The way I play games, this could be a blessing. If I only had to pay for the games I played more than 80% of, I'd only be shelling out a tenth or less than otherwise.
As for unlocking the end boss, I hate boss battles and have been disappointed more than not with endings, so there isn't much incentive for me to pay the $20.
Re:Classic Quest for Glory is out
on
Quests
·
· Score: 1
And the name of a horizontal drain hole in a reservoir/lake.
You can't just not buy it while keeping silent about why you are not buying it. There needs to be a clear difference between not buying it because the price is too high and not buying it because it is not wanted (at any price). If no one speaks out about why they are not purchasing the content, the developers could get the impression that it is unwanted and not release anymore, at any price. This would clearly not be what was intended by those not buying because the price is too high.
Cloud and Flow were designed by the same person. Though from my understanding, the PS3 flow is being developed without his input as he now is working on Spore.
I don't know about other people, as I don't make their choices for them. But for me, I use Hibernate approximately 90% of the time, if not more. So just because others don't know about or use a feature means I shouldn't have it available to me?
When a person can only see the world from their own perspective, then multiple self-perceptually-similar choices seem redundant. But for those outside that perspective, those same choices may appear to have significant differences. Don't try to lock everyone into your own small box; let them have their own small box of their own.
Perhaps they don't trust their own coders? Maybe the programmers denied doing this, but until Rockstar goes through the whole code independently I definitely can see them taking a cautious stand. This could have been done without the knowledge of management - there is precendence for this in video games going all the way back to Adventure on the 2600 and probably even farther. I'm pretty sure I'd be less then one hundred percent sure until I did enough checking, but at the same time if the prgrammers said they didn't do it, it might be worth a carefully written release to help stem the furror.
I just finished the game this afternoon, and I had around 42 hours play time (according to the in game counter). I've heard you can finish it a lot quicker if you stick to the main quests (about 20 hours the first time), but I tried to make sure I saw it all - or at least what I could while playing as an "open palm" (good) guy (Not sure how much is different if played "closed fist").
Have to agree - one sweet game. If you are into micromanagement then you might want to stay clear, but if you want a quick paced action RPG (without too much emphasis on the action; this isn't nescessarily a hack-n-slash, though right at the end it does get a bit more intense) then give it a play. I found the game refreshingly fun - something I've found difficult to find lately in newer video games.
Yeah, I had one for the Atari 2600 (big sucker - red case with black top and white ball); it was awesome. Made blasting those colored blocks in Missle command almost as good as the arcade. (And shooting those other colored blocks in centipede was cool too - if the port hadn't been so gimped. Ah, the good ol' days.)
Who said anything about this being a review? It obviously isn't. It is PR, plain and simple. And again, so what? I'd much rather them be honest about it being PR (which they are), rather than disquised as a review (which most supposed reviews actually are).
Just because they have an actor presenting the product doesn't change a thing. In fact, having an actor do so only makes it easier to listen to because they at least know how to read their lines. Would you rather some wooden techy come out and fumble through the same words?
Personally, I think this is a good thing. Why should we have to hear about the system first through a third party, rather than straight from the source? And why does it matter what channel it is on? It could be on QVC for all I care - still doesn't mean that I'll stick around to buy some crappy jewelery after it's over. A few days after this showing to the public, the "insiders" will still get their grubby hands on the product, and will let us know how it works out for them. At least now we will have so preconcieved ideas about it to temper their fanaticism. Sure it will be just an infomercial, but again, what is wrong with that? I actually feel a tad bit more respect for Microsoft for coming to us, the consumers, first, rather than the media. At least this way we know up front where the biasedness is (obviously proMS), rather than hidden behind the guise of independent reporting (as if there was such a thing).
Personally, I think this is a good thing. Why should we have to hear about the system first through a third party, rather than straight from the source? And why does it matter what channel it is on? It could be on QVC for all I care - still doesn't mean that I'll stick around to buy some crappy jewelery after it's over.
A few days after this showing to the public, the "insiders" will still get their grubby hands on the product, and will let us know how it works out for them. At least now we will have so preconcieved ideas about it to temper their fanaticism. Sure it will be just an infomercial, but again, what is wrong with that? I actually feel a tad bit more respect for Microsoft for coming to us, the consumers, first, rather than the media. At least this way we know up front where the biasedness is (obviously proMS), rather than hidden behind the guise of independent reporting (as if there was such a thing).
I completely agree. I always thought vegans were prejudice against plants. Come on, what do they have against them anyway? Just because they don't have them cute eyes staring back up at you, doesn't mean that their lives aren't worth as much.
Because of this, I have taken a stand - I am an equal oppurtunity eater. If it tastes good, and won't kill me, I'll eat it. No prejudice here.
Yeah, I wondered about PS CS to, as I run it on SP2 without any problems, but then I saw on the list that it only effects 64 bit processors. That definitely narrows those that would be effected by this.
So you are saying they aren't making money? I thought it went without saying that they wanted to make money (what commercial game maker doesn't?), and I assumed they weren't having difficulty doing so. What I was getting at, and you avoided, is this idea you have that they need to cater to non SW fans. I still don't believe it is in their best interest to change the game to attract players that do not like SW. They are paying a lot of money for the licensing of the SW universe, and jumping through many hoops to satisfy LucasArts that they are treating the property right. If they want to make a popular nonSW MMOG, then why go through this hassle? The reason is because they want to make a game for the SW fan, this is the reason they are paying this money and working under the impossed limitations. They are gambling that there are enough SW fans to keep them in business. If they alienate them in order to gather nonSW fans, then they should have just made up there own world in the first place and saved all that money and extra effort.
Why? Isn't the whole point to create a MMOG for SW nuts? There are plenty of other games out there for everyone else. Personally I don't play this game, not interested. But, if I was a big SW nut, I'd be hardcore into it and I definitely wouldn't want them adding any content that didn't cater toward keeping me - the SW nut. Why change it into something for those not interested in SW? That really defeats the purpose of the game in my mind.
Now that whole different issue of whether they do a good job or not catering to the SW nut is obviously debatable, and like I said I don't know enough to go there.
So what you are saying is - no answer is appropriate for this survey.
I agree. The longevity needed/wanted is contextual based. Choosing one length of time over another (especially the ones given, which seem arbitrary at best) for a standard does seem pointless. Might as well go with the average length of time the medium physically lasts minus a hefty margin for safety based on the importance of the data. If technology begins to outdate the medium and the data is still important, then propigated it.
Oh, wait, that is already what we do... So exactly what is the point of this survey?
That may be true with physical mail, but cannot be said with electronic. The junk email adds nothing to offset the cost of running the network that it is sent on.
Personally, I don't like being on any government list, especially any that have the words "revolution" attached to them. Maybe you think it is all fun and games to be a criminal, but most of us like that the internet as we know it is still legal. Your post might be all right now, but if what I suspect this guy wants comes around, your few words would have cost you the rest of your personal freedom.
Why spend an hour or more setting up all that and having to own all that equipment for your "better" way, when it only takes a few moments to do the exact same thing in Photoshop? And even better, if I don't like how it ends up, I don't need to reset everything up, redo makeup, etc. I just change a couple settings. Tell me how that makes it worse if the results are the same and it takes a fraction of the time, effort, and money?
I agree, but that does not make 1337 speak any less valid a form of communication than whatever word choices you make on your resume. This is exactly what I was getting at, the prejudice of one form of english over another. It is not based on fact at all, but rather opinion, so too argue one is better than another is the same as saying purple is a better color than brown. Sure, I probably would prefer the latter for my house, but I don't want my flowers that color. I'll go with the first one there. Same goes with language. All depends on what you want to do with it.
A language is just a tool to communicate. Putting judgement on the quality of the communcation has nothing to do with it, contrary to your belief. Just as there are an unlimited number of uses for a hammer (and most are not creating something useful), there are also unlimited ways to use a language. That the medium should evolve to adequately handle a language is absurd. Tools should be just that, tools. The manner that the user decides to use them shouldn't be hampered by the limitations of the tools, but instead the tools should evolve to handle the intended uses of the user. What those intended uses are will vary by user. Saying that your way of using a tool is the only way it should be used is shortsighted at best; at worst...well those are issues you will have to work out yourself.
Ico was the reason I bought my PS2; I just had to give in to the impulse after reading the reviews which weren't mediocre as you remember (maybe the Frag-a-minute gang thought it sucked, but I don't read those type of reviews so I wouldn't know). Ico is still one of the best games for the PS2 IMO. I for one am looking forward eagerly to a sequel (as long as they don't turn it into an "action" game; any time I see that word as a description of a game now, I turn away and look elsewhere for my entertainment.)
Slashdot Mirror
The way I play games, this could be a blessing. If I only had to pay for the games I played more than 80% of, I'd only be shelling out a tenth or less than otherwise.
As for unlocking the end boss, I hate boss battles and have been disappointed more than not with endings, so there isn't much incentive for me to pay the $20.
And the name of a horizontal drain hole in a reservoir/lake.
You can't just not buy it while keeping silent about why you are not buying it. There needs to be a clear difference between not buying it because the price is too high and not buying it because it is not wanted (at any price). If no one speaks out about why they are not purchasing the content, the developers could get the impression that it is unwanted and not release anymore, at any price. This would clearly not be what was intended by those not buying because the price is too high.
Cloud and Flow were designed by the same person. Though from my understanding, the PS3 flow is being developed without his input as he now is working on Spore.
When a person can only see the world from their own perspective, then multiple self-perceptually-similar choices seem redundant. But for those outside that perspective, those same choices may appear to have significant differences. Don't try to lock everyone into your own small box; let them have their own small box of their own.
"That's just wrong!"
Perhaps they don't trust their own coders? Maybe the programmers denied doing this, but until Rockstar goes through the whole code independently I definitely can see them taking a cautious stand. This could have been done without the knowledge of management - there is precendence for this in video games going all the way back to Adventure on the 2600 and probably even farther. I'm pretty sure I'd be less then one hundred percent sure until I did enough checking, but at the same time if the prgrammers said they didn't do it, it might be worth a carefully written release to help stem the furror.
I just finished the game this afternoon, and I had around 42 hours play time (according to the in game counter). I've heard you can finish it a lot quicker if you stick to the main quests (about 20 hours the first time), but I tried to make sure I saw it all - or at least what I could while playing as an "open palm" (good) guy (Not sure how much is different if played "closed fist").
Have to agree - one sweet game. If you are into micromanagement then you might want to stay clear, but if you want a quick paced action RPG (without too much emphasis on the action; this isn't nescessarily a hack-n-slash, though right at the end it does get a bit more intense) then give it a play. I found the game refreshingly fun - something I've found difficult to find lately in newer video games.
Yeah, I had one for the Atari 2600 (big sucker - red case with black top and white ball); it was awesome. Made blasting those colored blocks in Missle command almost as good as the arcade. (And shooting those other colored blocks in centipede was cool too - if the port hadn't been so gimped. Ah, the good ol' days.)
Who said anything about this being a review? It obviously isn't. It is PR, plain and simple. And again, so what? I'd much rather them be honest about it being PR (which they are), rather than disquised as a review (which most supposed reviews actually are). Just because they have an actor presenting the product doesn't change a thing. In fact, having an actor do so only makes it easier to listen to because they at least know how to read their lines. Would you rather some wooden techy come out and fumble through the same words?
Personally, I think this is a good thing. Why should we have to hear about the system first through a third party, rather than straight from the source? And why does it matter what channel it is on? It could be on QVC for all I care - still doesn't mean that I'll stick around to buy some crappy jewelery after it's over. A few days after this showing to the public, the "insiders" will still get their grubby hands on the product, and will let us know how it works out for them. At least now we will have so preconcieved ideas about it to temper their fanaticism. Sure it will be just an infomercial, but again, what is wrong with that? I actually feel a tad bit more respect for Microsoft for coming to us, the consumers, first, rather than the media. At least this way we know up front where the biasedness is (obviously proMS), rather than hidden behind the guise of independent reporting (as if there was such a thing).
Personally, I think this is a good thing. Why should we have to hear about the system first through a third party, rather than straight from the source? And why does it matter what channel it is on? It could be on QVC for all I care - still doesn't mean that I'll stick around to buy some crappy jewelery after it's over. A few days after this showing to the public, the "insiders" will still get their grubby hands on the product, and will let us know how it works out for them. At least now we will have so preconcieved ideas about it to temper their fanaticism. Sure it will be just an infomercial, but again, what is wrong with that? I actually feel a tad bit more respect for Microsoft for coming to us, the consumers, first, rather than the media. At least this way we know up front where the biasedness is (obviously proMS), rather than hidden behind the guise of independent reporting (as if there was such a thing).
What's more convenient - to put your wallet in your pocket in the morning, or to grab a hand full of change and shove it in your pocket?
I completely agree. I always thought vegans were prejudice against plants. Come on, what do they have against them anyway? Just because they don't have them cute eyes staring back up at you, doesn't mean that their lives aren't worth as much. Because of this, I have taken a stand - I am an equal oppurtunity eater. If it tastes good, and won't kill me, I'll eat it. No prejudice here.
Yeah, I wondered about PS CS to, as I run it on SP2 without any problems, but then I saw on the list that it only effects 64 bit processors. That definitely narrows those that would be effected by this.
There is also Everquest Online Adventures.
So you are saying they aren't making money? I thought it went without saying that they wanted to make money (what commercial game maker doesn't?), and I assumed they weren't having difficulty doing so. What I was getting at, and you avoided, is this idea you have that they need to cater to non SW fans. I still don't believe it is in their best interest to change the game to attract players that do not like SW. They are paying a lot of money for the licensing of the SW universe, and jumping through many hoops to satisfy LucasArts that they are treating the property right. If they want to make a popular nonSW MMOG, then why go through this hassle? The reason is because they want to make a game for the SW fan, this is the reason they are paying this money and working under the impossed limitations. They are gambling that there are enough SW fans to keep them in business. If they alienate them in order to gather nonSW fans, then they should have just made up there own world in the first place and saved all that money and extra effort.
Why? Isn't the whole point to create a MMOG for SW nuts? There are plenty of other games out there for everyone else. Personally I don't play this game, not interested. But, if I was a big SW nut, I'd be hardcore into it and I definitely wouldn't want them adding any content that didn't cater toward keeping me - the SW nut. Why change it into something for those not interested in SW? That really defeats the purpose of the game in my mind.
Now that whole different issue of whether they do a good job or not catering to the SW nut is obviously debatable, and like I said I don't know enough to go there.
So what you are saying is - no answer is appropriate for this survey.
I agree. The longevity needed/wanted is contextual based. Choosing one length of time over another (especially the ones given, which seem arbitrary at best) for a standard does seem pointless. Might as well go with the average length of time the medium physically lasts minus a hefty margin for safety based on the importance of the data. If technology begins to outdate the medium and the data is still important, then propigated it. Oh, wait, that is already what we do... So exactly what is the point of this survey?
That may be true with physical mail, but cannot be said with electronic. The junk email adds nothing to offset the cost of running the network that it is sent on.
Personally, I don't like being on any government list, especially any that have the words "revolution" attached to them. Maybe you think it is all fun and games to be a criminal, but most of us like that the internet as we know it is still legal. Your post might be all right now, but if what I suspect this guy wants comes around, your few words would have cost you the rest of your personal freedom.
Why spend an hour or more setting up all that and having to own all that equipment for your "better" way, when it only takes a few moments to do the exact same thing in Photoshop? And even better, if I don't like how it ends up, I don't need to reset everything up, redo makeup, etc. I just change a couple settings. Tell me how that makes it worse if the results are the same and it takes a fraction of the time, effort, and money?
I agree, but that does not make 1337 speak any less valid a form of communication than whatever word choices you make on your resume. This is exactly what I was getting at, the prejudice of one form of english over another. It is not based on fact at all, but rather opinion, so too argue one is better than another is the same as saying purple is a better color than brown. Sure, I probably would prefer the latter for my house, but I don't want my flowers that color. I'll go with the first one there. Same goes with language. All depends on what you want to do with it.
A language is just a tool to communicate. Putting judgement on the quality of the communcation has nothing to do with it, contrary to your belief. Just as there are an unlimited number of uses for a hammer (and most are not creating something useful), there are also unlimited ways to use a language. That the medium should evolve to adequately handle a language is absurd. Tools should be just that, tools. The manner that the user decides to use them shouldn't be hampered by the limitations of the tools, but instead the tools should evolve to handle the intended uses of the user. What those intended uses are will vary by user. Saying that your way of using a tool is the only way it should be used is shortsighted at best; at worst...well those are issues you will have to work out yourself.
Ico was the reason I bought my PS2; I just had to give in to the impulse after reading the reviews which weren't mediocre as you remember (maybe the Frag-a-minute gang thought it sucked, but I don't read those type of reviews so I wouldn't know). Ico is still one of the best games for the PS2 IMO. I for one am looking forward eagerly to a sequel (as long as they don't turn it into an "action" game; any time I see that word as a description of a game now, I turn away and look elsewhere for my entertainment.)