Certain people are simply more apt to become addicted to things. I don't think it's fair to call these people stupid. There is a serious underlying problem, and there is a decent possibility that the parent wouldn't have been able to do that much about it.
The parent shouldn't be attacking the game for it, but she is likely having problems coping with her tragedy. It is sad all around. Maybe she could get some help.
Haven't we learned how our court system really works? It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong. If you can't afford to take it to court, you have have no defense against one who can.
And I'm sure none of the XBOXes with "internal damage" were sent back to Microsoft. I really hope it isn't standard practice to throw items with warranty claims away without inspecting it to find out what happened to cause it.
Let's say it happened when you weren't home. If the damage was great enough, you wouldn't know exactly what caused the fire. The fire fighters would probably call it an "electrical malfunctiion." Microsoft certainly wouldn't take responsibility without hard proof that an XBOX started a fire, and that would be very hard to get, because there is always other electrical appliances near an XBOX.
Agreed, and what if the game is buggy and generally sucks like Star Wars Galaxies. Why can't I try I to get some of this money back. It's not like I could have tried a demo before.
What I am saying is that there are concepts of "scope" and "variety" that do not necessarily make a great game. I think we can all agree that Asteroids is far superior to Daikatana although Daikatana has far more "scope" and "variety."
I actually haven't played GTA:SA or GS2, but I can say that the review should be based on what the reviewer prefers. He said that he prefers GS2, so it should have gotten a higher score from him. Rewiews are too much about what the rewiewer thinks we will feel about a game. I want reviews that reflect what the reviewer feels about the game.
I'm wondering how they are going to convince all these people who just bought an XBOX in the past year that they should spend $300 to replace it.
Maybe they will drop XBOX Live support for the original XBOX, just a thought.
At any rate, I think releasing the XBOX 2 so early will discourage exclusive 3rd party games. Microsoft is too eager to make their system obsolete. Those companies that are releasing or recently released exclusive games for the XBOX are going to have a very short sales cycle that they wouldn't have anticipated when development started.
Convergence is bad when you include everything in the basic package, because you often pay for things you don't want, need, or like. The DS isn't really convergent, it's modular. The difference is flexibility. If you can use it, you can get it. If not, you don't have to.
There is absolutely no problem if Nintendo adds PDA-style function to the DS, because I don't have to pay for the functionality if I don't want it.
Today sex and blood is all kids want, no wonder that the society slowly turns into a sociopathic dystopia.
It's the children's fault! Their carnal urges and hormones is ripping the very fabric of society. People would never learn to torture prisoners or "pop the coochie" without the evils of modern video games.
If only the world were simple like tetris, where blocks fall from the sky and no one has a penis.
Woe! Oh WOE is the world of Street Fighter II. If it weren't for such gastly abominations we might live in a crimeless world where all the restaurants are Taco Bell and every curse word is fined! CRAZY VIDEO GAME NINJA SKILLS, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?!?!?
Games should always be considered on their individual merits, on the qualities that they offer and the accomplishments they boast. This can never be distilled into a percentage or ranking out of ten. Hold games up to examination and this evidently becomes the case. For instance, when I reviewed San Andreas I gave it a 90%+ review score. I would not on the other hand award as high a score to something like Castle of Shikigami 2 on the Gamecube though personally I feel it is the better game. It would score lower because it is less technically accomplished, far smaller in scope and offers far less variety. I still prefer it however because what it does it does extremely well and when push comes to shove I would rather play it than San Andreas. That's not to say I think it's more accomplished - I simply prefer it.
I'd ask the writer of the article this: why the hell did you rate GTA: San Andreas better? This IS the problem with these scores. GTA gets a better score simply because the conventional wisdom says it is a more accomplished game, and NOT because the reviewer actually likes it better. He admits it in the article for all to see. Hype = high scores, and even someone who is writing an article about how the scores don't work is swayed by it.
This is how a game like Katamari Damacy gets lost in the Half-Life 2s and Halo 2s of the world. Conventional wisdom says that a strange Japanese game with no real storyline, blocky graphics, and simple gameplay is not as "accomplished" as a sci-fi FPS. The $20 price tag alone almost screams "inferior game." But an expensive price, polished graphics, long development cycle, sweeping advertising campaign, and a big booth at E3 are not what makes a good game.
Sony has made it a business practice to release details and specs about upcoming projects that have barely reached the drawing board.
Nintendo sits back and says nothing.
Sooner or later even IGN gets tired of hyping the latest theoretical specs for the PSP or the PS3, and they get bored, because they have nothing new to hype.
Nintendo still says nothing (except maybe a codename... if you're lucky), but throws a couple of meaningless legal filings into the hype vacuum. There are no promises to break or face to lose. Yet everyone starts talking about them, fueled by an over-eager media trying to get hits and ad revenue.
Playing a game is not a signature either. Neither is clicking "I Agree" under a bunch of legalese that no one expects to read, but at least in that case you are not allowed to play until you have had the afforementioned leagalese presented to you and performed some action to proceed beyond it.
So you are saying that PC game companies would never try this crap? That's just naive.
You can like PC games better than console games. That's fine. This, however, is a problem with the government and corporate America in general that is likely to get worse before it gets better. If you think PC games are safe from this kind of crap, you're wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Certain people are simply more apt to become addicted to things. I don't think it's fair to call these people stupid. There is a serious underlying problem, and there is a decent possibility that the parent wouldn't have been able to do that much about it.
The parent shouldn't be attacking the game for it, but she is likely having problems coping with her tragedy. It is sad all around. Maybe she could get some help.
I agree.
Haven't we learned how our court system really works? It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong. If you can't afford to take it to court, you have have no defense against one who can.
And I'm sure none of the XBOXes with "internal damage" were sent back to Microsoft. I really hope it isn't standard practice to throw items with warranty claims away without inspecting it to find out what happened to cause it.
Let's say it happened when you weren't home. If the damage was great enough, you wouldn't know exactly what caused the fire. The fire fighters would probably call it an "electrical malfunctiion." Microsoft certainly wouldn't take responsibility without hard proof that an XBOX started a fire, and that would be very hard to get, because there is always other electrical appliances near an XBOX.
Scorching leads to burning.
fixed it a year ago, and this is a preventative step?
The PSP has been getting a lot of flack for its problems, but at least it won't burn your house down.
What about masking tape?
It sticks, but it doesn't stick. It's a miracle!
Agreed, and what if the game is buggy and generally sucks like Star Wars Galaxies. Why can't I try I to get some of this money back. It's not like I could have tried a demo before.
In one of the episodes they did have a video game.
It was called "Headkicker." I always wanted to play that game.
BONUS PRETZEL!
What I am saying is that there are concepts of "scope" and "variety" that do not necessarily make a great game. I think we can all agree that Asteroids is far superior to Daikatana although Daikatana has far more "scope" and "variety."
I actually haven't played GTA:SA or GS2, but I can say that the review should be based on what the reviewer prefers. He said that he prefers GS2, so it should have gotten a higher score from him. Rewiews are too much about what the rewiewer thinks we will feel about a game. I want reviews that reflect what the reviewer feels about the game.
One profitable quarter out of TWELVE is NOT "bringing in the cash."
According to this GamesIndustry.biz article:
- The quarter-year ending Dec 31, 2004 was the first profitable quarter for the "Home and Entertainment Division"
- this division posted a profit of $84 million for that quarter.
- The same three month period in 2003 resulted in a $397 million loss.
I'm wondering how they are going to convince all these people who just bought an XBOX in the past year that they should spend $300 to replace it.
Maybe they will drop XBOX Live support for the original XBOX, just a thought.
At any rate, I think releasing the XBOX 2 so early will discourage exclusive 3rd party games. Microsoft is too eager to make their system obsolete. Those companies that are releasing or recently released exclusive games for the XBOX are going to have a very short sales cycle that they wouldn't have anticipated when development started.
Ooooh! And the New York Islanders go UNDEFEATED!
They haven't played any games, so they certainly can't lose any.
At this point in time I would say they are willing to give up long-term profits in the hopes of dominating the market in the longer-term.
The "short-term" has come and gone.
Luke and Leia are SIBLINGS!
Their father is DARTH VADER!
Convergence is bad when you include everything in the basic package, because you often pay for things you don't want, need, or like. The DS isn't really convergent, it's modular. The difference is flexibility. If you can use it, you can get it. If not, you don't have to.
There is absolutely no problem if Nintendo adds PDA-style function to the DS, because I don't have to pay for the functionality if I don't want it.
Today sex and blood is all kids want, no wonder that the society slowly turns into a sociopathic dystopia.
It's the children's fault! Their carnal urges and hormones is ripping the very fabric of society. People would never learn to torture prisoners or "pop the coochie" without the evils of modern video games.
If only the world were simple like tetris, where blocks fall from the sky and no one has a penis.
Woe! Oh WOE is the world of Street Fighter II. If it weren't for such gastly abominations we might live in a crimeless world where all the restaurants are Taco Bell and every curse word is fined! CRAZY VIDEO GAME NINJA SKILLS, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?!?!?
Here is a quote from the article.
Games should always be considered on their individual merits, on the qualities that they offer and the accomplishments they boast. This can never be distilled into a percentage or ranking out of ten. Hold games up to examination and this evidently becomes the case. For instance, when I reviewed San Andreas I gave it a 90%+ review score. I would not on the other hand award as high a score to something like Castle of Shikigami 2 on the Gamecube though personally I feel it is the better game. It would score lower because it is less technically accomplished, far smaller in scope and offers far less variety. I still prefer it however because what it does it does extremely well and when push comes to shove I would rather play it than San Andreas. That's not to say I think it's more accomplished - I simply prefer it.
I'd ask the writer of the article this: why the hell did you rate GTA: San Andreas better? This IS the problem with these scores. GTA gets a better score simply because the conventional wisdom says it is a more accomplished game, and NOT because the reviewer actually likes it better. He admits it in the article for all to see. Hype = high scores, and even someone who is writing an article about how the scores don't work is swayed by it.
This is how a game like Katamari Damacy gets lost in the Half-Life 2s and Halo 2s of the world. Conventional wisdom says that a strange Japanese game with no real storyline, blocky graphics, and simple gameplay is not as "accomplished" as a sci-fi FPS. The $20 price tag alone almost screams "inferior game." But an expensive price, polished graphics, long development cycle, sweeping advertising campaign, and a big booth at E3 are not what makes a good game.
Then maybe we shouldn't be making sweeping generalities about those portable games.
Sony has made it a business practice to release details and specs about upcoming projects that have barely reached the drawing board.
Nintendo sits back and says nothing.
Sooner or later even IGN gets tired of hyping the latest theoretical specs for the PSP or the PS3, and they get bored, because they have nothing new to hype.
Nintendo still says nothing (except maybe a codename... if you're lucky), but throws a couple of meaningless legal filings into the hype vacuum. There are no promises to break or face to lose. Yet everyone starts talking about them, fueled by an over-eager media trying to get hits and ad revenue.
Is the PR game really this easy to play?
Here is an article on the subject from GamesIndustry.biz. It says that Sony has demonstrated "game sharing" but not single disc multiplayer.
Playing a game is not a signature either. Neither is clicking "I Agree" under a bunch of legalese that no one expects to read, but at least in that case you are not allowed to play until you have had the afforementioned leagalese presented to you and performed some action to proceed beyond it.
Opening a box is not a signature. If our legal system chooses to recognize that as a valid contract, we are all in for a lot of trouble.
What do you have against bread and circuses? They both rock!
So you are saying that PC game companies would never try this crap? That's just naive.
You can like PC games better than console games. That's fine. This, however, is a problem with the government and corporate America in general that is likely to get worse before it gets better. If you think PC games are safe from this kind of crap, you're wrong.