And why do you think he's suggesting it? Look at the state of the US last time there was a kick start to the space programme.
Perhaps I'm overly cynical but the space programme has always been a ratings puller. The thought of "our boys" putting themselves on the line for the "betterment of mankind" is something the public will always get behind.
It's similar to starting a war as soon as you're inaugurated - in times past, that was the way to get the public behind you. With the advent of mass media and world-wide news the public are far more discerning about where they get their information. Simple propaganda just doesn't work.
So graphics are what make MMORPGs interesting? Nonsense. MUDs/MUSHes/MOOs have been running for years with little more than the classic text adventure console style and are _still_ hugely popular. Of course, being for the most part free to play might have an additional acctraction.
The whole point of the genre must be player-player interaction - if a world is so large and sparse that my character wanders in a wilderness for vast hours of gameplay, i'm not getting the experience i've paid for.
Adding player-built features is a great way to hike up the amount of player interaction, as is the simpler introduction of player killing ( even with the associated possibility of abuse ).
In summary, I'd rather enjoy a text-based adventure than be bored of looking at pretty pictures.
Myself and plenty of my cow-orkers play these M-rated games alongside other, more childish, games regularly. Now as much as my Significant Other tells me i'm just a big kid, i consider myself an adult.
Further i will continue to play games for years to come.
Games are -not- solely for kids: Games are a form of entertainment just as much as movies and just as a parent should be informed about the ratings on movies their kids are watching, they should be informed of ratings on games their kids are playing.
I don't understand why levelling must be a dull process for the reward to mean anything. The main problem with the majority of MMO*s is that combat is the main focus of levelling. The game then devolves into a "who can get to the spawn point fastest" competition.
Star Wars Galaxies has gone some way to remedy this with experience granted for other skill use but in doing this they've neglected the section of their playerbase who want to fight hordes of creatures.
What's needed is a balance between the two - have the tunnels of orcs or caves of tuskan raiders for players who want to go all out hack'n'slash to haunt but also have experience/level points awarded for other actions. Neverwinter Nights is one that balances these very nicely but then it's just a translation of the D&D rule set.
Absolutely right. The only game that I've seen that does things differently is Neverwinter Nights. The online gameplay you experience depends on what sort of server you connect to. There are RP heavy servers which encourage DM interaction with players.
This is the only time I've noticed a feeling of true immersion. You don't see the DM rolling dice or looking things up and the only constraints are those imposed by the module/world builders.
When these builders work well with the DMs on a particular server, it's a fantastic experience.
This boom and bust cycle for MMOGs highlights the fickle nature of todays consumers. I think it's a trend that will continue as the computer game market widens, as it has been for the last few years. There's always going to be a bigger, faster, shinier product being sold to the public.
Interestingly, there are MUDs, MUSHs and MOOs that have been running for 10 years or more that still have an increasing playerbase as people (re?)discover them. In fact, it's possible that the current boom in MMOGs will inspire even more people to find these (mostly) free games.
There's more to this debate than pure numbers. The PS2 and the GameCube have radically different architectures to the Xbox.
In fact, in your list, the only numbers that can actually be used as a measure of performance are those of the PC-like Xbox.
If I were to describe the PS2 as having three processors working in parallel, each with their own on board memory and two of them able to operate on vectors directly, you might start to see how it differs from a PC concept.
Similarly with vRAM. The PS2 has a 'measly' 4Mb of video ram but it also has the ability to stream textures in and out of it faster than a frame can be drawn. This gives you a much larger 'virtual' vRAM.
Imagine a neurochip technology which would allow us to learn didactically- much like Neo does at the beginning of The Matrix.
This approach would only really work well as a subsidiary learning technique. There's just more to learning than the mental side.
I can imagine using this to learn vocabulary and grammar rules when studying a new language, however to speak the language, one needs to learn the muscle movements to make the sounds as well. This secondary part couldn't be taught without physical practice.
Slashdot Mirror
And why do you think he's suggesting it? Look at the state of the US last time there was a kick start to the space programme.
Perhaps I'm overly cynical but the space programme has always been a ratings puller. The thought of "our boys" putting themselves on the line for the "betterment of mankind" is something the public will always get behind.
It's similar to starting a war as soon as you're inaugurated - in times past, that was the way to get the public behind you. With the advent of mass media and world-wide news the public are far more discerning about where they get their information. Simple propaganda just doesn't work.
That, or I'm just a cynical old coot
So graphics are what make MMORPGs interesting? Nonsense. MUDs/MUSHes/MOOs have been running for years with little more than the classic text adventure console style and are _still_ hugely popular. Of course, being for the most part free to play might have an additional acctraction.
The whole point of the genre must be player-player interaction - if a world is so large and sparse that my character wanders in a wilderness for vast hours of gameplay, i'm not getting the experience i've paid for.
Adding player-built features is a great way to hike up the amount of player interaction, as is the simpler introduction of player killing ( even with the associated possibility of abuse ).
In summary, I'd rather enjoy a text-based adventure than be bored of looking at pretty pictures.
Lots of flexibility, plenty of social interaction and a great sense of humour.
( guess who's a creator there... )First you have a meteoroid. This is a solid body moving through space that's smaller than an asteroid and larger than a speck of dust.
This hits the atmosphere and is heated to incandescence by friction. The bright trail or streak that appears in the sky is a meteor.
After it's fallen to the Earth's surface, it's a meteorite.
Myself and plenty of my cow-orkers play these M-rated games alongside other, more childish, games regularly. Now as much as my Significant Other tells me i'm just a big kid, i consider myself an adult.
Further i will continue to play games for years to come.
Games are -not- solely for kids: Games are a form of entertainment just as much as movies and just as a parent should be informed about the ratings on movies their kids are watching, they should be informed of ratings on games their kids are playing.
I don't understand why levelling must be a dull process for the reward to mean anything. The main problem with the majority of MMO*s is that combat is the main focus of levelling. The game then devolves into a "who can get to the spawn point fastest" competition.
Star Wars Galaxies has gone some way to remedy this with experience granted for other skill use but in doing this they've neglected the section of their playerbase who want to fight hordes of creatures.
What's needed is a balance between the two - have the tunnels of orcs or caves of tuskan raiders for players who want to go all out hack'n'slash to haunt but also have experience/level points awarded for other actions. Neverwinter Nights is one that balances these very nicely but then it's just a translation of the D&D rule set.
This is the only time I've noticed a feeling of true immersion. You don't see the DM rolling dice or looking things up and the only constraints are those imposed by the module/world builders.
When these builders work well with the DMs on a particular server, it's a fantastic experience.
This boom and bust cycle for MMOGs highlights the fickle nature of todays consumers. I think it's a trend that will continue as the computer game market widens, as it has been for the last few years. There's always going to be a bigger, faster, shinier product being sold to the public. Interestingly, there are MUDs, MUSHs and MOOs that have been running for 10 years or more that still have an increasing playerbase as people (re?)discover them. In fact, it's possible that the current boom in MMOGs will inspire even more people to find these (mostly) free games.
There's more to this debate than pure numbers. The PS2 and the GameCube have radically different architectures to the Xbox.
In fact, in your list, the only numbers that can actually be used as a measure of performance are those of the PC-like Xbox.
If I were to describe the PS2 as having three processors working in parallel, each with their own on board memory and two of them able to operate on vectors directly, you might start to see how it differs from a PC concept.
Similarly with vRAM. The PS2 has a 'measly' 4Mb of video ram but it also has the ability to stream textures in and out of it faster than a frame can be drawn. This gives you a much larger 'virtual' vRAM.
This approach would only really work well as a subsidiary learning technique. There's just more to learning than the mental side.
I can imagine using this to learn vocabulary and grammar rules when studying a new language, however to speak the language, one needs to learn the muscle movements to make the sounds as well. This secondary part couldn't be taught without physical practice.