Does the latency introduced by WiFi cause problems with Live! ? I've got WiFi at my place, but none of the boxes that are game related (two PCs, a Dreamcast, a PS2, and an Xbox) run through the APs; they use cat5. I dunno, maybe it's not a problem?
Well I'll be glad to get the PS collection (- 3) one one disc; I have a nomad and they're fun to play on the go, but it'll be nice to be able to play them on the big screen without hooking the nomad up or pushing dropping those huge brick power supplies for the genesis into an outlet (power supplied = 3 for the base, Sega CD, and 32X).
But what exactly constitued as remake? I'd be happy with just ports. Are these ports, or are they adding small touches and updates?
Oh what a terribly silly argument to make. Explain to me then what Jet Grind Radio is? Or a game like Shenmue? Vertical/horizontal shooters? Saying no genre originated from a certain point is such a difficult thing to hammer down, since you could say they all descended from pong anyway, and consoles are so tied to the arcade that you'd have to consider the arcade consoles as well. Last time I checked, DDR and Silent Shot don't have real equivalents on the PC. Saying advances only happen in the PC world is ludicrous; I keep bringing it up - exactly how is Jet Grind Radio derivative of anything before? What *huge* advance in gameplay has happened to PC games recently?
This is all besides the point anyway, and I refuse to get dragged down into a side argument; my original assertation was that there are plenty of games on consoles that are worth playing and are not available on PCs, and vice versa. Basically you are saying that there is nothing worth playing on consoles. Fine, that is your opinion. Most gamers, howerever, realize that there ARE valid, interesting, and innovative games outside the PC realm and don't care where the games are, they just want to play them and usually end up with a large selection of gaming devices (which includes the PC). While you may *PREFER* PC games and the styles indigenous to them, do not mistake that for lack of innovative and interesting gameplay elsewhere.
Hah. I have two friends, both gay, one working for Raven and one working for Treyarch, and they both think the whole 'booth babe' thing is way over the top, even beyond kitch. Not that they're against the bb's, nor do they think it's demeaning or anything, and they're not even looking for 'booth guys', but... I dunno, it's complicated, and I probably can't explain it properly either.
Your views clearly show a lack of any real knowledge of console gaming. It can, in fact, be turned on its head and pointed at the PC world; your over simplified purebred analogy could just as easily apply to the FPS genre, or the RTS genre... and when you realize how absurd that is, you'll realize why the whole comparison is absurd as well.
Of course there's horrid trash shoveled upon us by plenty of companies, just as there are in the PC world. The trick is in finding the gems. For example, have you played any Sega games? They have been accused of creating games so out there/original that most people dislike them, simply because they're used to the cookie-cutter games you mention. Have you played Rez? Ikaruga? Raidiant Silvergun? Sakura Wars? Jet Grind Radio? Panzer Dragoon 1/2/Saga/Orta? (not all those are Sega published titles just stuff that pops off the top of my head)?
Now I love my PC. It has plenty of games that are excellent. However consoles can (and are) just as valid in that argument. Perhaps if you lowered the PC-only blinders and actually enoyed games for their gameplay instead of worrying about what platform they were on, you'd locate those less hyped games and understand.
Nothing was lost. A good game developer left one studio and joined another one, which, I might add, also makes good games. Simply because it has a "Microsoft" banner under it doesn't mean the games coming out of it are going to be unplayable. In fact, that's what we all want, right? Good games? Who cares where they come from.
Seriously; I love well told stories and interesting plot developments, hence, I love the good JRPGs, such as Phantasy Star 1/2/4, Chrono Trigger, PANZER DRAGOON SAGA, and some FF games.
When I want a very customizable dungeon crawl/quest-oriented game, CRPGs fit the bill. The shortcomings with these are the exact opposite of JRPGs; weak stories most of the time (there are some notable exceptions such as Fallout and Planescape: Torment) and more of an emphasis on character stats.
It really has to do with the roots of the genre; CRPGs borrow heavily from traditional role playing and dice throwing, while JRPGs.. well, don't. Honestly, to me, they're practically separate genres. It's like comparing sports games and sport simulation games.
The only real problem I have with CRPGs is the idiotic tendency to lean towards fantasy settings, most of which I consider incredibly boring. Give me a nice sci-fi or original setting. How many times do I need to hear pseudo-british like accents and cast fireballs? Heaven forbid someone come up with a cool idea transplanted into a modern day setting!,
Did you even read the article? do you realize you just repeated a version of the difference between C and J RPGs? I mean you just compared two completely opposing styles - FF and KOTR.
Wow, that's real mature. I take your points, organize them in a rational manner, and break them down into nice sized bites. You come back with, "You're wrong." No real debate, no real ideas. Ummm... yeah. Who's coming off as not very bright?
While I agree with some of your points, you seemed to be all over the map. Let's pick it apart in a more logical fashion, shall we?
Originally it did well because it was a fun action adventure where you play a chick with gigantic breasts.
True. However, it *also* had a new type of gameplay, namely a 3D platformer melded with a bit of action and a lot of exploring. Very cool when it first came out; the T&A were simply bonuses on top of that (though to me, that was always lame - polygons don't really do anything for me).
Its not original, its the same formula.
Once again, true. Though new moves and some slightly different locales were added, TR is the exact same thing, with little innovation.
Now here's where you start getting confusing.
Nowadays there are hundreds of games with that same premise, the demand is being filled.
What, with vast, 3d environments coupled with exploratory and platform elements, with a dash of action? Sure. And the well designed ones sell well, or at least get critical praise (Jax & Daxter, Ratchet & Clank, Metroid Prime, even ICO way back when, and on and on). Or are you referring to breast size? Well... no game really springs to mind, though I guess BMX XXX fits the bill, and that really didn't sell very well or fill any sort of demand. NOLF2? I guess... sort of. But since it was an FPS, you only saw Cate during cut scenes and the gameplay was very well done anyway. So if you're referring to the former, you're right on. If you're referring to the latter, I dunno where you're coming from.
So to go back to my original point they need to shelve Tomb Raider and only bring it back when the market is salivating for a new game in the series.
What a bizzare position, though you're welcome to take it. Honestly, I think you're way off here. People will salivate when the next game looks good and promises great new gameplay. Simply putting it on the shelf and letting it age won't make people want it. Did you get excited when Namco released the new Pacman 3D? We haven't seen him in a real video game in awhile, and for the length of time he was gone, we should've been storming down Namco HQ in anticipation.
The problem is not 'stale grey gameplay, with no quality control' (see Resident Evil for example)...
Uh, that's *EXACTLY* the problem. Notice Resident Evil is still selling well and getting those saliva glands working for fans... because Capcom took the original, and steadily moved it forward in terms of graphical prowess and gameplay elements. I am hardly a fan of Resident Evil, but if you haven't sat down with the GCN version of Zero, you really don't know how far the series has moved. Of course there are plenty of problems, most notably the controls, but unlike TR, Res Evil hasn't stayed on what is basically the same engine for years, nor does it have a weak story (at best), and the quality control blows TR's out of the water (read: BUGS EVERYWHERE, across the series, not just on AOD).
...the problem is people don't care about Tomb Raider like they used to.
What, do you think this is because we can get strange sized breasts elsewhere, for much easier, more often? Face it. It's because Core lacks any sort of innovation and has released products that weren't ready for the market with regards to code quality.
A game can still sell well if it sucks, such as Enter the Matrix, but if the market demands it then people will buy it.
Well of course. It's called hype. Star Wars: Galaxies sold insanely well and some of the people didn't even know what an MMORPG was when they snatched it up. Final Fantasy can have an adventure in a toilet and still sell well over a million copies. But sometimes, common sense actually crushes the hype monster down. TR is getting crushed not because of lack of hype (there's a movie out at the same time for chrissakes!) OR availability of p
WHAT? Retaining the same protagonist is NOT the problem (see Mario and Sonic for example). The problem is stale grey gameplay, with no quality control.
And pointing out FF as the paragon of not reusing characters is probably the worst possible choice, as gamers are always clamoring to bring back old FF characters (and what we get for all the trouble is a glorified "Barbie's Big Adventure in the Scary World!" aka FFX-2, but that's a whole different story).
Thank you for saying that; I completely agree. MGS2 was such a hodge-podge of over-the-top pseudo-philosophical ramblings pasted over a decent gameplay engine that turned it into a wannabe lecture on morality, reality, and everything else under the sun.
It would be an interesting game if it touched on these issues in a straightforward way. It would've been a pinnacle of storytelling if Hideo Kojima had done it in a subtle way. Instead, we get half-assed ideas and conflicting ideals coming from the exact same characters pushed at us over and over and over; "ideas" are pounded into our brains with sledgehammers. It's like Kojima said, "Make sure the player gets this idea. Did he get it? I'm not sure. Have another 30 minute codec scene where they go over the same philosohical territory. And another. And another. Oh and makre sure the characters don't stick by their guns either!"
Maybe Hideo Kojima had something important to say with MGS2 (he always seems to hint at that in interviews, hint in this case referring to someone that might as well blare from the rooftops 'This was my message!'), but it was lost, turned around, and blended into oblivion by someone who desperately needs an editor.
Even Evangelion was more elegant, and that's saying something. Hell, XENOGEARS was more elegant, and Xenogears is about as deep as a coat of paint on the wall covering up the philosophical grafitti of a street urchin (though Xeno was still lots of fun to play).
Well, no offense, but if you think the only two games worth playing on the Xbox are Halo and PD, you're not really making decisions based on quality only, are you? You'd be purchasing the Xbox as well, because most players that are quality-only types (like me) will get every system out there, especially when you can only get things like JSRF, Gunvalkyrie, and Toe Jam & Earl 3 on the Xbox. Maybe you should go back and pick up a Saturn too, as well as a PC-Engine and TurboDuo?
You wouldn't be any different if you had grown up with PS and Sonic; you'd still like quality. Well, supposedly quality, you seem to be more of the 'quality-with-blinders' type.
Can someone explain this to me? I liked Half-Life when it came out, played some CS, but what always places HL at the top of people's greatest games list? It seems like a great FPS: really nice AI (especially for the time) and a story progression that occurred 'in place', but those two things somehow vaulted it over *everything*?
That, and the fact that it still used some overdone FPS stereotypes at the time makes me wonder why games like the Thief series, Deus Ex, and System Shock 1/2 have never had such fanatical fanbases. While those games do have fans, they don't seem to inspire the same kind of crazed lunacy HL fans bring to the table. Am I missing something? Reinstalling and playing it now seems... boring, honestly. And I guess my last nitpick was how Sierra/Valve liked to push forward how 'normal' Gordon was; an average Joe type with regards to weapons and such, yet he's taking out SpecOps guys halfway through the game. Uh huh:P
Note that I am an avid game fan (both PC and console for a long time) and I'm not knocking HL; I'm just curious as to how people see it as such an amazing game.
I dunno; while Xenosaga was really an interactive graphical novel, in all fairness, Namco/Monolith never purported the game to be anything but that, especially if you read any reviews prior, and especially if you played the "original", which, while I great RPG, was terribly unbalanced and had leanings towards graphic-novel-ness by the second disc. In fact, the gameplay format of disc 2 and on (in Xenogears) is basically what Xenosaga is.
I for one don't believe Xenogears is the best RPG out there, or even the best CRPG out there; perhaps it's a great story told in a somewhat interactive setting, but if you want what makes a great RPG superlative, ie addictive gameplay AND well written storyline, there are far greater games, such as Final Fantasy VI, Panzer Dragoon Saga, Phantasy Star 2 and 4, Lunar 1 and 2, etc etc. That, however, does not stop me from liking Xenogears/Xenosaga. Liking it a lot.
How'd that get mod'd troll? It's true; the article is a modicum of medicrity:P No one strays far from "It's a cool concept, but it's not entirely together yet.". And then we have cheerleader Fargo both repeating and rationalizing after every opinion.
While I understand it if it were a fetish, it is far too widespread to be confined to any small group of people. It's like saying being attracted to redheads is a fetish.
I guess in that sense I answered my own question; it's a preference. Dumb IMO, but then again, I like redheads and many find that equally dumb.
It's weird; I don't understand the sex appeal these games have. I've been a fan of Tecmo for a long time (Ninja Gaiden, Tecmo Bowl, Dead or Alive on the Saturn, etc), but this whole Beach Volleyball craze strikes me as kitchy at best, or another indication of the woeful state games have fallen into (and society as an extension, but that's a bit dramatic:P ) at worst.
Can someone who really finds these cartoon women sexy please enlighten me? I've approached this in the past with an open mind, and have always come away completely baffled.
I have no doubt that there are plenty of shifty employers that partake in such lame acts, but you have to admit that there are plenty of employees who have brought that unto themselves as well.
As for resumes and such, if it's in the interest of the company, of course you should have it on your computer. The poster was clearly indicating that he was leaning towards the more personal of things; personal emails, resumes that had nothing to do with current employment, and private documents. Again, fine to have laying around once in awhile (it's fairly inevitable if you spend most of your day in one particular spot), but to constantly have it moving in and out?
I run a small production company and I make it a point to tell my employees that they are free to do personal business as (including emails, phone calls, and the like) as long as it doesn't overwhelmingly interfere with matters at hand; I don't want them to feel like they're in prison, and I don't want them staring at the clock, waiting for lunch breaks, other breaks, or the end of the day to get to things. But I also point out that their workstations aren't personal repositories and/or filing cabinets, because I don't need (or want) to know their personal business, and they also shouldn't be tying up too much company time.
Balance goes a long way in this situation, and it seems like most of the posters are leaning too far to either side.
Slashdot Mirror
Does the latency introduced by WiFi cause problems with Live! ? I've got WiFi at my place, but none of the boxes that are game related (two PCs, a Dreamcast, a PS2, and an Xbox) run through the APs; they use cat5. I dunno, maybe it's not a problem?
whoa, those ps remakes look sweet! i mean look at ps1 for chrissakes...
Well I'll be glad to get the PS collection (- 3) one one disc; I have a nomad and they're fun to play on the go, but it'll be nice to be able to play them on the big screen without hooking the nomad up or pushing dropping those huge brick power supplies for the genesis into an outlet (power supplied = 3 for the base, Sega CD, and 32X).
But what exactly constitued as remake? I'd be happy with just ports. Are these ports, or are they adding small touches and updates?
Remember when the M2 was supposed to bring every other console to its knees, basking in M2 glory? Hrmph.
Oh what a terribly silly argument to make. Explain to me then what Jet Grind Radio is? Or a game like Shenmue? Vertical/horizontal shooters? Saying no genre originated from a certain point is such a difficult thing to hammer down, since you could say they all descended from pong anyway, and consoles are so tied to the arcade that you'd have to consider the arcade consoles as well. Last time I checked, DDR and Silent Shot don't have real equivalents on the PC. Saying advances only happen in the PC world is ludicrous; I keep bringing it up - exactly how is Jet Grind Radio derivative of anything before? What *huge* advance in gameplay has happened to PC games recently?
This is all besides the point anyway, and I refuse to get dragged down into a side argument; my original assertation was that there are plenty of games on consoles that are worth playing and are not available on PCs, and vice versa. Basically you are saying that there is nothing worth playing on consoles. Fine, that is your opinion. Most gamers, howerever, realize that there ARE valid, interesting, and innovative games outside the PC realm and don't care where the games are, they just want to play them and usually end up with a large selection of gaming devices (which includes the PC). While you may *PREFER* PC games and the styles indigenous to them, do not mistake that for lack of innovative and interesting gameplay elsewhere.
Hah. I have two friends, both gay, one working for Raven and one working for Treyarch, and they both think the whole 'booth babe' thing is way over the top, even beyond kitch. Not that they're against the bb's, nor do they think it's demeaning or anything, and they're not even looking for 'booth guys', but... I dunno, it's complicated, and I probably can't explain it properly either.
Your views clearly show a lack of any real knowledge of console gaming. It can, in fact, be turned on its head and pointed at the PC world; your over simplified purebred analogy could just as easily apply to the FPS genre, or the RTS genre... and when you realize how absurd that is, you'll realize why the whole comparison is absurd as well.
Of course there's horrid trash shoveled upon us by plenty of companies, just as there are in the PC world. The trick is in finding the gems. For example, have you played any Sega games? They have been accused of creating games so out there/original that most people dislike them, simply because they're used to the cookie-cutter games you mention. Have you played Rez? Ikaruga? Raidiant Silvergun? Sakura Wars? Jet Grind Radio? Panzer Dragoon 1/2/Saga/Orta? (not all those are Sega published titles just stuff that pops off the top of my head)?
Now I love my PC. It has plenty of games that are excellent. However consoles can (and are) just as valid in that argument. Perhaps if you lowered the PC-only blinders and actually enoyed games for their gameplay instead of worrying about what platform they were on, you'd locate those less hyped games and understand.
Uh... maybe because a ton of excellent games come out for consoles that never come out for the PC?
Oh jeeze. That's such a moronic comment that's I'm tempted to put your age at no more than none.
Keep in mind that
A - Any gamer will most likely have a Windows box laying around to play the myriad of games that have not been ported to linux.
B - You have no idea what my Window-Linux-other usage patterns are.
You have obviously shown that you don't really care about games/gameplay themselves, only the politiks(sic) behind them. Go troll elsewhere.
Nothing was lost. A good game developer left one studio and joined another one, which, I might add, also makes good games. Simply because it has a "Microsoft" banner under it doesn't mean the games coming out of it are going to be unplayable. In fact, that's what we all want, right? Good games? Who cares where they come from.
Grow up.
Seriously; I love well told stories and interesting plot developments, hence, I love the good JRPGs, such as Phantasy Star 1/2/4, Chrono Trigger, PANZER DRAGOON SAGA, and some FF games.
When I want a very customizable dungeon crawl/quest-oriented game, CRPGs fit the bill. The shortcomings with these are the exact opposite of JRPGs; weak stories most of the time (there are some notable exceptions such as Fallout and Planescape: Torment) and more of an emphasis on character stats.
It really has to do with the roots of the genre; CRPGs borrow heavily from traditional role playing and dice throwing, while JRPGs.. well, don't. Honestly, to me, they're practically separate genres. It's like comparing sports games and sport simulation games.
The only real problem I have with CRPGs is the idiotic tendency to lean towards fantasy settings, most of which I consider incredibly boring. Give me a nice sci-fi or original setting. How many times do I need to hear pseudo-british like accents and cast fireballs? Heaven forbid someone come up with a cool idea transplanted into a modern day setting!,
Did you even read the article? do you realize you just repeated a version of the difference between C and J RPGs? I mean you just compared two completely opposing styles - FF and KOTR.
Wow, that's real mature. I take your points, organize them in a rational manner, and break them down into nice sized bites. You come back with, "You're wrong." No real debate, no real ideas. Ummm... yeah. Who's coming off as not very bright?
While I agree with some of your points, you seemed to be all over the map. Let's pick it apart in a more logical fashion, shall we?
...the problem is people don't care about Tomb Raider like they used to.
Originally it did well because it was a fun action adventure where you play a chick with gigantic breasts.
True. However, it *also* had a new type of gameplay, namely a 3D platformer melded with a bit of action and a lot of exploring. Very cool when it first came out; the T&A were simply bonuses on top of that (though to me, that was always lame - polygons don't really do anything for me).
Its not original, its the same formula.
Once again, true. Though new moves and some slightly different locales were added, TR is the exact same thing, with little innovation.
Now here's where you start getting confusing.
Nowadays there are hundreds of games with that same premise, the demand is being filled.
What, with vast, 3d environments coupled with exploratory and platform elements, with a dash of action? Sure. And the well designed ones sell well, or at least get critical praise (Jax & Daxter, Ratchet & Clank, Metroid Prime, even ICO way back when, and on and on). Or are you referring to breast size? Well... no game really springs to mind, though I guess BMX XXX fits the bill, and that really didn't sell very well or fill any sort of demand. NOLF2? I guess... sort of. But since it was an FPS, you only saw Cate during cut scenes and the gameplay was very well done anyway. So if you're referring to the former, you're right on. If you're referring to the latter, I dunno where you're coming from.
So to go back to my original point they need to shelve Tomb Raider and only bring it back when the market is salivating for a new game in the series.
What a bizzare position, though you're welcome to take it. Honestly, I think you're way off here. People will salivate when the next game looks good and promises great new gameplay. Simply putting it on the shelf and letting it age won't make people want it. Did you get excited when Namco released the new Pacman 3D? We haven't seen him in a real video game in awhile, and for the length of time he was gone, we should've been storming down Namco HQ in anticipation.
The problem is not 'stale grey gameplay, with no quality control' (see Resident Evil for example)...
Uh, that's *EXACTLY* the problem. Notice Resident Evil is still selling well and getting those saliva glands working for fans... because Capcom took the original, and steadily moved it forward in terms of graphical prowess and gameplay elements. I am hardly a fan of Resident Evil, but if you haven't sat down with the GCN version of Zero, you really don't know how far the series has moved. Of course there are plenty of problems, most notably the controls, but unlike TR, Res Evil hasn't stayed on what is basically the same engine for years, nor does it have a weak story (at best), and the quality control blows TR's out of the water (read: BUGS EVERYWHERE, across the series, not just on AOD).
What, do you think this is because we can get strange sized breasts elsewhere, for much easier, more often? Face it. It's because Core lacks any sort of innovation and has released products that weren't ready for the market with regards to code quality.
A game can still sell well if it sucks, such as Enter the Matrix, but if the market demands it then people will buy it.
Well of course. It's called hype. Star Wars: Galaxies sold insanely well and some of the people didn't even know what an MMORPG was when they snatched it up. Final Fantasy can have an adventure in a toilet and still sell well over a million copies. But sometimes, common sense actually crushes the hype monster down. TR is getting crushed not because of lack of hype (there's a movie out at the same time for chrissakes!) OR availability of p
WHAT? Retaining the same protagonist is NOT the problem (see Mario and Sonic for example). The problem is stale grey gameplay, with no quality control.
And pointing out FF as the paragon of not reusing characters is probably the worst possible choice, as gamers are always clamoring to bring back old FF characters (and what we get for all the trouble is a glorified "Barbie's Big Adventure in the Scary World!" aka FFX-2, but that's a whole different story).
Thank you for saying that; I completely agree. MGS2 was such a hodge-podge of over-the-top pseudo-philosophical ramblings pasted over a decent gameplay engine that turned it into a wannabe lecture on morality, reality, and everything else under the sun.
It would be an interesting game if it touched on these issues in a straightforward way. It would've been a pinnacle of storytelling if Hideo Kojima had done it in a subtle way. Instead, we get half-assed ideas and conflicting ideals coming from the exact same characters pushed at us over and over and over; "ideas" are pounded into our brains with sledgehammers. It's like Kojima said, "Make sure the player gets this idea. Did he get it? I'm not sure. Have another 30 minute codec scene where they go over the same philosohical territory. And another. And another. Oh and makre sure the characters don't stick by their guns either!"
Maybe Hideo Kojima had something important to say with MGS2 (he always seems to hint at that in interviews, hint in this case referring to someone that might as well blare from the rooftops 'This was my message!'), but it was lost, turned around, and blended into oblivion by someone who desperately needs an editor.
Even Evangelion was more elegant, and that's saying something. Hell, XENOGEARS was more elegant, and Xenogears is about as deep as a coat of paint on the wall covering up the philosophical grafitti of a street urchin (though Xeno was still lots of fun to play).
I dunno about you, but my PC-Engine is missing something my Turbo Duo has in a big way...
a super-cd system 3 drive (yes, you can get the cd-rom attachment, but it's like saying a genesis and sega-cd are the same thing).
Well, no offense, but if you think the only two games worth playing on the Xbox are Halo and PD, you're not really making decisions based on quality only, are you? You'd be purchasing the Xbox as well, because most players that are quality-only types (like me) will get every system out there, especially when you can only get things like JSRF, Gunvalkyrie, and Toe Jam & Earl 3 on the Xbox. Maybe you should go back and pick up a Saturn too, as well as a PC-Engine and TurboDuo?
You wouldn't be any different if you had grown up with PS and Sonic; you'd still like quality. Well, supposedly quality, you seem to be more of the 'quality-with-blinders' type.
Can someone explain this to me? I liked Half-Life when it came out, played some CS, but what always places HL at the top of people's greatest games list? It seems like a great FPS: really nice AI (especially for the time) and a story progression that occurred 'in place', but those two things somehow vaulted it over *everything*?
:P
That, and the fact that it still used some overdone FPS stereotypes at the time makes me wonder why games like the Thief series, Deus Ex, and System Shock 1/2 have never had such fanatical fanbases. While those games do have fans, they don't seem to inspire the same kind of crazed lunacy HL fans bring to the table. Am I missing something? Reinstalling and playing it now seems... boring, honestly. And I guess my last nitpick was how Sierra/Valve liked to push forward how 'normal' Gordon was; an average Joe type with regards to weapons and such, yet he's taking out SpecOps guys halfway through the game. Uh huh
Note that I am an avid game fan (both PC and console for a long time) and I'm not knocking HL; I'm just curious as to how people see it as such an amazing game.
Hey, where's Phantasy Star 1/2/4?? Or even PD Saga, despite being short.
I dunno; while Xenosaga was really an interactive graphical novel, in all fairness, Namco/Monolith never purported the game to be anything but that, especially if you read any reviews prior, and especially if you played the "original", which, while I great RPG, was terribly unbalanced and had leanings towards graphic-novel-ness by the second disc. In fact, the gameplay format of disc 2 and on (in Xenogears) is basically what Xenosaga is.
I for one don't believe Xenogears is the best RPG out there, or even the best CRPG out there; perhaps it's a great story told in a somewhat interactive setting, but if you want what makes a great RPG superlative, ie addictive gameplay AND well written storyline, there are far greater games, such as Final Fantasy VI, Panzer Dragoon Saga, Phantasy Star 2 and 4, Lunar 1 and 2, etc etc. That, however, does not stop me from liking Xenogears/Xenosaga. Liking it a lot.
How'd that get mod'd troll? It's true; the article is a modicum of medicrity :P No one strays far from "It's a cool concept, but it's not entirely together yet.". And then we have cheerleader Fargo both repeating and rationalizing after every opinion.
We have brains. We can read and comprehend.
While I understand it if it were a fetish, it is far too widespread to be confined to any small group of people. It's like saying being attracted to redheads is a fetish.
I guess in that sense I answered my own question; it's a preference. Dumb IMO, but then again, I like redheads and many find that equally dumb.
It's weird; I don't understand the sex appeal these games have. I've been a fan of Tecmo for a long time (Ninja Gaiden, Tecmo Bowl, Dead or Alive on the Saturn, etc), but this whole Beach Volleyball craze strikes me as kitchy at best, or another indication of the woeful state games have fallen into (and society as an extension, but that's a bit dramatic :P ) at worst.
Can someone who really finds these cartoon women sexy please enlighten me? I've approached this in the past with an open mind, and have always come away completely baffled.
I have no doubt that there are plenty of shifty employers that partake in such lame acts, but you have to admit that there are plenty of employees who have brought that unto themselves as well.
As for resumes and such, if it's in the interest of the company, of course you should have it on your computer. The poster was clearly indicating that he was leaning towards the more personal of things; personal emails, resumes that had nothing to do with current employment, and private documents. Again, fine to have laying around once in awhile (it's fairly inevitable if you spend most of your day in one particular spot), but to constantly have it moving in and out?
I run a small production company and I make it a point to tell my employees that they are free to do personal business as (including emails, phone calls, and the like) as long as it doesn't overwhelmingly interfere with matters at hand; I don't want them to feel like they're in prison, and I don't want them staring at the clock, waiting for lunch breaks, other breaks, or the end of the day to get to things. But I also point out that their workstations aren't personal repositories and/or filing cabinets, because I don't need (or want) to know their personal business, and they also shouldn't be tying up too much company time.
Balance goes a long way in this situation, and it seems like most of the posters are leaning too far to either side.