Third, Blizzard's beef should have been with the crews that cracked the protection built into wc3, thier beta testers who illegaly distributed copies, and their own developers that built a system that was cracked so easily.
That's like saying that it's the rape victim's fault for dressing a certain way, or an assault victim's fault for not carrying a weapon.
I'd say the best reason to buy it is that it was developed and alpha tested with one goal: to create a game that was constantly fun. Many games, especially MMORPGs, have lots of aspects that are just tedious, but they're done everything they can to make sure you don't have that problem in WoW.
They don't use D&D style or really anything like it, a Paladin is not the same as in aother game, neither are dwarves or elves. It's really an incredibly unique gameworld. That's nice too, I think, to play a game that doesn't have the same feel as all the others.
ook at The Sims. It's a dating simulator, basically. The better you are at it (without using cheats), the better you'll soon realize that you actually have charm.
I can't believe you said that. Does not compute.
Unlike real life at times, you can't "buy" women on The Sims -- you actually have to go after them with love and affection.
Yes...yes. Affectionate clicking of buttons.
It's not even close. If anybody really expects the Sims to be good dating practice, I pity that person's sex life.
I know I read in some fansite chat that they'll mail it to you on a CD if you need it. And, heh, if there is no alternative download method, well, that might be faster.
I don't see many games that provide serious commentary. A lot of games do just make fun of certain groups, Fallout 2's 'hubologists' (Scientologists) are a great example.
Okay...uh...I'm really not sure that was the point they had in mind, you know. It applies, sure, and I'm not arguing with your views, but I think the designers were thinking more along the lines of "When you attack animals they get mad."
The only differences were that there was no 'marry,' but they had the equivalent 'move in.' Also, I never saw them engage in one of the really passionate kisses, but I never played the game too much. My girlfriend would know...
I think the baby situation worked the same way, but I'm not sure. Not that that was very realistic anyway. I wish real life was like that. You have a relationship with a person, have sex all the time, and when somebody calls you on the phone and asks if you'd like to have a baby, you can just say no and hang up!
Guys could sleep with the guys? I didn't think so. I thought it was lesbian or straight only--and I did just play the game, as a guy. Of course, you can still work as a fluffer in the porn studio...but you don't enjoy it much, you get poisoned from it.
I'll go one step further -- I know gay people who do it. It really is just common slang now. Gay means either homosexual or stupid. It can mean both, but doesn't always.
That said, I do try not to use it that way myself, but I'm exposed to it constantly, and ever so rarely it slips out.
Yes and if you go out on the PUBLIC street and down to the PUBLIC store and make some purchases and maybe a cash withdrawal at a PUBLIC ATM, and meet some friends in a PUBLIC cafe, you wouldn't have any problems with a government agent following you 2 steps behind all around would you?
I'm not really sure why I should care what they watch me do, as long as I'm not doing anything I'd prefer to have nobody else know about, or something I shouldn't be doing. What makes it worse that the governement can see me, compared to the other people on the street or in the cafe? And how does it affect the way I live my life? Should it affect it at all?
This doesn't apply very well to me personally, becuase, well, for one thing I usually am doing something I shouldn't be. And apart from authorities finding out about those, I really have no problem whatsoever with everything I do being public. Really. Anything.
But that's not normal. I know. For other people, who are generally good but still value privacy, I really don't see why they should worry about people watching them on the street--or on the big, public net.
Not without gaining a pretty good knowledge of Windows internals. Once you've been, um, blessed with such a gift, it becomes pretty obvious what's real and what isn't, at least as far as processes and services go.
An abstraction layer in a top of the line 3D game where you're struggling to keep the sysreq's affordable for the average gamer might not always be a great idea.
Of course, the reason the games don't run in XP is because they finally fixed the model and got rid of the DOS base. Can never make anybody happy.
Anyway, DirectX is a great example of something that just works. The version doesn't matter, it is 100% backwards compatible. The only differences a program will see on different DirectX versions is a possible speed increase. Hell, without putting some real effort into it, you can't even go back to an older version of DirectX, as far as I know. They really imbed it in there, and attempts to install an older version than the current one will just be laughed at and tossed aside. It works really well for the end user, though. Who needs more options when the first one always works?
Because you can squeeze more out of Direct3D. That's kinda Blizzard's way of doing things -- make everything work as well as it can on the greatest number of systems, while still maintaining up-to-date (if not state-of-the-art) graphics. By adding Direct3D, they have slightly lower system requirements. They pay attention to those things.
Stear clear of the sad wankers because if the need to show you some tits to make you buy their mag then their editorial must be shite.
Now, I don't know the mag in question, or many mags at all, for that matter, but your logic is faulty. The above quote is fine, but you make an assumption -- that they need to put in the hotties to sell issues. Maybe they were doing fine as it was, and decided to add some nudity to boost sales even more.
Slashdot Mirror
Third, Blizzard's beef should have been with the crews that cracked the protection built into wc3, thier beta testers who illegaly distributed copies, and their own developers that built a system that was cracked so easily.
That's like saying that it's the rape victim's fault for dressing a certain way, or an assault victim's fault for not carrying a weapon.
Too late. And it was on /., you just didn't notice, I guess. End of January, I think.
There will be an open beta later.
I'd say the best reason to buy it is that it was developed and alpha tested with one goal: to create a game that was constantly fun. Many games, especially MMORPGs, have lots of aspects that are just tedious, but they're done everything they can to make sure you don't have that problem in WoW.
They don't use D&D style or really anything like it, a Paladin is not the same as in aother game, neither are dwarves or elves. It's really an incredibly unique gameworld. That's nice too, I think, to play a game that doesn't have the same feel as all the others.
Yeah, when your prime concern is preventing piracy, turning over key check methods to another party is a fantastic idea!
ook at The Sims. It's a dating simulator, basically. The better you are at it (without using cheats), the better you'll soon realize that you actually have charm.
I can't believe you said that. Does not compute.
Unlike real life at times, you can't "buy" women on The Sims -- you actually have to go after them with love and affection.
Yes...yes. Affectionate clicking of buttons.
It's not even close. If anybody really expects the Sims to be good dating practice, I pity that person's sex life.
Bah, with an MX card I probably won't have it going at all.
Hey, it was cheap. I'm poor. Leave me alone.
I know I read in some fansite chat that they'll mail it to you on a CD if you need it. And, heh, if there is no alternative download method, well, that might be faster.
Roll the damn dice already! Stop slowing down the fast-paced FPS action!
Just seems like a stupid idea. No fun in it. Why not just...buy Doom 3 or play the original?
I don't see many games that provide serious commentary. A lot of games do just make fun of certain groups, Fallout 2's 'hubologists' (Scientologists) are a great example.
Okay...uh...I'm really not sure that was the point they had in mind, you know. It applies, sure, and I'm not arguing with your views, but I think the designers were thinking more along the lines of "When you attack animals they get mad."
The only differences were that there was no 'marry,' but they had the equivalent 'move in.' Also, I never saw them engage in one of the really passionate kisses, but I never played the game too much. My girlfriend would know...
I think the baby situation worked the same way, but I'm not sure. Not that that was very realistic anyway. I wish real life was like that. You have a relationship with a person, have sex all the time, and when somebody calls you on the phone and asks if you'd like to have a baby, you can just say no and hang up!
Man, it took me a second to even get that. Wow. That says a lot.
Well, at least...it does if it took anybody else a second, too. Otherwise, it just tells me I'm a moron.
Of course, many of those who see the fallacies might still have trouble changing language patterns, at least for a while.
Guys could sleep with the guys? I didn't think so. I thought it was lesbian or straight only--and I did just play the game, as a guy. Of course, you can still work as a fluffer in the porn studio...but you don't enjoy it much, you get poisoned from it.
I'll go one step further -- I know gay people who do it. It really is just common slang now. Gay means either homosexual or stupid. It can mean both, but doesn't always.
That said, I do try not to use it that way myself, but I'm exposed to it constantly, and ever so rarely it slips out.
Yes and if you go out on the PUBLIC street and down to the PUBLIC store and make some purchases and maybe a cash withdrawal at a PUBLIC ATM, and meet some friends in a PUBLIC cafe, you wouldn't have any problems with a government agent following you 2 steps behind all around would you?
I'm not really sure why I should care what they watch me do, as long as I'm not doing anything I'd prefer to have nobody else know about, or something I shouldn't be doing. What makes it worse that the governement can see me, compared to the other people on the street or in the cafe? And how does it affect the way I live my life? Should it affect it at all?
This doesn't apply very well to me personally, becuase, well, for one thing I usually am doing something I shouldn't be. And apart from authorities finding out about those, I really have no problem whatsoever with everything I do being public. Really. Anything.
But that's not normal. I know. For other people, who are generally good but still value privacy, I really don't see why they should worry about people watching them on the street--or on the big, public net.
It's not the same. What you're talking about is publicly and openly screaming, "No." That's a lot different than quiet circumvention.
Not without gaining a pretty good knowledge of Windows internals. Once you've been, um, blessed with such a gift, it becomes pretty obvious what's real and what isn't, at least as far as processes and services go.
Or just run the name through Google.
Bottom of the page, friend.
An abstraction layer in a top of the line 3D game where you're struggling to keep the sysreq's affordable for the average gamer might not always be a great idea.
Of course, the reason the games don't run in XP is because they finally fixed the model and got rid of the DOS base. Can never make anybody happy.
Anyway, DirectX is a great example of something that just works. The version doesn't matter, it is 100% backwards compatible. The only differences a program will see on different DirectX versions is a possible speed increase. Hell, without putting some real effort into it, you can't even go back to an older version of DirectX, as far as I know. They really imbed it in there, and attempts to install an older version than the current one will just be laughed at and tossed aside. It works really well for the end user, though. Who needs more options when the first one always works?
Because you can squeeze more out of Direct3D. That's kinda Blizzard's way of doing things -- make everything work as well as it can on the greatest number of systems, while still maintaining up-to-date (if not state-of-the-art) graphics. By adding Direct3D, they have slightly lower system requirements. They pay attention to those things.
Stear clear of the sad wankers because if the need to show you some tits to make you buy their mag then their editorial must be shite.
Now, I don't know the mag in question, or many mags at all, for that matter, but your logic is faulty. The above quote is fine, but you make an assumption -- that they need to put in the hotties to sell issues. Maybe they were doing fine as it was, and decided to add some nudity to boost sales even more.
I just hate it when people say things like that.
Of course, being able to shoot in a game is not the same as doing it in real life. But according to this, games can help skills in less direct ways.
If you're not careful, your shot will easily go wild and the kick might smack you right in the face.
Would anybody else pay to see that?