I think I love some sounds just because of what they imply. Like one of Pavlov's dogs, I get a little happier when I hear the "Your Friend Just Logged Into IM!" sound.
I honestly thought it was just a really great map. It could use some editing, but, as a whole, the two forts thing works. You get the team combat and the strategic (kinda?) defense, and I like that you can easily shoot the other side's base from your base. The underwater intrance was also cool. The base's inner-chambers could have used some clearing up, though.
The Red vs. Blue episode where they discuss building their bases right across from each other in the middle of a valley reminded me of 2Fort. I was watching that the other day, and I was just like "Hey... did they just have Red and Blue contractors building these things here? Who controls the bridge? What's the logic of building two forts aimed right at each other? If one got built first, why didn't they shoot the people who built the second one?"
I liked the library. I liked that it was spooky, and filled with zombies. I don't see why everyone hates it. I also liked the swamp one, and the underground one with all the Flood Headcrab/ripoffs.
It's been a while since I've played through it, though.
My initial reaction to this is "Oh My." Sometimes, people in power should have checks and balances to their ability to oppress their own people. After all, a little revolution now and again is a good thing.
My arcade charges you $400 to get in, and then $59 (plus tax) for each game you want to play. It also charges you a monthly fee for watching ads, and additional game content (like armor for horses) and cheat codes are extra.
They could just as easily quit their job and switch universities, or go outside and get some sunshine.
The problem is that they've already paid $400+ for an XBOX 360, and there's no way to switch services. With the PS3 and the Wii unshipped, the only next-gen option is (and has been) the XBOX 360.
So actually read the contents of the review, and decide for yourself if it's your kind of game. If a game gets a low score because it has dated graphics and no multiplayer, take these things into consideration, but also look at the rest of the review and decide if it's the kind of game that you want to play.
They're describing the game, not just giving it a base score.
It's not the plot and backstory that's similar, but rather the progression and filming style. Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers are about as similar as Crazy-Ring-Girl and Crazy-Grudge-Cat-Girl. It's just the backstory that's different. The plots still unfold in similar, easy-to-figure-out ways in both comparisons. The difference between Japanese movies and American Slasher movies is purely formulaic. There's nothing amazing and revolutionary about them.
The Japanese movies aren't scary, though. The first one is. If you haven't seen 'em, watch Ringu or Ju-On or their English translations and they'll be scary. But then you watch the next one, and the next one, and you realize the plots are all the same. It's like the '70s-'80s slasher craze all over again. How many strange cat-girls and distorted mouths and creepy televisions (or computer monitors) do you need to see before you realize it's the same thing, but a different basic plot? About 3.
A good plot is written and carried out once in a while, and then it becomes the norm, and everyone copies it. It's the same in the FPS world, the movie world, the book world, and the television world.
I can agree that Silent Hill and Resident Evil are scary. I scream like a schoolgirl when those things come out of the car in Silent Hill 2 or when a zombie bites your leg in Resident Evil.
I've played Resident Evil, Resident Evil 3, Silent Hill, Silent Hill 2 Alone in the Dark, and Dino Crisis. What I don't get is what makes these games fun to play to people. I feel like I've tried the survival horror thing, but it's just not very fun. First of all, what's with the controls in these games? I'd much rather be able to walk/jog/sprint in any direction than have to slowly turn around or slowly back up. To me, it just makes these games frustrating. The puzzles. Why do all the puzzles involve some sort of gem or emblem or key card? There are thousands of examples in classic adventure games of interesting problem-solving. Why does it always have to involve some dumb statue? The ability to fight back. Every survival horror game I've ever played has extremely limited ammo. They do this so that you'll have to run away from conflicts. Fair enough. But it's not fair when the controls suck so bad that you can't move anywhere, and the environments are so poorly-designed and cluttered that you can't flee. If there was a "jump-over-the-desk" button, then it'd be fair to make you run. The saving. Most of these games try to limit your ability to save, or at least discourage it. That's lame. The games should be designed so that you clear several obstacles, and then get a chance to save. Nobody wants to go back and look for more lame keycards because they couldn't save because they haven't found a typewriter ribbon in the last two hours.
Can someone explain this to me? Why are these games fun to people? Is there just something I'm missing? I appreciate the ambiance, but why can't the games themselves be fun to play?
...but they're losing money on the XBOX, XBOX 360, and PS3 hardware. So if it breaks, and you buy a new one, it's against Sony and Microsoft's best interests.
I don't know how you're measuring this, but I think it's fair to point out that there's a difference between game time and time spent playing the game. For example, if you spend 1/3 of your time reloading from a previous state to play through something over again, or look for secrets you missed the first time through, or trying to beat a boss, that 20 hours of play time noted on your save state turns into 30 pretty quick.
I prefer finding a torrent for an album or a discography, or downloading tracks off of Soulseek or Limewire. Not only is it a lot cheaper, but I can do whatever I want with the tracks, including burning them to CD or uploading them to my MP3 player, and I don't have to sign up for anything.
I dunno. There's some bad blood between Sega and Nintendo. If Nintendo gets exclusive rights, who's to say Sonic won't totally suck? They certainly won't overpower him.
I've been reading the Tao of Pooh. It's really pretty good. It talks about filling your life with happiness.
Gay sex makes some people happy. Knitting makes some people happy. Playing WoW 16 hours a day makes some people happy.
If that's what he wants to do with his life, let him. At least he's having fun. Hey, and on a side note. You guys who are complaining about kids having too much time to play video games, so it's not fair to you? Stop. You can give up your life for a game, you can stop being insecurely competitive, or you can stop playing the game. There's no need to ruin someone elses fun.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I love some sounds just because of what they imply. Like one of Pavlov's dogs, I get a little happier when I hear the "Your Friend Just Logged Into IM!" sound.
I honestly thought it was just a really great map.
It could use some editing, but, as a whole, the two forts thing works. You get the team combat and the strategic (kinda?) defense, and I like that you can easily shoot the other side's base from your base. The underwater intrance was also cool. The base's inner-chambers could have used some clearing up, though.
The Red vs. Blue episode where they discuss building their bases right across from each other in the middle of a valley reminded me of 2Fort. I was watching that the other day, and I was just like "Hey... did they just have Red and Blue contractors building these things here? Who controls the bridge? What's the logic of building two forts aimed right at each other? If one got built first, why didn't they shoot the people who built the second one?"
I liked the library. I liked that it was spooky, and filled with zombies. I don't see why everyone hates it.
I also liked the swamp one, and the underground one with all the Flood Headcrab/ripoffs.
It's been a while since I've played through it, though.
I find it ironic.
My initial reaction to this is "Oh My."
Sometimes, people in power should have checks and balances to their ability to oppress their own people. After all, a little revolution now and again is a good thing.
My arcade charges you $400 to get in, and then $59 (plus tax) for each game you want to play. It also charges you a monthly fee for watching ads, and additional game content (like armor for horses) and cheat codes are extra.
But it has high-definition support!!
They could just as easily quit their job and switch universities, or go outside and get some sunshine.
The problem is that they've already paid $400+ for an XBOX 360, and there's no way to switch services. With the PS3 and the Wii unshipped, the only next-gen option is (and has been) the XBOX 360.
So actually read the contents of the review, and decide for yourself if it's your kind of game. If a game gets a low score because it has dated graphics and no multiplayer, take these things into consideration, but also look at the rest of the review and decide if it's the kind of game that you want to play.
They're describing the game, not just giving it a base score.
It's not the plot and backstory that's similar, but rather the progression and filming style. Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers are about as similar as Crazy-Ring-Girl and Crazy-Grudge-Cat-Girl. It's just the backstory that's different. The plots still unfold in similar, easy-to-figure-out ways in both comparisons. The difference between Japanese movies and American Slasher movies is purely formulaic. There's nothing amazing and revolutionary about them.
The Japanese movies aren't scary, though. The first one is. If you haven't seen 'em, watch Ringu or Ju-On or their English translations and they'll be scary. But then you watch the next one, and the next one, and you realize the plots are all the same. It's like the '70s-'80s slasher craze all over again. How many strange cat-girls and distorted mouths and creepy televisions (or computer monitors) do you need to see before you realize it's the same thing, but a different basic plot? About 3.
A good plot is written and carried out once in a while, and then it becomes the norm, and everyone copies it. It's the same in the FPS world, the movie world, the book world, and the television world.
I can agree that Silent Hill and Resident Evil are scary. I scream like a schoolgirl when those things come out of the car in Silent Hill 2 or when a zombie bites your leg in Resident Evil.
I've played Resident Evil, Resident Evil 3, Silent Hill, Silent Hill 2 Alone in the Dark, and Dino Crisis.
What I don't get is what makes these games fun to play to people. I feel like I've tried the survival horror thing, but it's just not very fun.
First of all, what's with the controls in these games? I'd much rather be able to walk/jog/sprint in any direction than have to slowly turn around or slowly back up. To me, it just makes these games frustrating.
The puzzles. Why do all the puzzles involve some sort of gem or emblem or key card? There are thousands of examples in classic adventure games of interesting problem-solving. Why does it always have to involve some dumb statue?
The ability to fight back. Every survival horror game I've ever played has extremely limited ammo. They do this so that you'll have to run away from conflicts. Fair enough. But it's not fair when the controls suck so bad that you can't move anywhere, and the environments are so poorly-designed and cluttered that you can't flee. If there was a "jump-over-the-desk" button, then it'd be fair to make you run.
The saving. Most of these games try to limit your ability to save, or at least discourage it. That's lame. The games should be designed so that you clear several obstacles, and then get a chance to save. Nobody wants to go back and look for more lame keycards because they couldn't save because they haven't found a typewriter ribbon in the last two hours.
Can someone explain this to me? Why are these games fun to people? Is there just something I'm missing? I appreciate the ambiance, but why can't the games themselves be fun to play?
...but they're losing money on the XBOX, XBOX 360, and PS3 hardware. So if it breaks, and you buy a new one, it's against Sony and Microsoft's best interests.
Maybe it was a wet rock?
I don't know how you're measuring this, but I think it's fair to point out that there's a difference between game time and time spent playing the game. For example, if you spend 1/3 of your time reloading from a previous state to play through something over again, or look for secrets you missed the first time through, or trying to beat a boss, that 20 hours of play time noted on your save state turns into 30 pretty quick.
"They would pay big money to have an MS system that could do that without losing user data"
Windows can restore your system files, registry values, and user settings without erasing user data.
Your ideas are Wiitarded.
I own an XBOX. Do different XBOXs run differently? -Ryan
I prefer finding a torrent for an album or a discography, or downloading tracks off of Soulseek or Limewire.
Not only is it a lot cheaper, but I can do whatever I want with the tracks, including burning them to CD or uploading them to my MP3 player, and I don't have to sign up for anything.
I dunno. There's some bad blood between Sega and Nintendo. If Nintendo gets exclusive rights, who's to say Sonic won't totally suck? They certainly won't overpower him.
Getting hit gives you a rush like no sport I've ever played.
I've been reading the Tao of Pooh. It's really pretty good. It talks about filling your life with happiness.
Gay sex makes some people happy.
Knitting makes some people happy.
Playing WoW 16 hours a day makes some people happy.
If that's what he wants to do with his life, let him. At least he's having fun.
Hey, and on a side note. You guys who are complaining about kids having too much time to play video games, so it's not fair to you? Stop. You can give up your life for a game, you can stop being insecurely competitive, or you can stop playing the game. There's no need to ruin someone elses fun.
The Jabba the Hut piece comes to mind.
Like Gauntlet?
One quarter = 1000 health.
Do you know anyone who smokes one pack a week? That's less than 3 cigarettes a day.