Predicting sports by playing games may seem like a worthwhile and attainable goal, but in the end, it's impossible to 100% accurately predict the actions of human beings. If you do happen to predict who will win every race in a season, what's next? Predicting the place of every driver? If by some miracle you get that right, why not just start predicting everyone's life, from the moment of their birth, to the moment of their death? Theoretically, if you can 100% accurately predict human actions and reactions, and you can calculate all the other variables (like weather), you could predict everything that could ever possibly happen to someone throughout their life, and the possibility of it happening... using the same method as predicting races, you could predict, by way of using the highest probability, their successes, failures, and everything in between.
The logical conclusion is that you're trying the calculate the computing power of the human brain, using a relatively simple formula. I may be naive, but I think humans are too intelligent and too unpredictable to quantify their actions the way that you could quantify race results.
So how short is too "short-term"? Since the example you gave was in the 1960's, apparently 40 years is enough to make it "long-term", or at least long enough to become highly profitable... correct? So, is 5 years still "short-term"? How about 10? 15? Do you vote in Canada (or France, or wherever the hell you came from)? How long between elections? 5 years? 10? 15? Do you think about who will be in office 2 or 3 elections from now? If not, then you're obviously not concerned about the "management" of your "long-term" "investment".
The only people that are helpless are those that are unmotivated. There are thousands of examples of the "helpless" people in history that rose up and made a change for the better. I believe France had one... or two... or was it three in the past 200 years? I can't keep track anymore.
I think you just like spelling french words, like "bourgeois". I don't, however, think you understand the definition. "Bourgeois" refers to the middle class. I prefer to think of myself as better than "mediocre", so maybe "aristocrat" would be more appropriate. After all, if Socialism has its way, then all people would be equal, and since nobody would be rich or poor, would we all be bourgeoisie?
I agree. We do need a State committed to protecting the people's interests. They can do that without an incredibly high tax rate and without Socialism. We lasted for quite a while without it. On the other hand, if I understand Socialism correctly, everyone is equal in all possible ways, including possessions and finances, correct? If so, my interests would be no more important than the interests of the person trying to screw me. What makes ME so much more important?
As far as the Canadian economy being "very strong", maybe you should look to your Trusted Government for the facts. Specifically, the 7.7% unemployment rate, as of 2002. Funny how it's never been lower than 6.8%, eh Comrade? Oddly enough, the terrible economy of the US is only at 6.0% as of April.
So Socialism is the complete lack of a free market... I didn't know that. Isn't the production of any goods or services that results in any amount of profit technically enriching themselves at the public's expense?
There's only 1 road that leads to your house? Ouch...
But, to answer your question, park a couple of blocks down the road. What are you supposed to do when the government starts increasing your taxes to pay for the road leading to your house, then makes a law that requires you to drive on it at least twice a day?
So tell me... if this electricity company is so amazingly successful, why aren't private companies doing the same thing? Your argument begins with the assumption that the government can do something better than a private company, which is in error. There are plenty of companies that weren't profitable for several years (thus, the creation of Venture Capitalists, who provide money to run a company that they believe will one day pay them back).
I think the roads and highways should be either localized or privatized, along with almost everything else the government does. There's a simple concept that you either don't understand, or refuse to acknowledge, and that is that the government takes your money in the form of taxes, and that money is used for whatever service the government supplies. The difference between government and private companies is that the government can forcibly take your money (and if you refuse, they will throw you in jail). If the private company tries to take your money (by way of raising their prices) the public backlash can be, and has been in many cases, so great that the company goes out of business.
Every experiment in Socialism or Communism that has ever existed has failed. France, Canada, etc. won't be any different. The US is on a downward spiral, but only because certain political powers want the US to become a socialist country. Socialism and Communism looks great on paper (arguably), but just doesn't work in practice. Remember the USSR?
Yes, they got a Walmart Super-Center in 1998. It was about 2 years later that Hammermill was closed, and all the employees were laid off. Then about 6 months later, Ames closed. Somewhere around the same time, K-Mart moved to Mill Hall, and BiLo moved into the same plaza K-Mart used to be. K-Mart is now about 500 yards from Walmart, so they don't get too much business (nothing new for K-Mart, if the news I've read is accurate).
I've heard from a few people that the Comp Sci program is good, but they never give any specifics, so technically, it's just hearsay. My father went there from 1980 - 1983 and said it was a good program. It must have been, because he's highly successful now (relative to other people in central Pennsylvania).
When you live in Lock Haven, it's generally understood that the hospital is good only for emergencies (when you can't drive anywhere else) or extremely minor things (like your stomach makes noises, and you want a prescription equivalent of Tylenol). I once had a firecracker put down the back of my shirt, and I had 2nd and 3rd degree burns all down my back, and the hospital handled it pretty well... I was 12 at the time (early summer 1993), so I didn't have much of a frame of reference, but I didn't die (I don't think), so I guess they performed adequately.
Unfortunately, your description is still pretty accurate. It is nothing but a hick town, always has been, always will be. The largest employer is the University, and the second is Walmart. On the other hand, from what I've heard, the University has a good computer science program, although I've never felt any desire to try it.
I worked there from Mar. 1999 - Aug. 2000, so I'm not sure if they've changed the pricing scheme or not. I'm also not 100% positive that it was $40 a month. When I was involved, we were planning, and I left either during, or shortly after the fiber was strung. We knew we had to be comparable to cable modem in terms of price, but had to be faster (obviously). Phase 2 was going to connect the hospital to the university, which would then connect to the rest of the town. (For those who haven't been to Lock Haven, the hospital is on top of a hill, and the town is about a mile west down in a valley with the Susquehanna river. The University is right in the middle, if you draw a line between the Hospital and City Hall.) I'm not sure if they ever got that far or not.
As of June of 2000, there were only 2 other such projects in the country, and the only one I can think of is Blacksburg Electronic Village in Blacksburg, Virginia. I guess it was just too expensive to try it in a larger city, but if I had a cool million or so (I'd do it for free, as long as a VC gave me enough money to spend), I'd go for it. I'm sure there are lots of companies in the country that would sell their souls for a 10mb connection for $40 a month.
I should also point out that the 10mb connection was shared 50-50 with the school district, which worked out well because the school district would use most of the bandwidth between 8am and 3pm, and the rest of the time was peak for the ISP. When I left, we had around 4500+ subscribers at $12 a month (give or take... special prices and all), so that was enough to pay for the relatively large pipe.
I was an employee of a company that ran fiber throughout several blocks of the downtown city (if you could call it a city) area and connected quite a few locations directly. The problem turned out to be need. People could already get cable modem or DSL, and even though the prices were incredible (I think it was $40 for a 10mb 2-way connection), nobody saw the need for that kind of speed.
Granted, Lock Haven, PA is hardly the technological Mecca that some other places in the country are, but you'd think that for $40 a month, with no download or upload cap, and no monitoring of any kind, someone would want it... but as it turns out, not so much. It's still successful enough to keep the company from going under, but it's hardly the money-maker they anticipated it would be.
The project itself was called Lock Haven Electronic Village, and was started by KCnet (Keystone Community Network). They're an educationally oriented ISP that was started by the school district and gets grants from the government for education-based projects. If memory serves, they did the first phase for around $250,000.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a lawyer, and really don't know too much about what's legal or not (as far as the judicial system is concerned), so could you provide us with some evidence that proves that judges are required to follow precedent? IMHO, precedents are nothing but opinions, and if someone's opinion is wrong, stupid, uninformed, or unconstitutional, it shouldn't take the US Supreme Court to overrule it. All judges are required to interpret the law, not create law and call it "precedent".
Second, why would I want to read a couple of books by liberal-minded people who ignore the facts, or distort them in a way that will be demonstrated in point 4?
Third, EXACTLY. The recount wasn't done in many places. Why not? I'm particularly interested in the Republican counties.
Fourth, and exactly what lawsuit did Bush file? Bush was fine with the first decision... and the second... and the third... he had nothing to gain from taking it to the courts. On the other hand, Gore had the Presidency to gain. I have to point out that you totally ignoring my comment and turned it around on Bush rather than answering the implied questions.
Fifth, after further research, I agree. I had my facts a little messed up. Either way, basically the Supreme Court rules that all the laws are Constitutional, and should be followed. Therefore, if all the laws are Constitutional, and Bush wins, then he won legally, fair and square.
Sixth, I read several results from several different firms a couple years ago, when I actually cared about it, but now that I look, most of the things I find are dated during the time that nobody knew who the President would be, so if you could post the links to those results you refer to, I would greatly appreciate it. It might give me an idea of what to search for.
Second, the United States Civil Rights commission held hearings in Florida to investigate these people who "lost their right to vote" and they could NOT find any! You'd think that in the last 2½ years, they could have found at LEAST ONE person who could testify that they couldn't vote, but they can't.
Third, it's been found that more than 1400 democratic votes in Florida may have been fraudulent. After the first count, the Democrats knew it was close enough to try to "steal" the election, so they recounted... twice. You'd think that if Bush was trying to steal the election, he would have GAINED votes in every recount, but he lost them. Also, you can't discount the fact that the only counties the Democrats wanted to recount were VERY heavily democratic! Why not recount the heavy republican counties too? After all, it could only help "count every vote", right?
Fourth, Al Gore and Joe Leiberman sent busloads of lawyers to Florida to try to keep the absentee ballots from counting. They did so because they knew most military servicemen are Republicans, and wouldn't help them. Suddenly that "count every vote" doesn't hold so much water, eh?
Fifth, the Supreme Court decided that since it was Florida's state law to certify the vote by a certain time frame, and since it was also law that allowed numerous recounts, they couldn't let them recount the votes again because that would break Florida State law, but they couldn't just certify them because that would have denied a candidate the ability to recount the votes. So, they decided to obey BOTH laws! Imagine that, a COURT INTERPRETTING THE LAW! They said that Gore could recount the votes, IF he could get it done in a few hours, which he couldn't, so it had to be certified. So, the Florida Supreme Court decided to stop the recounts and go ahead with the certification.
Sixth, after the election, NUMEROUS privately-sponsored recounts were held, and every single one of them came to the conclusion that Bush won the election, fair and square.
This is stupid whining about something that has no bearing on the topic, but it really pisses me off to hear people bitch about it 3 years after the fact. Yeah, it would be wonderful for Gore to have to put up with the economy and the terrorism... especially since he loves taking money from those who earn it and give to those that sit on their lazy fat asses watching Jerry Springer. It's disgusting and highly offensive to those of us who WORK for a living.
I have all 3, and here are my suggestions for the 3 categories you were wondering about:
PS2:
Action Game: Spinter Cell or Metal Gear Solid 2
Driving Game: Gran Turismo 3 or Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (not entirely driving, but enough of it... trust me, it's good)
RPG: Final Fantasy X or XenoSaga: Episode I
XBox:
Action Game: Spinter Cell or Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance
Driving Game: RalliSport Challenge or Wreckless: The Yakuza Missions
RPG: Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind or... um... yeah...
Gamecube:
Action Game: Metroid Prime (not spy or soldier, per se, but still excellent game) or Splinter Cell
Driving Game: XG3 Extreme G Racing (OK game) or Burnout 2... not too many good racing games for the Gamecube
RPG: The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker (half adventure, half RPG, all good) or Skies of Arcadia Legends... not too many good RPG-only games for the GC either
There are great games on each of the systems, the standouts being Grand Theft Auto: Vice City for the PS2, Halo for the XBox, and Zelda / Metroid Prime for the GameCube. All in all, I'd recommend the Gamecube.
Maybe I've missed something in my 20 year stint as a casual gamer, but I always thought the enjoyment from a game came from playing it... so why rush that enjoyment to get it done and over with as soon as possible? If that's the point of gaming, then why do developers spend so much time perfecting graphics and sounds? Surely they're not necessary to get done with the game as fast as possible... and most likely, the graphics and sounds annoy the person trying to get through in under 2 hours.
I think they should give The Sims 2 (for free, of course) to people that have gone out and spent their hard-earned money on the original game, all 5 (soon to be 6) expansion sets, and played for a couple months with The Sims Online. If you figure the original game cost $50 when it came out, plus the $30 per add-on, that's $200. Then you add in the cost of The Sims Online (another $50), and $10 for one month (we'll be conservative), we're up to $260 for one franchise that's really only had ONE game. Is it REALLY too much to ask that we get a $50 rebate or something?
Actually, no I'm not "afraid that this war will be regarded as nothing more than a diversion from their own lives by people". In the long run, I don't feel that this war will have anything but a positive outcome for everyone involved. And yes, I've heard all the conspiracy theories about how the poor Iraqis are suffering at the hands of the evil corporation-led America, and I think that anyone that spouts such useless and mindless babble is nothing more than an instrument of their chosen political party. Almost anything would be better than living under Saddam Hussein... of course, you couldn't say anything even remotely similar if you DID live under Saddam Hussein, or he would have your children's eyes gouged out in front of you, or some other horrible form of torture. It amazes me to think that people still hold to their theories that America is the biggest evil on the planet, even when faced with such glaring contradictions.
Games are an artform, just like music or painting. All art reflects life. I don't adhere to the idea that life reflects art... just seems dumb to me. You're saying that not enough people will understand that this war is REAL, so why would making some art about it hurt? I'm sure you're not degrading any of the songs or speeches made by certain singers and/or actors that protest the war, so why not allow for some art to promote the war? That seems to strike a particularly vital cord with some people that want everyone to believe that the war is REAL and not fiction (as if anyone really believes that anyway).
As far as entertainment should have boundaries, no it shouldn't. Who would control the boundaries? What's acceptable to me obviously isn't acceptable to you, and vice-versa, so who gets to decide what the American public can handle? The government? According to you (it's implied), the government is involved in one of the most complex conspiracies of all time, so why trust them with anything, especially our morals? I know some soccer mom's who don't think any video games should have anyone getting hurt, especially killed. So, what games would they allow? SimCity? Hey, disasters happen in SimCity, and I'm sure people would die. So, can you name a game that has no violence or percieved violence at all?
As far as mass murder FPS, can you name one that is NOT a mass murder simulator? It's called a First-Person Shooter for a reason... you have to shoot things. Generally, those things are other living creatures, whether they're human or not. If you kill numerous creatures, you're a mass murderer. Better not play more than the first level...
Rape simulator? If it'll alleviate some of the more disturbing urges that some people apparently have, go for it. I highly doubt it would cause more people to go out looking to rape someone... but if you think so, feel free.
Kiddie porn strategy game? Why not? Kiddie Porn Tycoon... could be fun. I imagine a kind of Roller Coaster Tycoon game... remember though, in Roller Coaster Tycoon, you never actually ride the roller coasters. In Kiddie Porn Tycoon, you'd never actually see the kiddie porn. It could be a supply-and-demand thing. Of course, the challenge would be to stay profitable, but not profitable enough that the feds barge through the door.
It's about time someone had a fighting game tournament. I don't know if this is an annual thing that I've never heard about or what, but there have been FPS tournaments since they first came out.
Anybody remember the 80's movie The Wizard about a video game tournament where they unveiled Super Mario Bros. 3 at the end?
It really disturbs me to read all the comments made about this topic. Almost all of them are extremely biased, politically. The question posed by the article wasn't "How would you feel about games based on Operation: Iraqi Freedom", the question was when those games will be made, and so far, I've only seen two people even attempt an answer. I understand that many of you are against the war, and some of you are for it, but this isn't the forum to discuss whether the US forces killed more civilans than Saddam would have, or whether the Iraqi people are better off with the US than they were with Saddam.
Granted, I was still a young lad when it happened, but I know it didn't take too long for games based on the first Gulf War to come out. Sierra released A-10: Tank Killer (one of my favorite combat flight sims of all time) the same year (I think). It had a campaign dedicated to the Gulf War. Of course, Sony started to register Shock and Awe, but then backed out... but I wouldn't be surprised if they try again in a few months, after everybody's attention is on something else.
I think a video game company, like all other media, has the ability (and some might argue, responsibility) to provide people with diversions from their own lives and focus on more universal concerns (even things like aliens invading, or killing demons). In this case, I would think it's almost unethical NOT to make a game based on the war. People seem to enjoy something about the war, whether protesting against it, advocating for it, or just watching it all unfold. A good video game would take all of those ideals into consideration. For instance, if we had a FPS, you could have points deducted for killing civilians, but points added for killing soldiers hiding in civilian clothing, or using them for human shields (and I'm obviously not a game designer, so I don't know how they would differentiate between them). Or, even better, lots of bonus points for finding hidden places with WMD's, or capturing one of the 50+ Iraqi government agents that are missing. For a RTS, how about a technology tree that would let you create more precise missiles, and also deduct points for hitting civilian targets? I think there are lots of good ideas that neither side of the political debate would argue with.
To more directly answer the stated question, I think it'll be less than a year before games based on Operation: Iraqi Freedom come out.
Way back in the day, I was an avid adventure gamer. I played through all the Police Quest, Space Quest, King's Quest, Leisure Suit Larry, and Monkey Island games... plus any others that I could get my hands on. I still play a lot of games, and that's why I think I'm a pretty good person to ask why I'm not as interested in adventure games anymore.
First, I don't think the main reason is graphics. In fact, I don't agree with the statement that graphics have moved beyond what adventure games can possibly offer. A couple years ago, an adventure game called the Longest Journey came out. It was a great game with fantastic graphics. It didn't do so well, commerically. Why not?
Second, I don't think the reason has to do with adventure games being linear. Final Fantasy X was linear, yet it was fantastically successful. Before someone decides to flame me for my opinion of what concepts define whether a game is "linear", I should point out that technically speaking, a linear game only has 1 primary path to its conclusion. Thus, almost every RPG ever made is completely linear, only deviating from the primary path every now and then, and always to return to it. Note: ALMOST every RPG... Morrowind, and games like it, are exceptions.
I would certainly agree that elements from adventure games are found everywhere. Goal-oriented puzzles are found in many, many types of games, from RPG's (obviously) to FPS's.
The main reason I don't think adventure games do well anymore is because of our growing expectations. If a game was released in 1991 and sold 100,000 copies, it was considered a resounding success. 10 years later, if a game sells 100,000 copies, it's still a relative success, but since games no longer take only 6 months to create, there's much more of an investment, and $5 million (100,000 x $50) just doesn't go as far as it used to. Keep in mind that Final Fantasy X-2 sold 1.2 million copies in the first week of its release in Japan. 10 years ago, when King's Quest 5 was just coming out (I don't remember the actual year, so don't get all anal on this point), selling 1.2 million copies of any game would be incredible, even throughout the game's entire run.
It might be me, but lately, I've noticed that most adventure games are based on licenses from TV shows or movies (eg. Law & Order, or CSI). I think it's still pretty safe to say that most games based on movie or TV licenses suck in the most disturbing ways.
Finally, I would say that adventure gaming isn't dead. It's always had the same number of fans as it always has... but other genres have long surpassed it. I know I enjoyed The Longest Journey, Schizm, Myst 3, The Omega Stone, etc. just as much as I enjoyed Police Quest 3 when it came out. So, in the end, I'd say that adventure gaming isn't dead, it just isn't nearly as popular as a lot of other genres. Why don't we talk about how puzzle games are dead? They don't sell very well either...
And despite all that you've tried to explain, you're still an idiot. No matter how much logic one might have on their side, it means nothing if they can't communicate it to others.
Maybe you missed the point of my original post... that, IN MY FUCKING OPINION, 6 colors is too many to have on one webpage. At the same time, some pages can pull it off pretty nicely. So, if page.color = 6 && color.scheme == annoying, then webpage == bad.
I hope that clears it all up, you goddamn loser. Most of these things could be explained easily to a 4 year old, but apparently even a degree-holding graduate of the Technical Institute of Zimbabwe can't understand relatively simple statements without having it thoroughly explained. I feel that the most important thing you'll ever do in your life is supply the rest of us with fries and cokes. I appreciate such an accomplishment, and feel that you've a valuable addition to the workforce of the world. Having said so, I don't want to diminish your concept of self-worth any more than I already have.
Often, I hear women say that something isn't blue, it's "navy blue" or "sky blue" or some other metaphor-laden color. My personal definition of a primary color (in this case, anyway) is one of the main 8 different colors. I probably wouldn't know the difference between "navy blue" and "dark navy blue", but I know the difference between purple and orange, and neither of those are "primary" colors.
I have seen some sites with a color scheme consisting of 6 colors that look good, but most look bad. Also, given that there are only 8 primary colors, having any more than 6 would constitute staring at a rainbow. Obviously, a webpage may have 6 colors, but each color doesn't necessarily have to be in the color scheme.
I also might suggest a week or so at Tolerance Camp, and probably about 5-10 years at Anger Management.
I usually get accepted to betas because I say something like "I'm a systems administrator that can give good advice on problematic areas, including network communication". It helps quite a bit on MMORPG's like Eve (beta tester) and Earth and Beyond (beta tester) and Planetside (beta tester, but all the galaxies / universes are blocked?).
As far as other games, just change the above line to something slightly more relevant, like "I can give advice on bump mapping" or "lighting effect problems" or something. Just make it sound like you're very experienced with reporting bugs (you use Windows, right?), and they'll sign you up.
I don't think there's too much purple. For every good webpage, there should be a color scheme or at least 3 colors, but no more than 6 (6 is just too many, IMO). The wonderful, intelligent people at Slashdot decided on black, white, and purple for the Games section. The Apple section is teal, Apache is purple (an uglier purple), Ask Slashdot is gray, etc. Given that there are only 8 primary colors (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet / purple, brown, and black), eventually they have to duplicate one somewhere.
FWIW, I like it.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I had mod points... I'd mod you up.
Predicting sports by playing games may seem like a worthwhile and attainable goal, but in the end, it's impossible to 100% accurately predict the actions of human beings. If you do happen to predict who will win every race in a season, what's next? Predicting the place of every driver? If by some miracle you get that right, why not just start predicting everyone's life, from the moment of their birth, to the moment of their death? Theoretically, if you can 100% accurately predict human actions and reactions, and you can calculate all the other variables (like weather), you could predict everything that could ever possibly happen to someone throughout their life, and the possibility of it happening... using the same method as predicting races, you could predict, by way of using the highest probability, their successes, failures, and everything in between.
The logical conclusion is that you're trying the calculate the computing power of the human brain, using a relatively simple formula. I may be naive, but I think humans are too intelligent and too unpredictable to quantify their actions the way that you could quantify race results.
So how short is too "short-term"? Since the example you gave was in the 1960's, apparently 40 years is enough to make it "long-term", or at least long enough to become highly profitable... correct? So, is 5 years still "short-term"? How about 10? 15? Do you vote in Canada (or France, or wherever the hell you came from)? How long between elections? 5 years? 10? 15? Do you think about who will be in office 2 or 3 elections from now? If not, then you're obviously not concerned about the "management" of your "long-term" "investment".
The only people that are helpless are those that are unmotivated. There are thousands of examples of the "helpless" people in history that rose up and made a change for the better. I believe France had one... or two... or was it three in the past 200 years? I can't keep track anymore.
I think you just like spelling french words, like "bourgeois". I don't, however, think you understand the definition. "Bourgeois" refers to the middle class. I prefer to think of myself as better than "mediocre", so maybe "aristocrat" would be more appropriate. After all, if Socialism has its way, then all people would be equal, and since nobody would be rich or poor, would we all be bourgeoisie?
I agree. We do need a State committed to protecting the people's interests. They can do that without an incredibly high tax rate and without Socialism. We lasted for quite a while without it. On the other hand, if I understand Socialism correctly, everyone is equal in all possible ways, including possessions and finances, correct? If so, my interests would be no more important than the interests of the person trying to screw me. What makes ME so much more important?
As far as the Canadian economy being "very strong", maybe you should look to your Trusted Government for the facts. Specifically, the 7.7% unemployment rate, as of 2002. Funny how it's never been lower than 6.8%, eh Comrade? Oddly enough, the terrible economy of the US is only at 6.0% as of April.
So Socialism is the complete lack of a free market... I didn't know that. Isn't the production of any goods or services that results in any amount of profit technically enriching themselves at the public's expense?
There's only 1 road that leads to your house? Ouch...
But, to answer your question, park a couple of blocks down the road. What are you supposed to do when the government starts increasing your taxes to pay for the road leading to your house, then makes a law that requires you to drive on it at least twice a day?
So tell me... if this electricity company is so amazingly successful, why aren't private companies doing the same thing? Your argument begins with the assumption that the government can do something better than a private company, which is in error. There are plenty of companies that weren't profitable for several years (thus, the creation of Venture Capitalists, who provide money to run a company that they believe will one day pay them back).
I think the roads and highways should be either localized or privatized, along with almost everything else the government does. There's a simple concept that you either don't understand, or refuse to acknowledge, and that is that the government takes your money in the form of taxes, and that money is used for whatever service the government supplies. The difference between government and private companies is that the government can forcibly take your money (and if you refuse, they will throw you in jail). If the private company tries to take your money (by way of raising their prices) the public backlash can be, and has been in many cases, so great that the company goes out of business.
Every experiment in Socialism or Communism that has ever existed has failed. France, Canada, etc. won't be any different. The US is on a downward spiral, but only because certain political powers want the US to become a socialist country. Socialism and Communism looks great on paper (arguably), but just doesn't work in practice. Remember the USSR?
Yes, they got a Walmart Super-Center in 1998. It was about 2 years later that Hammermill was closed, and all the employees were laid off. Then about 6 months later, Ames closed. Somewhere around the same time, K-Mart moved to Mill Hall, and BiLo moved into the same plaza K-Mart used to be. K-Mart is now about 500 yards from Walmart, so they don't get too much business (nothing new for K-Mart, if the news I've read is accurate).
I've heard from a few people that the Comp Sci program is good, but they never give any specifics, so technically, it's just hearsay. My father went there from 1980 - 1983 and said it was a good program. It must have been, because he's highly successful now (relative to other people in central Pennsylvania).
When you live in Lock Haven, it's generally understood that the hospital is good only for emergencies (when you can't drive anywhere else) or extremely minor things (like your stomach makes noises, and you want a prescription equivalent of Tylenol). I once had a firecracker put down the back of my shirt, and I had 2nd and 3rd degree burns all down my back, and the hospital handled it pretty well... I was 12 at the time (early summer 1993), so I didn't have much of a frame of reference, but I didn't die (I don't think), so I guess they performed adequately.
Unfortunately, your description is still pretty accurate. It is nothing but a hick town, always has been, always will be. The largest employer is the University, and the second is Walmart. On the other hand, from what I've heard, the University has a good computer science program, although I've never felt any desire to try it.
I worked there from Mar. 1999 - Aug. 2000, so I'm not sure if they've changed the pricing scheme or not. I'm also not 100% positive that it was $40 a month. When I was involved, we were planning, and I left either during, or shortly after the fiber was strung. We knew we had to be comparable to cable modem in terms of price, but had to be faster (obviously). Phase 2 was going to connect the hospital to the university, which would then connect to the rest of the town. (For those who haven't been to Lock Haven, the hospital is on top of a hill, and the town is about a mile west down in a valley with the Susquehanna river. The University is right in the middle, if you draw a line between the Hospital and City Hall.) I'm not sure if they ever got that far or not.
As of June of 2000, there were only 2 other such projects in the country, and the only one I can think of is Blacksburg Electronic Village in Blacksburg, Virginia. I guess it was just too expensive to try it in a larger city, but if I had a cool million or so (I'd do it for free, as long as a VC gave me enough money to spend), I'd go for it. I'm sure there are lots of companies in the country that would sell their souls for a 10mb connection for $40 a month.
I should also point out that the 10mb connection was shared 50-50 with the school district, which worked out well because the school district would use most of the bandwidth between 8am and 3pm, and the rest of the time was peak for the ISP. When I left, we had around 4500+ subscribers at $12 a month (give or take... special prices and all), so that was enough to pay for the relatively large pipe.
I was an employee of a company that ran fiber throughout several blocks of the downtown city (if you could call it a city) area and connected quite a few locations directly. The problem turned out to be need. People could already get cable modem or DSL, and even though the prices were incredible (I think it was $40 for a 10mb 2-way connection), nobody saw the need for that kind of speed.
Granted, Lock Haven, PA is hardly the technological Mecca that some other places in the country are, but you'd think that for $40 a month, with no download or upload cap, and no monitoring of any kind, someone would want it... but as it turns out, not so much. It's still successful enough to keep the company from going under, but it's hardly the money-maker they anticipated it would be.
The project itself was called Lock Haven Electronic Village, and was started by KCnet (Keystone Community Network). They're an educationally oriented ISP that was started by the school district and gets grants from the government for education-based projects. If memory serves, they did the first phase for around $250,000.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a lawyer, and really don't know too much about what's legal or not (as far as the judicial system is concerned), so could you provide us with some evidence that proves that judges are required to follow precedent? IMHO, precedents are nothing but opinions, and if someone's opinion is wrong, stupid, uninformed, or unconstitutional, it shouldn't take the US Supreme Court to overrule it. All judges are required to interpret the law, not create law and call it "precedent".
max - "Oh! Oh! Let me! Gratuitous acts of senseless violence are my forte!"
First...
Second, why would I want to read a couple of books by liberal-minded people who ignore the facts, or distort them in a way that will be demonstrated in point 4?
Third, EXACTLY. The recount wasn't done in many places. Why not? I'm particularly interested in the Republican counties.
Fourth, and exactly what lawsuit did Bush file? Bush was fine with the first decision... and the second... and the third... he had nothing to gain from taking it to the courts. On the other hand, Gore had the Presidency to gain. I have to point out that you totally ignoring my comment and turned it around on Bush rather than answering the implied questions.
Fifth, after further research, I agree. I had my facts a little messed up. Either way, basically the Supreme Court rules that all the laws are Constitutional, and should be followed. Therefore, if all the laws are Constitutional, and Bush wins, then he won legally, fair and square.
Sixth, I read several results from several different firms a couple years ago, when I actually cared about it, but now that I look, most of the things I find are dated during the time that nobody knew who the President would be, so if you could post the links to those results you refer to, I would greatly appreciate it. It might give me an idea of what to search for.
Who cares?
This has to do with Bush in some way?
This was a story made by people with their own agenda. You'll notice how it never got anywhere.
First, you're pretty far off topic.
Second, the United States Civil Rights commission held hearings in Florida to investigate these people who "lost their right to vote" and they could NOT find any! You'd think that in the last 2½ years, they could have found at LEAST ONE person who could testify that they couldn't vote, but they can't.
Third, it's been found that more than 1400 democratic votes in Florida may have been fraudulent. After the first count, the Democrats knew it was close enough to try to "steal" the election, so they recounted... twice. You'd think that if Bush was trying to steal the election, he would have GAINED votes in every recount, but he lost them. Also, you can't discount the fact that the only counties the Democrats wanted to recount were VERY heavily democratic! Why not recount the heavy republican counties too? After all, it could only help "count every vote", right?
Fourth, Al Gore and Joe Leiberman sent busloads of lawyers to Florida to try to keep the absentee ballots from counting. They did so because they knew most military servicemen are Republicans, and wouldn't help them. Suddenly that "count every vote" doesn't hold so much water, eh?
Fifth, the Supreme Court decided that since it was Florida's state law to certify the vote by a certain time frame, and since it was also law that allowed numerous recounts, they couldn't let them recount the votes again because that would break Florida State law, but they couldn't just certify them because that would have denied a candidate the ability to recount the votes. So, they decided to obey BOTH laws! Imagine that, a COURT INTERPRETTING THE LAW! They said that Gore could recount the votes, IF he could get it done in a few hours, which he couldn't, so it had to be certified. So, the Florida Supreme Court decided to stop the recounts and go ahead with the certification.
Sixth, after the election, NUMEROUS privately-sponsored recounts were held, and every single one of them came to the conclusion that Bush won the election, fair and square.
This is stupid whining about something that has no bearing on the topic, but it really pisses me off to hear people bitch about it 3 years after the fact. Yeah, it would be wonderful for Gore to have to put up with the economy and the terrorism... especially since he loves taking money from those who earn it and give to those that sit on their lazy fat asses watching Jerry Springer. It's disgusting and highly offensive to those of us who WORK for a living.
I have all 3, and here are my suggestions for the 3 categories you were wondering about:
... um ... yeah...
PS2:
Action Game: Spinter Cell or Metal Gear Solid 2
Driving Game: Gran Turismo 3 or Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (not entirely driving, but enough of it... trust me, it's good)
RPG: Final Fantasy X or XenoSaga: Episode I
XBox:
Action Game: Spinter Cell or Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance
Driving Game: RalliSport Challenge or Wreckless: The Yakuza Missions
RPG: Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind or
Gamecube:
Action Game: Metroid Prime (not spy or soldier, per se, but still excellent game) or Splinter Cell
Driving Game: XG3 Extreme G Racing (OK game) or Burnout 2... not too many good racing games for the Gamecube
RPG: The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker (half adventure, half RPG, all good) or Skies of Arcadia Legends... not too many good RPG-only games for the GC either
There are great games on each of the systems, the standouts being Grand Theft Auto: Vice City for the PS2, Halo for the XBox, and Zelda / Metroid Prime for the GameCube. All in all, I'd recommend the Gamecube.
Maybe I've missed something in my 20 year stint as a casual gamer, but I always thought the enjoyment from a game came from playing it... so why rush that enjoyment to get it done and over with as soon as possible? If that's the point of gaming, then why do developers spend so much time perfecting graphics and sounds? Surely they're not necessary to get done with the game as fast as possible... and most likely, the graphics and sounds annoy the person trying to get through in under 2 hours.
I think they should give The Sims 2 (for free, of course) to people that have gone out and spent their hard-earned money on the original game, all 5 (soon to be 6) expansion sets, and played for a couple months with The Sims Online. If you figure the original game cost $50 when it came out, plus the $30 per add-on, that's $200. Then you add in the cost of The Sims Online (another $50), and $10 for one month (we'll be conservative), we're up to $260 for one franchise that's really only had ONE game. Is it REALLY too much to ask that we get a $50 rebate or something?
Actually, no I'm not "afraid that this war will be regarded as nothing more than a diversion from their own lives by people". In the long run, I don't feel that this war will have anything but a positive outcome for everyone involved. And yes, I've heard all the conspiracy theories about how the poor Iraqis are suffering at the hands of the evil corporation-led America, and I think that anyone that spouts such useless and mindless babble is nothing more than an instrument of their chosen political party. Almost anything would be better than living under Saddam Hussein... of course, you couldn't say anything even remotely similar if you DID live under Saddam Hussein, or he would have your children's eyes gouged out in front of you, or some other horrible form of torture. It amazes me to think that people still hold to their theories that America is the biggest evil on the planet, even when faced with such glaring contradictions.
Games are an artform, just like music or painting. All art reflects life. I don't adhere to the idea that life reflects art... just seems dumb to me. You're saying that not enough people will understand that this war is REAL, so why would making some art about it hurt? I'm sure you're not degrading any of the songs or speeches made by certain singers and/or actors that protest the war, so why not allow for some art to promote the war? That seems to strike a particularly vital cord with some people that want everyone to believe that the war is REAL and not fiction (as if anyone really believes that anyway).
As far as entertainment should have boundaries, no it shouldn't. Who would control the boundaries? What's acceptable to me obviously isn't acceptable to you, and vice-versa, so who gets to decide what the American public can handle? The government? According to you (it's implied), the government is involved in one of the most complex conspiracies of all time, so why trust them with anything, especially our morals? I know some soccer mom's who don't think any video games should have anyone getting hurt, especially killed. So, what games would they allow? SimCity? Hey, disasters happen in SimCity, and I'm sure people would die. So, can you name a game that has no violence or percieved violence at all?
As far as mass murder FPS, can you name one that is NOT a mass murder simulator? It's called a First-Person Shooter for a reason... you have to shoot things. Generally, those things are other living creatures, whether they're human or not. If you kill numerous creatures, you're a mass murderer. Better not play more than the first level...
Rape simulator? If it'll alleviate some of the more disturbing urges that some people apparently have, go for it. I highly doubt it would cause more people to go out looking to rape someone... but if you think so, feel free.
Kiddie porn strategy game? Why not? Kiddie Porn Tycoon... could be fun. I imagine a kind of Roller Coaster Tycoon game... remember though, in Roller Coaster Tycoon, you never actually ride the roller coasters. In Kiddie Porn Tycoon, you'd never actually see the kiddie porn. It could be a supply-and-demand thing. Of course, the challenge would be to stay profitable, but not profitable enough that the feds barge through the door.
It's about time someone had a fighting game tournament. I don't know if this is an annual thing that I've never heard about or what, but there have been FPS tournaments since they first came out.
Anybody remember the 80's movie The Wizard about a video game tournament where they unveiled Super Mario Bros. 3 at the end?
It really disturbs me to read all the comments made about this topic. Almost all of them are extremely biased, politically. The question posed by the article wasn't "How would you feel about games based on Operation: Iraqi Freedom", the question was when those games will be made, and so far, I've only seen two people even attempt an answer. I understand that many of you are against the war, and some of you are for it, but this isn't the forum to discuss whether the US forces killed more civilans than Saddam would have, or whether the Iraqi people are better off with the US than they were with Saddam.
Granted, I was still a young lad when it happened, but I know it didn't take too long for games based on the first Gulf War to come out. Sierra released A-10: Tank Killer (one of my favorite combat flight sims of all time) the same year (I think). It had a campaign dedicated to the Gulf War. Of course, Sony started to register Shock and Awe, but then backed out... but I wouldn't be surprised if they try again in a few months, after everybody's attention is on something else.
I think a video game company, like all other media, has the ability (and some might argue, responsibility) to provide people with diversions from their own lives and focus on more universal concerns (even things like aliens invading, or killing demons). In this case, I would think it's almost unethical NOT to make a game based on the war. People seem to enjoy something about the war, whether protesting against it, advocating for it, or just watching it all unfold. A good video game would take all of those ideals into consideration. For instance, if we had a FPS, you could have points deducted for killing civilians, but points added for killing soldiers hiding in civilian clothing, or using them for human shields (and I'm obviously not a game designer, so I don't know how they would differentiate between them). Or, even better, lots of bonus points for finding hidden places with WMD's, or capturing one of the 50+ Iraqi government agents that are missing. For a RTS, how about a technology tree that would let you create more precise missiles, and also deduct points for hitting civilian targets? I think there are lots of good ideas that neither side of the political debate would argue with.
To more directly answer the stated question, I think it'll be less than a year before games based on Operation: Iraqi Freedom come out.
Actually, King's Quest VIII came out in 1999. It was called King's Quest VIII: Mask of Eternity. IGN has a review.
Way back in the day, I was an avid adventure gamer. I played through all the Police Quest, Space Quest, King's Quest, Leisure Suit Larry, and Monkey Island games... plus any others that I could get my hands on. I still play a lot of games, and that's why I think I'm a pretty good person to ask why I'm not as interested in adventure games anymore.
First, I don't think the main reason is graphics. In fact, I don't agree with the statement that graphics have moved beyond what adventure games can possibly offer. A couple years ago, an adventure game called the Longest Journey came out. It was a great game with fantastic graphics. It didn't do so well, commerically. Why not?
Second, I don't think the reason has to do with adventure games being linear. Final Fantasy X was linear, yet it was fantastically successful. Before someone decides to flame me for my opinion of what concepts define whether a game is "linear", I should point out that technically speaking, a linear game only has 1 primary path to its conclusion. Thus, almost every RPG ever made is completely linear, only deviating from the primary path every now and then, and always to return to it. Note: ALMOST every RPG... Morrowind, and games like it, are exceptions.
I would certainly agree that elements from adventure games are found everywhere. Goal-oriented puzzles are found in many, many types of games, from RPG's (obviously) to FPS's.
The main reason I don't think adventure games do well anymore is because of our growing expectations. If a game was released in 1991 and sold 100,000 copies, it was considered a resounding success. 10 years later, if a game sells 100,000 copies, it's still a relative success, but since games no longer take only 6 months to create, there's much more of an investment, and $5 million (100,000 x $50) just doesn't go as far as it used to. Keep in mind that Final Fantasy X-2 sold 1.2 million copies in the first week of its release in Japan. 10 years ago, when King's Quest 5 was just coming out (I don't remember the actual year, so don't get all anal on this point), selling 1.2 million copies of any game would be incredible, even throughout the game's entire run.
It might be me, but lately, I've noticed that most adventure games are based on licenses from TV shows or movies (eg. Law & Order, or CSI). I think it's still pretty safe to say that most games based on movie or TV licenses suck in the most disturbing ways.
Finally, I would say that adventure gaming isn't dead. It's always had the same number of fans as it always has... but other genres have long surpassed it. I know I enjoyed The Longest Journey, Schizm, Myst 3, The Omega Stone, etc. just as much as I enjoyed Police Quest 3 when it came out. So, in the end, I'd say that adventure gaming isn't dead, it just isn't nearly as popular as a lot of other genres. Why don't we talk about how puzzle games are dead? They don't sell very well either...
And despite all that you've tried to explain, you're still an idiot. No matter how much logic one might have on their side, it means nothing if they can't communicate it to others.
Maybe you missed the point of my original post... that, IN MY FUCKING OPINION, 6 colors is too many to have on one webpage. At the same time, some pages can pull it off pretty nicely. So, if page.color = 6 && color.scheme == annoying, then webpage == bad.
I hope that clears it all up, you goddamn loser. Most of these things could be explained easily to a 4 year old, but apparently even a degree-holding graduate of the Technical Institute of Zimbabwe can't understand relatively simple statements without having it thoroughly explained. I feel that the most important thing you'll ever do in your life is supply the rest of us with fries and cokes. I appreciate such an accomplishment, and feel that you've a valuable addition to the workforce of the world. Having said so, I don't want to diminish your concept of self-worth any more than I already have.
Often, I hear women say that something isn't blue, it's "navy blue" or "sky blue" or some other metaphor-laden color. My personal definition of a primary color (in this case, anyway) is one of the main 8 different colors. I probably wouldn't know the difference between "navy blue" and "dark navy blue", but I know the difference between purple and orange, and neither of those are "primary" colors.
I have seen some sites with a color scheme consisting of 6 colors that look good, but most look bad. Also, given that there are only 8 primary colors, having any more than 6 would constitute staring at a rainbow. Obviously, a webpage may have 6 colors, but each color doesn't necessarily have to be in the color scheme.
I also might suggest a week or so at Tolerance Camp, and probably about 5-10 years at Anger Management.
I usually get accepted to betas because I say something like "I'm a systems administrator that can give good advice on problematic areas, including network communication". It helps quite a bit on MMORPG's like Eve (beta tester) and Earth and Beyond (beta tester) and Planetside (beta tester, but all the galaxies / universes are blocked?).
As far as other games, just change the above line to something slightly more relevant, like "I can give advice on bump mapping" or "lighting effect problems" or something. Just make it sound like you're very experienced with reporting bugs (you use Windows, right?), and they'll sign you up.
I don't think there's too much purple. For every good webpage, there should be a color scheme or at least 3 colors, but no more than 6 (6 is just too many, IMO). The wonderful, intelligent people at Slashdot decided on black, white, and purple for the Games section. The Apple section is teal, Apache is purple (an uglier purple), Ask Slashdot is gray, etc. Given that there are only 8 primary colors (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet / purple, brown, and black), eventually they have to duplicate one somewhere. FWIW, I like it.