, what I think means bupkiss to the guys who actually provide the automobile.
Guess how much what you think is worth to the folks providing these games?
I suppose you want the address for that as well, hm?
http://www.xcalibur.co.uk/MuckClient/
Mutli-Session support (you can have as many open as your computer will allow)
Spell checker
case sensitive help
Hyperlink detection
Clickable hyperlinks
Option to conceal program while at work
Option to disable URL detection - (useful if mucking from work)
Option to disable ansi colours in game - (useful if mucking from work)
Macros
Highlights
Gags
Complete colour customisation
Advanced Command History
Save complete session text
Load from file
Record partial session
Auto login for sessions using the "Connect name password"
ansi colour support
complete session scroll back
user customisable colour/font on a per session basis
sound for activity in another session or when application is minimised
user specific settings
reconnect on disconnection
socks proxy and http proxy support
keep alive signals
restrict scroll back and history commands to save memory
Online checking for news and updates!
Autologging
Oh.. and free as in beer, though donations are accepted.
Well.. take a look at the average slashdot user.
Now take a look at the average spammer.
In both cases we see people that happen to know how to use a computer, don't like to actually be productive, have inflated opinions of themselves and their own ideas, and are socially inept.
Hell, to be honest, I'm more surprised that non-spammers read slashdot.
..it's those very same people, Franklin, Washington, and Jefferson, who, when handed out in copious amounts, lead us right back to the good ol' days.
One thing both I and my wife agree on is that the original Doom is still, to this day, the most *satisfying* gameplay experience of any of the first person shooters. It's nowhere near as pretty, complex, scary, or even interesting as the newer ones when you get right down to it, but it's still the most satisfying.
This is for a number of reasons. The first and most common one that we can recount is the "one shot, one kill" effect that you can get as soon as you pick up the shotgun. And in fact, the level design emphasized this effect as the first level had a place where you open a door to be confronted by an imp at close range. Your first reaction is to jump and pull the the trigger - BOOM! Imp flies backwards, dead. It's immensely satisfying..something just scared the bejeebers out of you and you killed it, just like that. Talk about your instant gratification. And you could do this with basically all of the lower class enemies.
It seems most of the more recent FPS games require you to unload quite a few shots, even of some of the higher level weapons, before anything at all will fall down. Sure, they all have their one-shot, one-kill weapons, but typically these are specialized like a sniper rifle, which requires using a scope or aim-bot like abilities, or a rocket-launcher type of weapon, which you dare not use in close quarters because you'll likely take yourself out with it as well.
A second reason, though less obvious, is that the first few weapons in Doom are all simply more powerful versions of the previous one. Even Quake messed this up somewhat, in that one of the early weapons you pick up is the nail gun. While more powerful, it's also more specialized -- it works better with some enemies than others. Doom didn't make you think about that until you got quite a few levels in and picked up your first rocket launcher.
Together, these two things worked to make the game simple, satisfying, and gave it a great flow. You could run through the game and if you were good, you'd never have to stop to finish killing something. Your first shot was enough.
The one shot, one kill effect also had other bonuses in that when you started running into guys that you couldn't do that with, you inherently understood that you were dealing with something nastier. It felt more like a difference in kind, rather than (as with most of the newer games) a difference merely in degree.
The final thing about Doom was that the control was *smooth*. Unless you were playing on a bottom of the barrel computer, there was no question of what framerate you were getting, because you were getting enough.
All in all, it combined to make Doom a classic.
..it's not even that standardized.
It's a meta-format, giving you means to *create* a standardized format, once you start communicating with the other people in your industry who might want to use the same standards.
Not really any different from any other EDI format, except now coders can move their skill set from one corporation to another.
Well.. universal in North America, anyway.
Actually, if you wanted it to be an even remotely valid test, you'd have to specifically avoid telling people what the economic system was. Only that way could you see the results as it would be on the real world where not everybody is a fan of "From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs", or "to the victor go the spoils".
After all, if you run an objectivist simulation with a bunch of objectivists in it, you probably won't get a ton of complaint as some of them get stuck at the bottom. On the other hand, we know even from today's society that a lot of people don't like to be stuck on the bottom.
The difference there is in degree, not kind.
A man making 30,001 dollars has to shoulder a greater burden when compared to his available income (That is, income left after necessities) than a man making 100,000.
Progressive tax works on the notion that each person will shoulder the same burden of taxation no matter what their income. The key is to remember that the burden is defined as the percentage of income left after the necessities are paid for.
After all, there's no need to fight on their terms.
DRM = Digital Restriction Mechanisms
RMS = Remotely Managed Software (or Freaky OSS guy.)
Not really. There's a difference between "because" and "despite that"
Funny..
evil *is* generally easier to accomplish than good.
That's why we need to have laws against it.
Hmm.. wasn't there a patent about that somewhere?
See Magic: The Gathering for an example of emergent gameplay within a closed game.
It's where elements of the game combine to make something that was unexpected by the designer. Things such as ripping up a card to scatter over the table because the card says that if any piece of it touches another card, that card is buried. Or using a card's ability to "untap" a card on itself, as adding a second card makes doing so advantageous. Some of these techniques, when discovered, are banned by the designers. If that's not an indication of something "emerging" from the game, I'm not sure what is.
And using Deus Ex as an example of open gaming is stupid. Your second question is better. Open-ended games are those such as The Sims, most MMORPGS, and of course their brethren MUDs, and MOOs, etc.
If you're thinking you need more developer time to create an open ended game, you've missed the entire concept of what an open-ended game is. Perhaps a better term would be a "non-ending" game.
This doesn't rule out all games that have an end, however. For example, can GTA be played as a non-ending game? Indeed it can, if you ignore the goals and just make up your own (I want to steal a fleet of police cars..). The world is almost rich enough to handle that for a good long while. (And it should be noted, this is also an example of emergent gameplay -- gameplay of a type that wasn't expected by the designer.)
..is wonderfully ironic given the last line of your message.
While there may be nearly 18,000 signatures on The Oregon Petition, they're not all scientists. It's been pointed out that some of the signatories are Geri Haliwell of the Spice Girls, TV Personalities, newscasters, and the obligatory dead people. This page has some details:/ ClimateChange.htm a rming/page.cfm?pageID=498
http://www.transport2000.org.uk/activistbriefings
If you prefer a source that doesn't have the word "activist" in its title (it puts people off for some reason) You can try:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_w
Now, the Oregon Institute claims that the bogus names were inserted by "enviro-pranksters", but if the petition is open to such "pranking" you have to wonder about the validity of the petition as a whole.
Beyond this, you also have to look at the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, http://www.oism.org which is the group that originate the petition. Their faculty has absolutely nobody who has specialized in studying environmental issues or climate issues. Instead, you have electrical engineers, surgeons, and chemists. Nothing wrong with that, but when they say one thing, and the specialists in the field say another, I'd prefer to trust the specialists.
We can also look at the other publications of the OISM, including their handbook "Nuclear War Survival Skills", and the "Fighting Chance Civil Defense" series.. things all originated by their founder, and supported and sold solely by their society. Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with any of this stuff, but looking at it and you see a group that has a very solid 1980s or early 1990s mindset - a mindset that saw environmentalism as a "radical" issue.
For the same sort of take on the group, but with much more detail, you can check out these folks:
http://www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html
Now, because global warming has been so politicized, it's impossible to find a source that doesn't appear to have bias one way or the other. Of course, perhaps the bias is because one side is right, but that's difficult to tell for us laymen.
My choice then, is to side with the people who say that we should be taking steps to prevent a cataclysm, just in case they're right. Kind of like putting on seat-belts.. I may think that I'll never be in an accident, but that doesn't help me much if I wind up getting thrown through my windshield.
What I don't understand is people who get offended.
Personally, I'm happy when they ask to see photo id to go with my credit card. I know it doesn't mean a lot, since if someone has done a competent identity theft, they have their picture on a liscence that says its you, but it's just that one extra step that lets me know "Hey, this company actually has a clue."
That always figures into my future decisions on where I'm going to shop.
I've also run into a company on the net that won't let you make a first credit card purchase until you've supplied a fax of some type of identification. (Bank statements showing your address, but with the account number blacked out were acceptable) After that, they (supposedly) don't store your credit card number, just your name and address with an "authorized for CC" note.
When I have the choice of shopping there or somewhere else for the same product, I'll always return to that store, even though sometimes their prices can be a little more. Being security conscious is worth the extra expense to me.
Loads the frame, inside the frame is a button:
Would you like the interactive experience?
The key word is the ungainly dialog box.