A very large majority of the unknown, but good, games that I play are in fact, Christmas releases. Yes, everybody knows that there are more total game sales, but if this trend continues to strengthen the sheer difference in saturation is eventually going to make the average sales per game at Xmas the same as the rest of the year.
Of course, that's more a function of companies pushing quantity more and more in favor of quality, than simple timing of releases. As any game consumer can see, that problem is far, far worse around the holidays.
Besides, those evil characters are actually playing the game. They're not being nice about it, but they're working within normal parameters. A person who joins a strategy game and just sits there, or worse? No. They aren't playing. They're hurting their own stats, even.
They're working solely to make the game less fun for others. No more and no less.
Come on, people. It seems to me that every Christmas a certain number of games is going to be sold. It doesn't matter if those games are less than a month old! Kid wants game, parents buy game. I'm not saying taking a flagship-type title and releasing it Dec. 1 is a bad idea, not at all. But releasing a huge mash of games? Mightn't it be better to just have a couple great new ones, backed up by similiarly solid, but slightly older titles?
Much more than that, I hate having to wait for Xmas for half the games I want to come out. I miss out on games that way. I can only get a few out of the cluster. And I'm not always likely to go back and catch the remains later. I would probably buy more games, overall, if more companies had more even release schedules.
This is true. Douglas Adams is meant to be read. I don't know if you ever saw the BBC series, but much of it is taken straight out of the book -- literally. Pages-long quotes from the guide. And that's really far, far better if you've read it before, you know? Otherwise, it just comes at you all too fast, you get confused more than entertained. A good example of how a scene can be funnier if you've read the book is the poetry scene. The repeated, "Arthur lolled," Is far, far funnier than actually seeing a person loll. Of course, with my previous experience, I laughed, because I knew the hilarity the show was attempting to capture.
I'm torn, really. I want to see a high-quality movie version, for myself. But I'll be damned if I let anybody I know see it before they read it. It's really not fair to them, since the movie is meaningless, except that it rabs a future first reading of most of the humor. And I can't save everybody from that!
The movie was 2 1/2 hours movie, and 1/2 hour ending. The book, on the other hand, was split 197 pages / 182 pages. Yep, the movie shortened it. A lot.
Oh, no! I thought everybody WANTED another scene at the end! (Personally, I didn't mind the end a bit, in all seriousness.)
Heh, it's funny--you don't see this too often, but I have seen it on a good number of occasions. A person starts ranting about how terrible RotK was, saying it deviated from the books too much...then says the ending was too long. Um, hey, make up your mind? I guess those people just need to complain about something most people like.
A book written solely to be the epic tale of an ancient English mythology done up in the modern styles of the far East? I think that's just about the only thing more twisted than the HOllywood version. Not saying it would be bad, but still...twisted.
Well...that's a bit of a simplification. The Noldor weren't so much out for power as they were out to reclaim what they saw as theirs--and they certainly had SOME claim to the Silmarils, at least. Remember that they were driven by the murder of Finwe, as well, first death in Aman. And after that, well, a lot of them were just kind of following the charismatic leader Feanor.
Though if Galadriel was one of the real 'followers' I doubt Feanor would have chosen her to be among those abandoned along the way.
I rather liked the opening scene of TT. I know it was primarily to catch the audience's attention, and to attempt to refresh their memories on the first movie, but I just like the way it made Gandalf look as crazy-cool as any Maiar should. Plus it gave you an idea of the scale annd length of the battle...I mean, they fought all the way back UP, and then some?
Then again, I have always been a sucker for exactly that kind of eye candy...
Actually, I really don't think that scene was going for a laugh. I think it was an attempt at being serious. I just don't know how it could have been done better. I mean, he's gotta set himself on fire and die, okay. Now, I'll list four ways of doing it.
1) He stands in one place, as he is engulfed in flames, maybe screaming a bit, but not moving.
2) He runs around a bit, but not off a cliff.
Okay, neither of those work well. How do you end that scene? Do you just watch a guy burn for a few minutes until he looks dead? The scene will look awkward as it happens, and it will end even more awkwardly.
3) We just mention that he burned himself, but don't show it.
Pfft. Please.
4) He runs flaming off a cliff.
No, it's not good. But at least it's quickly apparent that he's dead, and that allows a quick transition, which is absolutely necessary in such a fast-paced plot.
It was, easily, the most problematic scene in the movie. But you fail to address part of the parent's point, that you might not be able to come up with a solution that's actually better.
A lot of the reason he's more tragic in the book comes from the Palantir and Sauron's manipulation. I'm pretty sure that's one of the things they cut, so...extended edition.
I'd wager something similar could be said about nearly any software, really. It's fucked up logically, but I'm pretty sure it's cool legally. Silly system.
Besides, something makes me look a "terms of use" differently than a "license agreement." That's probably because a EULA means that you agree to certain truths on installing a piece of software (ie., we're spying on you now, and you like it!) while a ToU is really just a set of rules to follow.
On your typical XP install the salute just brigs up the task manager. Nothing more, nothing less. Doesn't even halt (or even take precedence over, as far as I can tell) other processes.
I take issue with that, really. I need something a bit more forceful when the program I write does NOT do what it's supposed to.
I was dealing with comparable temps that day, yes. Of course, the fact that the narrow walkways between buildings did a damn fine job up upping the windspeed to hurricane-levels (Yeah, I'm pretty sure I mean that literally, watching the smaller people get tossed around like ragdolls is hilarious) made it much worse, and something like -60 with the windchill. And you've managed to make me remember what that was like, in all it's horror. Damn you.
Actually, after seeing your post, I decided to check out the bNet Terms of Use. Basically, you're not allowed to be an asshole. A few things you can't do, copy-pasted:
"harass, threaten, stalk, embarrass, or cause distress, unwanted attention, or discomfort upon another user of Battle.net or other person or entity;"
"cheat during game play,"
"carry out any action with a disruptive effect, such as causing the screen to "scroll" faster than other users are able to type to it;"
"disrupt the normal flow of dialog in a chat room or otherwise act in a manner that negatively affects other users, individuals, or entities, including, but not limited to, posting "Spam" messages on Battle.net. "Spam" messages as used herein include, but are not limited to, any effort to use a computer or other electronic device to post an unauthorized and/or unsolicited advertisement to Battle.net;"
I'd say griefing is covered by both the first and second ones I listed...Also, it says that if you violate any of those rules, you can be immediately, without warning, banned, permanently or temporarily. Of course.
That picture does a ridiculously good job of reminding me of one of the Roger Wilco games, making me feel nostalgic and mising my younger days. I am now depressed, for they are gone forever.
Yeah. I got nothing. That was a bastard thing to do. But that was Vivendi-initiated, funded, and carried out, in Blizzard's name. Sure, sure, like I said, that's still reason to boycott Blizzard if that's your kind of thing. But remember, Vivendi's also reaping the profits from other games--Half-Life 2 soon to be included. If you're going to boycott Blizzard games for their legal actions, don't buy Half-Life 2. Nor the new Counterstrike (of course), nor Dark Alliance II, if that's more your kind of game.
Not saying you were planning on putting money into any of those games anyway, I don't pretend to know these things.
I'm excited about it. I've never liked an MMORPG. Bored within a month? I've always been bored within hours. THis game promises not to do that to me, at least.
Axtually, yes, large-scale imports are bad for the economy. If you measure by GDP, part of the equation is subtracting imports...though the difference it makes is far, far greater than it might seem. I don't know current average spending habits, but i'd expect that each $70,000 job turned into a $8,000 job for an Indian probably put the American economy at least $300,000 in the hole--meanwhile helping the Indian economy far, far less than that, I might add.
I think EULA's should exist, and should be enforcable, but (at least the ones we see now) should rarely be enforced. So I'm an idealist. Blizzard's anti-piracy basically consists of key checking. bnetd made that ineffective. The only way to protect their softwarewas to shut it down. It was a justifiable decision. While modifying their software can harm them, and is so prohibited, mods don't, and so shouldn't be acted against. Blizzard doesn't act against them, except in the case of the SC->War3 conversion that they stopped because it was basically taking their parts and making a free game that looked a lot like War3.
Anyway, in the case of any of Blizzard's lawsuits, it's Vivendi that's to blame. Blizzard doesn't go to them and say, help us sue them, Vivendi goes to them and tells them they have to sue them. I know that has no effect on any boycott, just clearing it up.
Well, for one thing, you can play WarCraft 3 on a LAN. It's a supported heature. I do it all the time. For another, latency issues that you may have in game are NOT caused by bNet, which is simply a matchmaking service. You can lose your connection to bNet completely and keep on playing. Happens to me a lot.
Blizzard still has prently of competition, competition from other games. It's not like they lose business to bnetd, since you still need to buy their games to play--oh, unless you pirate them. Interesting thing about bnetd was always that it didn't do any key checking. Why's that?
Slashdot Mirror
A very large majority of the unknown, but good, games that I play are in fact, Christmas releases. Yes, everybody knows that there are more total game sales, but if this trend continues to strengthen the sheer difference in saturation is eventually going to make the average sales per game at Xmas the same as the rest of the year.
Of course, that's more a function of companies pushing quantity more and more in favor of quality, than simple timing of releases. As any game consumer can see, that problem is far, far worse around the holidays.
Erm...have you ever played a strategy game?
Besides, those evil characters are actually playing the game. They're not being nice about it, but they're working within normal parameters. A person who joins a strategy game and just sits there, or worse? No. They aren't playing. They're hurting their own stats, even.
They're working solely to make the game less fun for others. No more and no less.
Come on, people. It seems to me that every Christmas a certain number of games is going to be sold. It doesn't matter if those games are less than a month old! Kid wants game, parents buy game. I'm not saying taking a flagship-type title and releasing it Dec. 1 is a bad idea, not at all. But releasing a huge mash of games? Mightn't it be better to just have a couple great new ones, backed up by similiarly solid, but slightly older titles?
Much more than that, I hate having to wait for Xmas for half the games I want to come out. I miss out on games that way. I can only get a few out of the cluster. And I'm not always likely to go back and catch the remains later. I would probably buy more games, overall, if more companies had more even release schedules.
This is true. Douglas Adams is meant to be read. I don't know if you ever saw the BBC series, but much of it is taken straight out of the book -- literally. Pages-long quotes from the guide. And that's really far, far better if you've read it before, you know? Otherwise, it just comes at you all too fast, you get confused more than entertained. A good example of how a scene can be funnier if you've read the book is the poetry scene. The repeated, "Arthur lolled," Is far, far funnier than actually seeing a person loll. Of course, with my previous experience, I laughed, because I knew the hilarity the show was attempting to capture.
I'm torn, really. I want to see a high-quality movie version, for myself. But I'll be damned if I let anybody I know see it before they read it. It's really not fair to them, since the movie is meaningless, except that it rabs a future first reading of most of the humor. And I can't save everybody from that!
The movie was 2 1/2 hours movie, and 1/2 hour ending. The book, on the other hand, was split 197 pages / 182 pages. Yep, the movie shortened it. A lot.
Oh, no! I thought everybody WANTED another scene at the end! (Personally, I didn't mind the end a bit, in all seriousness.)
Heh, it's funny--you don't see this too often, but I have seen it on a good number of occasions. A person starts ranting about how terrible RotK was, saying it deviated from the books too much...then says the ending was too long. Um, hey, make up your mind? I guess those people just need to complain about something most people like.
A book written solely to be the epic tale of an ancient English mythology done up in the modern styles of the far East? I think that's just about the only thing more twisted than the HOllywood version. Not saying it would be bad, but still...twisted.
Well...that's a bit of a simplification. The Noldor weren't so much out for power as they were out to reclaim what they saw as theirs--and they certainly had SOME claim to the Silmarils, at least. Remember that they were driven by the murder of Finwe, as well, first death in Aman. And after that, well, a lot of them were just kind of following the charismatic leader Feanor.
Though if Galadriel was one of the real 'followers' I doubt Feanor would have chosen her to be among those abandoned along the way.
I rather liked the opening scene of TT. I know it was primarily to catch the audience's attention, and to attempt to refresh their memories on the first movie, but I just like the way it made Gandalf look as crazy-cool as any Maiar should. Plus it gave you an idea of the scale annd length of the battle...I mean, they fought all the way back UP, and then some?
Then again, I have always been a sucker for exactly that kind of eye candy...
Actually, I really don't think that scene was going for a laugh. I think it was an attempt at being serious. I just don't know how it could have been done better. I mean, he's gotta set himself on fire and die, okay. Now, I'll list four ways of doing it.
1) He stands in one place, as he is engulfed in flames, maybe screaming a bit, but not moving.
2) He runs around a bit, but not off a cliff.
Okay, neither of those work well. How do you end that scene? Do you just watch a guy burn for a few minutes until he looks dead? The scene will look awkward as it happens, and it will end even more awkwardly.
3) We just mention that he burned himself, but don't show it.
Pfft. Please.
4) He runs flaming off a cliff.
No, it's not good. But at least it's quickly apparent that he's dead, and that allows a quick transition, which is absolutely necessary in such a fast-paced plot.
It was, easily, the most problematic scene in the movie. But you fail to address part of the parent's point, that you might not be able to come up with a solution that's actually better.
A lot of the reason he's more tragic in the book comes from the Palantir and Sauron's manipulation. I'm pretty sure that's one of the things they cut, so...extended edition.
I'd wager something similar could be said about nearly any software, really. It's fucked up logically, but I'm pretty sure it's cool legally. Silly system.
Besides, something makes me look a "terms of use" differently than a "license agreement." That's probably because a EULA means that you agree to certain truths on installing a piece of software (ie., we're spying on you now, and you like it!) while a ToU is really just a set of rules to follow.
Unfortunately I appreciate Fast User Switching, which I actually use, strange as it may be. Thanks for playing, though.
On your typical XP install the salute just brigs up the task manager. Nothing more, nothing less. Doesn't even halt (or even take precedence over, as far as I can tell) other processes.
I take issue with that, really. I need something a bit more forceful when the program I write does NOT do what it's supposed to.
I was dealing with comparable temps that day, yes. Of course, the fact that the narrow walkways between buildings did a damn fine job up upping the windspeed to hurricane-levels (Yeah, I'm pretty sure I mean that literally, watching the smaller people get tossed around like ragdolls is hilarious) made it much worse, and something like -60 with the windchill. And you've managed to make me remember what that was like, in all it's horror. Damn you.
Actually, after seeing your post, I decided to check out the bNet Terms of Use. Basically, you're not allowed to be an asshole. A few things you can't do, copy-pasted:
"harass, threaten, stalk, embarrass, or cause distress, unwanted attention, or discomfort upon another user of Battle.net or other person or entity;"
"cheat during game play,"
"carry out any action with a disruptive effect, such as causing the screen to "scroll" faster than other users are able to type to it;"
"disrupt the normal flow of dialog in a chat room or otherwise act in a manner that negatively affects other users, individuals, or entities, including, but not limited to, posting "Spam" messages on Battle.net. "Spam" messages as used herein include, but are not limited to, any effort to use a computer or other electronic device to post an unauthorized and/or unsolicited advertisement to Battle.net;"
I'd say griefing is covered by both the first and second ones I listed...Also, it says that if you violate any of those rules, you can be immediately, without warning, banned, permanently or temporarily. Of course.
Heh...I like it.
I agree with everything you said and think, but I have to cringe when I think of the number of replays they'll have to personally go though for this.
And then I applaud them all the more for it, though I pretty much never play anymore.
Erm...if they're griefing, it's not likely they're in it for the points. You DO lose points if you lose.
That picture does a ridiculously good job of reminding me of one of the Roger Wilco games, making me feel nostalgic and mising my younger days. I am now depressed, for they are gone forever.
Fuck you, NASA, you ruined my life.
I sympathize with a fellow resident of the area which I now refer to as Freezing Hell.
On the 14th, Spirit was warmer than the people in my hometown.
Yeah. I got nothing. That was a bastard thing to do. But that was Vivendi-initiated, funded, and carried out, in Blizzard's name. Sure, sure, like I said, that's still reason to boycott Blizzard if that's your kind of thing. But remember, Vivendi's also reaping the profits from other games--Half-Life 2 soon to be included. If you're going to boycott Blizzard games for their legal actions, don't buy Half-Life 2. Nor the new Counterstrike (of course), nor Dark Alliance II, if that's more your kind of game.
Not saying you were planning on putting money into any of those games anyway, I don't pretend to know these things.
I'm excited about it. I've never liked an MMORPG. Bored within a month? I've always been bored within hours. THis game promises not to do that to me, at least.
Axtually, yes, large-scale imports are bad for the economy. If you measure by GDP, part of the equation is subtracting imports...though the difference it makes is far, far greater than it might seem. I don't know current average spending habits, but i'd expect that each $70,000 job turned into a $8,000 job for an Indian probably put the American economy at least $300,000 in the hole--meanwhile helping the Indian economy far, far less than that, I might add.
I think EULA's should exist, and should be enforcable, but (at least the ones we see now) should rarely be enforced. So I'm an idealist. Blizzard's anti-piracy basically consists of key checking. bnetd made that ineffective. The only way to protect their softwarewas to shut it down. It was a justifiable decision. While modifying their software can harm them, and is so prohibited, mods don't, and so shouldn't be acted against. Blizzard doesn't act against them, except in the case of the SC->War3 conversion that they stopped because it was basically taking their parts and making a free game that looked a lot like War3.
Anyway, in the case of any of Blizzard's lawsuits, it's Vivendi that's to blame. Blizzard doesn't go to them and say, help us sue them, Vivendi goes to them and tells them they have to sue them. I know that has no effect on any boycott, just clearing it up.
Well, for one thing, you can play WarCraft 3 on a LAN. It's a supported heature. I do it all the time. For another, latency issues that you may have in game are NOT caused by bNet, which is simply a matchmaking service. You can lose your connection to bNet completely and keep on playing. Happens to me a lot.
Blizzard still has prently of competition, competition from other games. It's not like they lose business to bnetd, since you still need to buy their games to play--oh, unless you pirate them. Interesting thing about bnetd was always that it didn't do any key checking. Why's that?