Everyone is just being nostalgic. Yeah, suck it in and remember a dead friend.
But who cares in the end? The Internet is about disposable information and this things time has come and gone. The Internet is more diverse and enjoyable than ever. Lets stop pretending it was better back in the day.
I hear ya. I remember running a warez server back then and gaining popularity only because I had the insane speed. And your friends with insane speeds...God it was great.
I've played the RvR in WAR and I like it for what it is. My PvP clan will be having a fun time creating tactics, etc for this game of arena combat. It isn't compelling though. Compelling means to force something or necessitate and WAR doesn't do that. It creates an avenue for advancement and is a nice game, but it isn't compelling. And because it isn't compelling it loses some edge. You don't have to be there to defend anything; a resource, a property or your friends. And this is what is so exciting about those types of games and what is missing from todays pvp games. If you aren't ready to fight you could lose it all!
So although I agree with you it is a fun game, it clearly isn't compelling because it is akin to an e-sport instead of nation survival game. Compelling doesn't mean it is good or bad. It just means if the game forces you into a mode of survival from pvp encounters. WAR can be played completely safely. And to some people, that isn't as thrilling or exciting.
I agree 100% about UO. I played that as well as Shadowbane, among others, back in the day. Both games had issues but you got past it because of the true social aspect of the games.
But you hit the nail on the head when you brought up that the meta-game aspects of an MMO are what truly bring the PvP to the next level. And it's basically free once the game rules are set into place.
I hope some of the games on the horizon (if they aren't vaporware) are ale to bring back this style of gameplay. I'm not even sure if it will come back since these games existed in a time when MMO's were mainly fringe games. And with the lush oasis WoW and its brethren bring to the gamer who doesn't want the apparent stress of PvP, there isn't a compelling reason for a lot of people to join in.
Compelling PvP cannot exist without these 3 things:
Conflict, consequence and subjectivity.
Players must have a struggle and fight for something in the game. This creates a conflict that players will get involved in and fight over.
Players must feel repercussions for their decisions. Jumping and ganking the wrong people will result in total destruction of everything you and your friends have built by the community you have violated.
Finally, the sides must not be clearly defined at the beginning of the game. Your allies shouldn't be a gameplay decision based on what side of a coin you flip. Alliances need to be built out of a common desire to survive. You cannot possibly have a real hatred for an enemy just because your predisposed to them. But more importantly, you are forced to ally with those you may not want to because you are on the same side.
These static gameplay issues are the same reason WAR will be as interesting as WoW in terms of PvP and that is to say it won't be. Well, it will be fun objective based, tactical PvP.
But the game lacks *real* conflict, any type of consequence and subjectivity.
They are parasites whose only mission is to freeload and steal form the brilliant and ambitious. They are parasites, providing for the mobs that empower them, leeches they are. Death to them all.
Share holders are penny wise and pound foolish. It isn't about the longterm investment but the quarterly or annual review. Eventually, when the stock starts to lose value, you simply have to make changes (drop operating costs) to make revenues reflect a larger profit.
The good news is most companies just fire a bunch of people. Google just happens to be taking away free dinner.
"Only time will tell. It's hard to justify who can and can't have such weapons when the palying field is so uneven. Why can some countries have them and some not?"
Why would it be in the West's interests to allow this? This is how power in the world works. If you have it first, you get to dictate who gets it next. There is no "fair" in this scenario.
Until they are our puppets and do our bidding and stop threatening our friends, we won't let them play our game. That's how the world works!
All my favorite video game engines are written in Java I hear.
This guy is an obvious troll.
One thing I've noticed is that you're much more likely to work with idiots if working on applications that use Java or C#. As the programming language becomes more powerful, the programmers using it are often far better and of superior education and degree.
And who really cares? It's a game. Winning and losing medals shouldn't be a pursuit of nationalism. Just assume everyone is probably cheating somehow. There has to be so many undetectable performance enhancers that we just don't know about. THG is just the tip of the ice berg.
I didn't think pulling the right sequence of levers, etc was tedious. You may be missing the point of a puzzle then. You are given hints, clues, etc and you have to use these to figure out how to solve the mystery you're given. It's problem solving. You can make it tedious and difficult by not thinking about it. But if you like to think about things and you like solving problems, then they actually are a lot of fun.
I'm assuming you never cared much for mathematics or science either. Which is fine. I'm just saying...
I'd also agree there were/are some poorly designed puzzles and such in a ton of games.
Anyways, you have to remember that gaming is so pervasive that unlike years ago, when perhaps nerdier types were a greater percentage of the gamer population, a mainstream audience doesn't want difficulty in gaming. They don't want to think.
Perhaps with the leaps in technology and what they allow designers to do lends itself to story and such becoming more and more important and puzzle mini-games becoming unnecessary to lead a user along and make them want to play the game.
You still can't beat the "Ocarina of Time" when it comes to puzzles though. I remember that game having the best puzzles ever. Every labyrinth had a different system you had to figure out and it really was fun and advanced the story.
No it isn't. You can't have a weapon on you unless you are on private property or land reserved for hunting for the public. And you can't have a gun that's loaded while transporting it.
Yes because an undergrad doesn't always have the experience and education to formulate such proofs.
But no because an undergrad doesn't have as many assumptions. An undergrad is a bit more naive you could say and they will be more likely to try and figure out something a lot of more experienced people assume is otherwise. An undergrad is more likely to spend time on problems like this as a discovery mechanism.
When I was an undergrad I used to like to play around with problems like this. NP-Complete problems (what a waste of time!), set theory things, etc. I liked to learn things first hand for myself sometimes instead of assuming the book was right.
I never found anything notable but it was fun.
This kid made a pretty great proof. I'm not sure how important it is but I do remember in a theory of computation course it was presented as an open problem.
Everywhere I've worked has been populated by slackers, incompetents and other people not doing their job fully. Why is surprising then that as it turns out, the airline industry is the same? Is it any surprise that corners are cut, that communication isn't always good and that faulty assumptions are made? It's this where everywhere. IF you're surprised by this, have you ever left your house and worked?
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone is just being nostalgic. Yeah, suck it in and remember a dead friend.
But who cares in the end? The Internet is about disposable information and this things time has come and gone. The Internet is more diverse and enjoyable than ever. Lets stop pretending it was better back in the day.
I hear ya. I remember running a warez server back then and gaining popularity only because I had the insane speed. And your friends with insane speeds...God it was great.
Definitely a great idea.
I've played the RvR in WAR and I like it for what it is. My PvP clan will be having a fun time creating tactics, etc for this game of arena combat. It isn't compelling though. Compelling means to force something or necessitate and WAR doesn't do that. It creates an avenue for advancement and is a nice game, but it isn't compelling. And because it isn't compelling it loses some edge. You don't have to be there to defend anything; a resource, a property or your friends. And this is what is so exciting about those types of games and what is missing from todays pvp games. If you aren't ready to fight you could lose it all!
So although I agree with you it is a fun game, it clearly isn't compelling because it is akin to an e-sport instead of nation survival game. Compelling doesn't mean it is good or bad. It just means if the game forces you into a mode of survival from pvp encounters. WAR can be played completely safely. And to some people, that isn't as thrilling or exciting.
Counterstrike has been out for years. Play it.
I agree 100% about UO. I played that as well as Shadowbane, among others, back in the day. Both games had issues but you got past it because of the true social aspect of the games.
But you hit the nail on the head when you brought up that the meta-game aspects of an MMO are what truly bring the PvP to the next level. And it's basically free once the game rules are set into place.
I hope some of the games on the horizon (if they aren't vaporware) are ale to bring back this style of gameplay. I'm not even sure if it will come back since these games existed in a time when MMO's were mainly fringe games. And with the lush oasis WoW and its brethren bring to the gamer who doesn't want the apparent stress of PvP, there isn't a compelling reason for a lot of people to join in.
Unless you want a competitive online game...
Compelling PvP cannot exist without these 3 things:
Conflict, consequence and subjectivity.
Players must have a struggle and fight for something in the game. This creates a conflict that players will get involved in and fight over.
Players must feel repercussions for their decisions. Jumping and ganking the wrong people will result in total destruction of everything you and your friends have built by the community you have violated.
Finally, the sides must not be clearly defined at the beginning of the game. Your allies shouldn't be a gameplay decision based on what side of a coin you flip. Alliances need to be built out of a common desire to survive. You cannot possibly have a real hatred for an enemy just because your predisposed to them. But more importantly, you are forced to ally with those you may not want to because you are on the same side.
These static gameplay issues are the same reason WAR will be as interesting as WoW in terms of PvP and that is to say it won't be. Well, it will be fun objective based, tactical PvP.
But the game lacks *real* conflict, any type of consequence and subjectivity.
They are parasites whose only mission is to freeload and steal form the brilliant and ambitious. They are parasites, providing for the mobs that empower them, leeches they are. Death to them all.
"What went wrong? ..."
Share holders are penny wise and pound foolish. It isn't about the longterm investment but the quarterly or annual review. Eventually, when the stock starts to lose value, you simply have to make changes (drop operating costs) to make revenues reflect a larger profit.
The good news is most companies just fire a bunch of people. Google just happens to be taking away free dinner.
Good point. I'm not sure how you pray facing the East in 3 dimensional space.
"Only time will tell. It's hard to justify who can and can't have such weapons when the palying field is so uneven. Why can some countries have them and some not?"
Why would it be in the West's interests to allow this? This is how power in the world works. If you have it first, you get to dictate who gets it next. There is no "fair" in this scenario.
Until they are our puppets and do our bidding and stop threatening our friends, we won't let them play our game. That's how the world works!
All my favorite video game engines are written in Java I hear.
This guy is an obvious troll.
One thing I've noticed is that you're much more likely to work with idiots if working on applications that use Java or C#. As the programming language becomes more powerful, the programmers using it are often far better and of superior education and degree.
And who really cares? It's a game. Winning and losing medals shouldn't be a pursuit of nationalism. Just assume everyone is probably cheating somehow. There has to be so many undetectable performance enhancers that we just don't know about. THG is just the tip of the ice berg.
I agree. It's about who has the best performance enhancing drugs in them that cannot be detected and beyond.
I didn't think pulling the right sequence of levers, etc was tedious. You may be missing the point of a puzzle then. You are given hints, clues, etc and you have to use these to figure out how to solve the mystery you're given. It's problem solving. You can make it tedious and difficult by not thinking about it. But if you like to think about things and you like solving problems, then they actually are a lot of fun.
I'm assuming you never cared much for mathematics or science either. Which is fine. I'm just saying...
I'd also agree there were/are some poorly designed puzzles and such in a ton of games.
Anyways, you have to remember that gaming is so pervasive that unlike years ago, when perhaps nerdier types were a greater percentage of the gamer population, a mainstream audience doesn't want difficulty in gaming. They don't want to think.
Perhaps with the leaps in technology and what they allow designers to do lends itself to story and such becoming more and more important and puzzle mini-games becoming unnecessary to lead a user along and make them want to play the game.
You still can't beat the "Ocarina of Time" when it comes to puzzles though. I remember that game having the best puzzles ever. Every labyrinth had a different system you had to figure out and it really was fun and advanced the story.
No it isn't. You can't have a weapon on you unless you are on private property or land reserved for hunting for the public. And you can't have a gun that's loaded while transporting it.
Go away, hippie.
"Dumb European" is redundant. I mean, they are perpetually 10 years behind...
Wisconsin is one of the only states left without concealed carry. So it is generally accepted the people in Wisconsin are not heavily armed.
Vista sucks, read all about it!!!!
Yes and no.
Yes because an undergrad doesn't always have the experience and education to formulate such proofs.
But no because an undergrad doesn't have as many assumptions. An undergrad is a bit more naive you could say and they will be more likely to try and figure out something a lot of more experienced people assume is otherwise. An undergrad is more likely to spend time on problems like this as a discovery mechanism.
When I was an undergrad I used to like to play around with problems like this. NP-Complete problems (what a waste of time!), set theory things, etc. I liked to learn things first hand for myself sometimes instead of assuming the book was right.
I never found anything notable but it was fun.
This kid made a pretty great proof. I'm not sure how important it is but I do remember in a theory of computation course it was presented as an open problem.
I'm not railing against anything, man. Just sayin'. I guess I'd ask you this same thing since you're freaking out about it.
I'm perfectly secure in knowing I suck at my job because I dislike it.
Generally, but leaning heavily towards slacker.
I usually play to the level of my competition you could say.
Everywhere I've worked has been populated by slackers, incompetents and other people not doing their job fully. Why is surprising then that as it turns out, the airline industry is the same? Is it any surprise that corners are cut, that communication isn't always good and that faulty assumptions are made? It's this where everywhere. IF you're surprised by this, have you ever left your house and worked?