I'd blame Clinton's lackluster stance on terrorism on our current situation, but there's no real point in arguing this, and I don't think you meant the comparison to be taken seriously.
I'm not a particular fan of Ashcroft. Much of what he's done isn't defensible. I don't believe we should sacrifice personal liberties for safety. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make strong efforts to combat terrorism.
So I do take issue with is your stance of "At what cost?" where you compare Cancer to Terrorism. Yes, cancer, drunk driving, and slipping in the shower have killed more Americans then terrorist attacks have so far. But....
9-11 showed us that terrorists were not incompetent, and not limited by any restraint. If weapons of mass destruction fell into the hands of terrorists, it could very well mean the destruction of our civilization. This scenario is catastrophic, and much more probable then most other armageddon scenarios.
Cancer, Automobile Accidents, and most other ways to die are at a set level. They don't really have a potential to blossom into a much more serious threat. Terrorism does.
Sangloth
I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.
I make no claims to being an expert about the economy, or anything even remotely related. Just like you, I've been inundated by media stories implying the economy is turning around for the last 3 years. I'm not qualified to judge the merit of these stories as I read them, but in retrospect, the earlier stories were clearly false.
That said, it's plain as day from my layman's perspective that the Dow is today at about 9600, where it was 7500 in October of 2002.
I'm well aware that the Dow is no where near a perfect indicator of the economy, but it does have significance, and it is rising.
Sangloth
I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.
For my birthday maybe 10 years ago, my parents
purchased me a game featuring the Tasmanian Devil
for the SNES. I don't remember the exact name of the game, it doesn't matter.
The game featured the Tasmanian Devil running around in Mode 7 graphics, chasing little yellow birds. You had to catch a certain amount before the timer ran out. Each map was short, and looped. Each map really was just a highway in the desert with a different landmark. The only goal of the game was catching the birds, which all acted the same. The game was actively boring to play. I only played it for a single day.
That's my definition of repetitive gameplay.
So long as I am not bored, the game is not repetitive.
Your definition differs. If the basic model of a game is the same as previous games, you label the game as repetitive.
Saden clearly subscribed to my definition, and you served him a low blow by implying an alternative definition, and making him seem self-contradictory.
Being Petty: I'd posit that Half-Life's AI was a very worthy inovation, more important then much of the eye candy you mentioned. I'd rather play Half-Life enemies with Wolfenstein type graphics, then play Wolfenstein enemies with Half-Life type graphics.
You could say that AI was only a change in degree, and not revolutionary, but I'd disagree. The underlying premise of the FPS was changed.
I'd categorize Doom et al as a "Serious Sam" type game, whereas games with serious AI like No One Lives Forever and Deus Ex are a completely different experience.
Being More Petty: Since I haven't played Half-Life 2 yet, I don't know, but it's certainly possible that the super-realistic physics engine may be another major innovation.
It could be a gimmick, I don't know, but anyways innovation is by no means dead.
Sangloth
I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.
Just because Half-life 2 is a sequel does not
mean it will be repetitive.
A repetitive game sets you doing the same task over and over. I'm sure Half-Life 2 will have varied maps, with unexpected surprises. I'm sure that enemy AI will add a large amount of replayability. I'm sure it won't ever be a chore to play.
You could reply that Half-Life 2 will consist of shooting objects, but killing enemies is the goal of the vast majority of video games, it's how you do it that makes it interesting or boring.
Sangloth
I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.
The techno-ish music at the
beginning sounds like Juno Reactor to me, and the
drums at the end are certainly Juno Reactor.
I'd guess that the chorus in the middle is
Don Davis, who did the ochestral music for Reloaded.
I don't have any facts to back up my assertion,
but I listen almost exclusively to Juno Reactor, and have a good idea of their sound.
Furthermore, Juno Reactor and Don Davis did a good portion of the music to Reloaded, and both
are definitely doing music for Revalations.
Although I admitted I'm not a 100% sure, I'm fairly sure, and on definite steady ground.
Being a devote fan of Juno Reactor, I encourage
all readers to visit The Reactor Leak. The front page acknowledges they are
doing music for Revalations with Don Davis again.
Sangloth
I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.
I worked for Nolan Bushnell at uWink, very quickly I heard his complaints about the excessive violence of first person shooters. His opinion never strayed. He praised non-violent games, and was disgusted with violent ones.
A quick look at the games uWink has should show his outlook. All the games uWink has are non-violent. The only games which could be an exception was Scarab and Baloon Popper, and they were:
A) Not in the least bit bloody.
B) Part of the Software aquired from Playnet. While Playnet technically had Nolan's name on it, it didn't have his active involvment like uWink.
All the games created by uWink don't even have a hint of meanness in them. They are all like Pong in spirit, in that they deal with falling blocks, cards, or mental puzzles. These are the types of games that Nolan wanted to create.
If there was a bloody Atari game, it was probably
created after the point where Nolan lost control.
Sangloth I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd blame Clinton's lackluster stance on terrorism on our current situation, but there's no real point in arguing this, and I don't think you meant the comparison to be taken seriously.
I'm not a particular fan of Ashcroft. Much of what he's done isn't defensible. I don't believe we should sacrifice personal liberties for safety. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make strong efforts to combat terrorism.
So I do take issue with is your stance of "At what cost?" where you compare Cancer to Terrorism. Yes, cancer, drunk driving, and slipping in the shower have killed more Americans then terrorist attacks have so far. But....
9-11 showed us that terrorists were not incompetent, and not limited by any restraint. If weapons of mass destruction fell into the hands of terrorists, it could very well mean the destruction of our civilization. This scenario is catastrophic, and much more probable then most other armageddon scenarios.
Cancer, Automobile Accidents, and most other ways to die are at a set level. They don't really have a potential to blossom into a much more serious threat. Terrorism does.
Sangloth
I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.
I make no claims to being an expert about the economy, or anything even remotely related. Just like you, I've been inundated by media stories implying the economy is turning around for the last 3 years. I'm not qualified to judge the merit of these stories as I read them, but in retrospect, the earlier stories were clearly false.
That said, it's plain as day from my layman's perspective that the Dow is today at about 9600, where it was 7500 in October of 2002.
I'm well aware that the Dow is no where near a perfect indicator of the economy, but it does have significance, and it is rising.
Sangloth
I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.
Would braces count as lines?
if (X == Y)
{
Z = X * 2;
return Z;
}
I'd be happier if the braces were in the language... using white space seems intangible.
For my birthday maybe 10 years ago, my parents purchased me a game featuring the Tasmanian Devil for the SNES. I don't remember the exact name of the game, it doesn't matter.
The game featured the Tasmanian Devil running around in Mode 7 graphics, chasing little yellow birds. You had to catch a certain amount before the timer ran out. Each map was short, and looped. Each map really was just a highway in the desert with a different landmark. The only goal of the game was catching the birds, which all acted the same. The game was actively boring to play. I only played it for a single day.
That's my definition of repetitive gameplay. So long as I am not bored, the game is not repetitive.
Your definition differs. If the basic model of a game is the same as previous games, you label the game as repetitive.
Saden clearly subscribed to my definition, and you served him a low blow by implying an alternative definition, and making him seem self-contradictory.
Being Petty: I'd posit that Half-Life's AI was a very worthy inovation, more important then much of the eye candy you mentioned. I'd rather play Half-Life enemies with Wolfenstein type graphics, then play Wolfenstein enemies with Half-Life type graphics.
You could say that AI was only a change in degree, and not revolutionary, but I'd disagree. The underlying premise of the FPS was changed. I'd categorize Doom et al as a "Serious Sam" type game, whereas games with serious AI like No One Lives Forever and Deus Ex are a completely different experience.
Being More Petty: Since I haven't played Half-Life 2 yet, I don't know, but it's certainly possible that the super-realistic physics engine may be another major innovation. It could be a gimmick, I don't know, but anyways innovation is by no means dead.
Sangloth
I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.
Just because Half-life 2 is a sequel does not mean it will be repetitive.
A repetitive game sets you doing the same task over and over. I'm sure Half-Life 2 will have varied maps, with unexpected surprises. I'm sure that enemy AI will add a large amount of replayability. I'm sure it won't ever be a chore to play.
You could reply that Half-Life 2 will consist of shooting objects, but killing enemies is the goal of the vast majority of video games, it's how you do it that makes it interesting or boring.
Sangloth
I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.
The techno-ish music at the beginning sounds like Juno Reactor to me, and the drums at the end are certainly Juno Reactor. I'd guess that the chorus in the middle is Don Davis, who did the ochestral music for Reloaded.
I don't have any facts to back up my assertion, but I listen almost exclusively to Juno Reactor, and have a good idea of their sound. Furthermore, Juno Reactor and Don Davis did a good portion of the music to Reloaded, and both are definitely doing music for Revalations.
Although I admitted I'm not a 100% sure, I'm fairly sure, and on definite steady ground.
Being a devote fan of Juno Reactor, I encourage all readers to visit The Reactor Leak. The front page acknowledges they are doing music for Revalations with Don Davis again.
Sangloth
I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.
I worked for Nolan Bushnell at uWink, very quickly I heard his complaints about the excessive violence of first person shooters. His opinion never strayed. He praised non-violent games, and was disgusted with violent ones.
A quick look at the games uWink has should show his outlook. All the games uWink has are non-violent. The only games which could be an exception was Scarab and Baloon Popper, and they were:
A) Not in the least bit bloody.
B) Part of the Software aquired from Playnet. While Playnet technically had Nolan's name on it, it didn't have his active involvment like uWink.
All the games created by uWink don't even have a hint of meanness in them. They are all like Pong in spirit, in that they deal with falling blocks, cards, or mental puzzles. These are the types of games that Nolan wanted to create. If there was a bloody Atari game, it was probably created after the point where Nolan lost control.
Sangloth
I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.