Is code aware of its own open/closed source nature? Does this knowledge affect its performance? Does closed source code feel isolated? Is open source code kinda slutty?
This is accomplished through saving at the beginning of the mission and reviewing the prologue/briefing/situation upon a reload.
This may work for some games, certainly, but in an RPG (the main target of my current derision), the game's not broken up into "missions" exactly.
There are a few games (such as the Civilization series) that are effectivly stripped of any plotline, are infinitly replayable as demonstrated by webpages (which may be defunct by now) containing lists of challenges to do when you are bored.
Yeah, I've seen people do this. It's also like people that have to find every hidden package in a GTA game or whathaveyou. I'd much rather move on to a new game and see what the next game has to offer. Is it more fun to dig for every minor little hidden nugget in GTA than it is to play through the main game of Metroid Prime or Splinter Cell? For me, the answer is "no".
There are certainly special games that open themselves up to replayability. Civ and others are one example. A good sports game is another. These are a little different situations than what I was trying to address, which is the long single-player game that drags on and on. Perhaps I wasn't especially clear in that distinction. At any rate, you seem to understand the point.:)
However, in the case of Warcraft III, I forgot what "Frostborne" was between two missions played within a short period of time. (Probably would have forgotten it anyway...)
There are a few games (such as the Civilization series) that are effectivly stripped of any plotline, are infinitly replayable as demonstrated by webpages (which may be defunct by now) containing lists of challenges to do when you are bored. Of course, I can't really believe some of these challenges: getting a 350% civilization rating, or building a spaceship while the time is still in 10 year increments, world conquest using the weakest units possible, etc.
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this. Why should I have to pay $50 for a game that will only keep me occupied for 8-10 hours? That just seems ridiculous to me...
Ever buy a Resident Evil game? Or Metal Gear Solid? Or Medal of Honor? Panzer Dragoon Orta? There are actually a large number of highly successful games that are about that long.
It's not like you have to play it continuously, you know. Most of these games have this nifty 'save' feature.
You've missed the point by a good mile.
1) Playing a single game in short increments over a long period of time grows old fast. Any sort of plot continuity is lost in one's head. The game feels tired.
2) I don't want to play one game forever! A number of awesome new games come out each year. I want to see what they have to offer. I don't want to be stuck in the ENDLESS MEANDERING RPG instead. I could play Splinter Cell and Metroid Prime and Resident Evil 0 and Panzer Dragoon Orta and Syberia and ICO, OR I could play Xenosaga. Guess which one I'd have more fun doing? Guess which one I *am* doing?
"Most gamers cite lack of time second only to social pressure as their reason for leaving gaming. Yet we make games that require 10, 20, 30, or more hours for the gamer to fully enjoy."
Finally, it's being said. I had time to play endlessly long games when I was in junior high, but now in college, I just won't touch the 30 hour game (let alone the 70-100 hour group!). I don't have that kind of time. Maybe the "no-life" crew still has that kind of time to blow, but I'd say a good majority of us have outside engagements. And what's more, I'd MUCH rather play 3 excellent 10-hour games instead of one 30-hour one.
Only here can you find an army of folks ready to disagree with any story posted.
Nobody ever considers that maybe they don't know everything. Nobody stops and realizes that they don't fully understand the material that the writers want to censor (in this case). In fact, I'm not yet convinced that most/. posters aren't just rudimentary AI routines. Responses to posts containing the word "censor" are typically replied to with "CENSORSHIP, BAAAD!", and the withholding of a couple of science articles will, of course, drag all scientific progress to a total screeching halt.
Well, it would give some geeks a chance to say that they've hopped on a "woman" without lying through through their teeth....
Although I worry about the definition of a "woman" being simply a "wireless man" - "a man without wires". I don't know what's worse: the implication that, as a man, I'm bound by wires... or the one that, whenever I use my wireless connection, I'm a woman?
The question is, is a three-way war sustainable over long term? We're not talking about TVs or DVD players or stereos - here, the entertainment medium is tied to one vendor's hardware platform.
I realize that my scenario is unlikely, and pretty much stated as such. That said, I don't think a "niche" is necessarily a one-way ticket out of the business. I don't even think "niche" is quite the right word. How many products are marketed to kids and kids only? Walk down a toy aisle. How many are marketed mainly towards teenagers? Entire record labels.
However, as you say, none of the console manufacturers are going to "resign" themselves to that. At least at this point. As the "war" rages on, though, I can easily imagine someone making a change in strategy, choosing to "win" one core market rather than coming in 2nd or 3rd in every market.
Nintendo historically has the tag of being a "kid's system". This is often cited as a slam against Nintendo's offerings (save maybe the Game Boy Advance).
In a console market where *three* machines are openly competing, and each succeeding enough to sustain its market presence, I personally think that targeting certain audiences with each console would be a good thing.
It's no secret that Nintendo is actively trying to ditch the "kid" label. Signing Capcom to an exclusive deal for certain Resident Evil titles is a clear indicator of this. So what we have is three machines each trying to be The One Console for everyone.
I would prefer a console market where each system has their own target audience. I would like a Nintendo that focuses on perhaps the "kid-friendly" (which aren't by definition "childish", but have both agreeable content and simplistic enough gameplay that kids can enjoy it) market. Perhaps another console focuses on certain genres or another age group, and another focuses on something else.
Gamers that wish to have their fingers in more than one pot are free to buy multiple consoles (as we already do), but those that fit squarely in a single market and only intend to buy one console can have the console that meets their desires.
If only it were that simple... we'll probably continue to see developers push for the ever-present "multiplatform" releases in attempts to bring in the most sales possible. But a sharp definition of target audiences, if it were possible, could be healthy for the industry, as well as lower development costs (if your target audience is all on one console, you need not waste resources on multiplatform releases).
Freedom of choice is good. I just want our choices to be distinct enough from each other.:)
Each console has it's fair load of crappy games. What I find the GameCube to be lacking are titles that target certain niche groups. Something like Dynasty Tactics for the PS2, or Steel Battalion for Xbox. Each has very limited appeal (for various reasons, including the price tag on Steel Battalion), but for those niches, they are heaven.
One thing I historically loved about the PC was the support of niche genres, particularly flight sims (REAL ones, not Crimson Skies) and graphical adventures (from Monkey Island to The Longest Journey).
These are things that I find the GameCube to be missing, and is a big reason why the Cube is the only one of the three systems that I currently lack. While I do plan on getting a Cube anyway (as there are compelling reasons to own one, don't get me wrong), my complaint still stands.
The single biggest advantage that a PC has over a console is the fact that a PC monitor is much sharper/crisper than a standard TV.
Throw an HDTV into the mix, and things change.
(and I'm a staunch PC supporter that has begrugingly started playing more games on my Xbox and PS2 than on my PC)
Those examples are interesting, but of seemingly little use.
What is the overriding importance of having the "only reliable method of communication" during Oklahoma City, or 9/11?
CNN, Fox News, etc., told me that planes slammed into the towers. I didn't need a Ham radio for it.
Perhaps you're implying that the important thing is to communicate about other things during those times, but I sure didn't find myself feeling cut off or devoid of means for important communications during those times.
I can see the use of Ham if we're, like, invaded by China, or Raelians and their extraterrestrial buddies, or something like that. But I don't see any real useful advantage of Ham in those other examples.
> Playing violent video games does NOT cause violence. In fact, most people who play violent video games do not commit violent acts.
Precisely.
I'm a senior in college. I once counted up the number of "first person shooters" I have played, dating back to Wolfenstein and Doom and Rise of the Triad and Strife and... you get the picture. The total was somewhere in the 40's (as of a couple of years ago). Those early shooters I mentioned above date back to my impressionable early-teenage years.
By now, shouldn't I have killed someone? How much longer before I'm desensitized?
Even once-vocal-critic Senator Joe Lieberman now praises and acknowledges the gaming industry's adoption of the ESRB ratings, and notes that they are above and beyond what any other similar industry provides.
> Creating. > You sit at a keyboard and create a program. Right? > You did not make the keyboard. > You did not design the layout of the keys. > You did not design the conventions of which pulses > mean which character. > Most everything involved in the creation of that > program you did not create.
Your logic fails to hold. Your hypothetical person did not claim to invent the computer.
There are the tools by which something is created, and there is the content which is processed through those tools.
Al Gore created neither the tools nor the content.
Slashdot Mirror
In the end, it will probably be a small price to pay.
Is code aware of its own open/closed source nature? Does this knowledge affect its performance? Does closed source code feel isolated? Is open source code kinda slutty?
This may work for some games, certainly, but in an RPG (the main target of my current derision), the game's not broken up into "missions" exactly.
Yeah, I've seen people do this. It's also like people that have to find every hidden package in a GTA game or whathaveyou. I'd much rather move on to a new game and see what the next game has to offer. Is it more fun to dig for every minor little hidden nugget in GTA than it is to play through the main game of Metroid Prime or Splinter Cell? For me, the answer is "no".
There are certainly special games that open themselves up to replayability. Civ and others are one example. A good sports game is another. These are a little different situations than what I was trying to address, which is the long single-player game that drags on and on. Perhaps I wasn't especially clear in that distinction. At any rate, you seem to understand the point. :)
However, in the case of Warcraft III, I forgot what "Frostborne" was between two missions played within a short period of time. (Probably would have forgotten it anyway...) There are a few games (such as the Civilization series) that are effectivly stripped of any plotline, are infinitly replayable as demonstrated by webpages (which may be defunct by now) containing lists of challenges to do when you are bored. Of course, I can't really believe some of these challenges: getting a 350% civilization rating, or building a spaceship while the time is still in 10 year increments, world conquest using the weakest units possible, etc.
> How long did metroid prime take you? :)
;)
About 1/5th of Xenosaga.
No. I think I'll play a 10 hour game with 10 hours worth of ideas, instead of a 40 hour game with 10 hours worth of ideas.
Ever buy a Resident Evil game? Or Metal Gear Solid? Or Medal of Honor? Panzer Dragoon Orta? There are actually a large number of highly successful games that are about that long.
You've missed the point by a good mile.
1) Playing a single game in short increments over a long period of time grows old fast. Any sort of plot continuity is lost in one's head. The game feels tired.
2) I don't want to play one game forever! A number of awesome new games come out each year. I want to see what they have to offer. I don't want to be stuck in the ENDLESS MEANDERING RPG instead. I could play Splinter Cell and Metroid Prime and Resident Evil 0 and Panzer Dragoon Orta and Syberia and ICO, OR I could play Xenosaga. Guess which one I'd have more fun doing? Guess which one I *am* doing?
Finally, it's being said. I had time to play endlessly long games when I was in junior high, but now in college, I just won't touch the 30 hour game (let alone the 70-100 hour group!). I don't have that kind of time. Maybe the "no-life" crew still has that kind of time to blow, but I'd say a good majority of us have outside engagements. And what's more, I'd MUCH rather play 3 excellent 10-hour games instead of one 30-hour one.
Gee, my girlfriend is about as pure as snow, but even she thinks Vice City is cool.
Does your fiance' ever watch violent movies? If so, what weak argument does she offer to excuse that but still condemn GTA?
If you use Xbox Live, you might want to avoid chipping your Xbox. Modchip users are unable to log onto Xbox Live.
Why am I looking at 4MB images of Lenny Briscoe?
Nobody ever considers that maybe they don't know everything. Nobody stops and realizes that they don't fully understand the material that the writers want to censor (in this case). In fact, I'm not yet convinced that most /. posters aren't just rudimentary AI routines. Responses to posts containing the word "censor" are typically replied to with "CENSORSHIP, BAAAD!", and the withholding of a couple of science articles will, of course, drag all scientific progress to a total screeching halt.
> Good move, now your workplace is condoning illegal file share and sexual harrassment.
Rhetoric like this only misses the point.
The downloads are going to happen. One way cuts down the bandwidth use drastically.
Leave the nonsense out of it.
*clicks "available for download" link at Slashdot* "This Project Has Not Released Any Files" Gee, thanks for the link, guys.
Well, it would give some geeks a chance to say that they've hopped on a "woman" without lying through through their teeth....
Although I worry about the definition of a "woman" being simply a "wireless man" - "a man without wires". I don't know what's worse: the implication that, as a man, I'm bound by wires... or the one that, whenever I use my wireless connection, I'm a woman?
> and some flying cars.
I was promised some of those!
The question is, is a three-way war sustainable over long term? We're not talking about TVs or DVD players or stereos - here, the entertainment medium is tied to one vendor's hardware platform.
I realize that my scenario is unlikely, and pretty much stated as such. That said, I don't think a "niche" is necessarily a one-way ticket out of the business. I don't even think "niche" is quite the right word. How many products are marketed to kids and kids only? Walk down a toy aisle. How many are marketed mainly towards teenagers? Entire record labels.
However, as you say, none of the console manufacturers are going to "resign" themselves to that. At least at this point. As the "war" rages on, though, I can easily imagine someone making a change in strategy, choosing to "win" one core market rather than coming in 2nd or 3rd in every market.
Nintendo historically has the tag of being a "kid's system". This is often cited as a slam against Nintendo's offerings (save maybe the Game Boy Advance).
:)
In a console market where *three* machines are openly competing, and each succeeding enough to sustain its market presence, I personally think that targeting certain audiences with each console would be a good thing.
It's no secret that Nintendo is actively trying to ditch the "kid" label. Signing Capcom to an exclusive deal for certain Resident Evil titles is a clear indicator of this. So what we have is three machines each trying to be The One Console for everyone.
I would prefer a console market where each system has their own target audience. I would like a Nintendo that focuses on perhaps the "kid-friendly" (which aren't by definition "childish", but have both agreeable content and simplistic enough gameplay that kids can enjoy it) market. Perhaps another console focuses on certain genres or another age group, and another focuses on something else.
Gamers that wish to have their fingers in more than one pot are free to buy multiple consoles (as we already do), but those that fit squarely in a single market and only intend to buy one console can have the console that meets their desires.
If only it were that simple... we'll probably continue to see developers push for the ever-present "multiplatform" releases in attempts to bring in the most sales possible. But a sharp definition of target audiences, if it were possible, could be healthy for the industry, as well as lower development costs (if your target audience is all on one console, you need not waste resources on multiplatform releases).
Freedom of choice is good. I just want our choices to be distinct enough from each other.
Do not mistake niche titles for "crappy".
Each console has it's fair load of crappy games. What I find the GameCube to be lacking are titles that target certain niche groups. Something like Dynasty Tactics for the PS2, or Steel Battalion for Xbox. Each has very limited appeal (for various reasons, including the price tag on Steel Battalion), but for those niches, they are heaven.
One thing I historically loved about the PC was the support of niche genres, particularly flight sims (REAL ones, not Crimson Skies) and graphical adventures (from Monkey Island to The Longest Journey).
These are things that I find the GameCube to be missing, and is a big reason why the Cube is the only one of the three systems that I currently lack. While I do plan on getting a Cube anyway (as there are compelling reasons to own one, don't get me wrong), my complaint still stands.
Heheheh, exactly.
I've been keeping a list of my first person shooters (pretty complete, right down to Corridor 7).
Current number of first person shooters played in my lifetime: 50 (not counting mods, or vehicle-based games like Descent, Freespace, or mech games).
Current number of people killed: 0.
The single biggest advantage that a PC has over a console is the fact that a PC monitor is much sharper/crisper than a standard TV. Throw an HDTV into the mix, and things change. (and I'm a staunch PC supporter that has begrugingly started playing more games on my Xbox and PS2 than on my PC)
I've been considering getting my A+ cert, but I haven't run out of toilet paper yet.
Those examples are interesting, but of seemingly little use.
What is the overriding importance of having the "only reliable method of communication" during Oklahoma City, or 9/11?
CNN, Fox News, etc., told me that planes slammed into the towers. I didn't need a Ham radio for it.
Perhaps you're implying that the important thing is to communicate about other things during those times, but I sure didn't find myself feeling cut off or devoid of means for important communications during those times.
I can see the use of Ham if we're, like, invaded by China, or Raelians and their extraterrestrial buddies, or something like that. But I don't see any real useful advantage of Ham in those other examples.
Precisely.
I'm a senior in college. I once counted up the number of "first person shooters" I have played, dating back to Wolfenstein and Doom and Rise of the Triad and Strife and... you get the picture. The total was somewhere in the 40's (as of a couple of years ago). Those early shooters I mentioned above date back to my impressionable early-teenage years.
By now, shouldn't I have killed someone? How much longer before I'm desensitized?
Even once-vocal-critic Senator Joe Lieberman now praises and acknowledges the gaming industry's adoption of the ESRB ratings, and notes that they are above and beyond what any other similar industry provides.
> Creating.
> You sit at a keyboard and create a program. Right?
> You did not make the keyboard.
> You did not design the layout of the keys.
> You did not design the conventions of which pulses > mean which character.
> Most everything involved in the creation of that > program you did not create.
Your logic fails to hold. Your hypothetical person did not claim to invent the computer.
There are the tools by which something is created, and there is the content which is processed through those tools.
Al Gore created neither the tools nor the content.