This will inevitably fall into a gameplay-vs-graphics dispute, so I'll chime in while there are currently 0 comments:
For me it's simple: The two are not mututally exclusive. Of the two, of course, as I predict the majority of readers will say, I'd choose gameplay over graphics. Civilization II, for example, only has "OK" graphics and still is an amazing game to play to this day. But that doesn't mean that I don't want beauty too. FOr example, Super Monkey Ball on gamecube. Basically, I've described it as "Sort of like Marble Madness" to people. It is. However, it has GORGEOUS backgrounds and fun details all over which do, in my opinion, make the game better. Is the point still to get the monket from A to B? Yup. Could this have basically been done on an NES? Sure. But would you have seen the monkeys do 360s within the tubes and giggle the whole time? Probably not.
For another example, take a look at the new "Realistic Zelda" that was previewed at E3. The water, the emotion in Link's eyes. That does add to the game. Is it needed? No. I felt emotion in Link in the SNES game A Link to the Past (link praying, link realizing that the game isn't over, it's only halfway there, as he is sent to the dark world, etc). But this is easier and better with graphics.
more enjoyable? You bet...
Re:After all this time, it's only 24 hours away...
on
Remembering Pioneer 10
·
· Score: 1
OMG!!!
I'm guessing you're far-left. You don't believe in G-d.
That is soooooo funny!!!!
Why thank you.
Did you think of that all by yourself?
Yes.
I'm impressed!
See my reply to "That is soooooo funny!!!!"
I always wonder how stupid people have to be if they believe they are really "naming" stars.
Actually, I take that back. It's more of a Slashdot-we're-nerds sort of thinking to know offhand that they're bogus, but if you ever see one of those advertisements, they really seem legit: "Your star will be registered in the A.E.A.S.C. database" or whatever - that can mean "some excel file somewhere." They make users think they are officially naming the celestial body. You'd have just as much sucess with an ad "Name an orphan in Liberia after your sweetheart! It'll be registered in L.O.L. database!" - it'd have just as much "official-ness." I guess you're better off printing your own "star" coordinates off your own computer and save the $39.99...
yes but this wasn't proven until we sent a probe through it. Hell, there's no way to have been able to tell if the belt wasn't littered with a pebble every 10 meters instead of every few million miles or so. (and a probe traveling ten thousand MPH hitting a stationary pebble is the same as a 10,000 MOH pebble hitting the probe).
Re:After all this time, it's only 24 hours away...
on
Remembering Pioneer 10
·
· Score: 1
Imagine if moore's law applied to space flight...
And imagine if MICHAEL moore's law applied to space flight... ...it'd be Bush's fault somehow...;)
...before some Slashdot reader chalks up the sucess of firing a rocket, sending it millions of miles across space, separating in a dozen stages, landing (which requires maneuvers to be calculated and carried out to the second), setting itself up, finding earth, (refinding earth by itself after losing contact), landing directly bulls-eye within a target picked from hundreds of millions of miles away, finding near PROOF for the first time of the theory of Mars having been water-filled...
into a "fluffed up" assessment of what success is.
You can get that now for free. I've been using NASA's Maestro program since Spirit landed. You get EVERY raw feed from the probes (pics before processing, out of focus, ones with the wheels in the way, etc). It's very cool. Try it out.
a) the thing blows up in launch before you get it out into space. = some shit on the bottom of a sea bed somewhere (yes I know there is little risk of it going into the atmosphere.)
They're in very tight cases that would prevent contamination. It is NOT just a theory. It happened to the Russian mission Mars 96, which was aborted on launch, and crashed back into the ocean. The RTGs onboard were sucessfully contained within it's box.
Looking at all the cost cutting the led to the loss of the Mars Polar Lander, the Beagle 2... I think the cost is cheap.
Exactly. $800 for an AMAZINGLY successful mission is infinately more valuable than a $300 or $200 million dollar mission that gives back zero science (Mars Polar Lander/Beagle2).
Just think of all the children that could have been fed with this $400 million.:( Or all the landmines that could be removed. Instead, we get playtoys for stupid white men. Micheal Moore needs to do his next expose on "science".
Everyone always answers this by saying "What if Columbus hadn't been funded?" A good argument, but then these ignorant guys go and say "Well, that funding wasn't for exploration, that was for MONEY" Perhaps that's half (or more than half) true. But here's my argument:
According to you (usually ultra-liberal people), I ask this:
Why do we spend a billion dollars a year on national parks? "We could better spend it to feed the homeless."
Why do we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on our national museums (No, they don't bring in more money then they take in). "We could better spend it to feed the homeless."
Why do we (here in New York City, but I'm sure a huge, adjusted, amount everywhere else as well) spend tens of millions of dollars on cleanup for parades for our veterans, the (insert sports team) victory parade, etc. "While it's sure nice to honor veterans, We could better spend it to feed the homeless."
Why do we have a Poet Laurette? An official national poet? There's also statewide and city-wide poets, and many are paid. Now, that's all nice and good, but "We could better spend it to feed the homeless."
I think I've gotten my point across. Not everything is simply "We could either a) buy a Mars Rover or b) Feed that guy living under the Golden Gate Bridge." Let's first forget that most of the four points above are NOT profitable, and yet NASA has directly caused the advacement of the trillion-dollar cellular, communication, computer, velcro, and aerospace industries.
The simple fact is that, like funding the Smithsonian and paying for a Veteran's Day parade - both good things, we don't always make EVERY financial decision based on helping the most desperate first.
Yeah, but here's the catch... You have to play the game a quarter million (250,000) times, and then you get to take pictures of naked Iraqis six times. That pretty much puts the 6 or so assholes in perspective out of the 250,000 men and women serving overseas. (flamebait asshole...)
Banana=high end Gap = middle end Old Navy = lower end
Look at some old navy patterns. Their polo shirts will be the same pattern/style as Gap and Banana, but each of those will be nicer/more durable material, better buttons, better colors, etc.
Sorry, I agree that the X-Box is a nice machine and all, and I agree with your advantages of Xbox over PS2 (although I'm not a graphics whore - when Gamecube's Simpsons Hit and Run version has 42,000 polygons and Xbox has 51,000 or whatever, I really dont care), but Gamecube is #2 in terms of sales.
yeah, i read Franken's book. It was a good book too. I just wish he wasn't too much of a scardy-cat and admit he's a liberal analyst, as opposed to a "satirist."
One news network gives both sides, and you libs can't stand it."
Which one would that be? FOX News? You can't be serious.
Hannity & Colmes, for one. Sean Hannoty is a Conservative, Alan Colmes if a liberal. If you try saying that Alan Colmes isn't liberal (besides brilliant), then you either have your head up your ass, have never heard of Alan Colmes, or simply have blind hatred of Fox News. Hell, his last book is called Red, White & Liberal: How Left Is Right & Right Is Wrong
for G-d's sake!
Of course, now that I've proven you wrong, you'll have to reply with a retraction. But, of course, you won't. So I'll just be content with having sucessfully negated your post.
The "2-screen" game and watch games were not 2 different screens. For all intents and purposes (if you ever played them), they were basically 1 big screen, divided in 2. The 2 screens did exactly the same thing, albeit with the pre-printed LCD sprites in different places.
Sorry, but it did far from bomb. The two matrix sequels were filmed together for a budget of $200 million. That's pretty expensive plus a marketing campaign of about $50-75 million for the two. However, Matrix 2 has taken in over $281 million in the USA alone, covering the costs of both movies (that is WITHOUT dvd/vhs/tv rights sales). Worldwide, it has taken in $457 million.
Therefore, by definition, ANYTHING matrix 3 made was in essense a profit. It was impossible to bomb as the movie was already in the black (i.e. proifiting). That being said, Matrix Revolutions has made $285 million worldwide (again, minus dvd, tv, tie-ins, etc).
If that's a bomb, then that's a bomb i'd love to be responsible for...
Slashdot Mirror
King's Quest 5
Civilization
Indiana Jones & The Fate of Atlantis
Sim City
Quest for Glory 1
Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego (Deluxe)
3 in Three (a GREAT puzzle game for 10-14 y/o)
A week ago, maybe. Now that they're 18 it's all cool...
Now, whenever any of my friends now does something stupid, we call out "Most bothersome!"
For me it's simple: The two are not mututally exclusive. Of the two, of course, as I predict the majority of readers will say, I'd choose gameplay over graphics. Civilization II, for example, only has "OK" graphics and still is an amazing game to play to this day. But that doesn't mean that I don't want beauty too.
FOr example, Super Monkey Ball on gamecube. Basically, I've described it as "Sort of like Marble Madness" to people. It is. However, it has GORGEOUS backgrounds and fun details all over which do, in my opinion, make the game better. Is the point still to get the monket from A to B? Yup. Could this have basically been done on an NES? Sure. But would you have seen the monkeys do 360s within the tubes and giggle the whole time? Probably not.
For another example, take a look at the new "Realistic Zelda" that was previewed at E3. The water, the emotion in Link's eyes. That does add to the game. Is it needed? No. I felt emotion in Link in the SNES game A Link to the Past (link praying, link realizing that the game isn't over, it's only halfway there, as he is sent to the dark world, etc). But this is easier and better with graphics.
more enjoyable? You bet...
I'm guessing you're far-left. You don't believe in G-d.
That is soooooo funny!!!!
Why thank you.
Did you think of that all by yourself?
Yes.
I'm impressed!
See my reply to "That is soooooo funny!!!!"
Actually, I take that back. It's more of a Slashdot-we're-nerds sort of thinking to know offhand that they're bogus, but if you ever see one of those advertisements, they really seem legit: "Your star will be registered in the A.E.A.S.C. database" or whatever - that can mean "some excel file somewhere." They make users think they are officially naming the celestial body.
You'd have just as much sucess with an ad "Name an orphan in Liberia after your sweetheart! It'll be registered in L.O.L. database!" - it'd have just as much "official-ness."
I guess you're better off printing your own "star" coordinates off your own computer and save the $39.99...
yes but this wasn't proven until we sent a probe through it. Hell, there's no way to have been able to tell if the belt wasn't littered with a pebble every 10 meters instead of every few million miles or so. (and a probe traveling ten thousand MPH hitting a stationary pebble is the same as a 10,000 MOH pebble hitting the probe).
And imagine if MICHAEL moore's law applied to space flight... ;)
...it'd be Bush's fault somehow...
...before some Slashdot reader chalks up the sucess of firing a rocket, sending it millions of miles across space, separating in a dozen stages, landing (which requires maneuvers to be calculated and carried out to the second), setting itself up, finding earth, (refinding earth by itself after losing contact), landing directly bulls-eye within a target picked from hundreds of millions of miles away, finding near PROOF for the first time of the theory of Mars having been water-filled...
into a "fluffed up" assessment of what success is.
That was my FAVORITE game! I didn't know it was available on Windows!!!
It sucks I used my mod pts, or i'd give u even more!
You can get that now for free. I've been using NASA's Maestro program since Spirit landed. You get EVERY raw feed from the probes (pics before processing, out of focus, ones with the wheels in the way, etc). It's very cool. Try it out.
They're in very tight cases that would prevent contamination. It is NOT just a theory. It happened to the Russian mission Mars 96, which was aborted on launch, and crashed back into the ocean. The RTGs onboard were sucessfully contained within it's box.
Exactly. $800 for an AMAZINGLY successful mission is infinately more valuable than a $300 or $200 million dollar mission that gives back zero science (Mars Polar Lander/Beagle2).
Everyone always answers this by saying "What if Columbus hadn't been funded?" A good argument, but then these ignorant guys go and say "Well, that funding wasn't for exploration, that was for MONEY" Perhaps that's half (or more than half) true. But here's my argument:
According to you (usually ultra-liberal people), I ask this:
Why do we spend a billion dollars a year on national parks? "We could better spend it to feed the homeless."
Why do we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on our national museums (No, they don't bring in more money then they take in). "We could better spend it to feed the homeless."
Why do we (here in New York City, but I'm sure a huge, adjusted, amount everywhere else as well) spend tens of millions of dollars on cleanup for parades for our veterans, the (insert sports team) victory parade, etc. "While it's sure nice to honor veterans, We could better spend it to feed the homeless."
Why do we have a Poet Laurette? An official national poet? There's also statewide and city-wide poets, and many are paid. Now, that's all nice and good, but "We could better spend it to feed the homeless."
I think I've gotten my point across. Not everything is simply "We could either a) buy a Mars Rover or b) Feed that guy living under the Golden Gate Bridge." Let's first forget that most of the four points above are NOT profitable, and yet NASA has directly caused the advacement of the trillion-dollar cellular, communication, computer, velcro, and aerospace industries.
The simple fact is that, like funding the Smithsonian and paying for a Veteran's Day parade - both good things, we don't always make EVERY financial decision based on helping the most desperate first.
Zelda III: A Link to the Past
Final Fantasy II and III (aka IV/VI)
Super Mario Bros 3/Super Mario 64
Grand Theft Auto 3
NHL '94
Metroid Prime/Super Metroid
Civilization II
King's Quest V/VI (my personal favorites)
Worms 2
Command & Conquer: Red Alert
Day of the Tenticle (Maniac Mansion II)
Warcraft II
Sim City 2000
Unless, of course, it's a news organization that has a different politcal slant than yours. Then they're lying through their teeth...
sorry, that's 17 characters... it can only display 15...
Yeah, but here's the catch...
You have to play the game a quarter million (250,000) times, and then you get to take pictures of naked Iraqis six times. That pretty much puts the 6 or so assholes in perspective out of the 250,000 men and women serving overseas. (flamebait asshole...)
Streets of Rage was a console game (Genesis/Sega CD), but it is based on Final Fight - an arcade game from the mid 80's. Great beat-em-up...
It's called Old Navy. Same corporation.
Banana=high end
Gap = middle end
Old Navy = lower end
Look at some old navy patterns. Their polo shirts will be the same pattern/style as Gap and Banana, but each of those will be nicer/more durable material, better buttons, better colors, etc.
Sorry, I agree that the X-Box is a nice machine and all, and I agree with your advantages of Xbox over PS2 (although I'm not a graphics whore - when Gamecube's Simpsons Hit and Run version has 42,000 polygons and Xbox has 51,000 or whatever, I really dont care), but Gamecube is #2 in terms of sales.
yeah, i read Franken's book. It was a good book too. I just wish he wasn't too much of a scardy-cat and admit he's a liberal analyst, as opposed to a "satirist."
One news network gives both sides, and you libs can't stand it." Which one would that be? FOX News? You can't be serious.
Hannity & Colmes, for one. Sean Hannoty is a Conservative, Alan Colmes if a liberal. If you try saying that Alan Colmes isn't liberal (besides brilliant), then you either have your head up your ass, have never heard of Alan Colmes, or simply have blind hatred of Fox News. Hell, his last book is called Red, White & Liberal: How Left Is Right & Right Is Wrong for G-d's sake!
Of course, now that I've proven you wrong, you'll have to reply with a retraction. But, of course, you won't. So I'll just be content with having sucessfully negated your post.
The "2-screen" game and watch games were not 2 different screens. For all intents and purposes (if you ever played them), they were basically 1 big screen, divided in 2. The 2 screens did exactly the same thing, albeit with the pre-printed LCD sprites in different places.
Matrix 3 "bombed?"
Sorry, but it did far from bomb. The two matrix sequels were filmed together for a budget of $200 million. That's pretty expensive plus a marketing campaign of about $50-75 million for the two. However, Matrix 2 has taken in over $281 million in the USA alone, covering the costs of both movies (that is WITHOUT dvd/vhs/tv rights sales). Worldwide, it has taken in $457 million.
Therefore, by definition, ANYTHING matrix 3 made was in essense a profit. It was impossible to bomb as the movie was already in the black (i.e. proifiting). That being said, Matrix Revolutions has made $285 million worldwide (again, minus dvd, tv, tie-ins, etc).
If that's a bomb, then that's a bomb i'd love to be responsible for...