The BSD devil isn't really a devil; certainly, it doesn't depict the Biblical concept of Satan as I am familiar with it. It looks more of an imp, or a daemon. It doesn't look particularly evil. It looks like it is trying to evoke the "devil on your shoulder" concept that has been used in cartoons since, gosh, the 17th Century (or earlier? Anyone?). So intrinsically, it has little power to offend, since recognizing it as such would be the most likely reaction to it.
Now, I think it's the cutest devil anywhere. But I seriously think you're underestimating some people's capacity to get offended. Remember, there are people who think that the entire fantasy genre should be banned because some of it involves magic. Magic not performed by agents of God! (In the case of LotR, not THEIR God.) And that means they can only be agents of the dark lord and as such the existence of fantasy corrupts young minds, etc. etc. and nobody knows what they say after that because everybody has already stopped listening. Where the prattling leads is a mystery that will endure forever.
Anyway, they just want to avoid the possibility of offending somebody, and I don'tsee the problem with that. Anybody who's ever just agreed with somebody because it was more work to argue with them should understnad the reason.
Or...if you take the time to use the VU's you're more concerned about making a 'visual experience' than an actual goddamned game. You see it all the time--games that obviously had a LOT of work put into them, particularly in visual effects, but are still very, very bad. I don't think you're right at all. Well, in some cases certainly, but not as a rule.
The problem with the current implementation of the "scare the piss outta everyone" strategy is that the people I'm scared of are the ones trying to get re-elected.
I don't play that many console FPS games. I like them, but neither I nor my friends put too much money into them. In fact, there are only three traditional console FPS games from this latest generation that I've played much of: Halo (XBox), Turok Evolution (GameCube) and Timesplitters 2 (GameCube). Now. I think Halo is good. But I still thought it was least fun of those three--both in single and multiplayer. Part of my opinion is based on my hatred of the XBox controller, I think, but I'll ignore that.
It was a surprise to me that Turok was more fun. I mean, sure, it's a step up from the last couple installments, but that;s not saying much. But at least the game gave you a little bit of variety. I don't have too much else to say about that. Halo is so repetative that I'd rather play Turok. It's that simple. Yet on GameRankings, Halo has a 95% while Turok has a 69%. That huge difference in opinion between me and the masses, however, bothers me little.
TimeSplitters 2. Different story. How that game, that beauiful masterpiece of multiplayer FPS, can recieve a lower average rating than Halo is beyon the realm of my understanding. I can't think of a single area in which Halo comes out over TS2. I wrote some angry (possibly too angry) stuff about that in my journal, and I don't really feel like thinking through all of it again. But I have to ask any people that claim Halo is some ultimate multiplayer experience, what does it have that Timesplitters 2 lacks? I've heard Ts2 has some control issues on XBox. Is that it? I can't think of anything else. Have you just not played TS2? Then what gives you the authority to claim that Halo is so much better than all the rest?
No, really, I want answers. My head can't take it anymore.
Er...okay. I kind of support that, really. What harm is good, cheap market research? Gets consumerswhat they want, helps price adjustment happen faster ad more efficiently, increases overall quantity of business done. Good for the economy.
For me, the internet is a primarily social entity. I use it to communicate and to talk to people, to speak my ideas and see others. My time online is far more social than an equal amount of time in front of the boob tube.
While I'n not completely against you here...a few points. But here comes too the fact that wanting to much to make money on the technologies can easily slow down its evolution.
Not always true. In fact, probably false just as often. Money is incentive, incentive means competition, competition means a real drive to innovate and evolve. It doesn't always work that way, no. But enough that it's a definite good thing.
How do you think universities can make so brilliant discoveries?
Actually, it's by only paying their professors and giving them tenure if they do research. I was actually just talking to a would-be professor just last week about that very subject.
But, I do agree that society's too focused on material goods...such are the trappings of capitalism, though, which I support wholeheartedly. After all, without capitalism, how much would software matter? You think you'd have a PC in your home?
Conjecture 2: They're watching you my God move man they're already in the house been tailing you for weeks there is no escape--
Yeah. Eyes work better than RFID. But it's funny to me that people think their lives are interesting enough to monitor. Let's say that again. People who spend their time posting on Slashdot think their lives are interesting.
I think this is better point than people realize. I'm by no means an expert on this, so I'm not going to get technical, but the GameCube has significantly different capabilities than other platforms. I don't mean lower or higher, I mean different. Look at some GameCube-only games. Metroid Prime is a great example. Rogue Squadron III is, as well. These are amazing looking games, some of the prettiest visuals I've ever seen. Now, look at pretty much any multiplatform game, or be lazy and just check out some reviews. The GameCube versions of these tend to not be quite as good-looking as the others. So obviously, the console can do a lot, just not exactly the same things as the others. (I could be way off, but I think it does a lot more 'effect' type stuff well, fog and lighting and the like.)
That means that any game developed for the GameCube would be difficult to port to another system without killing the visuals, and most PC's would have trouble drawing visuals of that level even if they were reoptimized. Ugh. High costs just to produce a product of lower quality.
So....yeah. Full agreement even if everything I just said was completely wrong.
They are a hardware manufacturer, first and foremost, in the busininess of selling hardware. They make obscene amounts of money doing this, and if you to adjust the profits of Sony and Microsoft by the number of consoles sole, making it as if they had all sold exactly the same number of systems, Nintendo's profit would be higher than either of them. And you're telling me that their way is bad?
A monopoly? Uh, no. Not even close. It only sounds similar when you twist it like that. By that logic, I think...(looks around room)...that Heinz is a monopoly! Because they're the only ones that sell Heinz brand foods!
It really is the same thing. It's the GAME market that they's need to cover to be a monopoly. Covering the METROID market...not so much.
Nintendo always sells their machines for profit. They do everything they can to lower part costs and optimize production before their consoles are released. GameCube, really, is the perfect example. It came out a little late (compared to the PS2, I mean) and it's got a few parts inside that don't seem to be as good as the opposition. But really they just built the console like I build my own computers--for the expensive parts, keep to just under top-of-the-line quality, save lots of cash, and then make up that barely significant power loss through good architecture.
It works really well for them, actually. They have exclusive games that people want, so those people buy the console, and then, hey, they have the console, better buy more games. And then those games tend to be Nintendo-oriented, so they make more money there.
And even though Sony and MS lose cash on every platform sold, they still want to sell consoles, to get a larger user base. That's what exclusive games are for.
I don't really see what the fuss is about over GameCube exclusives, though. All consoles have exclusives. GameCube just has many more than the others because Nintendo has such strong first and second party developers--development effort they put towards their own gain, and not that of competitors. Is that such a bad idea?
I just want to make it clear that I don't have any kind of disrespect for console gamers. Many of my favorite games are on consoles. But the fact is that console games, in general and overall, deliver far less depth than PC games do. Again, not a bad thing, I can enjoy even the most meatminded slugfest if it's executed well and I'm in the mood for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway, they just want to avoid the possibility of offending somebody, and I don'tsee the problem with that. Anybody who's ever just agreed with somebody because it was more work to argue with them should understnad the reason.
Or...if you take the time to use the VU's you're more concerned about making a 'visual experience' than an actual goddamned game. You see it all the time--games that obviously had a LOT of work put into them, particularly in visual effects, but are still very, very bad. I don't think you're right at all. Well, in some cases certainly, but not as a rule.
Yeah. ETM PC control was just...so, so, SO bad. All around, really, but especially on the shooting-from-the-car missions.
The problem with the current implementation of the "scare the piss outta everyone" strategy is that the people I'm scared of are the ones trying to get re-elected.
Similar in the sense that setting off a bottle rocket is similar to a B2 raid, sure.
Interesting that you want to make sure the proper name is used for a man who reportedly refers to Putin as "Pooty-poot."
Hence my preference for laser tag, yes.
Seriously, the reason I play laser tag is because I suspect it's the closest to that kind of thing that I'll ever live to see.
Wait...are you monitoring my keystrokes or something? Hey...
I don't play that many console FPS games. I like them, but neither I nor my friends put too much money into them. In fact, there are only three traditional console FPS games from this latest generation that I've played much of: Halo (XBox), Turok Evolution (GameCube) and Timesplitters 2 (GameCube). Now. I think Halo is good. But I still thought it was least fun of those three--both in single and multiplayer. Part of my opinion is based on my hatred of the XBox controller, I think, but I'll ignore that.
It was a surprise to me that Turok was more fun. I mean, sure, it's a step up from the last couple installments, but that;s not saying much. But at least the game gave you a little bit of variety. I don't have too much else to say about that. Halo is so repetative that I'd rather play Turok. It's that simple. Yet on GameRankings, Halo has a 95% while Turok has a 69%. That huge difference in opinion between me and the masses, however, bothers me little.
TimeSplitters 2. Different story. How that game, that beauiful masterpiece of multiplayer FPS, can recieve a lower average rating than Halo is beyon the realm of my understanding. I can't think of a single area in which Halo comes out over TS2. I wrote some angry (possibly too angry) stuff about that in my journal, and I don't really feel like thinking through all of it again. But I have to ask any people that claim Halo is some ultimate multiplayer experience, what does it have that Timesplitters 2 lacks? I've heard Ts2 has some control issues on XBox. Is that it? I can't think of anything else. Have you just not played TS2? Then what gives you the authority to claim that Halo is so much better than all the rest?
No, really, I want answers. My head can't take it anymore.
Er...okay. I kind of support that, really. What harm is good, cheap market research? Gets consumerswhat they want, helps price adjustment happen faster ad more efficiently, increases overall quantity of business done. Good for the economy.
For me, the internet is a primarily social entity. I use it to communicate and to talk to people, to speak my ideas and see others. My time online is far more social than an equal amount of time in front of the boob tube.
While I'n not completely against you here...a few points.
But here comes too the fact that wanting to much to make money on the technologies can easily slow down its evolution.
Not always true. In fact, probably false just as often. Money is incentive, incentive means competition, competition means a real drive to innovate and evolve. It doesn't always work that way, no. But enough that it's a definite good thing.
How do you think universities can make so brilliant discoveries?
Actually, it's by only paying their professors and giving them tenure if they do research. I was actually just talking to a would-be professor just last week about that very subject.
But, I do agree that society's too focused on material goods...such are the trappings of capitalism, though, which I support wholeheartedly. After all, without capitalism, how much would software matter? You think you'd have a PC in your home?
Heh, yeah, it's funny.
Interesting thing about the paranoids though:
Fact 1: "They" can't really watch everybody. At least, can't sort through all the information.
Canjecture 1: The only reason they would watch you is if they had a reason to watch you specifically.
Fact 2: Electronic tracking isn't entirely reliable.
Conjecture 2: They're watching you my God move man they're already in the house been tailing you for weeks there is no escape--
Yeah. Eyes work better than RFID. But it's funny to me that people think their lives are interesting enough to monitor. Let's say that again. People who spend their time posting on Slashdot think their lives are interesting.
So they need to buy the controller to play the game and play it right? There's no controller alternative? ...
Sounds like a monopoly to me.
I think this is better point than people realize. I'm by no means an expert on this, so I'm not going to get technical, but the GameCube has significantly different capabilities than other platforms. I don't mean lower or higher, I mean different. Look at some GameCube-only games. Metroid Prime is a great example. Rogue Squadron III is, as well. These are amazing looking games, some of the prettiest visuals I've ever seen. Now, look at pretty much any multiplatform game, or be lazy and just check out some reviews. The GameCube versions of these tend to not be quite as good-looking as the others. So obviously, the console can do a lot, just not exactly the same things as the others. (I could be way off, but I think it does a lot more 'effect' type stuff well, fog and lighting and the like.)
That means that any game developed for the GameCube would be difficult to port to another system without killing the visuals, and most PC's would have trouble drawing visuals of that level even if they were reoptimized. Ugh. High costs just to produce a product of lower quality.
So....yeah. Full agreement even if everything I just said was completely wrong.
I miss the LucasArts adventure days...Ah, Day of the Tentacle. I hope Sam and Max 2 is at least decent.
Well, at least it worked for Galactic Battlegr--oh. Whoops again!
Seriously, until I played it I didn't realize that it was just an AOE mod.
They are a hardware manufacturer, first and foremost, in the busininess of selling hardware. They make obscene amounts of money doing this, and if you to adjust the profits of Sony and Microsoft by the number of consoles sole, making it as if they had all sold exactly the same number of systems, Nintendo's profit would be higher than either of them. And you're telling me that their way is bad?
A monopoly? Uh, no. Not even close. It only sounds similar when you twist it like that. By that logic, I think...(looks around room)...that Heinz is a monopoly! Because they're the only ones that sell Heinz brand foods!
It really is the same thing. It's the GAME market that they's need to cover to be a monopoly. Covering the METROID market...not so much.
Nintendo always sells their machines for profit. They do everything they can to lower part costs and optimize production before their consoles are released. GameCube, really, is the perfect example. It came out a little late (compared to the PS2, I mean) and it's got a few parts inside that don't seem to be as good as the opposition. But really they just built the console like I build my own computers--for the expensive parts, keep to just under top-of-the-line quality, save lots of cash, and then make up that barely significant power loss through good architecture.
It works really well for them, actually. They have exclusive games that people want, so those people buy the console, and then, hey, they have the console, better buy more games. And then those games tend to be Nintendo-oriented, so they make more money there.
And even though Sony and MS lose cash on every platform sold, they still want to sell consoles, to get a larger user base. That's what exclusive games are for.
I don't really see what the fuss is about over GameCube exclusives, though. All consoles have exclusives. GameCube just has many more than the others because Nintendo has such strong first and second party developers--development effort they put towards their own gain, and not that of competitors. Is that such a bad idea?
I just want to make it clear that I don't have any kind of disrespect for console gamers. Many of my favorite games are on consoles. But the fact is that console games, in general and overall, deliver far less depth than PC games do. Again, not a bad thing, I can enjoy even the most meatminded slugfest if it's executed well and I'm in the mood for it.