Not only, as XemonerdX pointed out, did Killer Instinct have combo-breakers, but there were a number of other games with parrying at least a year or two before SFIII. Dead Or Alive and Soul Edge spring to mind.
I'm not a Capcom hater who thinks we should rank on them for being less-than-innovative but we shouldn't automatically assume their supremacy just because SFII defined the genre.
Of course it's symptomatic of a bigger issue. The issue is that you've got a gaming industry editor for a Linux magazine trying to play emulated Windows games. Is there anyone who expected the process wouldn't be a giant pain in the ass?
When we play emulated Nintendo games on other consoles or our PCs, there's always some glitch. If the sound cuts out or a character's animation begins to loop, that's just the way it goes. Come back after the next revision and see if the emulator has been fine tuned to handle that specific game. She admits trying only two games with Cedega before writing the experience off as too frustrating.
I'm really happy to see her investigative journalism turn up the shocking truth about the industry: many games run Linux on their backends. But it's sad to see her expectations for the emulation of Windows clients are so unreasonable.
Seriously, if you want a hassle free Linux gaming experience, go back to playing Tux Racer.
I guess if the lead for Sam And Max got canned, then the protestors can fold their flag and go home.
I'm not surprised to see Lucasarts pulling their support from the adventure titles. They see it as a dead genre and want to focus more money and development on guaranteed sellers like Galaxies and Jedi Knight. I only wish they would realize how wrong they are.
1) I was using the analogy to refer to Dell as the source for support rather than initial production. If only Honda sold car insurance, then we'd be together on this one.
2) You're absolutely right. I was probably reading too much into the commentary pointing to Dell's own anti-spyware and leaping directly to the conclusion they were entirely against the creepy shit. Instead, I should recall the crap that came installed on my old Dell.
In the open letter from the anti-spyware community, they say a representative from Dell informed them the response would be: "Call your ISP."
If that's true, it's a travesty. That's like your car insurance provider telling you that dealing with damage to your vehicle from a collision should be dealt with by the Department of Transportation.
I don't understand why Dell doesn't grab the bull by the horns and partner up with somebody. Isn't that what all the pre-packaged computer companies do these days? They all have a buddy in the anti-virus industry. When digital music became the craze, they leapt to bundle MusicMatch and the like. Why not call up LavaSoft and say, "Want to get packed in with everything we sell?" Dell's choice seems like a step away from gaining customer confidence.
If someone said to you, "There's a new electromagnetic weapon powerful enough to disrupt the computer systems running most modern attack vehicles. It may save countless lives but it could also fall into the wrong hands. What is your take on this kind of weapon?" You wouldn't respond, "I can't render a verdict until I've fired one."
It's not necessary to have used something to form an opinion about what it does. The question was not posed to you to determine if you felt QTFairUse had a nice GUI or needed more usability testing. The interviewer gave you a basic understanding of the tool then asked how you felt about it and, by extension, it's potential uses. By sidestepping the issue he presented--"On one hand, the program may provide fair-use, on the other hand, this may in practice be the silver-bullet to the first functioning commercial alternative to more or less illegal downloading through for example Kazaa"--you left readers without an answer.
As I see it, either you consciously chose to ignore the question and didn't explain why, or you misunderstood the question and missed an opportunity to speak on one of the most important aspects of this whole debate: What about the people who, for whatever purpose, forever seem to be circumventing the plans that are put in place? We wouldn't be reading the article if we didn't think your opinion mattered, so stop hiding behind your "delight in digits" and say something concrete.
Jim Griffin sounds very knowledgeable about this subject but he also spins some serious hippie crap that makes me doubt his theories and opinions.
I have no particular take on QTFairUse. I simply acknowledge, accept and find delight in digits -- especially those carrying art, knowledge and creativity -- bionomically finding the shortest, most efficient and effective path from source to destination.
Yeah, that's the biggest cop out to a serious question ever.
I wish he'd just come out and say it in plain English:
Our path to progress is clear: Tolerate risk, but anticipate its consequences and address them through actuarial means, by pooling fees and allocating their rewards to risk takers such as artists and rights holders. Paying into actuarial network funds should be no more voluntary than ought be automobile insurance.
In other words, everyone should pay a "music listening tax" regardless of how much music they listen to. Those who listen to a lot get great value from the taxation and those who listen to less just...shut up and pay the bill.
As fabulous and socialist as this all sounds, the part about pooling the fees and paying the "risk takers such as artists and rights holders" scares the shit out of me. Are we willing, for the sake of putting rights management out of our minds, to trust a huge payment distribution system to reward our artists? I'm not. I'm terrified that the little guys are going to fall through the cracks. This plan sounds exactly like the payment of royalties for non-profit radio stations--like the one I work for--where we pay a lump sum and the distribution companies like ASCAP dole out the payments based on "play statistics." Massive Habit and Jump Little Children aren't getting a single nickel from what we pay. It's my responsibility as a fan of their music to go outside the payment system that sees them as insignificant and give my money directly to them in the form of CD purchases and show attendance.
I'm surprised to see a large number of people tearing apart professional gaming based on the idea that producers will be stupid enough to focus on the sweaty, slack jawed expressions of gamers instead of the games themselves. Way to shoot for the straw man argument, fellas.
Kasparov's match against X3D Fritz was well attended and not because people were tuning in for long, drawn out shots of Garry rubbing his temples. Professional gaming will be exciting because the focus will be on the game and seeing it--whatever game it may be--played better than the audience could ever hope to. The future will see better commentators, flashy presentation including Madden-like white pen sessions, strategy discussions with pros (the flyover of "Ice" in Modern Day Gamer 2 was a nice touch), and fast-paced action.
We also have to remember how widespread gaming has become and its move toward dominance in the sea of entertainment media. Even if the only people you could get to watch televised professional gaming were fellow players, that's one metric fuckton of an audience.
Okay, so the idea behind electronic voting is to reduce time and lessen paper waste, right? But we don't want to totally eliminate a paper trail because that's fucking insane, right?
Why not have an electronic voting machine that spits out a register the size of an ATM-receipt. The voter can confirm their selections and drop it in the box on the way out the door. If a recount is necessary because the voting booth has turned into HAL-9000, we just flip through the receipts. Has no one come up with this idea before? Am I oversimplifying this issue?
Slashdot Mirror
Not only, as XemonerdX pointed out, did Killer Instinct have combo-breakers, but there were a number of other games with parrying at least a year or two before SFIII. Dead Or Alive and Soul Edge spring to mind.
I'm not a Capcom hater who thinks we should rank on them for being less-than-innovative but we shouldn't automatically assume their supremacy just because SFII defined the genre.
Of course it's symptomatic of a bigger issue. The issue is that you've got a gaming industry editor for a Linux magazine trying to play emulated Windows games. Is there anyone who expected the process wouldn't be a giant pain in the ass?
When we play emulated Nintendo games on other consoles or our PCs, there's always some glitch. If the sound cuts out or a character's animation begins to loop, that's just the way it goes. Come back after the next revision and see if the emulator has been fine tuned to handle that specific game. She admits trying only two games with Cedega before writing the experience off as too frustrating.
I'm really happy to see her investigative journalism turn up the shocking truth about the industry: many games run Linux on their backends. But it's sad to see her expectations for the emulation of Windows clients are so unreasonable.
Seriously, if you want a hassle free Linux gaming experience, go back to playing Tux Racer.
I guess if the lead for Sam And Max got canned, then the protestors can fold their flag and go home.
I'm not surprised to see Lucasarts pulling their support from the adventure titles. They see it as a dead genre and want to focus more money and development on guaranteed sellers like Galaxies and Jedi Knight. I only wish they would realize how wrong they are.
1) I was using the analogy to refer to Dell as the source for support rather than initial production. If only Honda sold car insurance, then we'd be together on this one.
2) You're absolutely right. I was probably reading too much into the commentary pointing to Dell's own anti-spyware and leaping directly to the conclusion they were entirely against the creepy shit. Instead, I should recall the crap that came installed on my old Dell.
In the open letter from the anti-spyware community, they say a representative from Dell informed them the response would be: "Call your ISP."
If that's true, it's a travesty. That's like your car insurance provider telling you that dealing with damage to your vehicle from a collision should be dealt with by the Department of Transportation.
I don't understand why Dell doesn't grab the bull by the horns and partner up with somebody. Isn't that what all the pre-packaged computer companies do these days? They all have a buddy in the anti-virus industry. When digital music became the craze, they leapt to bundle MusicMatch and the like. Why not call up LavaSoft and say, "Want to get packed in with everything we sell?" Dell's choice seems like a step away from gaining customer confidence.
If someone said to you, "There's a new electromagnetic weapon powerful enough to disrupt the computer systems running most modern attack vehicles. It may save countless lives but it could also fall into the wrong hands. What is your take on this kind of weapon?" You wouldn't respond, "I can't render a verdict until I've fired one."
It's not necessary to have used something to form an opinion about what it does. The question was not posed to you to determine if you felt QTFairUse had a nice GUI or needed more usability testing. The interviewer gave you a basic understanding of the tool then asked how you felt about it and, by extension, it's potential uses. By sidestepping the issue he presented--"On one hand, the program may provide fair-use, on the other hand, this may in practice be the silver-bullet to the first functioning commercial alternative to more or less illegal downloading through for example Kazaa"--you left readers without an answer.
As I see it, either you consciously chose to ignore the question and didn't explain why, or you misunderstood the question and missed an opportunity to speak on one of the most important aspects of this whole debate: What about the people who, for whatever purpose, forever seem to be circumventing the plans that are put in place? We wouldn't be reading the article if we didn't think your opinion mattered, so stop hiding behind your "delight in digits" and say something concrete.
Jim Griffin sounds very knowledgeable about this subject but he also spins some serious hippie crap that makes me doubt his theories and opinions.
I have no particular take on QTFairUse. I simply acknowledge, accept and find delight in digits -- especially those carrying art, knowledge and creativity -- bionomically finding the shortest, most efficient and effective path from source to destination.
Yeah, that's the biggest cop out to a serious question ever.
I wish he'd just come out and say it in plain English:
Our path to progress is clear: Tolerate risk, but anticipate its consequences and address them through actuarial means, by pooling fees and allocating their rewards to risk takers such as artists and rights holders. Paying into actuarial network funds should be no more voluntary than ought be automobile insurance.
In other words, everyone should pay a "music listening tax" regardless of how much music they listen to. Those who listen to a lot get great value from the taxation and those who listen to less just...shut up and pay the bill.
As fabulous and socialist as this all sounds, the part about pooling the fees and paying the "risk takers such as artists and rights holders" scares the shit out of me. Are we willing, for the sake of putting rights management out of our minds, to trust a huge payment distribution system to reward our artists? I'm not. I'm terrified that the little guys are going to fall through the cracks. This plan sounds exactly like the payment of royalties for non-profit radio stations--like the one I work for--where we pay a lump sum and the distribution companies like ASCAP dole out the payments based on "play statistics." Massive Habit and Jump Little Children aren't getting a single nickel from what we pay. It's my responsibility as a fan of their music to go outside the payment system that sees them as insignificant and give my money directly to them in the form of CD purchases and show attendance.
I'm surprised to see a large number of people tearing apart professional gaming based on the idea that producers will be stupid enough to focus on the sweaty, slack jawed expressions of gamers instead of the games themselves. Way to shoot for the straw man argument, fellas.
Kasparov's match against X3D Fritz was well attended and not because people were tuning in for long, drawn out shots of Garry rubbing his temples. Professional gaming will be exciting because the focus will be on the game and seeing it--whatever game it may be--played better than the audience could ever hope to. The future will see better commentators, flashy presentation including Madden-like white pen sessions, strategy discussions with pros (the flyover of "Ice" in Modern Day Gamer 2 was a nice touch), and fast-paced action.
We also have to remember how widespread gaming has become and its move toward dominance in the sea of entertainment media. Even if the only people you could get to watch televised professional gaming were fellow players, that's one metric fuckton of an audience.
Okay, so the idea behind electronic voting is to reduce time and lessen paper waste, right? But we don't want to totally eliminate a paper trail because that's fucking insane, right?
Why not have an electronic voting machine that spits out a register the size of an ATM-receipt. The voter can confirm their selections and drop it in the box on the way out the door. If a recount is necessary because the voting booth has turned into HAL-9000, we just flip through the receipts. Has no one come up with this idea before? Am I oversimplifying this issue?