Well, I hate MMORPGs. Treadmilling isn't my idea of fun, especially when you have to pay monthly fees to do it. Even if I didn't hate them, though, I'd have a problem with the fact that it's called "Final Fantasy XI" instead of "Final Fantasy Online." Put that together with the fact that I've been a fan of the franchise since the beginning (I even post to alt.games.final-fantasy), and you can see why FFXI particularly annoys me.
Rob (I'll sign up for the World of Warcraft beta anyway, because, hey, it's free, and I might be surprised)
Microsoft also scored another moderate hit with Freelancer, the sequel to Starlancer. Unfortunately, this multiplayer-only game suffered from low replay value.
What?
EA is only a shadow of its past self and unless it's willing to invest into new, innovative products, in a few years it may follow 3DO's footsteps.
What!?
Excuse me, waiter. Could I have some of what that guy's smoking? Thanks.
Unlike all the doomsayers, it was very enthusiastic about the console ports that flooded the market, because, for the author, they indicated the beginning of a renaissance in PC gaming.
I'm not sure if this is a good thing, and it's definitely not a renaissance in PC gaming. For a renaissance in PC gaming to occur, there would have to be a resurgence of PC games, not console ports. I always liked the fact that PC games were different from console games; I hope the fact that consoles are becoming more like PCs doesn't destroy the diversity that video games have thus far enjoyed. Unfortunately, with the "consolification" of various PC franchises, that may be wishful thinking.
BTW, to answer the question posed in the submission, the comment about "false advertising" dovetails nicely with my personal PC gaming lowlight of the year, Final Fantasy XI. As for my highlight, well, it's hard to say, since I've only recently upgraded my computer, and thus haven't played the big hits that came out over the holidays yet. I expect KOTOR will be my favorite out of them all, though.
The people have spoken by electing people to state legislatures that passed laws criminalizing abortion.
Isn't it possible that most of these people have placed abortion rights low on their list of priorities, and voted these legislators into office for other reasons?
Because on the Internet, if you don't agree with it, it's a troll.
it's worth pointing out that at no time has a majority of people in this country voted to allow abortion
Obviously. A majority of the country hasn't voted against it, either. If a majority of the country is against it, then why hasn't anyone called for a referendum?
If a man were to, say, use a chemical to render a woman unable to conceive of their right to life(such as a date rape drug), and kills her, is it murder?
You forget that deliberately rendering someone incapable of conceiving of his right to life is in itself a crime. As for killing someone while he's asleep, well, before he was asleep he knew that he had the right to be alive. You can't apply this to fetuses, which have never known this.
Further more, where did you get the idea that "human beings who can conceive of that right" actually have any such right?
If you conceive of your right to life, you have it. Cogito ergo sum and so forth.
Well, if I look at this from a purely pragmatic point of view, then the fact that pro-lifers tend to have more kids(what with them not killing their offspring and all), the majority will naturally shift to pro-life.
You sure about that? Most pro-lifers don't believe in premarital sex and such, so they're not likely to have more kids simply because they don't believe in abortion. And not all pro-choicers want abortions; many of them (like me) even personally disagree with the practice, sort of like how some people wouldn't personally smoke or gamble but would not prohibit others from doing so. Oh, and not all children of pro-lifers become pro-life themselves.
That said, I wouldn't have a problem if Roe vs. Wade was overturned, as long as it was with the wishes of the people (which is unlikely, what with the messy back-alley abortions that prohibition brought about). Fetuses don't have a right to life, but women don't have a right to kill them either. They're just privileged to do so in our society.
There is no "fundamental right to life." Where did you get that idea? The only organisms which have an inherent right to live are human beings who can conceive of that right. That doesn't include fetuses. Hell, it doesn't even include infants or the mentally retarded. When it comes to cases like that, majority rules, and the majority has decided that killing fetuses should not be prohibited (even if they personally do not like the idea of abortion), but that killing infants and retards should be. Simple as that.
Oh, and his argument is supposed to be weak as an illustration of how weak Lieberman's is. The fact that saving the princess at the end of SMB isn't necessarily boosting the feminist agenda just strengthens StocDred's point (that killing people in GTA doesn't necessarily promote killing in real life).
On the other hand, a lot of RPGs involve the actual process of wooing a woman. Observe the behavior of a Lunar or Final Fantasy fan towards women.
They tend to either let women stomp all over them or become so nervous that they can't even talk to them. Then the woman goes out with an abusive jock and the fan says something like, "Why won't that dumb bitch go out with someone that can respect her like me?"
So, what was your point?
Rob (BTW, the idea that most of the Final Fantasy games "involve the actual process of wooing a woman" is hilarious)
The complaints stem from the game moving in a non-Thief direction
I suppose I can understand this. I had (and still have) a real problem with Final Fantasy 11, as that game is an MMORPG, making it almost totally different from the other games in the main series. That meant to me that it didn't belong in the main series. FF Tactics wasn't included in the main series, so why should FF11 be?
You have to admit, though, some (if not most) of the problem is caused by console fans. Console games have always been, on average, less complex than computer games simply because of the consoles' lack of storage space and suitable controls (about the only things the standard console controller is better than keyboard-mouse or flightstick for are fighting games and third-person action games that don't let you strafe). Now most of these problems have been ameliorated by advancing technology; however, the tradition keeps hold. Most gamers that prefer consoles also prefer the simpler, more gimmicky gameplay that console games often provide.
Now, why does this affect PC games? Two reasons: (1) Console games sell much, much more than PC games, and (2) now-a-days developers don't want to make two different versions of a game; they'd much rather release the exact same game across all platforms at about the same time. Therefore, the one version of the game that is released tends towards console gamers' tastes.
Not to say that console gamers' tastes are necessarily inferior to those of PC gamers. After all, didn't we recently have a thread about how sometimes, simpler means better?
I knew someone would trot out that old chestnut. The difference is that real money can get you things in the real world. The only thing MMORPG money can do is get you things in a video game. Even if you were able to trade game money for real money, it would still be stupid, because that would require some dumbass to give away real money for game money.
Then I remembered that third-person view isn't a bad thing for a stealth game, since stealth games don't tend to rely on aiming ability or anything. The only real problem is that it makes the game less realistic, as you'll be able to see people around corners and behind your character's head, most likely. In exchange, you have advantages such as being able to do jumps reliably as well as judge whether or not you're in shadow better.
One would think that even armchair analysts would reserve their opinions until more data was revealed, for simple logic's sake.
You just pointed out the reason why I made my post. Without more data, it's impossible to reliably discuss anything more than what's already been presented. Since the vertical alignment of the screens seems like the most boneheaded idea that has thus far been presented, I decided to comment on it. It's certainly possible that games will utilize it in a good way, but how the heck can we reliably discuss something that doesn't even exist on the drawing board yet?
If we aren't allowed to even make comments on the stuff that has been presented to us, then the only other option is not to comment at all. That wouldn't be very entertaining or informative.
I'd never seriously advocate genocide, but when it comes to MMORPG players, it's a close thing. Especially now that people are making and taking over businesses concerning things that don't exist.
Game-based movies are not necessarily bad. The problem is when movie producers stick too firmly to the game instead of just using the world, the general mood and/or possibly the heroes/villains.
Are you kidding? SMB barely stuck to the game at all, and it was one of the worst of the bunch. And the FF movie couldn't really stick to the game either (since each FF game has a different world), and it was only mediocre. (Granted, though, the FF movie was a rehash of FF7, but just different enough to where you couldn't say that it was following that game too closely.)
I for one hope we'll never see a Duke Nukem movie.
The screens are vertically aligned. Who the hell came up with that idea? Doesn't Nintendo realize that the field of human vision is much wider than it is tall, and that's why people tend to use screens that are wider than they are tall?
Rob (At least someone got a clue and put a backlight into it)
Actually, yes it is. But I wasn't talking about the copy protection itself as much as I was the lengths to which Nintendo will go to make its games secure.
Ever played a gameboy emulator on a 19" monitor? Trust me, you could fit four displays on the screen and they'd still be significantly larger than a GBA screen.
Well, you could also put each display on its own monitor if you had the hardware, but not everyone has the hardware.
Plus there's the 'horde of nerds' factor, who take it as a challenge to emulate/hack/install-linux-on the next big thing.
True, but that hasn't stopped PC game developers from putting copy protection on their games.
Slashdot Mirror
3DO rehash = failure
EA rehash = success
There, my lad, is the difference.
Rob (Don't ask me why people like the same old Sims over and over again, they just do)
Well, I hate MMORPGs. Treadmilling isn't my idea of fun, especially when you have to pay monthly fees to do it. Even if I didn't hate them, though, I'd have a problem with the fact that it's called "Final Fantasy XI" instead of "Final Fantasy Online." Put that together with the fact that I've been a fan of the franchise since the beginning (I even post to alt.games.final-fantasy), and you can see why FFXI particularly annoys me.
Rob (I'll sign up for the World of Warcraft beta anyway, because, hey, it's free, and I might be surprised)
Microsoft also scored another moderate hit with Freelancer, the sequel to Starlancer. Unfortunately, this multiplayer-only game suffered from low replay value.
What?
EA is only a shadow of its past self and unless it's willing to invest into new, innovative products, in a few years it may follow 3DO's footsteps.
What!?
Excuse me, waiter. Could I have some of what that guy's smoking? Thanks.
Rob
Unlike all the doomsayers, it was very enthusiastic about the console ports that flooded the market, because, for the author, they indicated the beginning of a renaissance in PC gaming.
I'm not sure if this is a good thing, and it's definitely not a renaissance in PC gaming. For a renaissance in PC gaming to occur, there would have to be a resurgence of PC games, not console ports. I always liked the fact that PC games were different from console games; I hope the fact that consoles are becoming more like PCs doesn't destroy the diversity that video games have thus far enjoyed. Unfortunately, with the "consolification" of various PC franchises, that may be wishful thinking.
BTW, to answer the question posed in the submission, the comment about "false advertising" dovetails nicely with my personal PC gaming lowlight of the year, Final Fantasy XI. As for my highlight, well, it's hard to say, since I've only recently upgraded my computer, and thus haven't played the big hits that came out over the holidays yet. I expect KOTOR will be my favorite out of them all, though.
Rob
The people have spoken by electing people to state legislatures that passed laws criminalizing abortion.
Isn't it possible that most of these people have placed abortion rights low on their list of priorities, and voted these legislators into office for other reasons?
Rob
Although this post is obvious flamebait,
Because on the Internet, if you don't agree with it, it's a troll.
it's worth pointing out that at no time has a majority of people in this country voted to allow abortion
Obviously. A majority of the country hasn't voted against it, either. If a majority of the country is against it, then why hasn't anyone called for a referendum?
Rob
If a man were to, say, use a chemical to render a woman unable to conceive of their right to life(such as a date rape drug), and kills her, is it murder?
You forget that deliberately rendering someone incapable of conceiving of his right to life is in itself a crime. As for killing someone while he's asleep, well, before he was asleep he knew that he had the right to be alive. You can't apply this to fetuses, which have never known this.
Further more, where did you get the idea that "human beings who can conceive of that right" actually have any such right?
If you conceive of your right to life, you have it. Cogito ergo sum and so forth.
Well, if I look at this from a purely pragmatic point of view, then the fact that pro-lifers tend to have more kids(what with them not killing their offspring and all), the majority will naturally shift to pro-life.
You sure about that? Most pro-lifers don't believe in premarital sex and such, so they're not likely to have more kids simply because they don't believe in abortion. And not all pro-choicers want abortions; many of them (like me) even personally disagree with the practice, sort of like how some people wouldn't personally smoke or gamble but would not prohibit others from doing so. Oh, and not all children of pro-lifers become pro-life themselves.
That said, I wouldn't have a problem if Roe vs. Wade was overturned, as long as it was with the wishes of the people (which is unlikely, what with the messy back-alley abortions that prohibition brought about). Fetuses don't have a right to life, but women don't have a right to kill them either. They're just privileged to do so in our society.
Rob
There is no "fundamental right to life." Where did you get that idea? The only organisms which have an inherent right to live are human beings who can conceive of that right. That doesn't include fetuses. Hell, it doesn't even include infants or the mentally retarded. When it comes to cases like that, majority rules, and the majority has decided that killing fetuses should not be prohibited (even if they personally do not like the idea of abortion), but that killing infants and retards should be. Simple as that.
Rob
Oh, and his argument is supposed to be weak as an illustration of how weak Lieberman's is. The fact that saving the princess at the end of SMB isn't necessarily boosting the feminist agenda just strengthens StocDred's point (that killing people in GTA doesn't necessarily promote killing in real life).
Rob
On the other hand, a lot of RPGs involve the actual process of wooing a woman. Observe the behavior of a Lunar or Final Fantasy fan towards women.
They tend to either let women stomp all over them or become so nervous that they can't even talk to them. Then the woman goes out with an abusive jock and the fan says something like, "Why won't that dumb bitch go out with someone that can respect her like me?"
So, what was your point?
Rob (BTW, the idea that most of the Final Fantasy games "involve the actual process of wooing a woman" is hilarious)
The complaints stem from the game moving in a non-Thief direction
I suppose I can understand this. I had (and still have) a real problem with Final Fantasy 11, as that game is an MMORPG, making it almost totally different from the other games in the main series. That meant to me that it didn't belong in the main series. FF Tactics wasn't included in the main series, so why should FF11 be?
Rob (Should've called it "Final Fantasy Online")
You have to admit, though, some (if not most) of the problem is caused by console fans. Console games have always been, on average, less complex than computer games simply because of the consoles' lack of storage space and suitable controls (about the only things the standard console controller is better than keyboard-mouse or flightstick for are fighting games and third-person action games that don't let you strafe). Now most of these problems have been ameliorated by advancing technology; however, the tradition keeps hold. Most gamers that prefer consoles also prefer the simpler, more gimmicky gameplay that console games often provide.
Now, why does this affect PC games? Two reasons: (1) Console games sell much, much more than PC games, and (2) now-a-days developers don't want to make two different versions of a game; they'd much rather release the exact same game across all platforms at about the same time. Therefore, the one version of the game that is released tends towards console gamers' tastes.
Not to say that console gamers' tastes are necessarily inferior to those of PC gamers. After all, didn't we recently have a thread about how sometimes, simpler means better?
Rob
The dollar hasn't been backed by gold in ages.
I knew someone would trot out that old chestnut. The difference is that real money can get you things in the real world. The only thing MMORPG money can do is get you things in a video game. Even if you were able to trade game money for real money, it would still be stupid, because that would require some dumbass to give away real money for game money.
Rob
Then I remembered that third-person view isn't a bad thing for a stealth game, since stealth games don't tend to rely on aiming ability or anything. The only real problem is that it makes the game less realistic, as you'll be able to see people around corners and behind your character's head, most likely. In exchange, you have advantages such as being able to do jumps reliably as well as judge whether or not you're in shadow better.
Rob
One would think that even armchair analysts would reserve their opinions until more data was revealed, for simple logic's sake.
You just pointed out the reason why I made my post. Without more data, it's impossible to reliably discuss anything more than what's already been presented. Since the vertical alignment of the screens seems like the most boneheaded idea that has thus far been presented, I decided to comment on it. It's certainly possible that games will utilize it in a good way, but how the heck can we reliably discuss something that doesn't even exist on the drawing board yet?
If we aren't allowed to even make comments on the stuff that has been presented to us, then the only other option is not to comment at all. That wouldn't be very entertaining or informative.
Rob
I'd never seriously advocate genocide, but when it comes to MMORPG players, it's a close thing. Especially now that people are making and taking over businesses concerning things that don't exist.
Rob (Get away from the computer, [Clan]Gandalf)
Game-based movies are not necessarily bad. The problem is when movie producers stick too firmly to the game instead of just using the world, the general mood and/or possibly the heroes/villains.
Are you kidding? SMB barely stuck to the game at all, and it was one of the worst of the bunch. And the FF movie couldn't really stick to the game either (since each FF game has a different world), and it was only mediocre. (Granted, though, the FF movie was a rehash of FF7, but just different enough to where you couldn't say that it was following that game too closely.)
I for one hope we'll never see a Duke Nukem movie.
Already been done.
Rob
The screens are vertically aligned. Who the hell came up with that idea? Doesn't Nintendo realize that the field of human vision is much wider than it is tall, and that's why people tend to use screens that are wider than they are tall?
Rob (At least someone got a clue and put a backlight into it)
A copy protection scheme IS NOT GOOFY.
Actually, yes it is. But I wasn't talking about the copy protection itself as much as I was the lengths to which Nintendo will go to make its games secure.
Rob
Have you played a fucking N64 and then played a ps1?
I own an N64 and a PSX. The fact that the N64 loads faster than the PSX means nothing when there's nothing worth loading.
I really like waiting one to two minutes to play a god damn level.
You sound like the one that hasn't used a PSX, not me.
Rob
My apology came exactly seven hours before your post. And yes, I did make a comment within this thread.
Rob
Yes, since I happen to live there. And the answer, in case anyone was wondering, is "Not particularly long".
Oh, really?
Rob
That's what I get for not making sure that people are actually replying to me before opening my big mouth.
Rob (Score: -1, Idiot)
Ever played a gameboy emulator on a 19" monitor? Trust me, you could fit four displays on the screen and they'd still be significantly larger than a GBA screen.
Well, you could also put each display on its own monitor if you had the hardware, but not everyone has the hardware.
Plus there's the 'horde of nerds' factor, who take it as a challenge to emulate/hack/install-linux-on the next big thing.
True, but that hasn't stopped PC game developers from putting copy protection on their games.
Rob
You really bought that Nintendo propaganda crap? I bet you agreed when Nintendo said that the cutscenes in Mario 64 are FMV, too.
Rob