The whinefest "Games are Not Fruit" is a total joke.
There's not a lot of point in buying a game that only runs under DOS today. And I'm not at all sure I'd want to buy the original Civ, at this point, either (though a great game it was); I'd want the most recent version.
And then a few paragraphs later...
Games are not fruit; they do not spoil.
Oh right. Unless, like you pointed out, they're on an older OS or a sequel comes out. Dumbass.
The market is changing. Adapt or die, Costikyan, and take your ugly-ass website with you.
Yeow. That sucks for the poor unsuspecting Best Buy consumer then, doesn't it? Quite unfortunate for those trying to be nice and give points as gifts.
Buying points online through the dashboard would save both time and money. And since you don't need a Gold membership to get points (Silver will do), charging more in stores is a crap move.
The oddball part of the whole MS points thing is the way they're sold on the Xbox Live interface (or the way they were the last time I bought any, at least). They sell them in groups of 500, 1000 or 2000, so the charges are a bit wonky: $6.25, $12.50 and $25.00 respectively.
In the stores is where they offer the 1600 point variety, which is an "even" twenty dollars.
"Some guy's suit forced MS to make changes of their own choosing which will cause web developers to change their architecture which are a dissapointment, yet strengthen MS's case."
What changes are the dissapointment? What the hell are you talking about? How about a link or two, or using a word other than "change"?
I disagree. I always thought the arcade handlebars were a needless gimmick that make a hard game even harder. There was always too much play, or some kid knocked them out of alignment, or something.
And all 720s control was an analog stick, bent out to a 45 degree angle, right? That's not all that far off from modern controllers... albeit much smaller in scale.
Oops. My fault for using crappy abbreviations. I should have just spelled out "Phantasy Star II".
That blue grid was such a dissapointment seeing that even though it was on a supposedly more powerful system, the location-specific fight backgrounds used in the first Phantasy Star on the SMS blew them away.
I still don't see it that way. I see it as just the opposite, providing a defined outlet for like-minded people to come together and play a social game. I have a feeling that those who would join these guilds are aware of the potential for backlash, and still sign up "of their own peril".;^)
If Blizzard is more concerned about revenue stream however, I can't imagine news stories like this helping much in that department. *shrug* In the end, it's their decision.
But then the problem would be that it's not only here in this discussion that the roles of Guilds vs. other types of groups are not clearly demarcated. I just re-read the news article, and all it alludes to is that guilds are in-game groups of people, and mentions "other gay guilds".
So I don't know what other types of player groups there are (teams? clans? I don't know, you tell me), but would this rule apply to them as well? If so, it's the same problem, no?
So deal with hate issues by, oh, I don't know... dealing directly with those who are doing the hating, perhaps? The end result here doesn't make sense. This person's GLBT-friendly guild isn't anti anything, nor are they starting their group with malicious intent.
By going on assumptions that a guild like that may lead to hate issues, they're not doing anything to remove the true negative elements from the game. Instead, Blizzard chooses to limit positive social interactivity between benevolent like-minded gamers.
And by the way, calling people "gay" or a "fag" online has nothing to do with breaking any kind of RL/game boundary. It's simply ignorance and hatred. (I've been called a "fag" many times online, and I'm not gay in RL.)
Hmm, I was under the impression from what I've read online (having not played the game myself) that PDZ came with a very good online experience.
I've gotten to the point where I only get games that my small set of friends (erm, "clan" -- can you still use that term if you suck?) are also willing to get, because simply, I ain't got the time to be wasting with sub-par online games. If what you're saying is the case, it looks like PDZ will be taking a lower spot on the prospective list. COD2 has already dissapointed in this regard, only to be saved by the campaign mode.
The thing I liked best about it, was the way it organized online play. You start up a session, and invite your friends to a party. That party can then either play amongst themselves, or combine against/with other parties in larger combat.
Sounds simple, but these improvements are best realized when they're missing. Case in point, the 360's Call of Duty 2, where online play is a clusterfuck of servers, timeouts and lag. If I want to have a match between a few of my friends in COD2, it's nearly impossible. In Halo 2, it's easy as hell.
As far as the gameplay itself, I liked the weapons, but wasn't bowled over by the single player campaign in either Halo or Halo 2. As a matter of fact, when Halo 2 came out, I gave my copy of Halo to a friend, as you'll never see me play through that godforsaken "Library" level ever again!
If other 360 FPS games come out--and use Halo 2's design for online play (please!)--Halo 3 is going to have its hands full trying to find something new to make it stand out. Meanwhile, I'm much more excited about the new Ghost Recon.
Disclaimer: Big Xbox fan here. The last PC game I played was Quake 3. A quick look inside my box at the Geforce 256 will attest to that.
Not for Snood, as that would probably be relegated to the Arcade (for a max of 200 points), but I hear ya. There's always a risk for point-whoring with everything, but that's when the ability to compare games on the xbox.com website comes in.
From there, I can tell that you have half of your points from COD2--which is a tough game to earn points from--as opposed to some known creampuff game.
On the surface, score bloat would look impressive, but could reveal itself with just a little digging.
Slashdot Mirror
The whinefest "Games are Not Fruit" is a total joke.
And then a few paragraphs later...
Oh right. Unless, like you pointed out, they're on an older OS or a sequel comes out. Dumbass.
The market is changing. Adapt or die, Costikyan, and take your ugly-ass website with you.
I really like Lada's design, I just wish that the "read more" link was more prevalent. Overall, however, it's my favorite of those three.
I really like what Topa did with the "Read More" stoylinks div. Very nice.
But bundle it at that price with Guitar Hero and maybe we'll talk.
Buying points online through the dashboard would save both time and money. And since you don't need a Gold membership to get points (Silver will do), charging more in stores is a crap move.
They also have to sell them globally, across different currencies, which might reflect in the regional pricing.
Damn this lameness filter...
The oddball part of the whole MS points thing is the way they're sold on the Xbox Live interface (or the way they were the last time I bought any, at least). They sell them in groups of 500, 1000 or 2000, so the charges are a bit wonky: $6.25, $12.50 and $25.00 respectively.
In the stores is where they offer the 1600 point variety, which is an "even" twenty dollars.
$2.50. 80 points = US$1
(Damn you, lameness filter.)
"Some guy's suit forced MS to make changes of their own choosing which will cause web developers to change their architecture which are a dissapointment, yet strengthen MS's case."
What changes are the dissapointment? What the hell are you talking about? How about a link or two, or using a word other than "change"?
Yeah, I know. -1, Offtopic
He meant frosting with your MEAT.
And all 720s control was an analog stick, bent out to a 45 degree angle, right? That's not all that far off from modern controllers... albeit much smaller in scale.
Now bring Bookworm to the 360 Live Arcade so my wife has something to play again.
That blue grid was such a dissapointment seeing that even though it was on a supposedly more powerful system, the location-specific fight backgrounds used in the first Phantasy Star on the SMS blew them away.
Was PS2 the one where all of the battles took place on that stupid blue grid?
Life's too short and I don't have time to mess with that shoddy excuse for multi-player.
I still don't see it that way. I see it as just the opposite, providing a defined outlet for like-minded people to come together and play a social game. I have a feeling that those who would join these guilds are aware of the potential for backlash, and still sign up "of their own peril". ;^)
If Blizzard is more concerned about revenue stream however, I can't imagine news stories like this helping much in that department. *shrug* In the end, it's their decision.
Doubt it, as it's typically the people I beat that resort to calling me it.
So I don't know what other types of player groups there are (teams? clans? I don't know, you tell me), but would this rule apply to them as well? If so, it's the same problem, no?
By going on assumptions that a guild like that may lead to hate issues, they're not doing anything to remove the true negative elements from the game. Instead, Blizzard chooses to limit positive social interactivity between benevolent like-minded gamers.
And by the way, calling people "gay" or a "fag" online has nothing to do with breaking any kind of RL/game boundary. It's simply ignorance and hatred. (I've been called a "fag" many times online, and I'm not gay in RL.)
So why can't this other persona be gay?
I've gotten to the point where I only get games that my small set of friends (erm, "clan" -- can you still use that term if you suck?) are also willing to get, because simply, I ain't got the time to be wasting with sub-par online games. If what you're saying is the case, it looks like PDZ will be taking a lower spot on the prospective list. COD2 has already dissapointed in this regard, only to be saved by the campaign mode.
Sounds simple, but these improvements are best realized when they're missing. Case in point, the 360's Call of Duty 2, where online play is a clusterfuck of servers, timeouts and lag. If I want to have a match between a few of my friends in COD2, it's nearly impossible. In Halo 2, it's easy as hell.
As far as the gameplay itself, I liked the weapons, but wasn't bowled over by the single player campaign in either Halo or Halo 2. As a matter of fact, when Halo 2 came out, I gave my copy of Halo to a friend, as you'll never see me play through that godforsaken "Library" level ever again!
If other 360 FPS games come out--and use Halo 2's design for online play (please!)--Halo 3 is going to have its hands full trying to find something new to make it stand out. Meanwhile, I'm much more excited about the new Ghost Recon.
Disclaimer: Big Xbox fan here. The last PC game I played was Quake 3. A quick look inside my box at the Geforce 256 will attest to that.
Very true. "11 Games Played - 485 of 3000 Gamerscore" makes me look even worse than I really am. ;^)
From there, I can tell that you have half of your points from COD2--which is a tough game to earn points from--as opposed to some known creampuff game.
On the surface, score bloat would look impressive, but could reveal itself with just a little digging.