That sounds a lot like the US administration when they try to scare the public by saying that just because we haven't been attacked since 9/11, doesn't mean that the terrorists won't attack tomorrow...
The US administration is right, some terrorist group will strike the US; the problem is that people don't put terrorism in perspective. 20,000 people die each year from the flu, perhaps there should be some sort of war on virii declared - maybe we'll get universal health care funding:)
Like it or not, the only reason we have anything to fear from Islamic terrorists is because we've spent decades interfering with their politics. You can't fight an idea, but you can arrange things so that people don't have any motive to blow themselves up.
The US has made a number of enemies by interfering, not just in the Middle East, but also South America. But to say that's the reason Islamic terrorists hate the US is wrong. Denmark has reason to fear terrorists, and all they did was print a cartoon! Fundamentalists, no matter whether they are Islamic, Christian or other, feel threatened by ideas such as secular government and free speech. Closed-minded people with guns no matter what they believe (religion, environmentalism, nationalism) is the reason there is a threat.
Just because there is a threat though, doesn't mean there should be fear. We should fear drunk drivers more than any terrorist threat.
Now, 200 years later, we have a majority of opinion that believes that people wouldn't create if their intellectual property wasn't protected.
People would create, but such creations would be far more limited in scope. Movies would be more like what you see on youtube than $200M extravaganzas, and software would not be as diverse and widely available.
Right now, copyright has placed in the hands of powerful mercantilists the monopoly of distribution.
Actually copyright has prevented this. Because individual artists control their work, they can prevent the **AA from distributing them without permission. Without copyright protections big marketing could just take the songs by your brother's band and mass distribute with their own "face," with no acknowledgement of where the song came from.
Over and over.....copying is not stealing. It is copying. There is a difference. The powers that be LOVE when people call copying stealing. If I steal an object - you no longer have the object. If I copy an object, you still have the object. Copyright is a givernment granted monopoly so what I am doing in copying is ignoring your monopoly. What I actually do with that copy then defne the damage that potentially could occur to your income from that copy.
So call it music counterfeiting instead, still doesn't make it right. The nature of information requires special laws to handle it. Look at all the laws set up to prevent me from accessing (let alone copying) your personal information; Shouldn't the law only punish me if I use the information to commit fraud (don't call it identity theft)? Does anybody argue that because information wants to be free ensuring privacy is impossible and we should give up?
Home games are easy so you'll beat it and buy another one.
Maybe now, but back in the day they were just as hard. Atari 2600 had many impossible to beat games, they just went faster and faster until you lose. NES had games like BattleToads, Ghosts n Goblins, and Ninja Gaiden.
(2) Every year, to renew the patent, the patentor pays $X*(2^r) for r being the number of previous renewals.
I like the idea of charging continuously for a patent, but the way you charge makes it very difficult to recoup costs of an expensive to make patent. For example an automobile company that spends $100M to develop an electronic anti-crash system, would never be able to make enough money to recoup that investment. I think a better way would be to treat patents like an acquired asset and for companies to pay a tax on the declared value. Paying 30% every year is still enough to encourage the company to license at a reasonable price or release to the public. A nice side-effect is it also helps investors more acurately value the intellectual property holdings of company.
The point is, your level is determined by the set of monsters you fight
That's kinda my point, if the where you start is arbitrary, why do most RPGs start you at the same place? It's like level 1 was defined by the RPG gods as kill rats, bunnies and snakes (little ones), and no developer dare break that commandment.
On the other hand, if your only complaint is that you don't like fighting monsters like bunnies and rats, then its completely reasonable to say that there should be a game where you start out fighting skeletons and zombies. Of course, after playing a couple games where you start off as average, you'd want to start out stronger... and the cycle continues
Actually I would enjoy variety. I still enjoying playing BG1 and taking my character through the follow-ons to get to God status, but I don't always want to do that.
I can see how a lot of people might not like that, but I think that is exactly why people who enjoy RPGs play them. That's why I play them at least.
I enjoy stories (for CRPGs) and socializing (MMORPGs). In WoW I like raiding because it challenges me as a player, and as part of a team. Every raiding group has pretty much the same mix of character skills and equipment, but they key to defeating the bosses is each individual learning how to use those skills as part of a team. Sure you get the phat lewt payoff, but you also improve as a team to tackle more difficult challenges.
One reason, assuming that a game involves gaining levels, you have to start at some level. Regardless of what that level is, it's the absolute lowest level.
True, they could start you off as a zygote and have you progress from there; So I guess they don't start you off at the absolute lowest level. But in general most games have you start off in the same place... pretty damn helpless. Why must I be somebody challenged in a toe-to-toe fight with a rat or bunny (non-vorpal type)? Can't I start off as an average or even above average fighter, and progress to deity from there?
What about starting you out as an uber-warlock who can destroy everything, but with some strange illness that makes you weaker and weaker as the game goes on. At the end, you finish as a feeble level-1 equivalent who needs to use some wit to get by.
That's an awesome out of the box idea. "Progression" becomes your ability to interact intelligently with the world. Would be great for PnP, but might be difficult for CRPGs.
Well, if you start out killing übermonsters, what's the end game like?
If you look at MMORPGs many people focus on getting levels as fast as possible then they enjoy the game. Increased complexity, challenges, and learning is much more fun than killing things to make an arbitrary number go up.
Oh yeah, another zombie... except now it's a SUPERzombie
How many RPGs have you killing bigger and bigger spiders as you progress. What's the difference between the rat @ level 1, and the super zombie @ level 50 besides the models?
Besides if you take a game like NWN, how long is it until you shoot missiles of magic, shoot flames from your hand and such? What do you expect, some kind of doomsday spell at lvl1?
Not a doomsday spell, but why in most RPGs do I need to first swing a stick killing snakes (that kick and who happen to drop copper pieces), to gain enough money to learn how to swing a sword? can't I start off as a military officer and skill up from there.
It's an RPG, it's not supposed to be a FPS skill game so you're "supposed to" win the battles. That means you need story and progression. If I'm swinging the same damn sword just like I did when the game started, that's boring as all hell.
It's boring as hell to shoot the same gun in an FPS as well, but you don't need to go through 50 levels of guns until the end. RPGs still take skill, otherwise it's point-click-dicerolls-kill. What's great about the end game is that you have more skills to choose from. Why not give a player a bunch of skills and through the game they will learn how best to use them with more and more difficult challenges?
But they both still started you off as a loser. You spend hours fighting rats, getting lost books, and trying not to off noober. What the author points to is the KOTOR "dude where's my lightsaber" problem. Most RPGs start you off unimaginatively at the absolute lowest level, so you get a sense of progression.
That's correct, it is your own business. Go out and try to spend that money, however, and you have a problem. Similarly distributing the copied CD is - at least in Canada - where the illegality arises.
Yes, distributing to his friend is what I was replying to; sorry that wasn't clear.
The problem is that convenience is the only way companies have to recoup the costs to make something.
I own the CD, I own the blank CD, I own the burner, it's in my house, what I do with my property on my property - including giving the burned CD to a friend - is my business.
I own a computer, scanner, paper and printer... printing my own money is my own business
Rather than try to rationalize what you are doing, how about just not consume. That more than anything else will cause them to change.
Look at the top 10 sales charts. Things haven't changed, casual games make up most of the list. Typically you'll have a hot casual game/genre like Deer Hunter (*sigh*), pokemon (on the console side) or the Sims dominate, while a few great hardcore games round out the list.
1998 Top 10 PC Games (6 "casual", 3 "Hardcore", 1 not sure (I'm thinking Titanic was supposed to be a Myst clone but never tried it)
1. Starcraft (Blizzard)
2. Deer Hunter (WizardWorks)
3. Deer Hunter 2 (WizardWorks)
4. Myst (Broderbund)
5. Cabela's Big Game Hunter (Head Games)
6. Titanic: Adventure Out of Time (Knowledge Adventure)
7. Lego Island (Mindscape)
8. Frogger (Hasbro)
9. Riven (Red Orb)
10. Unreal (GT Interactive)
Top 10 Games 2002 (7 "casual", 3 "hardcore") 1 / The Sims: Unleashed / Electronic Arts / $26
2 / Age of Mythology / Microsoft / $40
3 / Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets / Electronic Arts / $28
4 / The Sims Deluxe / Electronic Arts / $42
5 / RollerCoaster Tycoon 2 / Infogrames / $29
6 / Backyard Hockey / Infogrames / $19
7 / Zoo Tycoon: Marine Mania / Microsoft / $31
8 / Zoo Tycoon / Microsoft / $28
9 / The Sims: Vacation / Electronic Arts / $29
10 / EverQuest: The Planes of Power / Sony Online / $29
Top 10 PC 2007 (5 "Casual", 4 "hardcore", 1 both (WoW has both kinds of players) 1. World of Warcraft--Vivendi Games
2. The Sims 2--Electronic Arts
3. The Sims 2: Open For Business Expansion Pack--Electronic Arts
4. Star Wars: Empire At War--LucasArts
5. The Sims 2: Pets Expansion Pack--Electronic Arts
6. Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion--Take-Two Interactive
7. Age of Empires III--Microsoft
8. The Sims 2: Family Fun Stuff Expansion Pack--Electronic Arts
9. Civilization IV--Take-Two Interactive
10. The Sims 2: Nightlife Expansion Pack--Electronic Arts
If 2,500 servicemen died on day 18 of the Iraq war, it would have been over by now and 500 American lives would have been saved (not to mention those of the Iraqi civilians).
You mean Iraqi civilians killed by the US. The power vaccuum left with the removal of Saddam means that many more Iraqi civilians would die in civil war. Most of the violence against Iraqis is being caused by Iraqis
The insurgency is currently able to take out our soldiers, our Humvees, our helicopters, and even our M-1 Abrams tanks, using guerilla tactics. This hardly sounds like "limited military value", if by "military value" you mean the ability to inflict losses upon one's enemy.
It's limited in the sense that it does not significantly diminish the ability of a unit to fight, nor establish control of any area. It's disruption, which can be powerful when combined with other tactics, but in itself does not achieve anything from a military standpoint.
Sure, we rolled into Iraq, blew up a lot of tanks, took out the Baathists, held territory, built some bases, and shot a lot of insurgents. Does that mean we win? No. Not unless we can achieve our desired political outcome. And not only is that outcome- a stable, democratic Iraq- not happening, it is now further away than ever.
The problem is when you start talking victory in terms of politics things get much more complicated, and you get into an eternal debate of spin. The Bush administration will still claim victory because they achieved the objective of removing Saddam from power, and established a democratic government in Iraq, even though it will crumble within a few months of US troops leaving. Al-queda will claim they liberated Iraq from the evil US, even though most of the instability is due to internal Iraqi conflict. All the while things in Iraq will only become more unstable, essentially leaving nobody as a "winner."
You're confusing tactical victory with strategic victory. It is possible to win tactically and lose strategically. That is what happened in Vietnam. That is what is currently happening in Iraq.
The NVA achieved a strategic victory as guerilla tactics were used in conjunction with an organized military and propoganda campaign. This led to an organization of the common people behind their cause much as Mao did with China. Iraq is different, there is no strategic victory condition with a structured reorganiztion of Iraq; there are only political victories, which as i mentioned before means everybody can claim victory, but nobody actually "wins".
though this is yet another example of how damn effective gururla warfare is.
Guerilla warfare is very effective as a political tool, it has limited military value. It's primary purpose is not to "win," it's to induce weariness in the enemy through disruption.
the only time you tend to see terms like "dishonourable conduct" and "unfair tactics" is from the side that is not doing well.
Or when one side plays by a set of rules and the other side doesn't. For example a US bomb killing 100 insurgents and 1 civilian is seen as a failure, while an insurgent car bomb that kills 100 civilians and 1 US soldier is seen as a victory.
if you don't buy that it is effective, consider that the enemy, armed with AK-47s, RPGs, high explosives, and dedication to their cause, are holding their own against what is likely the most expensive and advanced miltary in the world.
Holding their own in the political sense that they still exist, which in practical terms is all they need. However, from a military perspective they have not had any significant victories over the US.
Since almost everything must deal with dissipating heat, why can't someone invent something that collect the heat and re-use it to generate even more power?
Slashdot Mirror
20,000 people die each year from the flu, perhaps there should be some sort of war on virii declared - maybe we'll get universal health care funding
Fundamentalists, no matter whether they are Islamic, Christian or other, feel threatened by ideas such as secular government and free speech. Closed-minded people with guns no matter what they believe (religion, environmentalism, nationalism) is the reason there is a threat.
Just because there is a threat though, doesn't mean there should be fear. We should fear drunk drivers more than any terrorist threat.
Actually copyright has prevented this. Because individual artists control their work, they can prevent the **AA from distributing them without permission. Without copyright protections big marketing could just take the songs by your brother's band and mass distribute with their own "face," with no acknowledgement of where the song came from.
Actually I would enjoy variety. I still enjoying playing BG1 and taking my character through the follow-ons to get to God status, but I don't always want to do that.
True, they could start you off as a zygote and have you progress from there; So I guess they don't start you off at the absolute lowest level. But in general most games have you start off in the same place... pretty damn helpless. Why must I be somebody challenged in a toe-to-toe fight with a rat or bunny (non-vorpal type)? Can't I start off as an average or even above average fighter, and progress to deity from there?
How many RPGs have you killing bigger and bigger spiders as you progress. What's the difference between the rat @ level 1, and the super zombie @ level 50 besides the models?Not a doomsday spell, but why in most RPGs do I need to first swing a stick killing snakes (that kick and who happen to drop copper pieces), to gain enough money to learn how to swing a sword? can't I start off as a military officer and skill up from there.
It's boring as hell to shoot the same gun in an FPS as well, but you don't need to go through 50 levels of guns until the end. RPGs still take skill, otherwise it's point-click-dicerolls-kill. What's great about the end game is that you have more skills to choose from. Why not give a player a bunch of skills and through the game they will learn how best to use them with more and more difficult challenges?
I own a computer, scanner, paper and printer... printing my own money is my own business
Rather than try to rationalize what you are doing, how about just not consume. That more than anything else will cause them to change.
>You Cannot Get Ye Flask
Just slap the pokemon, mario, or star wars name on a game and it will sell without any marketing.
Look at the top 10 sales charts. Things haven't changed, casual games make up most of the list. Typically you'll have a hot casual game/genre like Deer Hunter (*sigh*), pokemon (on the console side) or the Sims dominate, while a few great hardcore games round out the list.
1998 Top 10 PC Games
(6 "casual", 3 "Hardcore", 1 not sure (I'm thinking Titanic was supposed to be a Myst clone but never tried it)
1. Starcraft (Blizzard)
2. Deer Hunter (WizardWorks)
3. Deer Hunter 2 (WizardWorks)
4. Myst (Broderbund)
5. Cabela's Big Game Hunter (Head Games)
6. Titanic: Adventure Out of Time (Knowledge Adventure)
7. Lego Island (Mindscape)
8. Frogger (Hasbro)
9. Riven (Red Orb)
10. Unreal (GT Interactive)
Top 10 Games 2002
(7 "casual", 3 "hardcore")
1 / The Sims: Unleashed / Electronic Arts / $26
2 / Age of Mythology / Microsoft / $40
3 / Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets / Electronic Arts / $28
4 / The Sims Deluxe / Electronic Arts / $42
5 / RollerCoaster Tycoon 2 / Infogrames / $29
6 / Backyard Hockey / Infogrames / $19
7 / Zoo Tycoon: Marine Mania / Microsoft / $31
8 / Zoo Tycoon / Microsoft / $28
9 / The Sims: Vacation / Electronic Arts / $29
10 / EverQuest: The Planes of Power / Sony Online / $29
Top 10 PC 2007
(5 "Casual", 4 "hardcore", 1 both (WoW has both kinds of players)
1. World of Warcraft--Vivendi Games
2. The Sims 2--Electronic Arts
3. The Sims 2: Open For Business Expansion Pack--Electronic Arts
4. Star Wars: Empire At War--LucasArts
5. The Sims 2: Pets Expansion Pack--Electronic Arts
6. Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion--Take-Two Interactive
7. Age of Empires III--Microsoft
8. The Sims 2: Family Fun Stuff Expansion Pack--Electronic Arts
9. Civilization IV--Take-Two Interactive
10. The Sims 2: Nightlife Expansion Pack--Electronic Arts
The problem is when you start talking victory in terms of politics things get much more complicated, and you get into an eternal debate of spin. The Bush administration will still claim victory because they achieved the objective of removing Saddam from power, and established a democratic government in Iraq, even though it will crumble within a few months of US troops leaving. Al-queda will claim they liberated Iraq from the evil US, even though most of the instability is due to internal Iraqi conflict. All the while things in Iraq will only become more unstable, essentially leaving nobody as a "winner."
The NVA achieved a strategic victory as guerilla tactics were used in conjunction with an organized military and propoganda campaign. This led to an organization of the common people behind their cause much as Mao did with China. Iraq is different, there is no strategic victory condition with a structured reorganiztion of Iraq; there are only political victories, which as i mentioned before means everybody can claim victory, but nobody actually "wins".
Or when one side plays by a set of rules and the other side doesn't. For example a US bomb killing 100 insurgents and 1 civilian is seen as a failure, while an insurgent car bomb that kills 100 civilians and 1 US soldier is seen as a victory.
Holding their own in the political sense that they still exist, which in practical terms is all they need. However, from a military perspective they have not had any significant victories over the US.