It is not:
The achievements system was launched on April fools day of 2009 in order to allow for certain joke achievements, but the system itself is a real one. This allows Slashdot users to track accomplishments and milestones (and stroke the epeen, which is what it's all about anyway) as they use the site.
I'm a game programmer and I always buy games new, unless it's an older game and I can only find it used. The money difference just isn't worth it for me to justify when it means not only getting a used product but also that I'm sending my money towards Gamestop/EB instead of a fellow developer.
I am often surprised at how many of my co-workers buy games used.
"Clearly, because you have the job that you do, Doom is important to all of humanity."
I wrote that in my "full disclosure" comment as a way of saying I have a personal bias towards the game, not as a way of saying it was important - I think this is very obvious in the context I wrote it.
Of course Doom not being #1 is beyond ridiculous. For full disclosure I program games for a living and started with Doom mods, looking at the source, etc. - if it wasn't for Doom I would probably have a different job right now.
Doom was the first game with graphics good enough for non-gamers to understand what I was so excited about. It basically had the first big mod community, started deathmatch, brought LAN parties and big gaming tournaments into reality, etc.
Think of it this way: There were games before Doom and there were games after Doom. This division is more clear than probably any other game in history. 13 years later (or so) we're still running around in a 3D-ish world and pointing at what we want to die.
As long as they make it clear ahead of time that this is the pricing model then I think it's a great idea. It's kinda like a step up (or to the side) from traditional shareware.
On a side note, Lumines is fantastic. The only game of that style that I've enjoyed more than Tetris. The idea of racing "against the clock" two seperate ways (one being the speed the blocks fall and one being the thing that sweeps out your completed blocks) really is a cool mechanic. Once I got into it, I couldn't stop playing.
Working as a programmer, the very nature of my work leads itself to periodic breaks where it doesn't hurt my productivity at all to get a chance to check my e-mail or browse/. quickly (honestly, I'm not just saying that).
So normally I sit down with a goal, I think about how to go about implementing it, I bang out the code, and then I have a few minutes of downtime (sometimes more) while the damn thing compiles. Now most of the time I use this time to think about the next step of the problem, or to jot down notes of possible issues to take a look at, or to finally get around to answering e-mails about other issues in the code, etc. but if none of these are pressing then I don't feel guilty at all browsing around online for a few minutes. As I write this I'm waiting for my first build of the day to finish so I can get started.
They just figured out how to turn on the computer. User No. 12792510 is one of many who confuses AOL's search box with its browser address window--he keeps seaching for "www.google." Other AOLers type their searches without spaces between the words ("newcaddillacdeville") as if they were 1990s-era AOL keywords.
I program games and I've thought about this a lot. I kind of like the agile approach, and I think that a lot of the concepts could be useful. One of the major components of being "agile" is building unit tests and relying (at least somewhat) on those as a way to make sure that these rapid checkins are not breaking semi-related systems.
With games it is UNBELIEVABLY difficult to write unit tests that effectively catch problems. With animation, physics, AI, the built in randomness with the game, the human interaction, etc. it's unbelievably difficult to write unit tests that can get the job done.
It's easy to write a unit test that says, "When I shoot a dude with this gun, make sure his health goes down by 50". But it's an entirely different thing to say something like, "Make sure that when a battle is going on nobody gets caught up on geometry and can't path to their movement goal."
Sure it's possible to write small little unit tests that make sure a dude can get from point A to point B, and that this guy knows how to path around a dynamic object if a crate falls in his way, but this isn't something you can effectively break up into little parts. I've fixed too many bugs that are a strange and unfortunate combination of all the aforementioned systems to fall into the trap of thinking isolated unit tests are going to get the job done.
I am a big fan of the idea in theory, but I can't imagine it being implemented effectively in practice. I would love for somebody to prove me wrong!
"This is what you get when you compromise your vision and integrity for the dollar."
Disclaimer: I program games for a living.
The way the games business works these days, there's a very significant chance that compromising their vision and integrity was required for the developer to be able to make the game in the first place.
It's very easy for the developer to end up handcuffed into making compromises they (obviously) would not want to make because when it really comes down to it, the publisher is paying the bills. I'm not saying that this was certainly the case, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if the developer was staring at the choice of "Make the game, but with a few changes that the publisher is convinced will lead to sales" or "Don't make the game at all".
"Your scientists have yet to discover how neural networks create self-consciousness, let alone how the human brain processes two-dimensional retinal images into the three-dimensional phenomenon known as perception. Yet you somehow brazenly declare seeing is believing?"
Back when John Carmack and Will Wright gained fame, a single programmer/designer/whatever could almost singlehandedly be responsible for a game, or at least a huge part of it. Nowadays like 1,000 people work on every game.
Also they were around at an oppertune time when there were HUGE steps being make (Carmack made DEATHMATCH, took mods to the mainstream, put graphics in games that were cool/fast enough to make my mom say "wow" - so many things we take for granted).
What kind of article is that? All it does is talk some general stuff about nostalgia and then compare graphics and how FF7 is linear and Oblivion isn't.
I enjoyed both games, but non-linear games don't really do it for me. First of all, I don't have time to put a million hours into a single game when there are so many out there to play. That's why I decided to give up MMOGs completely - or if I try one I only play the trial month and then quit (as I did with World of Warcraft and Everquest 2).
Also I just personally prefer linear games over non-linear ones - especially when it's an RPG and the story is the reason that I'm playing. Everything can be so much tighter and efficient in a game that has you follow the story closely.
For the record, I liked FF7 more than FF6 but not as much as FF9.
The original Final Fantasy had strict turn-based battles. Later games used "Active Time Battles" which gave each character the ability to act when their time-based gauge filled up. The "turns" were based per character and not based on your entire party.
The only major disappointment for me (as Zonk mentioned) was the powerup system. Not only because they were kinda lame-ish, but also because there was no gathering/hoarding of power-ups as in Mario 3. Instead you just have one item 'in reserve' that you can tap the bottom screen to use.
It was so much nicer to open up a mushroom house and grab an item that I could use whenever I wanted.
Play on hard! I played on hard and the game was still way too easy. Significantly easier than the original. I didn't die until the final boss, and I only died once, and it was only because I had no idea what was going on.
Fun game though, if you liked the first one you'll definitely like this one.
A lot of times I read articles about how gaming journalism needs to be more "professional" and "serious" - Well, if articles like this are the direction people think we should be heading then COUNT ME OUT.
This dude has his head so far up his ass that he doesn't even realize what he is saying anymore. He has "Chris Crawford" syndrome. These poor little people don't even understand what fun is! They have no idea how to derive enjoyment from an entertainment product! They just don't GET it. They don't understand the glory that I could bring if someone would just give me $30 million to deliver my opus upon the world!
Give me a break.
I played FF7 and loved it. I also played Vagrant Story, FFVI, and Chrono Trigger. I've played a huge number of console RPGs since the NES. This is just a case of having some strange glasses on, holding some sort of strange grudge against a cool game, and writing a bunch of filler about it. I wonder why he doesn't go on and on about the amount of hitting AAAAAA through dialogue of:
Terra: "..."
Cyan: "..."
I loved FFVI also, but it wasn't without it's problems. FFVII wasn't perfect either by a long shot, but they're both fun games.
I would be really awesome to be able to buy a "classic rock pack" or a "grunge rock pack" and get a bunch of songs that I'll probably like. The song list for Guitar Hero was the best I've seen in a music game, but still it would be nice to be able to focus the type of music I'm listening and playing on my personal preferences.
Secondly it would be nice to have a higher quality guitar. That thing looked and felt totally cheap, it was like a kid's toy. I would have felt like I was rocking a lot harder if the guitar was bigger and had taken itself a little more seriously.
Van Halen - How you can have a game called Guitar Hero and not have a Van Halen track is beyond my scope.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not: The achievements system was launched on April fools day of 2009 in order to allow for certain joke achievements, but the system itself is a real one. This allows Slashdot users to track accomplishments and milestones (and stroke the epeen, which is what it's all about anyway) as they use the site.
But I'm sure there's a missing link in there somewhere!
Oh please... It's clear that our fearless leader has been using the google on the internets for years. I hear he looks up maps.
I'm a game programmer and I always buy games new, unless it's an older game and I can only find it used. The money difference just isn't worth it for me to justify when it means not only getting a used product but also that I'm sending my money towards Gamestop/EB instead of a fellow developer.
I am often surprised at how many of my co-workers buy games used.
I wrote that in my "full disclosure" comment as a way of saying I have a personal bias towards the game, not as a way of saying it was important - I think this is very obvious in the context I wrote it.
Doom was the first game with graphics good enough for non-gamers to understand what I was so excited about. It basically had the first big mod community, started deathmatch, brought LAN parties and big gaming tournaments into reality, etc.
Think of it this way: There were games before Doom and there were games after Doom. This division is more clear than probably any other game in history. 13 years later (or so) we're still running around in a 3D-ish world and pointing at what we want to die.
Digitally downloaded? I was hoping to grab it through my analog connection.
On a side note, Lumines is fantastic. The only game of that style that I've enjoyed more than Tetris. The idea of racing "against the clock" two seperate ways (one being the speed the blocks fall and one being the thing that sweeps out your completed blocks) really is a cool mechanic. Once I got into it, I couldn't stop playing.
So normally I sit down with a goal, I think about how to go about implementing it, I bang out the code, and then I have a few minutes of downtime (sometimes more) while the damn thing compiles. Now most of the time I use this time to think about the next step of the problem, or to jot down notes of possible issues to take a look at, or to finally get around to answering e-mails about other issues in the code, etc. but if none of these are pressing then I don't feel guilty at all browsing around online for a few minutes. As I write this I'm waiting for my first build of the day to finish so I can get started.
The Newbie.
They just figured out how to turn on the computer. User No. 12792510 is one of many who confuses AOL's search box with its browser address window--he keeps seaching for "www.google." Other AOLers type their searches without spaces between the words ("newcaddillacdeville") as if they were 1990s-era AOL keywords.
I'd say the odds of that are llow.
With games it is UNBELIEVABLY difficult to write unit tests that effectively catch problems. With animation, physics, AI, the built in randomness with the game, the human interaction, etc. it's unbelievably difficult to write unit tests that can get the job done.
It's easy to write a unit test that says, "When I shoot a dude with this gun, make sure his health goes down by 50". But it's an entirely different thing to say something like, "Make sure that when a battle is going on nobody gets caught up on geometry and can't path to their movement goal."
Sure it's possible to write small little unit tests that make sure a dude can get from point A to point B, and that this guy knows how to path around a dynamic object if a crate falls in his way, but this isn't something you can effectively break up into little parts. I've fixed too many bugs that are a strange and unfortunate combination of all the aforementioned systems to fall into the trap of thinking isolated unit tests are going to get the job done.
I am a big fan of the idea in theory, but I can't imagine it being implemented effectively in practice. I would love for somebody to prove me wrong!
Disclaimer: I program games for a living.
The way the games business works these days, there's a very significant chance that compromising their vision and integrity was required for the developer to be able to make the game in the first place.
It's very easy for the developer to end up handcuffed into making compromises they (obviously) would not want to make because when it really comes down to it, the publisher is paying the bills. I'm not saying that this was certainly the case, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if the developer was staring at the choice of "Make the game, but with a few changes that the publisher is convinced will lead to sales" or "Don't make the game at all".
"Your scientists have yet to discover how neural networks create self-consciousness, let alone how the human brain processes two-dimensional retinal images into the three-dimensional phenomenon known as perception. Yet you somehow brazenly declare seeing is believing?"
-- Jesse "The Body" Ventura as a Man In Black
Also they were around at an oppertune time when there were HUGE steps being make (Carmack made DEATHMATCH, took mods to the mainstream, put graphics in games that were cool/fast enough to make my mom say "wow" - so many things we take for granted).
Was it as big as the one that (supposedly) fell at Tunguska? Although I'm still pretty sure that was caused by dark matter or a UFO or something.
I enjoyed both games, but non-linear games don't really do it for me. First of all, I don't have time to put a million hours into a single game when there are so many out there to play. That's why I decided to give up MMOGs completely - or if I try one I only play the trial month and then quit (as I did with World of Warcraft and Everquest 2).
Also I just personally prefer linear games over non-linear ones - especially when it's an RPG and the story is the reason that I'm playing. Everything can be so much tighter and efficient in a game that has you follow the story closely.
For the record, I liked FF7 more than FF6 but not as much as FF9.
The original Final Fantasy had strict turn-based battles. Later games used "Active Time Battles" which gave each character the ability to act when their time-based gauge filled up. The "turns" were based per character and not based on your entire party.
... about this Not Being News.
It was so much nicer to open up a mushroom house and grab an item that I could use whenever I wanted.
Feel free to add your own
Fun game though, if you liked the first one you'll definitely like this one.
This dude has his head so far up his ass that he doesn't even realize what he is saying anymore. He has "Chris Crawford" syndrome. These poor little people don't even understand what fun is! They have no idea how to derive enjoyment from an entertainment product! They just don't GET it. They don't understand the glory that I could bring if someone would just give me $30 million to deliver my opus upon the world!
Give me a break.
I played FF7 and loved it. I also played Vagrant Story, FFVI, and Chrono Trigger. I've played a huge number of console RPGs since the NES. This is just a case of having some strange glasses on, holding some sort of strange grudge against a cool game, and writing a bunch of filler about it. I wonder why he doesn't go on and on about the amount of hitting AAAAAA through dialogue of:
Terra: "..."
Cyan: "..."
I loved FFVI also, but it wasn't without it's problems. FFVII wasn't perfect either by a long shot, but they're both fun games.
Finally, there's the FFVI everyone has been bitching about endlessly every time Square-Enix announces anything.
Secondly it would be nice to have a higher quality guitar. That thing looked and felt totally cheap, it was like a kid's toy. I would have felt like I was rocking a lot harder if the guitar was bigger and had taken itself a little more seriously.
Van Halen - How you can have a game called Guitar Hero and not have a Van Halen track is beyond my scope.
Still a cool game though.