I'm sorry you were among the group of people too stupid to recognize that as an obvious poke at stereotypical Slashdot responses. Take comfort in the fact that you were not in exclusive company, though.
>> But you're right about the WANTING part. I'd like to play online with my xbox, but I can't afford it. Or more exactly, I don't think it's worth 10$ a month.
You should do some fact checking and learn what the actual prices for Xbox Live are.
A little Googling reveals that the professor listed in the article is of the University of Helsinki, which, once upon a time, was the Imperial Alexander University of Finland (so changed to U of Helsinki a couple of years after Finland gained independence).
The problem with Microsoft is that they sit on the problems for long periods of time - not after they're discovered, but often only after they're exploited, do we see a fix.
>> I do want to say that I think this is a good thing. For the most part TV is the most mindless, unstimulating, unsocial form of entertainment we have today. If more people play games (still maybe not the best entertainment, but challenging and oftentimes social none the less) than watch TV, well, I'm all for it!
Well, as far as games vs. books/movies/tv/music, games have one big plus - they are interactive instead of passive. Instead of just sitting and vegging and letting the producers of whatever show/movie/etc do all the thinking for me, how about I pick up a gamepad or mouse and do some thinking myself? Even in relatively "mindless" games like a shooter, there still is a lot more mental activity involved in chasing someone with my gun, compared to watching James Bond chase someone with his gun on TV. Partly because the guy I'm chasing isn't scripted to get caught and die.
The PS2 is REALLY starting to look long in the tooth. Comparatively, both the Xbox and GameCube look a lot fresher. Xbox is the place to be for online console games (and Halo 2 and Counterstrike will only further that), and Nintendo is getting some of their big franchise guns out (the latest Zelda ain't that old, and the new Mario Kart will be a mover and shaker).
The PS2 still has some great stuff coming (SOCOM II and Gran Turismo 4 will likely be wonderful), but don't be surprised to see the other two systems make up some of that ground. Everyone and their mother owns a PS2 now, but that's not the only way to measure success (or even the best way at this point). The PS2 will still ultimately be the "winner" for this generation, but it is in the twilight of its career, while the Xbox and Cube are just hitting their peaks. And that's what happens when one console comes out before the others. I have no major bias between the 3 (I own them each), but my PS2 is definitely getting into the "play the old games that I missed the first time around" mode, while my Xbox and GC are the ones I'm getting new releases for.
There's no question people were gratuitously jumping the gun on the last story, but it's good to hear official confirmation that the fixes will be made available for Jaguar. There would not have been a story here at all if not for nonsense speculation.
However, the story makes reference to Jaguar specifically, but what about OS X releases before that?
I think Diablo with some more DEPTH could be a killer game. But as it stands now, I think it's just "good" but gets treated like it's a lot better than it is. I don't know if Dungeon Siege is necessarily an answer, but it at least takes a stab at answering the question. Certainly the Blizzard guys can do even better.
I do applaud Mac support. If I hadn't played through the game on PC before, I would get it for my new PowerBook.
I've actually been thinking about things like this, given that I am currently a senior in college, closing in on my Computer Science BS (and maybe a master's after that), and looking strongly towards game development.
But this list (the Costik one) just isn't a good one. A lot of the games are just "popular games in the genre", and not necessarily anything of particular merit. Seeing games like Fallout and Total Annihilation not on the list makes me question things, and these are just ones that I look to as examples of great game design. Given the very populist nature of the list, I'm certain there are plenty of other lesser-known game design gems that I personally don't know well.
Of course, the whole page looks so amateurish, like it's some kid rattling off his favorite games. I don't know how seriously to take it. Actually, given entries like Deer Hunter and Barbie's Fashion Designer, it's more like a sales chart.
I would like a list of games that embody great game design. Not an attempt at a complete list, but perhaps just games that flew under the general public's radar.
I, for one, wish to continue living in a video gaming market where three consoles compete and stay healthy.
The competition has done wonders. Microsoft has really pushed Sony. The system price wars have been great. The Xbox brought the hard drive and realized the kind of online gaming that the Dreamcast dreamed of. Sony's kind of scrambled to keep up on both fronts, but you can be damn sure the PS3 (as will every console from now on) will both have a nice hard drive and a cohesive online gaming plan - no more "here's a network adapter, do something with it" stuff.
Nintendo has found a home in the low price range and the young audience, and I hope they stay there. Consoles that serve niches are a desirable thing. Nintendo's got a good deal going, and still have plenty to offer a post-teen gamer like myself (Metroid Prime, Eternal Darkness, Super Smash Bros, even the kiddie-looking-but-fun Zelda, as well as Mario Kart soon).
I own all three consoles - the only "generation" of consoles in which I've owned all the major ones. They all have provided plenty of entertainment for their cost. Thanks to all three manufacturers, this is one of the best periods of home video gaming the industry has ever seen. We should hope for continued success for Sony, Nintendo, and yes, even Microsoft (frankly, if they ran all of their business the way they run the Xbox, maybe their software wouldn't suck).
Everything you say is true. Many people won't care.
But consider what a Web with Mozilla at 20% of the browser market would be like, as opposed to one entirely dominated by IE. Can IE's grip on the browser market be reduced down to 70%? I think so. Watching some poor girl in one of my CS classes struggle to try and read her email on her brand new Toshiba laptop, thanks to IE crashing every 2 minutes (literally), makes me think that it might not be as hard as expected.
The goal is not to overthrow IE (at least, not realistically). The goal is to force web developers to cease and desist IE-only crap. Sub-5% of the browser market is easily ignored, but 20% is not. The goal is to prevent the "Microsoft-Only Web" from happening. That's a bit dramatic, but there are more IE-only sites than I care to acknowledge.
Thank God the poor Academy members have been spared the torture of going to public theaters!
Imagine how hard it would be to judge moving dramas with the welfare mother 2 rows behind them, yelling "callete! callete!" at her 11 screaming kids. Not to mention the fat redneck guy in the row in front of you, taking up 2 seats (exposed butt-crack nested on the unmoveable arm rest). How could anyone enjoy a movie like that?
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone else remember the old Dragon Warrior subscription deal, way back when?
Shit don't stay good forever.
If you're one of the boo-birds that dismisses every indication of improvement, you're an idiot.
If you're one of the optimists that ignored every indication of the "dotcom's" impending collapse, you were an idiot.
Stuff has been bad. Stuff is getting better.
You should do some fact checking and learn what the actual prices for Xbox Live are.
Linux.
The problem with Microsoft is that they sit on the problems for long periods of time - not after they're discovered, but often only after they're exploited, do we see a fix.
Apple is not waiting.
See the difference, AC?
Well, as far as games vs. books/movies/tv/music, games have one big plus - they are interactive instead of passive. Instead of just sitting and vegging and letting the producers of whatever show/movie/etc do all the thinking for me, how about I pick up a gamepad or mouse and do some thinking myself? Even in relatively "mindless" games like a shooter, there still is a lot more mental activity involved in chasing someone with my gun, compared to watching James Bond chase someone with his gun on TV. Partly because the guy I'm chasing isn't scripted to get caught and die.
However, this is not even close to being the case.
The PS2 is REALLY starting to look long in the tooth. Comparatively, both the Xbox and GameCube look a lot fresher. Xbox is the place to be for online console games (and Halo 2 and Counterstrike will only further that), and Nintendo is getting some of their big franchise guns out (the latest Zelda ain't that old, and the new Mario Kart will be a mover and shaker).
The PS2 still has some great stuff coming (SOCOM II and Gran Turismo 4 will likely be wonderful), but don't be surprised to see the other two systems make up some of that ground. Everyone and their mother owns a PS2 now, but that's not the only way to measure success (or even the best way at this point). The PS2 will still ultimately be the "winner" for this generation, but it is in the twilight of its career, while the Xbox and Cube are just hitting their peaks. And that's what happens when one console comes out before the others. I have no major bias between the 3 (I own them each), but my PS2 is definitely getting into the "play the old games that I missed the first time around" mode, while my Xbox and GC are the ones I'm getting new releases for.
However, the story makes reference to Jaguar specifically, but what about OS X releases before that?
I do applaud Mac support. If I hadn't played through the game on PC before, I would get it for my new PowerBook.
Don't get me wrong, Diablo II was fun for a runthrough or two, but my God, move on to something with some more substance.
click-click-click-click-click
click-click-click-click-click click-click-click-click-click click-click-click-click-click click-click-click-click-click
click-click-click-click-click click-click-click-click-click click-click-click-click-click
But this list (the Costik one) just isn't a good one. A lot of the games are just "popular games in the genre", and not necessarily anything of particular merit. Seeing games like Fallout and Total Annihilation not on the list makes me question things, and these are just ones that I look to as examples of great game design. Given the very populist nature of the list, I'm certain there are plenty of other lesser-known game design gems that I personally don't know well.
Of course, the whole page looks so amateurish, like it's some kid rattling off his favorite games. I don't know how seriously to take it. Actually, given entries like Deer Hunter and Barbie's Fashion Designer, it's more like a sales chart.
I would like a list of games that embody great game design. Not an attempt at a complete list, but perhaps just games that flew under the general public's radar.
aaaaaauuuuuugggghhhhh!!
The competition has done wonders. Microsoft has really pushed Sony. The system price wars have been great. The Xbox brought the hard drive and realized the kind of online gaming that the Dreamcast dreamed of. Sony's kind of scrambled to keep up on both fronts, but you can be damn sure the PS3 (as will every console from now on) will both have a nice hard drive and a cohesive online gaming plan - no more "here's a network adapter, do something with it" stuff.
Nintendo has found a home in the low price range and the young audience, and I hope they stay there. Consoles that serve niches are a desirable thing. Nintendo's got a good deal going, and still have plenty to offer a post-teen gamer like myself (Metroid Prime, Eternal Darkness, Super Smash Bros, even the kiddie-looking-but-fun Zelda, as well as Mario Kart soon).
I own all three consoles - the only "generation" of consoles in which I've owned all the major ones. They all have provided plenty of entertainment for their cost. Thanks to all three manufacturers, this is one of the best periods of home video gaming the industry has ever seen. We should hope for continued success for Sony, Nintendo, and yes, even Microsoft (frankly, if they ran all of their business the way they run the Xbox, maybe their software wouldn't suck).
Still, that places IE at about 90%, which is hard to overstate. Sliding that down to around the 70% mark would make a huge difference.
But consider what a Web with Mozilla at 20% of the browser market would be like, as opposed to one entirely dominated by IE. Can IE's grip on the browser market be reduced down to 70%? I think so. Watching some poor girl in one of my CS classes struggle to try and read her email on her brand new Toshiba laptop, thanks to IE crashing every 2 minutes (literally), makes me think that it might not be as hard as expected.
The goal is not to overthrow IE (at least, not realistically). The goal is to force web developers to cease and desist IE-only crap. Sub-5% of the browser market is easily ignored, but 20% is not. The goal is to prevent the "Microsoft-Only Web" from happening. That's a bit dramatic, but there are more IE-only sites than I care to acknowledge.
Imagine how hard it would be to judge moving dramas with the welfare mother 2 rows behind them, yelling "callete! callete!" at her 11 screaming kids. Not to mention the fat redneck guy in the row in front of you, taking up 2 seats (exposed butt-crack nested on the unmoveable arm rest). How could anyone enjoy a movie like that?
Actually, this experience seems familiar...
Funny, France and Russia are #1 and #2. Such principles...
I will NOT have you using that kind of language in the house!
Praising one and damning another is just putting on blinders.