No, you don't have to get them. It's a game. Have fun. Plenty of people enjoy the game even before level 60. Maybe getting "totally owned at PvP" shouldn't be your only concern in the game. Your main concern should be having fun.
But it seems to me that you're so concerned about the game, that you're not enjoying it anymore. Sounds like a self-repairing problem, if you ask me: Either quit playing the game out of frustration, or get over the "need" to level up without enjoying it.
Okay, so you get your fun from challenging instances, PvP, and quests. So how does raising the level cap change this at all? Just keeping doing those instances, quests, and PvPing. I assume you've been ignoring the XP bar since level 60; just keep ignoring it. Why does the availability of more experience mean that you have to start grinding? Just have fun.
As for the skill trees, it is mentioned that there will be new skills available for those above level 60. I am assuming that the new skills will be over and above the current skill trees, not just an extension to the current ones. Have a little faith in Blizzard.
Enh, I think it's fine. Give the Horde a pretty race...maybe it'll even up the balance of players a bit. I imagine that most younglings will still flock to the Alliance though. Everyone wants to be Aragorn, and no one wants to be Orc With Sword Through Neck.
You know, I used to be like you. I went through a period of time when I was just grinding away, staying up late to complete one more quest, then running back to turn it in, then heading to the capital city to buy more spells and abilities...and yeah, I eventually got burnt out. But then, you know what I realized?
I realized that I can stop playing for a while, then come back later, and the quests and the world will still be there.
Personally, I've had much more fun logging on less frequently, feeling like I've accomplished something, and then logging off. I have no desire to get burned out on the game, and I realized that reaching level 60 isn't the goal. Ultimately, the goal is to have fun playing the game. If your only goal is to get to 60, then you're sure to be disappointed when you get there, because it feels a lot like 59. But if you take your time and have fun playing, then level 60 will just be another opportunity to find some new dungeons, new quests, and new items. Moderation in all things. The journey is its own reward.
I really am amazed by the wizards at Alienware: How they packed so much ugliness into such a small device, I'll never know.
Among the obvious UI deficiencies: Why take up a third of the text space on each line with "Title:" indicators? I think the listener will be able to figure that out on his own.
I wouldn't call that a false collision; if I have two versions of the same song, one remastered and one not, then I certainly do want them marked as duplicates, so I can take the earlier version off.
Seriously, if anyone wants to work on this, I have already done some work on the database structure. To me, the important thing is to list all of the various connections between games: spinoffs, sequels, remakes, and so on. Let me know if you would like to help.
What gameplay concept did Zelda 1 "invent"? The adventure genre? You may want to check out Adventure on the Atari 2600 for that honor. Same top-down view, battles, dungeons, all that. Granted, Adventure was much more primitive, but I think it's overstating it a bit to say that Zelda 1 "invented" any gameplay concepts.
And of course, it is my duty to point out that Donkey Kong would still have existed even if Super Mario Bros. hadn't, since Donkey Kong predated SMB.
I might also point out that Pitfall predated Donkey Kong, and was (I believe) the first game to feature a jump button, making it truly the father of all platformers. I point this out for no particular reason, other than to pay the proper respect to David Crane, whose praises can never be sung often enough.
No such explanations need to be made. Apple is not conceding in any way that RISC is worse than CISC, or any other such nonsense. Apple is simply admitting that market realities have allowed some chipmakers to provide faster chips at lower quantities than others. Therefore, Apple is jumping on that bandwagon. What's the problem again?
I once had an email discussion with Thurrott about this very topic. I took issue with his claim that, since Microsoft announced their new systemwide search system, Apple must have stolen the idea from them. I pointed out that Be had it earlier, and that Apple hired the engineer from Be who worked on it. Slam dunk, I thought.
Of course, Paul's response was (paraphrasing), "Be shipped, what, about 10,000 copies of their OS? But when Microsoft announces what they're doing, it becomes mainstream. If Apple starts working on something similar or identical after that, they're copying Microsoft, not Be or anyone else."
So basically, he's redefining the word "copying" as "implementing something that Microsoft announced." It's a nice Microsoft-centric definition, but hardly reflective of reality.
they weren't the first to sell a "personal computer" or a dozen other things that people regularly describe as an Apple "invention".
Uh, actually, yes, Apple was the first company to sell a personal computer. Let's see...the Apple I was the first personal computer to ever come with a keyboard, the Apple II was the first to come completely assembled, the first in a plastic case, the first with color graphics, the first with high-res, the first with sound, the first with paddles, the first with BASIC in ROM, the second to use your home television (after the Apple I)....
So yes, Apple was the first to sell a personal computer. Let's give credit where credit is due.
Normally I wouldn't respond to an AC, but just as a hint, you may want to study psychology or human factors before making these kind of claims. Using two hands to perform a mousing task can be more efficient than using a two-button mouse, in much the same way that using your feet and hands for driving is more efficient than, say, using a joystick that controls both steering and acceleration.
Again, does your camera or camera phone allow you to display movies on a television screen? Do they allow you to add music to the slideshows? Do they allow you to store 60GB worth of pictures? Do they automatically sync with your desktop machine? If not, then the iPod Photo is indeed a very big improvement.
So it IS a photo player, and it is only an extra $100. If you're already picking up an iPod for other reasons, it might very well be worth it to pay the extra $100 for all the other benefits it provides, not the least of which is not having to carry your digital camera everywhere just so you can show off the most recent 300 or so photos on its tiny screen.
I would have to disagree with your assessment of the iPod Photo. First of all, the regular iPod is only $100 cheaper than the iPod Photo, not "half the price." Secondly, you can look at photos on any television, not just on the iPod screen. Thirdly, if your digital camera holds 25,000 photos, I'm sure the memory card alone cost a lot more than $100. And I'm sure your digital camera doesn't automatically sync with your latest pictures, doesn't allow you to make custom albums, doesn't allow you to output slideshows with music, and so on.
Say what you want about wanting to save money, but for people who want to carry lots of pictures around with them, paying $100 more is very, very reasonable. And that doesn't even count the full-color album artwork, a clearer screen, and the various other perks of a color iPod.
Let's be fair here: The Palm search technology is barely a shadow of the earlier Newton search technology. Some of the key differences: Newton searching was nearly instantaneous (two or three seconds to bring up all the search results), in contrast to the slower searching in the Palm; Newton brought all of the search results up in one big overview, instead of showing search results a page at a time like Palm does; and most importantly, Newton let you go back to the search results overview after clicking on one of the found items. I can't tell you how many times I have searched for something on the Palm, tapped the item on the third page, realized that it was not the item I was looking for...and then had to go back and perform the entire search all over again, get back to the third page again, and repeat ad nauseum. It is such a colossal waste of time, and it makes searching a chore, instead of an integrated and useful part of the system. The Newton may have had its flaws, but data structures and searching were not among them.
Or, instead of carrying extra memory cards for the long trip, you could just bring your iPod with the memory-card attachment, and offload the pictures as you need to. It's probably cheaper to buy one iPod than a bunch of flash memory cards.
I agree completely! I don't understand why Apple couldn't just make every standard CD player able to play compressed audio formats. Damn you Apple!
Face it: Having to expand your files to 12x their original size is a result of standard CD players not being able to read compressed audio, not a result of anything that Apple has done. If you download a pirated MP3 file off of Kazaa, you're still going to need to burn it to CD to play it on a standard CD player. Your criticisms apply that it's Apple's fault, where it's not.
"Artificial Cheese"? More like "artificially inflated price comparisons." Your comparisons are inaccurate. I priced out the two high-end systems you listed, minus the monitors (since we're comparing the price/performance ratios of the machines, not the displays), and the Mac comes out cheaper than the PC you listed. Nice try, but next time, you may want to check your math.
Q. You know how many $750 Macs can run all the latest MAC software?
A:Non existent.
Wrong. You can find many Macs used for $750 or less that will run all the latest software.
But if you absolutely must have a brand-new Mac, you can get a G4 Macintosh for $799, with a 17" monitor, that will run all of the latest Mac software.
No matter how passionately you extoll the virtues of your Windows platform, the fact is that different people want different choices and I find it reprehensible that you would suggest lack of choice is a good thing.
He didn't suggest that lack of choice is a "good thing"; he said that in some cases, having fewere choices can result in overall lower costs for all customers, even if some customers may end up paying a little more.
Here's another example: Some people complain that the computer that they buy has some part built in that they don't want, like a 56K modem for example. So they say, "Hey, I'm paying for a modem that I don't want or need! Why should I do that? That's not fair!" And since the company buys the modems in bulk, they only pay about $10 apiece, so the customer thinks he should get $10 back.
But in reality, the manufacturer gets the $10 price because they buy so many modems. So if they started making the modems optional, then they have to pay a higher per-modem price (since they can't guarantee that they will buy as many, so they get them on an as-needed basis), plus they have to pay for the manufacturing facilities to allow for modems on some boards and not on others, plus they have to pay for the changes to the order system, plus the support calls, and so on. All of these changes will easily exceed the $10 per-modem cost, and so the prices of everyone's machine will go up by, say, $15. Plus, if you then want the modem, it's another $15 on top of that. So, because some people want "choice," and don't want to pay for something that they won't use, everyone else has to pay higher prices, for zero benefit.
Far from being "reprehensible," that is the reailty of the computer industry. And many people who might have complained about the extra parts may one day find themselves in a position where they need that modem, or that ethernet port, or that USB port, and they're glad that it was "forced" on them. Choice shouldn't be an end unto itself, and it is insulting to imply that it is a solution for every problem.
I like learning new OS's. I like learning new hardware. I just won't pay $3000 for it.
Well then, you're in luck! You can buy a brand-new Macintosh with a G4 processor running the latest Mac OS with a 17" monitor for only $799. $3000 is the cost for the absolute latest top-of-the-line dual-processor 2-GHz Power Mac G5 machine. If you just want to learn the new OS and hardware, there's no reason why you need to spend that much.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you don't have to get them. It's a game. Have fun. Plenty of people enjoy the game even before level 60. Maybe getting "totally owned at PvP" shouldn't be your only concern in the game. Your main concern should be having fun.
But it seems to me that you're so concerned about the game, that you're not enjoying it anymore. Sounds like a self-repairing problem, if you ask me: Either quit playing the game out of frustration, or get over the "need" to level up without enjoying it.
Okay, so you get your fun from challenging instances, PvP, and quests. So how does raising the level cap change this at all? Just keeping doing those instances, quests, and PvPing. I assume you've been ignoring the XP bar since level 60; just keep ignoring it. Why does the availability of more experience mean that you have to start grinding? Just have fun. As for the skill trees, it is mentioned that there will be new skills available for those above level 60. I am assuming that the new skills will be over and above the current skill trees, not just an extension to the current ones. Have a little faith in Blizzard.
Enh, I think it's fine. Give the Horde a pretty race...maybe it'll even up the balance of players a bit. I imagine that most younglings will still flock to the Alliance though. Everyone wants to be Aragorn, and no one wants to be Orc With Sword Through Neck.
You know, I used to be like you. I went through a period of time when I was just grinding away, staying up late to complete one more quest, then running back to turn it in, then heading to the capital city to buy more spells and abilities...and yeah, I eventually got burnt out. But then, you know what I realized?
I realized that I can stop playing for a while, then come back later, and the quests and the world will still be there.
Personally, I've had much more fun logging on less frequently, feeling like I've accomplished something, and then logging off. I have no desire to get burned out on the game, and I realized that reaching level 60 isn't the goal. Ultimately, the goal is to have fun playing the game. If your only goal is to get to 60, then you're sure to be disappointed when you get there, because it feels a lot like 59. But if you take your time and have fun playing, then level 60 will just be another opportunity to find some new dungeons, new quests, and new items. Moderation in all things. The journey is its own reward.
I really am amazed by the wizards at Alienware: How they packed so much ugliness into such a small device, I'll never know. Among the obvious UI deficiencies: Why take up a third of the text space on each line with "Title:" indicators? I think the listener will be able to figure that out on his own.
And 5% of the time...silence.
I wouldn't call that a false collision; if I have two versions of the same song, one remastered and one not, then I certainly do want them marked as duplicates, so I can take the earlier version off.
Seriously, if anyone wants to work on this, I have already done some work on the database structure. To me, the important thing is to list all of the various connections between games: spinoffs, sequels, remakes, and so on. Let me know if you would like to help.
What gameplay concept did Zelda 1 "invent"? The adventure genre? You may want to check out Adventure on the Atari 2600 for that honor. Same top-down view, battles, dungeons, all that. Granted, Adventure was much more primitive, but I think it's overstating it a bit to say that Zelda 1 "invented" any gameplay concepts.
And of course, it is my duty to point out that Donkey Kong would still have existed even if Super Mario Bros. hadn't, since Donkey Kong predated SMB.
I might also point out that Pitfall predated Donkey Kong, and was (I believe) the first game to feature a jump button, making it truly the father of all platformers. I point this out for no particular reason, other than to pay the proper respect to David Crane, whose praises can never be sung often enough.
No such explanations need to be made. Apple is not conceding in any way that RISC is worse than CISC, or any other such nonsense. Apple is simply admitting that market realities have allowed some chipmakers to provide faster chips at lower quantities than others. Therefore, Apple is jumping on that bandwagon. What's the problem again?
I once had an email discussion with Thurrott about this very topic. I took issue with his claim that, since Microsoft announced their new systemwide search system, Apple must have stolen the idea from them. I pointed out that Be had it earlier, and that Apple hired the engineer from Be who worked on it. Slam dunk, I thought.
Of course, Paul's response was (paraphrasing), "Be shipped, what, about 10,000 copies of their OS? But when Microsoft announces what they're doing, it becomes mainstream. If Apple starts working on something similar or identical after that, they're copying Microsoft, not Be or anyone else."
So basically, he's redefining the word "copying" as "implementing something that Microsoft announced." It's a nice Microsoft-centric definition, but hardly reflective of reality.
Lime is a color, just like orange is a fruit.
Uh, actually, yes, Apple was the first company to sell a personal computer. Let's see...the Apple I was the first personal computer to ever come with a keyboard, the Apple II was the first to come completely assembled, the first in a plastic case, the first with color graphics, the first with high-res, the first with sound, the first with paddles, the first with BASIC in ROM, the second to use your home television (after the Apple I)....
So yes, Apple was the first to sell a personal computer. Let's give credit where credit is due.
Um, that picture is fake.
Normally I wouldn't respond to an AC, but just as a hint, you may want to study psychology or human factors before making these kind of claims. Using two hands to perform a mousing task can be more efficient than using a two-button mouse, in much the same way that using your feet and hands for driving is more efficient than, say, using a joystick that controls both steering and acceleration.
Again, does your camera or camera phone allow you to display movies on a television screen? Do they allow you to add music to the slideshows? Do they allow you to store 60GB worth of pictures? Do they automatically sync with your desktop machine? If not, then the iPod Photo is indeed a very big improvement. So it IS a photo player, and it is only an extra $100. If you're already picking up an iPod for other reasons, it might very well be worth it to pay the extra $100 for all the other benefits it provides, not the least of which is not having to carry your digital camera everywhere just so you can show off the most recent 300 or so photos on its tiny screen.
I would have to disagree with your assessment of the iPod Photo. First of all, the regular iPod is only $100 cheaper than the iPod Photo, not "half the price." Secondly, you can look at photos on any television, not just on the iPod screen. Thirdly, if your digital camera holds 25,000 photos, I'm sure the memory card alone cost a lot more than $100. And I'm sure your digital camera doesn't automatically sync with your latest pictures, doesn't allow you to make custom albums, doesn't allow you to output slideshows with music, and so on. Say what you want about wanting to save money, but for people who want to carry lots of pictures around with them, paying $100 more is very, very reasonable. And that doesn't even count the full-color album artwork, a clearer screen, and the various other perks of a color iPod.
Let's be fair here: The Palm search technology is barely a shadow of the earlier Newton search technology. Some of the key differences: Newton searching was nearly instantaneous (two or three seconds to bring up all the search results), in contrast to the slower searching in the Palm; Newton brought all of the search results up in one big overview, instead of showing search results a page at a time like Palm does; and most importantly, Newton let you go back to the search results overview after clicking on one of the found items. I can't tell you how many times I have searched for something on the Palm, tapped the item on the third page, realized that it was not the item I was looking for...and then had to go back and perform the entire search all over again, get back to the third page again, and repeat ad nauseum. It is such a colossal waste of time, and it makes searching a chore, instead of an integrated and useful part of the system. The Newton may have had its flaws, but data structures and searching were not among them.
Or, instead of carrying extra memory cards for the long trip, you could just bring your iPod with the memory-card attachment, and offload the pictures as you need to. It's probably cheaper to buy one iPod than a bunch of flash memory cards.
I agree completely! I don't understand why Apple couldn't just make every standard CD player able to play compressed audio formats. Damn you Apple!
Face it: Having to expand your files to 12x their original size is a result of standard CD players not being able to read compressed audio, not a result of anything that Apple has done. If you download a pirated MP3 file off of Kazaa, you're still going to need to burn it to CD to play it on a standard CD player. Your criticisms apply that it's Apple's fault, where it's not.
"Artificial Cheese"? More like "artificially inflated price comparisons." Your comparisons are inaccurate. I priced out the two high-end systems you listed, minus the monitors (since we're comparing the price/performance ratios of the machines, not the displays), and the Mac comes out cheaper than the PC you listed. Nice try, but next time, you may want to check your math.
Q. You know how many $750 Macs can run all the latest MAC software?
A:Non existent.
Wrong. You can find many Macs used for $750 or less that will run all the latest software.
But if you absolutely must have a brand-new Mac, you can get a G4 Macintosh for $799, with a 17" monitor, that will run all of the latest Mac software.
In other words, you're way off base.
No matter how passionately you extoll the virtues of your Windows platform, the fact is that different people want different choices and I find it reprehensible that you would suggest lack of choice is a good thing.
He didn't suggest that lack of choice is a "good thing"; he said that in some cases, having fewere choices can result in overall lower costs for all customers, even if some customers may end up paying a little more.
Here's another example: Some people complain that the computer that they buy has some part built in that they don't want, like a 56K modem for example. So they say, "Hey, I'm paying for a modem that I don't want or need! Why should I do that? That's not fair!" And since the company buys the modems in bulk, they only pay about $10 apiece, so the customer thinks he should get $10 back.
But in reality, the manufacturer gets the $10 price because they buy so many modems. So if they started making the modems optional, then they have to pay a higher per-modem price (since they can't guarantee that they will buy as many, so they get them on an as-needed basis), plus they have to pay for the manufacturing facilities to allow for modems on some boards and not on others, plus they have to pay for the changes to the order system, plus the support calls, and so on. All of these changes will easily exceed the $10 per-modem cost, and so the prices of everyone's machine will go up by, say, $15. Plus, if you then want the modem, it's another $15 on top of that. So, because some people want "choice," and don't want to pay for something that they won't use, everyone else has to pay higher prices, for zero benefit.
Far from being "reprehensible," that is the reailty of the computer industry. And many people who might have complained about the extra parts may one day find themselves in a position where they need that modem, or that ethernet port, or that USB port, and they're glad that it was "forced" on them. Choice shouldn't be an end unto itself, and it is insulting to imply that it is a solution for every problem.
I like learning new OS's. I like learning new hardware. I just won't pay $3000 for it.
Well then, you're in luck! You can buy a brand-new Macintosh with a G4 processor running the latest Mac OS with a 17" monitor for only $799. $3000 is the cost for the absolute latest top-of-the-line dual-processor 2-GHz Power Mac G5 machine. If you just want to learn the new OS and hardware, there's no reason why you need to spend that much.