What makes a good RPG? To the author of the article, it seems to be a game ritch in depth; meaty dialogue, engaging story, the need to live more completely in another world. As he points out, this may not be a good game to pair with the MMO crowd (or most humans, for that matter). Excellent games I've played that contain all of what the author values most have been single player: (spanning across my own lifetime) Quest for Glory all the way up through Morrowind.
There are, however, more aspects that define the genre of RPG. Leveling system is probably the main thing. Also included are the ability to explore, kill things, and acquire items/gold. The authors mention latter two only disdainfully, but one man's trash is another man's treasure. Lots of people playing online like leveling and getting new items. To them that's what the game is all about, and it gives them a fun context within which to socialize with other people in a not necessarily role playing manner.
Based on the title of the article, I thought the auther would give real world examples of the two genres splitting, but it's really just his opinion. As far as I'm aware, most MMO games are still RPGs, and also, as far as I know, their popularity isn't exactly declining. So, when you look at sales as well as user base, is this supposed divorce fiction or reality?
I've exerted myself physically while playing counterstrike. It's not extreme like some sports, but I've gotten stress injuries from it (example: burst capilaries in my palm, causing red dots. This is caused by too much repetion on the keyboard).
You raise an excellent point about the contradiction in my post. What I would like to stress is that, beyond the grammatical condraction, I was trying to logically express that what was intuitive about the CLI is the part about it being repeatable and unchanging (basically the latter half of the sentence). True, initial learning must take place, but once people have that, "intuition" as I like to believe it would tell them that they can do it again and again and what to expect when they do.
You can disagree, but that's what I meant to say.:)
Cattle will never go extinct as long as they produce the tasty meat we so love and crave, and as long as people are allowed to own cattle and exploit them.
Yeap. Those damned communists getting in the way of profit and exploitation again. I feel so sorry for the elephants.
I think the point is that ctrl+c and ctrl+v are not intuitive for novice users
You're calling freaky window folding and flopping intuitive? I'm waiting for this supposed intuition to be applied to the desktop UI while my own mother can't even find the start button. Yeap. So intuitive.
If there is one thing I've learned, it's that ALL computer use is learned. People get "intuitive" mixed up with "ubiquitous" all the time. The fact that most everyone is familiar with one thing is supposed to mean that everyone else automatically gets it, as if knowledge was imparted through osmosis.
Honestly, what is more intuitive than learning to tell the computer exactly what you want by typing it in and having the comfort of knowing it'll do the same thing every time you type it (no tricks, gimmicks, or special cases to jump out at you)?
Well, depends on what you like in a medium. Anime can take on MANY, MANY different forms. Maybe you've been exposed to bad, low quality anime, or maybe the subject matter wasn't up your alley. I think a good chance stands that the things you dislike about it are not representative of the whole medium.
You know, it's kind of like saying "I hate books." Well, which sort of book do you hate? It's so general.
Well, if they are not violating an agreement with their employer, then there is no policy against their activities, yes? If indeed there is a security risk, then the issue should be addressed formally and considered fully before taking action. Once policy is established, the employees then must comply.
In case you think otherwise, I don't disagree with you at all; everything you said makes sense. I was just wondering how they were related because you seemed to take a contrary position.:)
Anyway, all I meant to say is that the employees technically aren't doing anything wrong if independent networks are not prohibited. If they are, then they ought to follow the rules.
"As an IT Manager I'm concerned about unauthorized Access Points being installed, or users who setup wireless computer to computer networks."
Let me get this straight...you're out to find "unauthorized" network activity between computers? As stated in previous posts, who owns these computers? Who owns the network?
If it's your network, then you need to record the MAC address of the unauthorized machines and use security measures to lock network. More securely, you can even configure the network to provide service *only* to authorized network adapters. That's how they do it here, and this is a public school (if THEY can do it, then you certainly can;) The IT administration here is a bunch of boneheads).
But what happens if they're not on your network? Well, then we start to cross into a gray area of sorts. More variables need to be considered where none are given, such as who owns the machines and what restrictions the employees have agreed to previously.
If they own the computers, are running the network themselves, and are not violating any agreement with their employer, then finding/squashing the networks is really none of your business.
...what your operating system can do for you, but what YOU can do for your operating system.
Linux not ready for the desktop? What they mean is linux is not ready for desktop users. However, isn't it that desktop users aren't ready for linux?
I'm surprised no one ever mentions that age-old theory of killer apps. This is probably because most linux desktop applications are mere copies (albeit extended/improved) versions of programs available on other systems (before you flame, realize that I am heavily pro-linux/FOSS).
I can only see linux making headway as a desktop system when it offers something to the user that nothing else does--something they HAVE to get--something that will make their lives and computer experiences complete. Yeah, it's a tough task, but somebody has to do it.
If linux can obtain just one of these holy grail type applications (or more, if possible), then we'll start seeing some numbers.
Apple could easily steal the entire PDA market from Palm and the PocketPC folks by bringing out a decent colour version of the NewtonOS on modern hardware that plays videos, works with a digital camera and works like an iPod. Just use the same principles as OS X design....
Just like Macs have stolen the market for desktop computers? I think some details are being overlooked.
Also, a device like a handheld shouldn't run a full unix system like what you seem to have in mind. One of the PocketPC's weaknesses is that it does too much, and while I know that sounds crazy, but it's because I subscribe to Palm's design philosphy of "more is less." I own a Tungsten E running PalmOS 5, and it is the simplest, slimmest OS I've ever used, which is perfect for a tiny embedded device like a palm pilot.
With big computers, the goal is different: MORE functionality, MORE power, MORE stuff... more more more! Palm focuses on less: less features, less code, etc. For the consumer this means fewer bugs, less complication, and the delivery of a small, fast, and tight PIM (as far as I'm concerned any function beyond this is superfluous for a palm pilot) and a few extra nifty apps to help you from day to day.
In response to the article, it's really like comparing apples and oranges. Palms and PocketPC's are NOT the same. They suit distinctly different purposes.
If short is good, longer is better.
If short is bad, longer is worse.
"Longer is better" assumes that the game is good. A truly excellent game is dissapointing if it's too short. In this case, additional length gives more satisfaction. If a game is not fun, the length can be gruelling.
Can a great game ever be too long? That's debateable. Take Tetris as an example. Have you EVER beaten Tetris?;)
I like your idea. What I think would be interesting is the creation of a programming algorithm that takes the name of the site or service and converts it to a password string. The benefits of this that I see is that *no* password gets stored and each login receives a totally unique password. It would work on extremely low memory devices and would support a theoretically limitless number of accounts.:-)
Sure, I'm anti-microsoft, but that's me as a programmer and system adminsitrator. As a gamer, however, I kind of like what Microsoft does. I'm glad to see them supporting the DS, because it seems to me that the handheld seems to be a little underrated, having been eclipsed in the press by the PSP. Which is a better handheld, I'm not sure, but my wallet says that the DS is more attracitve.;) Also, two screens is a novel concept, and I'd want to play with it just for that.
Re:Killer Instinct is Robert Roy Britt?
on
How Ice Melts
·
· Score: 1
I'm all for socialized funding and provision of network services in our nation, but it's an all or nothing bit. If the government is going to skim off money from us for a service we're already paying for, it does neither us nor the industry any good (it just means more money for the government to spend willy-nilly). I sound like a conservitive, but I'm a socialist. The fact of the matter is that we already pay for this service, and such a tax is not benefitting society as a whole.
I call this BS. There have always been women gamers, and there will always be women gamers. How is a game supposed to appeal to women? What subject matter is supposed to be becoming of a woman anyway?
We're talking about adults playing games, and I don't think gender roles should be a factor in game consumption. In markets with children, we make games for little boys and little girls, because we want them to be molded into what we want. That's what we do to our children, but by the time we're all grown up we realize that gender roles aren't all black and white. Is a game effeminate because it's main goal is to care for and nuture some creature? Nonsense; many men play such games and enjoy them. Similarly, many women enjoy playing games where you get to blow stuff up or find the lost amulet.
Also, I don't think the sex of a character hardly matters. Is the main character male or female? Why would that lesson or increase the appeal of a game? We've had our fair share of games with main/major characters of both genders.
One might argue that women are oversexualized in games, but aren't men too? How often do we see games depicting men that women find sexually appealing (perfect bodies, smart, talented, sexy voice, kind/caring, rich...the whole gammut). In addition, it'd be incorrect to neglect the fact that some women (not all) actually do enjoy in one form or another a sexualized depiction of their own gender (the same can be said for men).
Who says gaming is not for women? Honestly? WHAT, pray tell, makes a game girly and feminine? A game is a game, much like a PC is a PC, and "girly" games are "girly" games, just like a Barbie PC is a "girly" PC. Barbie PC's didn't sell well at all, and it's a testament that "made for the female sex" does not necessarily mean that women [i]like[/i] as much as it means it's what society wants to impose on women.
Yeah, I was reading that Norn torturer's site and it's rather puzzling. It kind of disturbs me that he would do something like that to the poor little creatures, but I have trouble relating to his mindset. It's a big grey area, and I would never do what he did personally, but it's not at all inconceivable that the person is very sane and has an understandable motivation for doing it--shock value, for instance. What would be more disturbing is if he DIDN'T have a site and still did what he did (he appears to be very methodic and organized, which may simply be part of his desired affect). I think he's probably just being anti-social.
When you issure a computer to a student and let him carry it around everywhere with him/her and take it home, you're basically putting it in their position for an extended period of time. They have charge of it, and they are the only user. Also, they are liable if the computer physically breaks.
Given these conditions, I'd say that this affectively gives the student practical administrative rights. The school is way overstepping its bounds here with some of the restrictions they have tried to put on the machines. No e-mail, no chat? No personal software? It's none of the school's business.
Examples: Not EVERYTHING has to be used for academic purposes. The schools that I went to issued books, and we could do any damn thing we wanted with them as long as we didn't physically damage them. I can use the book as a door stop, a pillow, play a game of catch with it, etc. None of these uses are approved by the school, but I can do it anyway.
Just because with computers the school CAN block students from using the computer for things other than school, does that mean they should? Also, don't you think that students LEARN by being given control of their own computer system? Lots of kids don't on their own computers, and they don't have the freedom to customize or mess around with a system as they want. Laptops from school give them that opportunity (when I was a kid I had complete control over my own computer at home, and I learned so much about computer systems this way).
The school doesn't have the right to spy on the kids either.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes a good RPG? To the author of the article, it seems to be a game ritch in depth; meaty dialogue, engaging story, the need to live more completely in another world. As he points out, this may not be a good game to pair with the MMO crowd (or most humans, for that matter). Excellent games I've played that contain all of what the author values most have been single player: (spanning across my own lifetime) Quest for Glory all the way up through Morrowind.
There are, however, more aspects that define the genre of RPG. Leveling system is probably the main thing. Also included are the ability to explore, kill things, and acquire items/gold. The authors mention latter two only disdainfully, but one man's trash is another man's treasure. Lots of people playing online like leveling and getting new items. To them that's what the game is all about, and it gives them a fun context within which to socialize with other people in a not necessarily role playing manner.
Based on the title of the article, I thought the auther would give real world examples of the two genres splitting, but it's really just his opinion. As far as I'm aware, most MMO games are still RPGs, and also, as far as I know, their popularity isn't exactly declining. So, when you look at sales as well as user base, is this supposed divorce fiction or reality?
I've exerted myself physically while playing counterstrike. It's not extreme like some sports, but I've gotten stress injuries from it (example: burst capilaries in my palm, causing red dots. This is caused by too much repetion on the keyboard).
You can disagree, but that's what I meant to say. :)
Yeap. Those damned communists getting in the way of profit and exploitation again. I feel so sorry for the elephants.
You're calling freaky window folding and flopping intuitive? I'm waiting for this supposed intuition to be applied to the desktop UI while my own mother can't even find the start button. Yeap. So intuitive.
If there is one thing I've learned, it's that ALL computer use is learned. People get "intuitive" mixed up with "ubiquitous" all the time. The fact that most everyone is familiar with one thing is supposed to mean that everyone else automatically gets it, as if knowledge was imparted through osmosis.
Honestly, what is more intuitive than learning to tell the computer exactly what you want by typing it in and having the comfort of knowing it'll do the same thing every time you type it (no tricks, gimmicks, or special cases to jump out at you)?
I concede.
You know, it's kind of like saying "I hate books." Well, which sort of book do you hate? It's so general.
Or, rather, is it that the extensions are now broken? Let's not make the mistake of sacrificing progress for compatibility.
Well, if they are not violating an agreement with their employer, then there is no policy against their activities, yes? If indeed there is a security risk, then the issue should be addressed formally and considered fully before taking action. Once policy is established, the employees then must comply.
In case you think otherwise, I don't disagree with you at all; everything you said makes sense. I was just wondering how they were related because you seemed to take a contrary position. :)
Anyway, all I meant to say is that the employees technically aren't doing anything wrong if independent networks are not prohibited. If they are, then they ought to follow the rules.
I fail to see how your post actually responds to my own.
Let me get this straight...you're out to find "unauthorized" network activity between computers? As stated in previous posts, who owns these computers? Who owns the network?
If it's your network, then you need to record the MAC address of the unauthorized machines and use security measures to lock network. More securely, you can even configure the network to provide service *only* to authorized network adapters. That's how they do it here, and this is a public school (if THEY can do it, then you certainly can ;) The IT administration here is a bunch of boneheads).
But what happens if they're not on your network? Well, then we start to cross into a gray area of sorts. More variables need to be considered where none are given, such as who owns the machines and what restrictions the employees have agreed to previously.
If they own the computers, are running the network themselves, and are not violating any agreement with their employer, then finding/squashing the networks is really none of your business.
...what your operating system can do for you, but what YOU can do for your operating system.
Linux not ready for the desktop? What they mean is linux is not ready for desktop users. However, isn't it that desktop users aren't ready for linux?
I'm surprised no one ever mentions that age-old theory of killer apps. This is probably because most linux desktop applications are mere copies (albeit extended/improved) versions of programs available on other systems (before you flame, realize that I am heavily pro-linux/FOSS).
I can only see linux making headway as a desktop system when it offers something to the user that nothing else does--something they HAVE to get--something that will make their lives and computer experiences complete. Yeah, it's a tough task, but somebody has to do it.
If linux can obtain just one of these holy grail type applications (or more, if possible), then we'll start seeing some numbers.
Come on, big blue, show me the PPC-based linux desktops! I know they're hiding somewhere.
Just like Macs have stolen the market for desktop computers? I think some details are being overlooked.
Also, a device like a handheld shouldn't run a full unix system like what you seem to have in mind. One of the PocketPC's weaknesses is that it does too much, and while I know that sounds crazy, but it's because I subscribe to Palm's design philosphy of "more is less." I own a Tungsten E running PalmOS 5, and it is the simplest, slimmest OS I've ever used, which is perfect for a tiny embedded device like a palm pilot.
With big computers, the goal is different: MORE functionality, MORE power, MORE stuff... more more more! Palm focuses on less: less features, less code, etc. For the consumer this means fewer bugs, less complication, and the delivery of a small, fast, and tight PIM (as far as I'm concerned any function beyond this is superfluous for a palm pilot) and a few extra nifty apps to help you from day to day.
In response to the article, it's really like comparing apples and oranges. Palms and PocketPC's are NOT the same. They suit distinctly different purposes.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking of. :) Thanks!
I happen to like Fujitsu, you insensitive clod! My lifebook has been running tirelessly for 8 years and no component has failed yet.
If short is bad, longer is worse.
"Longer is better" assumes that the game is good. A truly excellent game is dissapointing if it's too short. In this case, additional length gives more satisfaction. If a game is not fun, the length can be gruelling.
Can a great game ever be too long? That's debateable. Take Tetris as an example. Have you EVER beaten Tetris? ;)
I like your idea. What I think would be interesting is the creation of a programming algorithm that takes the name of the site or service and converts it to a password string. The benefits of this that I see is that *no* password gets stored and each login receives a totally unique password. It would work on extremely low memory devices and would support a theoretically limitless number of accounts. :-)
Sure, I'm anti-microsoft, but that's me as a programmer and system adminsitrator. As a gamer, however, I kind of like what Microsoft does. I'm glad to see them supporting the DS, because it seems to me that the handheld seems to be a little underrated, having been eclipsed in the press by the PSP. Which is a better handheld, I'm not sure, but my wallet says that the DS is more attracitve. ;) Also, two screens is a novel concept, and I'd want to play with it just for that.
Mod parent up, please
I'm all for socialized funding and provision of network services in our nation, but it's an all or nothing bit. If the government is going to skim off money from us for a service we're already paying for, it does neither us nor the industry any good (it just means more money for the government to spend willy-nilly). I sound like a conservitive, but I'm a socialist. The fact of the matter is that we already pay for this service, and such a tax is not benefitting society as a whole.
We're talking about adults playing games, and I don't think gender roles should be a factor in game consumption. In markets with children, we make games for little boys and little girls, because we want them to be molded into what we want. That's what we do to our children, but by the time we're all grown up we realize that gender roles aren't all black and white. Is a game effeminate because it's main goal is to care for and nuture some creature? Nonsense; many men play such games and enjoy them. Similarly, many women enjoy playing games where you get to blow stuff up or find the lost amulet.
Also, I don't think the sex of a character hardly matters. Is the main character male or female? Why would that lesson or increase the appeal of a game? We've had our fair share of games with main/major characters of both genders.
One might argue that women are oversexualized in games, but aren't men too? How often do we see games depicting men that women find sexually appealing (perfect bodies, smart, talented, sexy voice, kind/caring, rich...the whole gammut). In addition, it'd be incorrect to neglect the fact that some women (not all) actually do enjoy in one form or another a sexualized depiction of their own gender (the same can be said for men).
Who says gaming is not for women? Honestly? WHAT, pray tell, makes a game girly and feminine? A game is a game, much like a PC is a PC, and "girly" games are "girly" games, just like a Barbie PC is a "girly" PC. Barbie PC's didn't sell well at all, and it's a testament that "made for the female sex" does not necessarily mean that women [i]like[/i] as much as it means it's what society wants to impose on women.
Yeah, I was reading that Norn torturer's site and it's rather puzzling. It kind of disturbs me that he would do something like that to the poor little creatures, but I have trouble relating to his mindset. It's a big grey area, and I would never do what he did personally, but it's not at all inconceivable that the person is very sane and has an understandable motivation for doing it--shock value, for instance. What would be more disturbing is if he DIDN'T have a site and still did what he did (he appears to be very methodic and organized, which may simply be part of his desired affect). I think he's probably just being anti-social.
You gotta hand it to them for picking an appropriate name for their product. :)
When you issure a computer to a student and let him carry it around everywhere with him/her and take it home, you're basically putting it in their position for an extended period of time. They have charge of it, and they are the only user. Also, they are liable if the computer physically breaks.
Given these conditions, I'd say that this affectively gives the student practical administrative rights. The school is way overstepping its bounds here with some of the restrictions they have tried to put on the machines. No e-mail, no chat? No personal software? It's none of the school's business.
Examples: Not EVERYTHING has to be used for academic purposes. The schools that I went to issued books, and we could do any damn thing we wanted with them as long as we didn't physically damage them. I can use the book as a door stop, a pillow, play a game of catch with it, etc. None of these uses are approved by the school, but I can do it anyway.
Just because with computers the school CAN block students from using the computer for things other than school, does that mean they should? Also, don't you think that students LEARN by being given control of their own computer system? Lots of kids don't on their own computers, and they don't have the freedom to customize or mess around with a system as they want. Laptops from school give them that opportunity (when I was a kid I had complete control over my own computer at home, and I learned so much about computer systems this way).
The school doesn't have the right to spy on the kids either.
That's my radical, left-wing opinion. :-)