I don't know exactly what you're purporting with all this, but if I follow you correctly, you're the reason we have such lame policies as the one discussed above.
Are you saying your employers don't give back property which is yours? Are you saying that to get it back, you need to bribe them with property you stole from them? Are you saying you regularly keep personal stuff on their computers? Isn't that a little silly, to be keeping email and your resume there on the hard drive? Maybe once in awhile, you might have your resume there for some odd reason, but that just sounds stupid if you leave it there all the time.
Exactly what kind of sketchy companies have you worked for in the past?
You do have to admit however that large fanbases does not equal quality (as seen in everything from Brittany Spears to Windows), but I'm glad you like it as that's the point of any game you purchase - to have fun.
Well, like I said; the original was fun, and the second wasn't bad, but you have to admit, the series quickly grew stale, barely added innovations besides a few different moves, and the graphical engine was hardly even touched throughout the past games.
And yes, it *was* quite original at the time; previously, there had been no real 3d platformer type games, which Tomb Raider at its heart really is. And originality doesn't always have to revolve around pioneering new, unseen types of gameplay (REZ, an excellent game, is a great example of this). The reason TR took such a drastic downturn was directed related to that - since we were given such an innovative first game, naturally, most people expected something as good, or better afterwards. Instead, we get the same engine (even the eventual Dreamcast version was just a slightly tweaked, high res version of the PlayStation one) and storylines that are mundane at best.
You might say, well hey, look at the Biohazard/Res Evil series; it's basically the same thing. I'm not even the greatest fan of Biohazard/RE, but at least Capcom has
Steadily moved the engine forward (Code: Veronica was huge leap forward from RE2/3).
Created extravagant stories and backgrounds that are interconnected with all the games.
Honestly, no gamer I know (casual or 'hardcore', whatever your definition happens to be) even cares about Lara Croft anymore. *shrug* And I'm willing to give Angel of Darkness the benefit of the doubt until I actually read up more on it/play it (which is why I asked if there had been any changes to the gameplay material in the original post, or other significant changes). But if past trends are a good indication, this game will be one to stay far away from.
Has anyone really cared about Tomb Raider since the first one? I mean the first one was somewhat original (and even kind of cool if you played the funky Saturn version). Tomb Raider 2 wasn't bad, but it was already going downhill at that point. By the time The Last Revelation came out, most people had a serious hatred or Lara Croft.
Then again, those are more avid gamers, not the casual ones, who seem to enjoy Lara's adventits... I mean adventures. When I heard about Angel of Darkness, I wasn't even mildly interested. Has there been some kind of groundbreaking graphical and gameplay developments that have lifted the series out of the mire?
As to whether it's vital for Eidos, I dunno. Like I said, the casual gamer clearly knows who Lara Croft is, and maybe it's just an easy way to maintain market mindshare. Those who aren't really into games more than fleetingly haven't really heard of things like "Deus Ex".
THQ actually did a remake of Sinistar, called Sinistar Unleashed. It was first person, lacked the cool/freaky face that tried to swallow you, and was generally a mediocre title. It was a huge disappointment, because I loved the original.
Cyberball was cool because it was a combo of RPG stats and bizzare gameplay. It played more like a hybrid fighter/rpg than a sports game, and it was tons of fun (and nothing comes close to it today).
As for Final Fight, it was as much a remake of Double Dragon as Unreal Tournament 2003 is of Doom. Huge sprites in comparison, tons of animation beyond DD, characters that did different things and had different moves, better team moves, overall better graphics... etc. etc. But we may not need Final Fight exactly; we need a good fighting game, hopefully Streets of Rage 4.
You're kidding, right?? Panzer Dragoon epitomized what was great about Sega - old skool, simple gameplay in a totally addicting and nice looking package. And Saga was a *spectactular* RPG.
As for Space Harrier, if you ever played it in the arcade, you'll realize why people loved it.
Oh jeeze, yes, I meant 'by' not 'but', which also explains why I forgot the "Luis": brain not reaching hand. And excluding Lem or Borges is pretty criminal.
I feel dirty now. Excuse me while I prostrate mysel f in front of my bookcase.:P
I'll give you that; Blade Runner can be very slow to many people. It probably helps that I read the book it was somewhat based on, and more importantly, I'm a *huge* film noir fanatic (which is why the director's version is a million times better than the theatrical release).
I will agree on the tv version, however. That travesty of a cut is the poster child for allowing more of those TV-17 ratings or whatever (and I can't stand that system to begin with).
I'll have to say that the movie was good, but the storyline wasn't too hot, and anyone who thinks the dialogue was any good should go read a book. Or better yet, watch the first Wachowski brothers movie, Bound. Now *there* was an excellent movie - tension, humor, drama, awesome cinematography and far better dialogue than The Matrix, all on a shoestring budget on a very limited set.
As for watching movies to watch movies instead of reading into them, well, the directors DID want you to read into The Matrix. Did that fly over your head? The problem is, while there is something there, there's not a whole lot of it.
See, the storyline was just a mishmash of practically every single piece of popular sci-fi (lit or movie) previously, with a muddy undertone of religious and philsophical musings. While highly entertaining and even groundbreaking in certain considerations, imo, I consider The Matrix to be just short of being among the best. Good scifi is all about the human condition, which The Matrix touches upon, but never really goes into much depth with. It's basically the brain equivalent of eye candy; fun, makes you think a bit, but in the end, you want something real to chew on.
Examples of good scifi: Blade Runner (duh), Solaris (original Russian version), The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch, and anything but Stanislaw Lem or Jorge Borges.
Re:Human Genetic Engineering is a Good Thing
on
Life Made to Order
·
· Score: 1
First off, use paragraphs.
Secondly, go see Gattaca; it's a very simplistic but effective commentary on this exact subject.
Thirdly, learn some basic tenets of humanistic behaviour/patterns (Gattaca will give you some of that).
It all boils down to the simple fact that while plenty of good will come from this, only the delusional will think it stops there.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know exactly what you're purporting with all this, but if I follow you correctly, you're the reason we have such lame policies as the one discussed above.
Are you saying your employers don't give back property which is yours? Are you saying that to get it back, you need to bribe them with property you stole from them? Are you saying you regularly keep personal stuff on their computers? Isn't that a little silly, to be keeping email and your resume there on the hard drive? Maybe once in awhile, you might have your resume there for some odd reason, but that just sounds stupid if you leave it there all the time.
Exactly what kind of sketchy companies have you worked for in the past?
Shhhhh! No one seems to ever get that reference.
Yeah, I think Tomb Raider will be a classic. Simply the first one by itself guarantees that, I think.
You do have to admit however that large fanbases does not equal quality (as seen in everything from Brittany Spears to Windows), but I'm glad you like it as that's the point of any game you purchase - to have fun.
And yes, it *was* quite original at the time; previously, there had been no real 3d platformer type games, which Tomb Raider at its heart really is. And originality doesn't always have to revolve around pioneering new, unseen types of gameplay (REZ, an excellent game, is a great example of this). The reason TR took such a drastic downturn was directed related to that - since we were given such an innovative first game, naturally, most people expected something as good, or better afterwards. Instead, we get the same engine (even the eventual Dreamcast version was just a slightly tweaked, high res version of the PlayStation one) and storylines that are mundane at best.
You might say, well hey, look at the Biohazard/Res Evil series; it's basically the same thing. I'm not even the greatest fan of Biohazard/RE, but at least Capcom has
Honestly, no gamer I know (casual or 'hardcore', whatever your definition happens to be) even cares about Lara Croft anymore. *shrug* And I'm willing to give Angel of Darkness the benefit of the doubt until I actually read up more on it/play it (which is why I asked if there had been any changes to the gameplay material in the original post, or other significant changes). But if past trends are a good indication, this game will be one to stay far away from.
Has anyone really cared about Tomb Raider since the first one? I mean the first one was somewhat original (and even kind of cool if you played the funky Saturn version). Tomb Raider 2 wasn't bad, but it was already going downhill at that point. By the time The Last Revelation came out, most people had a serious hatred or Lara Croft.
Then again, those are more avid gamers, not the casual ones, who seem to enjoy Lara's adventits... I mean adventures. When I heard about Angel of Darkness, I wasn't even mildly interested. Has there been some kind of groundbreaking graphical and gameplay developments that have lifted the series out of the mire?
As to whether it's vital for Eidos, I dunno. Like I said, the casual gamer clearly knows who Lara Croft is, and maybe it's just an easy way to maintain market mindshare. Those who aren't really into games more than fleetingly haven't really heard of things like "Deus Ex".
THQ actually did a remake of Sinistar, called Sinistar Unleashed. It was first person, lacked the cool/freaky face that tried to swallow you, and was generally a mediocre title. It was a huge disappointment, because I loved the original.
Oh I almost forgot:
Cyberball was cool because it was a combo of RPG stats and bizzare gameplay. It played more like a hybrid fighter/rpg than a sports game, and it was tons of fun (and nothing comes close to it today).
As for Final Fight, it was as much a remake of Double Dragon as Unreal Tournament 2003 is of Doom. Huge sprites in comparison, tons of animation beyond DD, characters that did different things and had different moves, better team moves, overall better graphics... etc. etc. But we may not need Final Fight exactly; we need a good fighting game, hopefully Streets of Rage 4.
Panzer Dragoon - zzZzZZzZzzz
You're kidding, right?? Panzer Dragoon epitomized what was great about Sega - old skool, simple gameplay in a totally addicting and nice looking package. And Saga was a *spectactular* RPG.
As for Space Harrier, if you ever played it in the arcade, you'll realize why people loved it.
Oh jeeze, yes, I meant 'by' not 'but', which also explains why I forgot the "Luis": brain not reaching hand. And excluding Lem or Borges is pretty criminal.
:P
I feel dirty now. Excuse me while I prostrate mysel f in front of my bookcase.
Heh, I meant the Solaris movie version, which was a Russian production, done a long time ago. Not the Clooney one!
I'll give you that; Blade Runner can be very slow to many people. It probably helps that I read the book it was somewhat based on, and more importantly, I'm a *huge* film noir fanatic (which is why the director's version is a million times better than the theatrical release).
I will agree on the tv version, however. That travesty of a cut is the poster child for allowing more of those TV-17 ratings or whatever (and I can't stand that system to begin with).
I'll have to say that the movie was good, but the storyline wasn't too hot, and anyone who thinks the dialogue was any good should go read a book. Or better yet, watch the first Wachowski brothers movie, Bound. Now *there* was an excellent movie - tension, humor, drama, awesome cinematography and far better dialogue than The Matrix, all on a shoestring budget on a very limited set. As for watching movies to watch movies instead of reading into them, well, the directors DID want you to read into The Matrix. Did that fly over your head? The problem is, while there is something there, there's not a whole lot of it. See, the storyline was just a mishmash of practically every single piece of popular sci-fi (lit or movie) previously, with a muddy undertone of religious and philsophical musings. While highly entertaining and even groundbreaking in certain considerations, imo, I consider The Matrix to be just short of being among the best. Good scifi is all about the human condition, which The Matrix touches upon, but never really goes into much depth with. It's basically the brain equivalent of eye candy; fun, makes you think a bit, but in the end, you want something real to chew on. Examples of good scifi: Blade Runner (duh), Solaris (original Russian version), The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch, and anything but Stanislaw Lem or Jorge Borges.
First off, use paragraphs. Secondly, go see Gattaca; it's a very simplistic but effective commentary on this exact subject. Thirdly, learn some basic tenets of humanistic behaviour/patterns (Gattaca will give you some of that). It all boils down to the simple fact that while plenty of good will come from this, only the delusional will think it stops there.