Ms. Pac-Man was more than "Pac-Man with a bow." It was a true sequel in the same way that the Madden games are sequels: They have fundamentally the same gameplay, graphics and objective, but with better "A.I.," gameplay and/or graphics.
Ms. Pac-Man has 3 different puzzle levels, it was one of the first games that had "cutscenes," and the "A.I." (if you can call it that) was vastly improved. In Pac-Man, the ghosts moved in a pre-formed pattern, so it was possible for masters to learn this pattern and play for hours. Ms. Pac-Man had better ghost mechanics.
Mock it all you want, but I never play Pac-Man on my M.A.M.E. machine, but I always play Ms.
I wasn't talking sales numbers when I said Nintendo won this year's show. I meant that their lineup and presentation wow'd the crowds more than anyone else.
I'll give MS credit - 4 years ago, you would never have thought that they would trump Sony... and they did. Halo 2 looks great and will sell a million+ copies in November-December alone.
But Nintendo owned the show. The crowd went absolutely bonkers when they showed realistic Zelda. And the skepticism was thrown out when the DS was revealed - it looks great.
In short, E3 2004 won Nintendo is's respect back from many people who had given up on Nintendo (I am not among those people - always loved Big N). It's like that Simpsons episode, where bart lets lisa into his germ "bubble" to try and win the hearts of the students back... "Look... Isn't Nintendo! And it's winning us back!"
They promised that if NASA found evidence of water on Mars that they would give free Shrimp to the whole country. They followed through! (Now if only Mir had hit that Taco Bell sign...)
Sony was BRILLIANT in tapping the 20-something videogame market 8 years ago. They targetted professionals with their sleek Playstation systems. However, I don't really see men and women in business suits playing handheld videogame systems. I just don't see it.
I never played Tribes 1 or 2. How/why was it better than other FPSs? Could you give me some ideas? My last final is this friday and I dont start working for the summer for a while, so I have a lot of gaming to catch up on. Just wondering if this is worth my time...
The huge difference between movie & game sequels is that, for the most part, gamers will accept (and very often WANT) basically more-of-the-same, often with simple graphical or other updates. Myself included.
Take a look at these sequels. They were very similar to their predesessors, with graphical updates or other updates and changes that keep it very similar in overall feel to the winning original's formula. And in doing so, they were hugely fun and entertaining:
Doom 2
Madden Football series (and most other "annual" sports games)
Mortal Kombat 2,3
Warcraft II
Commander Keen games
King's Quest games
Battlefield: Vietnam
Super Mario Bros to SMB: The Lost Levels ("SMB2" in japan - almost identical game but new maps)
I can't tell if it's assinine, obnoxious, smart, or wrong...
Slightly OT, but I know a lot of people who seem to go out of their way, no joke, to make referrers not get $ for ad-referrals. What do I mean by this? Well, I know people who, when seeing a referral link by a site like techbargains or fatwallet (where they get paid if you BUY, not just click), that they'll just manually type in "amazon.com" into their address bar and find the item themselves. It saves them nothing, and loses the referrer their commission.
I still can't decide whether or not this is obnoxious. My lean is that it is.
thats exactly what I was saying. I knew Miyamoto's name, but forgot the Capcom guy who headed VJ. my point was that these innovative games were only made because of those guy's influence (i.e. they get what they want)
The unfortunate consequences that this brings, not entirely unjustifiably, is that daring new games will not be made. When every 5 years or so brings a new genre (FPS, violent vigilante games), we'll simply see 10 clones of those, instead of new ideas. When developing a game costs millions of dollars to make, with entire teams of workers to go at it (as opposed to the Atari days when one guy made the whole game), you kinda can't blame them for not taking huge risks.
Even Nintendo's very creative games this generation, Pikmin and Viewtiful Joe, were made (I'm totally speculating) only because they were pet projects of titans of the industry.
...any any human who murders 10 billion microorganisms simply to rid him or herself of the "inconvinience" of a runny nose for a week is an immoral murderer.
If God has made mistakes, then he cannot be all-powerful
You didn't answer my question. I love how I keep making all these points and you ignore them and, like a broken record, keep attempting to "de-prove" G-d by "logic." Where does G-d say He is all-powerful, or even by your definition of all powerful? The only reference G-d ever makes about His own description in the Diety sense is that "I am... that I am." Not very descriptive... although you truly are gifted in that you can interpret that passage to mean "I cannot be all-powerful."
An ant is not a rational creature
It was just an example by fine, instead of an ant, make it a chimp, a dog, or an ape. They definately have rational thoughts, but my argument still stands - they cannot comprehend deep rational scientific, philosphical thoughts as we can, yet that does not prove they do not exist.
a perfect God would be immutable (any change would be a change away from perfection!)
Again, I said, as did G-d, that He has made mistakes (re: I pointed this out in a previous post). Point to where G-d says both "I am perfect and never make mistakes" and the passage where G-d says that He will never again try to destroy the world.
I personally can only find the latter one.
if you deny that elementary logic can be used to understand the nature of God... God can only exist in an irrational universe
An ant cannot possibly conceive of his place vs that of humans in the evolutionary, ecological or scientific order of the universe. if its little brain even attempted such a proof, it would fantastically fail. Does that imply that we humans cannot exist in his universe? Same idea. If G-d wanted us to know everything about Him, we'd have a 101 every year. If G-d demanded that we believe in Him, He'd force our beliefs, as well as have a parting-of-the-red-sea type "miracle" demonstrated for every generation to see.
I am not Christian nor do I follow their often (IMO) incorrect assertions about a superman in the sky type of deal. I think this is what you thought of me.
Do you know what the citizens of that city did? I sure don't, as it is not said anywhere in the Bible. I do know, however, that G-d knew what they did wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Ms. Pac-Man was more than "Pac-Man with a bow." It was a true sequel in the same way that the Madden games are sequels: They have fundamentally the same gameplay, graphics and objective, but with better "A.I.," gameplay and/or graphics.
Ms. Pac-Man has 3 different puzzle levels, it was one of the first games that had "cutscenes," and the "A.I." (if you can call it that) was vastly improved. In Pac-Man, the ghosts moved in a pre-formed pattern, so it was possible for masters to learn this pattern and play for hours. Ms. Pac-Man had better ghost mechanics.
Mock it all you want, but I never play Pac-Man on my M.A.M.E. machine, but I always play Ms.
actually, HIV is a diploid single-stranded RNA virus. It's still single stranded RNA, but it has 2 copies of it...
First off Hepatitis is an single strain RNA virus
Sorry, there are 5 types of Hepatitis (A-E), and Hep B, the kind primarily transmitted by sex, is a double stranded DNA virus.
I wasn't talking sales numbers when I said Nintendo won this year's show. I meant that their lineup and presentation wow'd the crowds more than anyone else.
I said Nintendo won E3 - i.e. their SHOW was better than anyone else's SHOW. Sales numbers has nothing to do with this...
I'll give MS credit - 4 years ago, you would never have thought that they would trump Sony... and they did. Halo 2 looks great and will sell a million+ copies in November-December alone.
But Nintendo owned the show. The crowd went absolutely bonkers when they showed realistic Zelda. And the skepticism was thrown out when the DS was revealed - it looks great.
In short, E3 2004 won Nintendo is's respect back from many people who had given up on Nintendo (I am not among those people - always loved Big N). It's like that Simpsons episode, where bart lets lisa into his germ "bubble" to try and win the hearts of the students back... "Look... Isn't Nintendo! And it's winning us back!"
Quick! You have until 5pm to get the free shrimp at Long John Silver's!
They promised that if NASA found evidence of water on Mars that they would give free Shrimp to the whole country. They followed through! (Now if only Mir had hit that Taco Bell sign...)
Sony was BRILLIANT in tapping the 20-something videogame market 8 years ago. They targetted professionals with their sleek Playstation systems. However, I don't really see men and women in business suits playing handheld videogame systems. I just don't see it.
Just wondering -
I never played Tribes 1 or 2. How/why was it better than other FPSs? Could you give me some ideas? My last final is this friday and I dont start working for the summer for a while, so I have a lot of gaming to catch up on. Just wondering if this is worth my time...
he's been in tons of movies.
Take a look at these sequels. They were very similar to their predesessors, with graphical updates or other updates and changes that keep it very similar in overall feel to the winning original's formula. And in doing so, they were hugely fun and entertaining:
Doom 2
Madden Football series (and most other "annual" sports games)
Mortal Kombat 2,3
Warcraft II
Commander Keen games
King's Quest games
Battlefield: Vietnam
Super Mario Bros to SMB: The Lost Levels ("SMB2" in japan - almost identical game but new maps)
Yay! I win! =)
yay! I win!
I can't tell if it's assinine, obnoxious, smart, or wrong...
Slightly OT, but I know a lot of people who seem to go out of their way, no joke, to make referrers not get $ for ad-referrals.
What do I mean by this? Well, I know people who, when seeing a referral link by a site like techbargains or fatwallet (where they get paid if you BUY, not just click), that they'll just manually type in "amazon.com" into their address bar and find the item themselves. It saves them nothing, and loses the referrer their commission.
I still can't decide whether or not this is obnoxious. My lean is that it is.
I still don't see why He can't be both
Wasn't that proven a myth? I can't find the exact snopes link right now, but I'm fairly sure I read that it's untrue...
thats exactly what I was saying. I knew Miyamoto's name, but forgot the Capcom guy who headed VJ. my point was that these innovative games were only made because of those guy's influence (i.e. they get what they want)
The unfortunate consequences that this brings, not entirely unjustifiably, is that daring new games will not be made. When every 5 years or so brings a new genre (FPS, violent vigilante games), we'll simply see 10 clones of those, instead of new ideas. When developing a game costs millions of dollars to make, with entire teams of workers to go at it (as opposed to the Atari days when one guy made the whole game), you kinda can't blame them for not taking huge risks.
Even Nintendo's very creative games this generation, Pikmin and Viewtiful Joe, were made (I'm totally speculating) only because they were pet projects of titans of the industry.
...any any human who murders 10 billion microorganisms simply to rid him or herself of the "inconvinience" of a runny nose for a week is an immoral murderer.
USA! USA! USA!
so maybe i misunderstand your stance: you don't believe G-d is all-powerful, or you don't think G-d gave humans free will?
If God has made mistakes, then he cannot be all-powerful
You didn't answer my question. I love how I keep making all these points and you ignore them and, like a broken record, keep attempting to "de-prove" G-d by "logic." Where does G-d say He is all-powerful, or even by your definition of all powerful? The only reference G-d ever makes about His own description in the Diety sense is that "I am... that I am." Not very descriptive... although you truly are gifted in that you can interpret that passage to mean "I cannot be all-powerful."
An ant is not a rational creature
It was just an example by fine, instead of an ant, make it a chimp, a dog, or an ape. They definately have rational thoughts, but my argument still stands - they cannot comprehend deep rational scientific, philosphical thoughts as we can, yet that does not prove they do not exist.
again... I have no idea what they did, so I will defer judgement to a superhuman Deity.
a perfect God would be immutable (any change would be a change away from perfection!)
Again, I said, as did G-d, that He has made mistakes (re: I pointed this out in a previous post). Point to where G-d says both "I am perfect and never make mistakes" and the passage where G-d says that He will never again try to destroy the world.
I personally can only find the latter one.
if you deny that elementary logic can be used to understand the nature of God... God can only exist in an irrational universe
An ant cannot possibly conceive of his place vs that of humans in the evolutionary, ecological or scientific order of the universe. if its little brain even attempted such a proof, it would fantastically fail. Does that imply that we humans cannot exist in his universe? Same idea. If G-d wanted us to know everything about Him, we'd have a 101 every year. If G-d demanded that we believe in Him, He'd force our beliefs, as well as have a parting-of-the-red-sea type "miracle" demonstrated for every generation to see.
I am not Christian nor do I follow their often (IMO) incorrect assertions about a superman in the sky type of deal. I think this is what you thought of me.
Do you know what the citizens of that city did? I sure don't, as it is not said anywhere in the Bible. I do know, however, that G-d knew what they did wrong.