Er...the multiplatform games tend to be better on XBox? I've never seen that before. Sure, sometimes they look better, if it's possible and the developers take the time, but that's not a given and wouldn't matter if it was. And in every game I've personally played on multiple platforms, I found the control in the XBox version to just be lacking. Timesplitters 2, and, actually, SSX3 both come to mind immediately. More out of curiosity than being argumentative, what are some games that you think are better on XBox?
Actually, if you consider mixing stuff unoriginal, then what is original? Any visual art is just existing colors and shapes put together, after all. I'm not saying that BG:DA, KotOR and CYE seem to combine to form the most original thing ever, specifically. But the concept isn't a bad one.
Erm, he retired right around launch of GBA, actually, and had started to extricate himself from the daily management of the company wel before it. And I really wasn't talking about a long-time-ago, back when he hired Miyamoto, but I didn't specify that, and in fact indicated the opposite. I accept all the name-calling I deserve for that. But nobody can come up with anything great he did in the last several years of his presidency. Not that the company did all bad, but I certainly noticed that their success, and public image, picked up as he started to extract himself from the company.
If you knew some of the incredibly asinine things the man said in his later years, you would doubtless understand where I'm coming from.
Ahh, no. I remember that one, and it wasn't flawed. Unless you mean a different one. The study I remember from UR was on visual awareness -- ability to count objects without actually counting them, ability to really see in your peripheral vision, etc.
The reason I say it wasn't flawed is that they took a group of non gamers, tested them all, put half of them on a strict gaming regimen, and then tested them all again.
I mean, that's pretty damn straightforward. The ones with the games' average quick counting ability doubled, I think. Fairly indisputable. No outside factors within reason would have produced results nearly that consistent.
Some publisher should really get right on that. Try to sign up those small-timers and publish their games, give them decent royalties.
Am I insane? I don't know. I just thought of it right now, maybe there are things I'm missing that make it terribly stupid. But from where I stand, it seems like a damn good idea.
As a longtime N fan, I have to say, this guy's an idiot. I haven't read the article yet, I'm just saying. This is the man who dismissed internet gaming as a fad, and who is possibly a significant part of the reason that GameCube lags so much in that respect. He also, supposedly, doesn't like kids. Luckily the people around him were always up to their eyeballs in genius. I'm glad he's gone.
The fact that you call the first Halo 'immortal' kinda makes me damn reluctant to even consider your opinion.
But I will consider it.
Nope, you're wrong. While for any game, you (or I, certainly) would rather get something good than something now, we care far, far more about these things than the average consumer. The bottom line in video game sales, however, is NOT quality. It's not critical acclaim. Hell, it's not even eye-candy. It's purely hype. You could argue that the delays doesn't do anything to make people less aware of the game, but they do a hell of a lot to kill the hype--the short-lived excitement that gamers-at-large feel about the title. That excitement is only sustainable for so long. And when it's gone, more often than not it's gone for good. And that's probably a potential buyer who will end up with an extra 50 in his wallet after release time.
As for Blizzard, they don't really give release dates. D2 was not 'pushed back.' Blizzard missed their tentative estimate, which they now know was a mistake to make public. Blizzard functions very differently from most other game companies. They only announce games when they're half-done already, and are super-secretive about them before then, for example. They also never give the fans what they want, they do what THEY want to do. StarCraft 2 is all the proof you need of that.
Whoa, whoa! Slow down! Sounds like you're suggesting that major corporations put effort into their dealings! Heresy!
No, I agree. The FPS genre in particular really is in a sorry, sorry state -- so bad that Halo is considered one of the best games around. I thought DX2 could have turned it around, for sure, but I was wrong there...
[Hologram] Help me, Half-Life 2. You're my only hope. [/Hologram]
I expect that HL2 will deliver the goods, maybe grant us all some new hope. But not before Alderaan is blown to smithereens!
Blizzard never announces a game until they've got something playable done. I think that's the ideal.
It might give some companies trouble, sure. But those companies are the ones that churn out meaningless drivel, and stick to projects that they would be better off dropping.
Blizzard is a fine counter-example to this. They suffer from far more delays than most companies, but none of it ever gets bad buzz--because the release date just changes from 'kinda sorta soon' to 'approaching soon-ness' and they never need to explicitly say so. This allows them to carry out their 'release it when it's done' strategy and never get anybody upset.
And it's impossible to say they fail to generate hype. WoW beta got 400,000 signups. And, come on, the start date for the beta hasn't even been decided on yet!
While I honestly appreciate the wonderfully sensical view of the relationship between science and religion, it doesn't change the fact that 'sacred' means whatever you think it should mean, for whatever reasons. I mean, to me the most sacred thing in the world is truth. Closely followed by integrity, then rationality. Human life doesn't show up for another few steps down the list.
Basically, making an argument based on your own value system is not going to convince anybody, and it shouldn't--because that's when you start to encroach on the realm of imposing your own beliefs on others. Which contradicts my own complex definitions of truth, integrity and rational thought: those things that I hold most sacred.
Well, that's the best reason to make the cards optional. If they were required for admittance, than I'd certainly share your concern. As long as they're not, it's fine. Some people like having people fawn all over them, after all.
And yes, of course the racial comment was satire, and the satire was a little more angry and disgusted than most.
I think that simply by using the word 'sacred' you make it impossible for any thinking person to believe you're being remotely objective, or even logical, you know.
Ooh! Ooh! But if you consider the materials that go into sperm 'potential life sources,' then you've really reached a point where the potential, as defined, can't be destroyed. At least not within the confines of conventional physics.
It's okay, guys. Do whatever you want with the little guys! Their spirits will live on!
Well, name a bacteria anybody ever felt morally distressed about killing! Even people who won't kill insects will use anti-bacterial soap.
As far as the potential for life goes, well, as this is proving, any cell in your entire body has potential to create new life. (And if you consider a single cell life, millions of yours do every day.)
Slashdot Mirror
Shut up, you. I looked at the specs and decided, why bother. I've got that nice RAM like you, but only a 1.7GHz and a GeForce4 MX 440.
*Opens case, finds MX label, scratches it out with a pin*
Hey, if stickers make it go faster, this should work too!
Er...the multiplatform games tend to be better on XBox? I've never seen that before. Sure, sometimes they look better, if it's possible and the developers take the time, but that's not a given and wouldn't matter if it was. And in every game I've personally played on multiple platforms, I found the control in the XBox version to just be lacking. Timesplitters 2, and, actually, SSX3 both come to mind immediately. More out of curiosity than being argumentative, what are some games that you think are better on XBox?
Actually, if you consider mixing stuff unoriginal, then what is original? Any visual art is just existing colors and shapes put together, after all. I'm not saying that BG:DA, KotOR and CYE seem to combine to form the most original thing ever, specifically. But the concept isn't a bad one.
There's nothing new under the sun, etc., etc....
Erm, he retired right around launch of GBA, actually, and had started to extricate himself from the daily management of the company wel before it. And I really wasn't talking about a long-time-ago, back when he hired Miyamoto, but I didn't specify that, and in fact indicated the opposite. I accept all the name-calling I deserve for that. But nobody can come up with anything great he did in the last several years of his presidency. Not that the company did all bad, but I certainly noticed that their success, and public image, picked up as he started to extract himself from the company.
If you knew some of the incredibly asinine things the man said in his later years, you would doubtless understand where I'm coming from.
If you want to see a GOOD example of 'interactive media,' a game-that-isn't-really, I suggest The Dark Eye. You can get it at HotU.
I'm sure you really don't care a bit, and I can understand why. I'm just saying.
Ahh, no. I remember that one, and it wasn't flawed. Unless you mean a different one. The study I remember from UR was on visual awareness -- ability to count objects without actually counting them, ability to really see in your peripheral vision, etc.
The reason I say it wasn't flawed is that they took a group of non gamers, tested them all, put half of them on a strict gaming regimen, and then tested them all again.
I mean, that's pretty damn straightforward. The ones with the games' average quick counting ability doubled, I think. Fairly indisputable. No outside factors within reason would have produced results nearly that consistent.
Some publisher should really get right on that. Try to sign up those small-timers and publish their games, give them decent royalties.
Am I insane? I don't know. I just thought of it right now, maybe there are things I'm missing that make it terribly stupid. But from where I stand, it seems like a damn good idea.
My girlfriend was like these demons of whom you speak when we got together, as she was going into her first year of college.
After a year and a half with me, her standards have dropped considerably, and she considers a $5 gift a huge treat.
I must be a great boyfriend! Yeah!
As a longtime N fan, I have to say, this guy's an idiot. I haven't read the article yet, I'm just saying. This is the man who dismissed internet gaming as a fad, and who is possibly a significant part of the reason that GameCube lags so much in that respect. He also, supposedly, doesn't like kids. Luckily the people around him were always up to their eyeballs in genius. I'm glad he's gone.
Bad games don't sell? What? Where?
This is Earth. HUNTING games topped the charts for months here.
The fact that you call the first Halo 'immortal' kinda makes me damn reluctant to even consider your opinion.
But I will consider it.
Nope, you're wrong. While for any game, you (or I, certainly) would rather get something good than something now, we care far, far more about these things than the average consumer. The bottom line in video game sales, however, is NOT quality. It's not critical acclaim. Hell, it's not even eye-candy. It's purely hype. You could argue that the delays doesn't do anything to make people less aware of the game, but they do a hell of a lot to kill the hype--the short-lived excitement that gamers-at-large feel about the title. That excitement is only sustainable for so long. And when it's gone, more often than not it's gone for good. And that's probably a potential buyer who will end up with an extra 50 in his wallet after release time.
As for Blizzard, they don't really give release dates. D2 was not 'pushed back.' Blizzard missed their tentative estimate, which they now know was a mistake to make public. Blizzard functions very differently from most other game companies. They only announce games when they're half-done already, and are super-secretive about them before then, for example. They also never give the fans what they want, they do what THEY want to do. StarCraft 2 is all the proof you need of that.
Whoa, whoa! Slow down! Sounds like you're suggesting that major corporations put effort into their dealings! Heresy!
No, I agree. The FPS genre in particular really is in a sorry, sorry state -- so bad that Halo is considered one of the best games around. I thought DX2 could have turned it around, for sure, but I was wrong there...
[Hologram] Help me, Half-Life 2. You're my only hope. [/Hologram]
I expect that HL2 will deliver the goods, maybe grant us all some new hope. But not before Alderaan is blown to smithereens!
Blizzard never announces a game until they've got something playable done. I think that's the ideal.
It might give some companies trouble, sure. But those companies are the ones that churn out meaningless drivel, and stick to projects that they would be better off dropping.
I can't compete with a 15 year old who can play the game 8 hours a day!
Buddy, your problem is that you've somehow come to believe that 8 hours a day is a lot.
Why sleep when you have so much item-hunting to do?
Blizzard is a fine counter-example to this. They suffer from far more delays than most companies, but none of it ever gets bad buzz--because the release date just changes from 'kinda sorta soon' to 'approaching soon-ness' and they never need to explicitly say so. This allows them to carry out their 'release it when it's done' strategy and never get anybody upset.
And it's impossible to say they fail to generate hype. WoW beta got 400,000 signups. And, come on, the start date for the beta hasn't even been decided on yet!
Oooh, yeah, gotta love serious games that actually use sex appeal as a meaningful statistic!
Hubba hubba.
"Pretty soon," eh? Some of us need more than a dozen games to be happy.
I'll have you know that this week, I played 18 different games released in the last three years.
Again: I have special needs.
No, no, no. That won't happen. Blizzard's too busy making money.
EQ may be the leader at the moment, but World of Warcraft beta got almost as many signups as EQ has subscribers...
While I honestly appreciate the wonderfully sensical view of the relationship between science and religion, it doesn't change the fact that 'sacred' means whatever you think it should mean, for whatever reasons. I mean, to me the most sacred thing in the world is truth. Closely followed by integrity, then rationality. Human life doesn't show up for another few steps down the list.
Basically, making an argument based on your own value system is not going to convince anybody, and it shouldn't--because that's when you start to encroach on the realm of imposing your own beliefs on others. Which contradicts my own complex definitions of truth, integrity and rational thought: those things that I hold most sacred.
You have absolutely no idea how hard it is to resist the LotR debate. But that post would be many pages long.
Well, that's the best reason to make the cards optional. If they were required for admittance, than I'd certainly share your concern. As long as they're not, it's fine. Some people like having people fawn all over them, after all.
And yes, of course the racial comment was satire, and the satire was a little more angry and disgusted than most.
I think that simply by using the word 'sacred' you make it impossible for any thinking person to believe you're being remotely objective, or even logical, you know.
Ooh! Ooh! But if you consider the materials that go into sperm 'potential life sources,' then you've really reached a point where the potential, as defined, can't be destroyed. At least not within the confines of conventional physics.
It's okay, guys. Do whatever you want with the little guys! Their spirits will live on!
Well, name a bacteria anybody ever felt morally distressed about killing! Even people who won't kill insects will use anti-bacterial soap.
As far as the potential for life goes, well, as this is proving, any cell in your entire body has potential to create new life. (And if you consider a single cell life, millions of yours do every day.)