Animal Crossing is the most boring, inane idea for a game. You go to a new town, some guy comes and gives you a job that you can't refuse, puts you in debt repeatedly, whether you want it or not, and leaves you to spend all of your time delivering crap and doing chores.
I've lost countless hours of my life to that damned game.... Brb, gotta check turnip prices.
Are you sure that's a game and not just real life?
If the market wanted such games it would demand them and pay for them, you are in an extreme minority IMHO.
Yes, because no-one has ever come up with a new or innovative concept for a game which has taken off unexpectedly.
Strangely, "the market" doesn't have the ability to see the future and then communicate to game designers what it will and won't like. There is still the possibility that a new idea will become extremely popular notwithstanding that 95% of games are competitive at present.
Goldeneye and HL1 - two of your favorite games - are *precisely* like this. Both games are utterly linear, devoid of any way for the player to affect the plot (both are worse than Bioshock in this manner), and both games feature hordes of identical enemies.
Ah yes, but let's look at them.
Goldeneye: - extremely wide variety of interesting levels - excellent and fun to use weapons - unique slow-movement pace - phenomenally good controls and combat mechanics - one of the best multiplayer console games ever made in terms of both skill required and fun - character I actually like and care about
This game was primarily included on my list for its multiplayer.
Half Life: - groundbreaking (at the time) level of story and variety for a FPS - interesting and unique storyline - superb combat mechanics - relatively intelligent enemy AI (many games are still worse)
Ugh, STALKER was tripe. It's a glorified MMOG without the online, and without the social fun-ness. Beyond the myriad of technical failings, the game was pointless meandering just like Oblivion, except that at least in Oblivion enemy mobs don't respawn 5 seconds after you turn your back. The mechanics are stale, the setting was cool, but ultimately its unashamedly RPG-esque elements really do a lot to pull you out of the immersiveness of the world. Not a horrible game, but certainly nothing too noteworthy, not even close to GOTY material. STALKER is best served as a guide for future open-world FPS developers as a case study of the whole being more than the sum of a game's parts.
If you think STALKER was "tripe" then you are hardly worth arguing with. Or perhaps you have no imagination - it is far and away the scariest and most atmospheric game I've played. Oh, and enemies don't "respawn" in STALKER (except in certain plot-critical situations where it is worked into the game seamlessly, e.g. guys arriving in a helicopter) - go and google "A-Life".
I recently gave in and finally gave Bioshock a go. To give me some gaming cred, my favourite games include, amongst others, Quake III, Civilization 2, Oblivion, Deus Ex, STALKER, XCOM, Half Life (1, not 2), Goldeneye, Grand Prix 2, Total Annihilation and Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis. In other words, if the game is good I don't care if it's a shooter, strategy game, adventure game, whatever.
I had heard that this was "the best game of all time", "revolutionary", etc etc ad nauseum, so I had high expectations. Those expectations were not met. Not even close. This is not the best game of all time. In fact, it's not even the best game of the year it was released.
Graphics - generally good, sometimes, a bit clunky looking (full detail, running smoothly at 1280x1024), occasionally amazing (some of the water effects, in particular).
Story - interesting for a while, but pretty one-dimensional. Man tries to build perfect civilization. Man fails. Yes, I know there are twists.
Style - unquestionably incredible. I am a big fan of art deco and art nouveau, and I thought the actual art design in the game was stunning. The creepy 1920s-30s music, the architecture, the weird statues and sculptures, this stuff is all amazing.
So what's wrong with it? The gameplay stinks. Really, really, really stinks. Splicers are all virtually identical. Big Daddies are all identical. The game is utterly linear, and plays like a glorified version of Wolf3D in the sense that it's all about "go here to get this key to open this door to get this key to open that door" and so on. As amazing as the art design is, the level design and gameplay are uninspired.
But all of that would be forgivable if the actual combat was any good. Instead, it is pathetically dismal. The weapons feel clunky and are difficult to aim and use. The enemies basically either run straight at you or straight away from you. Fighting Big Daddies is a ridiculous grind of run... zap... shoot... run... The actual magic... er, sorry, nano-... sorry, "plasmid" powers are boring and generic, and the 'customization' adds nothing of note.
It's not scary. It's not clever. It's amazing looking, stylish, boring, so imprecise it feels like it's on rails, and repetitive. COD4 had similarly stunning graphics, but at least it's gameplay was addictively, compellingly fun. It is also clearly not a 'spiritual successor' to System Shock 2 - the closest to that has to be Deus Ex 1. It obviously had a great marketing campaign, but I'd be happy to never hear about it again.
End rant. I just love PC gaming, and I hate for this to be held out as a great PC game. If you believe this to be true, for god's sake go and play a patched up version of STALKER to see the kind of thing you're missing.
If you know your client intends to lie, you can advise them not to, tell them what the consequences are, and if they insist on doing it, refuse to act for them henceforth. Interestingly, though, you cannot tell the Court or otherwise break privilege.
You certainly cannot knowingly assist your client in lying to the Court - your duties to the Court supercede your duties to your client.
I swear, half of the people who write tags on stories on this site would leave their hand on a red hot hotplate to burn whilst arguing that the pain in their hand correlates to the hotplate being red hot, but that clearly as correlation != causation we should consider the other theories about burning hands which are given less airtime by the ignorant media, who do not understand deductive science as well as we do.
Even though we may want to, there is no way we can save every species from extinction. We talk time and again about survival of the fittest in science class, yet we can't seem to acknowledge that species must adapt or die. Animal species that are hardy will thrive. Those who are not will not.
The problem with this type of reasoning is that we have evolved to a stage where we can "beat" any other species. Human-level intelligence has transformed evolutionary competition into a straight out massacre. We also have the ability to change the environment in ways which are effectively catacylsmic from the point of view of evolution - if you radically alter the environment over the course of a few decades or even centuries, then there is nowhere near enough time for a typical vertebrate to adapt via natural selection to a hostile environment.
If we are indeed affecting the climate, as seems likely, then I find it plausible to think that we could quite easily end up wiping out most species on earth, save for a few super-hardy ones. Unfortunately we will probably survive ourselves, which hardly seems fair. If you want to compete until the end, I hope you like the sound of a future filled with cockroaches, feral cats, rabbits, rats and flies because those are the types of animals which will thrive in a man made environmental apocalypse.
I would like to think that if we are intelligent enough to realise that we have the power to exterminate the other varieties of life on earth, then we are also intelligent enough to realise why we shouldn't (including both cold rational reasons and aesthetic/moral reasons).
Do you really believe that it is ok on any level if, say, every last tiger dies as a result of human impact on the environment? What if we go out and shoot them all? Because we could, and it sounds like you're saying that would be good and proper, or at least 'evolutionarily correct' in some way.
Lawyers don't cause litigation. Parties cause litigation.
IAAL. The matters which go to court are the ones where the parties are unreasonable, overly aggressive, or genuinely have a dispute about something which is worth money to both of them. It may also amaze you to learn that sometimes parties actually do breach contracts or otherwise fuck one another over, and yet when caught out they don't automatically roll over and return what they owe to the person they have wronged.
I have no influence whatsoever over whether they end up in Court. I advise my clients about their rights and prospects, and follow their instructions.
On the whole, reasonable, intelligent parties = no ligitation = no lawyers.
If you understood even basic economics, you would know that without competition the "market" will not set a fair price. What you are describing is a monopoly, where the objective is to extract the highest price possible without destroying the market entirely.
A friend of mine recently returned from northern China. She had her travel documents copied and the time of her visit noted repeatedly when visiting Internet cafes.
On the other hand, a lot of countries (cough in europe cough) have such high protective tariffs and such restrictive labor laws that their economic growth is weak, stagnant, or negative, and their unemployment is high. It doesn't really benefit anyone if 80% of the country has guaranteed (overpaid) work, but loses 60% of their income to pay for the 20% who can't get jobs.
On the other hand, if you can resolve the unemployment aspect of this situation, what is really wrong with a society with low growth but a high degree of job stability and social infrastructure?
Furthermore, how are the worst off citizens of EU countries faring compared to the worst off US citizens?
The scandanavian countries are interesting - they have extraordinarily generous unemployment benefits, yet high salaries and low unemployment.
Slashdot Mirror
...and this had worked, they might have had a massive civil lawsuit on their hands.
Unless they really, truly wanted to offer him a job.
Actually Obama should get at least three appointments, assuming he gets two terms. Expect them to be on the young side and fairly liberal-minded.
I'm definitely a gamer, albeit a non-Xbox/Playstation one, and I've never heard it used by anyone in meatspace.
Er.... joke? Hello?
He wants his manifesto back.
so many acronyms you won't know WTF anyone is talking about even when you RTFA.
Seriously, since when has "DLC" been code for anything? This is almost as annoying as the "SKU" fad which was around for a while.
Memo nerds: we don't all work in the wholesale side of the games retailing industry, nor do we want to learn your 133t industry speak.
...except here Epic is fucking you.
Animal Crossing is the most boring, inane idea for a game. You go to a new town, some guy comes and gives you a job that you can't refuse, puts you in debt repeatedly, whether you want it or not, and leaves you to spend all of your time delivering crap and doing chores.
I've lost countless hours of my life to that damned game.... Brb, gotta check turnip prices.
Are you sure that's a game and not just real life?
Plus just because you're not killing one another doesn't mean you aren't clearly in competition...
Yes, because no-one has ever come up with a new or innovative concept for a game which has taken off unexpectedly.
Strangely, "the market" doesn't have the ability to see the future and then communicate to game designers what it will and won't like. There is still the possibility that a new idea will become extremely popular notwithstanding that 95% of games are competitive at present.
Goldeneye and HL1 - two of your favorite games - are *precisely* like this. Both games are utterly linear, devoid of any way for the player to affect the plot (both are worse than Bioshock in this manner), and both games feature hordes of identical enemies.
Ah yes, but let's look at them.
Goldeneye:
- extremely wide variety of interesting levels
- excellent and fun to use weapons
- unique slow-movement pace
- phenomenally good controls and combat mechanics
- one of the best multiplayer console games ever made in terms of both skill required and fun
- character I actually like and care about
This game was primarily included on my list for its multiplayer.
Half Life:
- groundbreaking (at the time) level of story and variety for a FPS
- interesting and unique storyline
- superb combat mechanics
- relatively intelligent enemy AI (many games are still worse)
Ugh, STALKER was tripe. It's a glorified MMOG without the online, and without the social fun-ness. Beyond the myriad of technical failings, the game was pointless meandering just like Oblivion, except that at least in Oblivion enemy mobs don't respawn 5 seconds after you turn your back. The mechanics are stale, the setting was cool, but ultimately its unashamedly RPG-esque elements really do a lot to pull you out of the immersiveness of the world. Not a horrible game, but certainly nothing too noteworthy, not even close to GOTY material. STALKER is best served as a guide for future open-world FPS developers as a case study of the whole being more than the sum of a game's parts.
If you think STALKER was "tripe" then you are hardly worth arguing with. Or perhaps you have no imagination - it is far and away the scariest and most atmospheric game I've played. Oh, and enemies don't "respawn" in STALKER (except in certain plot-critical situations where it is worked into the game seamlessly, e.g. guys arriving in a helicopter) - go and google "A-Life".
I recently gave in and finally gave Bioshock a go. To give me some gaming cred, my favourite games include, amongst others, Quake III, Civilization 2, Oblivion, Deus Ex, STALKER, XCOM, Half Life (1, not 2), Goldeneye, Grand Prix 2, Total Annihilation and Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis. In other words, if the game is good I don't care if it's a shooter, strategy game, adventure game, whatever.
I had heard that this was "the best game of all time", "revolutionary", etc etc ad nauseum, so I had high expectations. Those expectations were not met. Not even close. This is not the best game of all time. In fact, it's not even the best game of the year it was released.
Graphics - generally good, sometimes, a bit clunky looking (full detail, running smoothly at 1280x1024), occasionally amazing (some of the water effects, in particular).
Story - interesting for a while, but pretty one-dimensional. Man tries to build perfect civilization. Man fails. Yes, I know there are twists.
Style - unquestionably incredible. I am a big fan of art deco and art nouveau, and I thought the actual art design in the game was stunning. The creepy 1920s-30s music, the architecture, the weird statues and sculptures, this stuff is all amazing.
So what's wrong with it? The gameplay stinks. Really, really, really stinks. Splicers are all virtually identical. Big Daddies are all identical. The game is utterly linear, and plays like a glorified version of Wolf3D in the sense that it's all about "go here to get this key to open this door to get this key to open that door" and so on. As amazing as the art design is, the level design and gameplay are uninspired.
But all of that would be forgivable if the actual combat was any good. Instead, it is pathetically dismal. The weapons feel clunky and are difficult to aim and use. The enemies basically either run straight at you or straight away from you. Fighting Big Daddies is a ridiculous grind of run... zap... shoot... run... The actual magic... er, sorry, nano-... sorry, "plasmid" powers are boring and generic, and the 'customization' adds nothing of note.
It's not scary. It's not clever. It's amazing looking, stylish, boring, so imprecise it feels like it's on rails, and repetitive. COD4 had similarly stunning graphics, but at least it's gameplay was addictively, compellingly fun. It is also clearly not a 'spiritual successor' to System Shock 2 - the closest to that has to be Deus Ex 1. It obviously had a great marketing campaign, but I'd be happy to never hear about it again.
End rant. I just love PC gaming, and I hate for this to be held out as a great PC game. If you believe this to be true, for god's sake go and play a patched up version of STALKER to see the kind of thing you're missing.
What other purpose does it possibly serve?
You're pretty much right.
If you know your client intends to lie, you can advise them not to, tell them what the consequences are, and if they insist on doing it, refuse to act for them henceforth. Interestingly, though, you cannot tell the Court or otherwise break privilege.
You certainly cannot knowingly assist your client in lying to the Court - your duties to the Court supercede your duties to your client.
correlationisnotcausation
correlationisnotcausation
correlationisnotcausation
I swear, half of the people who write tags on stories on this site would leave their hand on a red hot hotplate to burn whilst arguing that the pain in their hand correlates to the hotplate being red hot, but that clearly as correlation != causation we should consider the other theories about burning hands which are given less airtime by the ignorant media, who do not understand deductive science as well as we do.
correlationisnotcausation
correlationisnotcausation
correlationisnotcausation
its not it's... grrrr
The problem with this type of reasoning is that we have evolved to a stage where we can "beat" any other species. Human-level intelligence has transformed evolutionary competition into a straight out massacre. We also have the ability to change the environment in ways which are effectively catacylsmic from the point of view of evolution - if you radically alter the environment over the course of a few decades or even centuries, then there is nowhere near enough time for a typical vertebrate to adapt via natural selection to a hostile environment.
If we are indeed affecting the climate, as seems likely, then I find it plausible to think that we could quite easily end up wiping out most species on earth, save for a few super-hardy ones. Unfortunately we will probably survive ourselves, which hardly seems fair. If you want to compete until the end, I hope you like the sound of a future filled with cockroaches, feral cats, rabbits, rats and flies because those are the types of animals which will thrive in a man made environmental apocalypse.
I would like to think that if we are intelligent enough to realise that we have the power to exterminate the other varieties of life on earth, then we are also intelligent enough to realise why we shouldn't (including both cold rational reasons and aesthetic/moral reasons).
Do you really believe that it is ok on any level if, say, every last tiger dies as a result of human impact on the environment? What if we go out and shoot them all? Because we could, and it sounds like you're saying that would be good and proper, or at least 'evolutionarily correct' in some way.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
I would rather fly in an airplane built by a "tyranical" corporation than one built by the "democratic" government.
Yes, but would you rather let each airline regulate airline safety, or let the inefficient ol' democratic government stick it's oar in?
Lawyers don't cause litigation. Parties cause litigation.
IAAL. The matters which go to court are the ones where the parties are unreasonable, overly aggressive, or genuinely have a dispute about something which is worth money to both of them. It may also amaze you to learn that sometimes parties actually do breach contracts or otherwise fuck one another over, and yet when caught out they don't automatically roll over and return what they owe to the person they have wronged.
I have no influence whatsoever over whether they end up in Court. I advise my clients about their rights and prospects, and follow their instructions.
On the whole, reasonable, intelligent parties = no ligitation = no lawyers.
If you understood even basic economics, you would know that without competition the "market" will not set a fair price. What you are describing is a monopoly, where the objective is to extract the highest price possible without destroying the market entirely.
A friend of mine recently returned from northern China. She had her travel documents copied and the time of her visit noted repeatedly when visiting Internet cafes.
It sounds like your definition of 'socialism' is 'something I disagree with'. This is why objective definitions can be useful in adult discussions.
On the other hand, if you can resolve the unemployment aspect of this situation, what is really wrong with a society with low growth but a high degree of job stability and social infrastructure?
Furthermore, how are the worst off citizens of EU countries faring compared to the worst off US citizens?
The scandanavian countries are interesting - they have extraordinarily generous unemployment benefits, yet high salaries and low unemployment.
And the majority of them have been remarkably stable in showing an Obama lead in a variety of swing states.
The national polling really doesn't matter much other than as a general indicator of the mood of the country.
We have it in Australia too. None of our banks have failed either.