Why are you people trying to paint it as "us vs. them" (players of other systems) constantly? We're in the same boat, we just want good game. Don't overcomplicate it. Those games you mentioned were a success because...they were good. As well many other even "more" PC-ones (galciv2 would be my personal favorite); as well as many console games.
We would be perhaps better off without many publishers catering to largest possible audience, on largest possible number of platforms, hence producing watared down hybrids. But it's just a reality that won't go away, so at least enjoy all the good games that are out there. You're seriously telling me you can't find enough of them? (why most of the market must necessarily cater to our tastes? Do you like most of books? Most of music? Most of movies?)
Don't approach the problematic games and their design decision as "consolised", IMHO, that stops you from getting a bit closer to crux of the matter (though you're almost there; much closer than many people)
Me, I am both a console and PC gamer...just a gamer, basically. But like you, I notice that I play pretty much only exclusives. Games that wouldn't work almost at all on different kind of platform, games that exploit strenghts of their platform. In contrast, those that you call "console games", and I'd argue for more precise term of "hybrids", are, like you say, watered down for mass consumption (plus launched on pretty much all platforms, with the need to make compromises for all of them, because it "makes sense" to publishers, now that the platforms were brought together so much closer in terms of development... )
(btw, I hear there is talk of Diablo 3 on X360;p...though in this it might not harm it, espetially remembering that PS1 version of Diablo 1 was, in some way, the nicest one)
They'll do that right when games on consoles stop being spoiled by mechanics or technical approach that came from PCs but doesn't really work that great after transition.
In other words: don't wait for it. It's not about "console ports" (or "PC ports", a term which might be similarly applicable in many instances); it's just publishers coming to conclusion that it's best to minimize costs and maximize profits. One of the ways is to make games which are essentially hybrids of what worked well on each platform (helped greatly by bringing them so close together by MS).
Hey, be happy, that means it's a mature market with big business seriously involved, not only "for kids". That's we always wanted, right?
And WoW essentially has, mentioned in the summary, draconian DRM; you can't really do anything with the game without the explicit authorisation and cooperation of Blizzard servers.
Who's "we" in "we won the battle"? Are you suggesting that the goal of USSR was attaining the stage when we could blow each other up? (btw, don't forget about always present aspirations of Russia...)
During that time all US manned space flights will be outsourced to Russia, China and possibly India at a cost far exceeding the current cost of the Space Shuttle.
A cost far exceeding the current cost of the Shuttle? I'd say that's far from certain...
Since you don't see much point in manned space programme, you might indeed see ISS as just a wastefull science and political project...
But it's an exercise in space engineering, space dock and long term missions (for which the main difference would be lack of shielding from the magnetosphere, hence requiring artificial one, and propulsion system; both relativelly easy modelled)
BTW, there was quite a bit more science done than just the rovers...
that nice turnbased medieval strategy game I forgot the name of
Battle for Wesnoth probably?
Me, I'm waiting eagerly for open Heroes of Might and Magic 3 engine...but it seems somebody is working at most on HoMM2:/ (oh well, it will be a good starting porting presumably)
In the case of military training those "concepts from games" are applied pretty directly. Plus it doesn't matter it's not fun (are all games fun to you?) as long as it's close enough to confuse us internally, to desentitise in real scenario (which is arguably the goal...:/ )
Don't wait too eagerly for the economic scenario in the way you imagine, ours vs. their robots. In case of adversaries capable of waging large scale war based mostly on robots...open war likely won't happen, IMHO. It would be too risky, too destructive (and anyway if it would happen, using human resources eventually would be only, well, economical); yes, another cold war, another MAD. Economic, in a way, in the end.
Periphery wars by proxy will of course still take place, but without great number of newest tech; still relying on troops.
I think I even see which continent might be conductive to that the most in the future...with still booming population that's in large part quite desperate for some time now.
You know, from recent news, those speaking "Come on buddy all you gotta do is pick up a weapon", "Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle", and apparently enjoying it (laughing at the least)
Seriously, some things shouldn't be made closer to computer games.
They have RPGs and are not American forces- logic says they are the bad guys.
Yes, such "logic" would partly explain some of the friendly fire incidents, too...
(and damn, there will be more US troops in my country soon...gotta be more carefull with DSLR + large lenses and tripod, they might be mistaken for an RPG or AK-57, it seems)
Also, did you really not notice comments said by US soldiers, which would be more apt for, say, sociopathic murderers?
It's the new world order: International despotism with a friendly democratic front.
Almost makes you wonder if our typical portrayal of old powers (say, in colonial times) and their attrocities as, basically, a work of their elite isn't a convenient self-deception.
I can't really see how shooting from an Apache at a distant, casually behaving group of people...some of which only appear to you like they might be armed...calssifies under "kill or be killed"
Especially you speak things like "Come on buddy all you gotta do is pick up a weapon" or "Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle"
Regarding WWII & Germany, Allies did want to essentially starve the German population for a few years...and all German POWs were reclassified quickly after the war to fall outside the convention.
Slashdot Mirror
That's awfully small for millions of cameras across the country.
Chances are, they are making crap games, period. Crap on consoles, too.
Hm, and it might give a nice backbone for massive enlargement of street cameras network?
Why are you people trying to paint it as "us vs. them" (players of other systems) constantly? We're in the same boat, we just want good game. Don't overcomplicate it. Those games you mentioned were a success because...they were good. As well many other even "more" PC-ones (galciv2 would be my personal favorite); as well as many console games.
We would be perhaps better off without many publishers catering to largest possible audience, on largest possible number of platforms, hence producing watared down hybrids. But it's just a reality that won't go away, so at least enjoy all the good games that are out there. You're seriously telling me you can't find enough of them? (why most of the market must necessarily cater to our tastes? Do you like most of books? Most of music? Most of movies?)
Frankly, as just a gamer (who cares on what platform it runs?), I wish for such companies to leave all "markets"/platforms.
Don't approach the problematic games and their design decision as "consolised", IMHO, that stops you from getting a bit closer to crux of the matter (though you're almost there; much closer than many people)
Me, I am both a console and PC gamer...just a gamer, basically. But like you, I notice that I play pretty much only exclusives. Games that wouldn't work almost at all on different kind of platform, games that exploit strenghts of their platform. In contrast, those that you call "console games", and I'd argue for more precise term of "hybrids", are, like you say, watered down for mass consumption (plus launched on pretty much all platforms, with the need to make compromises for all of them, because it "makes sense" to publishers, now that the platforms were brought together so much closer in terms of development... )
(btw, I hear there is talk of Diablo 3 on X360 ;p ...though in this it might not harm it, espetially remembering that PS1 version of Diablo 1 was, in some way, the nicest one)
They'll do that right when games on consoles stop being spoiled by mechanics or technical approach that came from PCs but doesn't really work that great after transition.
In other words: don't wait for it. It's not about "console ports" (or "PC ports", a term which might be similarly applicable in many instances); it's just publishers coming to conclusion that it's best to minimize costs and maximize profits. One of the ways is to make games which are essentially hybrids of what worked well on each platform (helped greatly by bringing them so close together by MS).
Hey, be happy, that means it's a mature market with big business seriously involved, not only "for kids". That's we always wanted, right?
And WoW essentially has, mentioned in the summary, draconian DRM; you can't really do anything with the game without the explicit authorisation and cooperation of Blizzard servers.
Who's "we" in "we won the battle"? Are you suggesting that the goal of USSR was attaining the stage when we could blow each other up? (btw, don't forget about always present aspirations of Russia...)
During that time all US manned space flights will be outsourced to Russia, China and possibly India at a cost far exceeding the current cost of the Space Shuttle.
A cost far exceeding the current cost of the Shuttle? I'd say that's far from certain...
Since you don't see much point in manned space programme, you might indeed see ISS as just a wastefull science and political project...
But it's an exercise in space engineering, space dock and long term missions (for which the main difference would be lack of shielding from the magnetosphere, hence requiring artificial one, and propulsion system; both relativelly easy modelled)
BTW, there was quite a bit more science done than just the rovers...
Soyuz, Progress, ATV, HTV, plus soon Dragon and Cygnus are plenty big for that...
Unlikelly, considering their subs typically can dive considerably deeper than those from rest of the bunch.
that nice turnbased medieval strategy game I forgot the name of
Battle for Wesnoth probably?
Me, I'm waiting eagerly for open Heroes of Might and Magic 3 engine...but it seems somebody is working at most on HoMM2 :/ (oh well, it will be a good starting porting presumably)
In the case of military training those "concepts from games" are applied pretty directly. Plus it doesn't matter it's not fun (are all games fun to you?) as long as it's close enough to confuse us internally, to desentitise in real scenario (which is arguably the goal... :/ )
...especially when contender is a modified jet fighter, not a vehicle built mostly from the ground up.
Don't wait too eagerly for the economic scenario in the way you imagine, ours vs. their robots. In case of adversaries capable of waging large scale war based mostly on robots...open war likely won't happen, IMHO. It would be too risky, too destructive (and anyway if it would happen, using human resources eventually would be only, well, economical); yes, another cold war, another MAD. Economic, in a way, in the end.
Periphery wars by proxy will of course still take place, but without great number of newest tech; still relying on troops.
I think I even see which continent might be conductive to that the most in the future...with still booming population that's in large part quite desperate for some time now.
You know, from recent news, those speaking "Come on buddy all you gotta do is pick up a weapon", "Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle", and apparently enjoying it (laughing at the least)
Seriously, some things shouldn't be made closer to computer games.
They have RPGs and are not American forces- logic says they are the bad guys.
Yes, such "logic" would partly explain some of the friendly fire incidents, too...
(and damn, there will be more US troops in my country soon...gotta be more carefull with DSLR + large lenses and tripod, they might be mistaken for an RPG or AK-57, it seems)
Also, did you really not notice comments said by US soldiers, which would be more apt for, say, sociopathic murderers?
The journalists were employed with international newa agency, but were locals. US brought the war zone to their home.
And one of them appeared to be armed to chopper crews.
It's the new world order: International despotism with a friendly democratic front.
Almost makes you wonder if our typical portrayal of old powers (say, in colonial times) and their attrocities as, basically, a work of their elite isn't a convenient self-deception.
Hamas? There is a much stronger example of US hating democratic processes - most of South America, basically.
Uh-oh, the Dutch are at it...
I can't really see how shooting from an Apache at a distant, casually behaving group of people...some of which only appear to you like they might be armed...calssifies under "kill or be killed"
Especially you speak things like "Come on buddy all you gotta do is pick up a weapon" or "Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle"
Regarding WWII & Germany, Allies did want to essentially starve the German population for a few years...and all German POWs were reclassified quickly after the war to fall outside the convention.