The problem with a receipt telling you what you voted, is that it eliminates the secrecy of the vote-casting. If you are being threatened by violence to vote a certain way, your attacker would just demand to see your receipt.
I was thinking about this the other day, and I figured out a system that would work well for auditing these suckers.
After voting, the machine gives you a number. Something crazy and long like 2348728345. If you are a concerned citizen, you'd write this number down.
Now, the machines actually would keep track of which number voted for which candidate, and somewhere there would be a giant published list of number-candidate combinations. All a concerned citizen would have to do is compare his number with that on the list, to make sure it recorded his vote properly. Still, the anonymity is there, so nobody will know what he voted.
Oh crap, nevermind. I guess if the machines wanted to cheat, they could give the same number to the first 50 people that voted republican....I guess it'd be harder to verify in that case. Ok, I lose.
I think you're talking about the "Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb guide" which was the stupidest name for the best book about DM'ing and world creation.
I was hoping it would be difficult. Ninja Gaiden on the NES had, in my opinion, the best challenge level of any game ever. It was insanely hard, yet you kept wanting to try. You HATED level 6-2 so bad you wanted to destroy your nes, but you kept playing. And eventually, you won, and felt like a big stud.
New games don't tend to have challenge like that, but maybe the new ninja gaiden will fix that
I was just musing on this recently....with the new games, if you have to restart an area, you get annoyed that you have to replay that whole area, WHAT A WASTE OF TIME.
Older games, instead, had you thinking: dang it, ONE MORE TRY, I can do it, just ONE MORE GAME
What's the difference? I propose an answer: Newer games are cooler, have neater environments, etc. People don't want to redo parts, because the fun of the game comes from seeing new places, more story....basically uncovering more content. The older games' fun came from the PLAYING. It was just fun trying to make this jump, dodge this bullet, and kill this guy without dying. You were on the edge of your seat trying to survive.
I know you're just being funny, but here's the hole in your analogy.
If Chess was like a MMOG, you'd only get to use a pawn and your king the first time you played. Each time you won a game, you'd get to add a piece to your arsenal. Eventually you might have enough pieces to actually play a normal game of chess, but your opponent might just as easily have the board covered with queens at that point.
So yes, there would be a little bit of skill involved. If I played really well against someone with a few more pieces than me, I might win. But you gain more of an advantage from just playing the game repeatedly than you do from actually LEARNING how to be a better chess player.
In my "new MMOG version of chess," I could easily beat Kasperov if he had nothing but a King and a Pawn, and I was loaded with 20 queens.
The MMoG Chess fans with 30-piece arsenals would all start claiming that MMog-Chess DOES take skill, because when they play against another 30-piece person, there's a lot of skill involved. But that doesn't mean it's primarily a skill-based game.
There's a difference between a character looking good, and trying to use the sexuality of the character to sell a game.
Chun Li from SF2 looked good. But they didn't sell the game by focusing on her breasts. BMX XXX, DOA extreme beach volleyball, and their ilk all do.
Solid Snake may be a stud, but you don't see them marketing Solid Snake's sexual appeal.
And you mention a double standard...that's because there IS a difference between men and women. Men are more likely to tune in to sexual images than women are. It's a fact of life, and marketing people know it.
If automation is really the way you want to go, there are even better guitars out there with your name on them. They don't stop at a mere F chord, they'll play the whole damn song for you! Rock star in a box!
But really, is an F honestly that hard to play?;-)
Um, when you are learning, and if you a guitar with a high action, yes. I had trouble with F when I started, and I know many other people that did too.
And your mocking, "You are pathetic because you are not as talented as me" attitude really helps the situation.
I'm sure you never had trouble doing anything while you were learning it?
or your pinky finger, as like to do it. I never could get my ring finger to fit nicely to do the A string bar chords, and one day I decided to try using my pinky.
There's a lot of stuff that science doesn't currently understand.
Is science allowed to be objective and logical, and still make a hypothesis about an explanation for things we don't understand? Of course!
Now what if someone's hypothesis is that there is a greater being, let's call him God. We don't have proof of this, but if it doesn't contradict science, why can't it be a reasonable hypothesis?
(you will now argue that religion contradicts science. And for some people it does...we're not currently talking about them. We're talking about people who consider themselves religious but still employ the use of their brains, although it might be a small amount of people. These people realize that "God" isn't some cleanly little defined thing that they get to feel good about on Sunday. The "God" of their hypothesis is someone/something beyond what we understand, and our very understanding of "God" will change as science understands more and more of the world around us).
In this hypothesis, "sacred" refers to some aspect of the puzzle that is filled in by "God."
So how am I not being objective or logical?
Or is it actually that because lots of warped people use "God" as a platform for hate, condemnation, or lack of thought, people like you have decided that anyone who believes in something "Godlike" or "sacred" has to be a fool?
I'm a "thinking person" and I think that as humans in this century, we know a lot, but we don't know all the answers. Would you agree?
It has a few "real" games like Civ 3, Neverwinter nights, Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo, and Resident Evil 3, but most of them seem to be the type of PC games that you see on the $5 rack at EB games
Anyways, it looks less like vapor-ware, and more like just a plain waste of money.
That's because Magic is inherently a fun, well-designed competitive game. It's a competitive game where you compete against another person. As long as you have invested about the same amount of money as the person you are playing with, you will generally have fun playing the game.
This isn't true of MMORPGS. Here, the entire appeal to is to amass more power, more levels. There is not very much appeal in sitting around playing the game as one of the "little-guys," as there really isn't that much fun stuff to DO in these games. All of the DOING involves routine tasks with the goal of becoming tougher, where as in Magic, the DOING is playing an interesting game. There is an actual GAME in magic that people enjoy, other than just collecting the most powerful cards.
They don't want people to catch on to the fact that it is a movie.
yet
It's obvious that they want to generate interest in this "product", and at some later time they will use that marketing hype to their advantage and say "Oh, that's just a movie we're making, not a real thing"....
The patch problem will, imo, never be as bad on consoles. Why, you ask? They are building for one particular hardware configuration.
The thing that makes programming PC games so difficult, and thus the reason they are so buggy, is that to properly test of these games, you have to have HUNDREDS of PC's on hand, with all sorts of different possible hardware configurations. Once they ship, the bug reports start coming in, as users try out those different hardware configurations.
With consoles, you don't have to worry about that. The machine you tested on is gonna be the same machine the users are playing on.
And if all you want is to get your sex kicks semi-regularly, then well, you're set. I don't think I'd be happy with that. Sure, your average stereotypical slashdotter would say "I'd be happy with any sex!" but I think in reality, most of uswant more than that.
Many of us prefer meaningful relationships with our sex. I treat my girl with respect and dignity, and I get a loving, happy relationship. AND regular, good sex. The great thing is, the loving relationship makes the sex more meaningful, and the good sex makes our relationship closer.
Sure, it's not a new woman every week, but I'll take a meaningful relationship and a close friend over variety. I think most people, if they really admit it to themselves, would agree.
Contra was popular because you could play god-mode (u-u-d-d-b-a-b-a-start), but this wasn't in the design, it was a cheat. How many people actually played this game without using the cheat after beating it?
I did. Many times. I think contra had wonderful replay value, and I've spent more hours playign it then lots of the story-driven schlock that comes out today.
The fact is, people have different tastes. Some people want a long, in depth game with a huge story. Others, like myself, want to turn on a game, twitch and mash buttons, and turn it off in 20 minutes, perfectly satisfied. Is one less of a game than the other? No, we just have different tastes. So to say the problem is "story" is oversimplifying things.
So is the answer to be innovative? No, not necessarily. Black and White was innovative. UT2K3 wasn't all that innovative. One of those I spend hours playing. The other is complete crap. Your beloved Monkey Island wasn't innovative. It was the same style game as all the other SCUMM games. It's just that they did a good job with that one....
So if it's not a story or genre that makes a game good, and it's not innovation, what is it?. Quality, plain and simple. Take what they are trying to do with the game. Did they do it well? Then it's probably a good, fun game. (you might not like it, but you might not be the intended audience).
So quit trying to narrow it down to specific genres or content or innovation or what. I don't care about all that. I want them to make games that are Quality. Make them any genre, innovate or not, I don't care. Whatever type of game you do, do it well, that's all I want.
Well said. I had a friend who was a Jehovah's Witness.....he never got any crap about his decision to not say the pledge. He didn't make a big deal out of it. Neither did we.
Yeah, every single one, like Castlevania 1, 2, 3, Base Wars, Metal Gear, Snake's Revenge, Bayou Billy, Batman returns, Blades of Steel, Bucky O' hare, Double Dribble, Goonies 2, Jackal, Lone Ranger, Rush'n Attack, Super C, TMNT 3, Top Gun, Track and Field, Track and field 2
I'll stop my sarcasm there. It worked on 2 games: Life force, and Contra. Gradius 3 had a modified version of the code.
A far cry from "pretty much every konami game out there"
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with a receipt telling you what you voted, is that it eliminates the secrecy of the vote-casting. If you are being threatened by violence to vote a certain way, your attacker would just demand to see your receipt.
I was thinking about this the other day, and I figured out a system that would work well for auditing these suckers.
After voting, the machine gives you a number. Something crazy and long like 2348728345. If you are a concerned citizen, you'd write this number down.
Now, the machines actually would keep track of which number voted for which candidate, and somewhere there would be a giant published list of number-candidate combinations. All a concerned citizen would have to do is compare his number with that on the list, to make sure it recorded his vote properly. Still, the anonymity is there, so nobody will know what he voted.
Oh crap, nevermind. I guess if the machines wanted to cheat, they could give the same number to the first 50 people that voted republican....I guess it'd be harder to verify in that case. Ok, I lose.
I think you're talking about the "Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb guide" which was the stupidest name for the best book about DM'ing and world creation.
I was hoping it would be difficult. Ninja Gaiden on the NES had, in my opinion, the best challenge level of any game ever. It was insanely hard, yet you kept wanting to try. You HATED level 6-2 so bad you wanted to destroy your nes, but you kept playing. And eventually, you won, and felt like a big stud.
New games don't tend to have challenge like that, but maybe the new ninja gaiden will fix that
I was just musing on this recently....with the new games, if you have to restart an area, you get annoyed that you have to replay that whole area, WHAT A WASTE OF TIME.
Older games, instead, had you thinking: dang it, ONE MORE TRY, I can do it, just ONE MORE GAME
What's the difference? I propose an answer: Newer games are cooler, have neater environments, etc. People don't want to redo parts, because the fun of the game comes from seeing new places, more story....basically uncovering more content. The older games' fun came from the PLAYING. It was just fun trying to make this jump, dodge this bullet, and kill this guy without dying. You were on the edge of your seat trying to survive.
I know you're just being funny, but here's the hole in your analogy.
If Chess was like a MMOG, you'd only get to use a pawn and your king the first time you played. Each time you won a game, you'd get to add a piece to your arsenal. Eventually you might have enough pieces to actually play a normal game of chess, but your opponent might just as easily have the board covered with queens at that point.
So yes, there would be a little bit of skill involved. If I played really well against someone with a few more pieces than me, I might win. But you gain more of an advantage from just playing the game repeatedly than you do from actually LEARNING how to be a better chess player.
In my "new MMOG version of chess," I could easily beat Kasperov if he had nothing but a King and a Pawn, and I was loaded with 20 queens.
The MMoG Chess fans with 30-piece arsenals would all start claiming that MMog-Chess DOES take skill, because when they play against another 30-piece person, there's a lot of skill involved. But that doesn't mean it's primarily a skill-based game.
There's a difference between a character looking good, and trying to use the sexuality of the character to sell a game.
Chun Li from SF2 looked good. But they didn't sell the game by focusing on her breasts. BMX XXX, DOA extreme beach volleyball, and their ilk all do.
Solid Snake may be a stud, but you don't see them marketing Solid Snake's sexual appeal.
And you mention a double standard...that's because there IS a difference between men and women. Men are more likely to tune in to sexual images than women are. It's a fact of life, and marketing people know it.
Um, when you are learning, and if you a guitar with a high action, yes. I had trouble with F when I started, and I know many other people that did too.
And your mocking, "You are pathetic because you are not as talented as me" attitude really helps the situation.
I'm sure you never had trouble doing anything while you were learning it?
or your pinky finger, as like to do it. I never could get my ring finger to fit nicely to do the A string bar chords, and one day I decided to try using my pinky.
My life has never been the same.
well, consider this:
There's a lot of stuff that science doesn't currently understand.
Is science allowed to be objective and logical, and still make a hypothesis about an explanation for things we don't understand? Of course!
Now what if someone's hypothesis is that there is a greater being, let's call him God. We don't have proof of this, but if it doesn't contradict science, why can't it be a reasonable hypothesis?
(you will now argue that religion contradicts science. And for some people it does...we're not currently talking about them. We're talking about people who consider themselves religious but still employ the use of their brains, although it might be a small amount of people. These people realize that "God" isn't some cleanly little defined thing that they get to feel good about on Sunday. The "God" of their hypothesis is someone/something beyond what we understand, and our very understanding of "God" will change as science understands more and more of the world around us).
In this hypothesis, "sacred" refers to some aspect of the puzzle that is filled in by "God."
So how am I not being objective or logical?
Or is it actually that because lots of warped people use "God" as a platform for hate, condemnation, or lack of thought, people like you have decided that anyone who believes in something "Godlike" or "sacred" has to be a fool?
I'm a "thinking person" and I think that as humans in this century, we know a lot, but we don't know all the answers. Would you agree?
Weird...the page was there yesterday.
Anyway, here's Google's Cache of the listing of games/publishers for the phantom.
Their website has a list of lined up for the phantom.
It has a few "real" games like Civ 3, Neverwinter nights, Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo, and Resident Evil 3, but most of them seem to be the type of PC games that you see on the $5 rack at EB games
Anyways, it looks less like vapor-ware, and more like just a plain waste of money.
This isn't true of MMORPGS. Here, the entire appeal to is to amass more power, more levels. There is not very much appeal in sitting around playing the game as one of the "little-guys," as there really isn't that much fun stuff to DO in these games. All of the DOING involves routine tasks with the goal of becoming tougher, where as in Magic, the DOING is playing an interesting game. There is an actual GAME in magic that people enjoy, other than just collecting the most powerful cards.
well, with Contra, it sold poorly because the game sucked. I'm a huge fan of 2d side scrolling games. But I didn't enjoy Contra at all.
Why? The level design was terrible.
Just like with 3d games, the perspective doesn't make a game good.
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_Of_Roboti cs
They don't want people to catch on to the fact that it is a movie.
yetIt's obvious that they want to generate interest in this "product", and at some later time they will use that marketing hype to their advantage and say "Oh, that's just a movie we're making, not a real thing"....
The patch problem will, imo, never be as bad on consoles. Why, you ask? They are building for one particular hardware configuration.
The thing that makes programming PC games so difficult, and thus the reason they are so buggy, is that to properly test of these games, you have to have HUNDREDS of PC's on hand, with all sorts of different possible hardware configurations. Once they ship, the bug reports start coming in, as users try out those different hardware configurations.
With consoles, you don't have to worry about that. The machine you tested on is gonna be the same machine the users are playing on.
And if all you want is to get your sex kicks semi-regularly, then well, you're set. I don't think I'd be happy with that. Sure, your average stereotypical slashdotter would say "I'd be happy with any sex!" but I think in reality, most of uswant more than that.
Many of us prefer meaningful relationships with our sex. I treat my girl with respect and dignity, and I get a loving, happy relationship. AND regular, good sex. The great thing is, the loving relationship makes the sex more meaningful, and the good sex makes our relationship closer.
Sure, it's not a new woman every week, but I'll take a meaningful relationship and a close friend over variety. I think most people, if they really admit it to themselves, would agree.
well-said, my anonymous friend
I did. Many times. I think contra had wonderful replay value, and I've spent more hours playign it then lots of the story-driven schlock that comes out today.
The fact is, people have different tastes. Some people want a long, in depth game with a huge story. Others, like myself, want to turn on a game, twitch and mash buttons, and turn it off in 20 minutes, perfectly satisfied. Is one less of a game than the other? No, we just have different tastes. So to say the problem is "story" is oversimplifying things.
So is the answer to be innovative? No, not necessarily. Black and White was innovative. UT2K3 wasn't all that innovative. One of those I spend hours playing. The other is complete crap. Your beloved Monkey Island wasn't innovative. It was the same style game as all the other SCUMM games. It's just that they did a good job with that one....
So if it's not a story or genre that makes a game good, and it's not innovation, what is it?. Quality, plain and simple. Take what they are trying to do with the game. Did they do it well? Then it's probably a good, fun game. (you might not like it, but you might not be the intended audience).
So quit trying to narrow it down to specific genres or content or innovation or what. I don't care about all that. I want them to make games that are Quality. Make them any genre, innovate or not, I don't care. Whatever type of game you do, do it well, that's all I want.
I watched the clip, but I must have missed the part where it was 'amusing' :)
This whole story should be modded as -1, RTFFAQ.
The game was made primarly as a graphics demo for NVIDIA cards. It makes sense, then, that it should be for NVIDIA cards, no?
From the Bridge It FAQ:
Bridge It was specifically designed as graphics demo to show off NVIDIA graphics cards.
Well said. Very well said.
Well said. I had a friend who was a Jehovah's Witness.....he never got any crap about his decision to not say the pledge. He didn't make a big deal out of it. Neither did we.
Yeah, every single one, like Castlevania 1, 2, 3, Base Wars, Metal Gear, Snake's Revenge, Bayou Billy, Batman returns, Blades of Steel, Bucky O' hare, Double Dribble, Goonies 2, Jackal, Lone Ranger, Rush'n Attack, Super C, TMNT 3, Top Gun, Track and Field, Track and field 2
I'll stop my sarcasm there. It worked on 2 games: Life force, and Contra. Gradius 3 had a modified version of the code.
A far cry from "pretty much every konami game out there"
Hey Gabe! I managed to beat it also, but only after getting so mad I threw the controller maybe thirty times :)