I imagine a lot of the reason is turbo cars tend to be performance/sporty cars. Since the goal tends to be performance over comfort, they usually strip off the convenient features that add no performance but increase the weight.
Everyone always says "Oh, a delay. That's cool. It means they're making sure they get it right. I'd much rather have it be good and late than on time and crappy."
While I agree, can't anyone get it done right, AND on time? Or is "good" and "on time" now mutually exclusive?
I actually disagree. It turns certain sections of the game from a "hide behind cover and take out everyone you can see" sort of gameplay to a "take out the biggest threats, pop a flashbang/smoke grenade and run for your objective" sort of gameplay.
It doesn't use the infinite spawn thing everywhere, either. Usually just where there's heavy, heavy fighting. It simulates the fact that you're outnumbered, and standing your ground and killing everyone won't win the war. You have to complete the mission in spite of overwhelming odds, not take a stand and kill the entire opposing army single handedly.
I do wish they would have added some sort of overt clue as to when they spawn infinitely, though. Some sort of radio communication such as "We're getting swarmed and are outnumbered! GET TO THE OBJECTIVE!" type of thing would work.
I really liked the way Bioshock did it. Very few cutscenes. However, a ton of story and backstory information was present. Most of it was carried out on your radio as you did relevent stuff in the game. There were also many audio diaries scattered through the levels. These gave backstory and filled in a lot of gaps about what you knew.
The amusing thing was, I started off picking them up, and just half listening to them as I went on with the game. But the deeper I got, the more interesting the story because, and I found myself stopping and focusing just on what was being said. It probably would have annoyed me if it forced me to stop and listen, but given the choice, with an interesting enough story line, I did so of my own accord.
Step 1) Warranty is only void if modification caused the problem Step 2) Issue a firmware update that bricks the phone if it is modified Step 3) ??? Step 4) Profit!
Seems to me, the modification caused the malfunction.:)
The idea is to rate the game based on its content. So they create a DVD with a range of the various types of content.
You can't expect them to play through the whole game. And what good would they get out of playing the tutorial? They're not rating how good the game is, how the controls work out, how well the gameplay works. They're rating its content. They don't need to play it to do that.
The only flaw is when the developer does not include a true spectrum of the game's content on the DVD, but they have policies in place to cover that, I'm sure, as we saw with the whole Hot Coffee crap.
I'm really not sure how else you could go about doing it. Perhaps a DVD that contained the entire game played through, but for some of the longer games, you couldn't expect them to watch it all. And how do you handle more open ended games, with multiple branching storylines? (do those even exist anymore?)
I think the system probably works reasonably well as is, as long as everyone is honest. And its usually in their interests to be honest, so it works out.
It's hard to say one is better, or more scary than the other. Each media has its own distinct differences that the other cannot really emulate.
As has been stated already, video games can be more immersive. You're actually controlling a lot of the action. So in a sense, you have a more vested interest in preserving your life. So when that zombie jumps through the window, it's more tense reacting to and dealing with it.
But what movies have going from them is the helpless lack of control. Take the Resident Evil example. You're confronted with the zombie through the window. While you are initially shocked, you can deal with the situation. You have a gigantic shotgun and tons of ammo, so your reaction to the shock is to go aggressive and blast the zombie.
Movies however can set you up in a helpless situation. You can see the zombie creeping up on the hero, but the hero doesn't see him. There's nothing you can do except watch. That's its own unique type of horror -- a sense of helplessness to prevent or react to what's going on.
It's not so much the idiots blinding themselves, as a previous poster pointed out. It's them blinding everyone else around them that's more worrying. You know, the ones that bring laser points to movie theaters? One malicious person could go to the front and start randomly shining it over the crowd.
I actually like this method. Why the hell even tell us about it when it's still 3 years out? I guess it's all hype and marketing, but it just tends to breed disappointment. People mentally embellish on the features that are described, then when it finally does come out, it doesn't meet their expectations.
This is why I typically don't even read previews for games. For one, they're almost always too optimistic. I guess this is to please the advertisers, but I've never read a preview that said "This game looks really cool, but let me tell ya, it's probably going to suck."
I tend to enjoy the games that came out of nowhere (for me, anyway) and surprised me with how good they were.
I understand that due to rising budget costs in game development, the previous use for using demos as a try-before-you-buy demonstration of the game is now obsolete and outdated.
But if we could get a demo of the demo before buying, it would let us make a well informed judgement.
On a serious note, I have mixed feelings about this. Previously, those demo magazines were a bit more expensive than usual magazines. I understand this to be due to the cost of compiling the content on the discs, producing the discs, etc. That's fine.
But at this point, you're eliminating that step, but still charging? What are you charging for? Does the game company get a cut of that? Or is this a deal where the demo magazine is paying a game company for exclusive use of their demo, then charging for it on the hopes of netting a profit?
On the other hand, there have been a handful of games I've wanted to get a taste of badly enough that I went out and bought an $8-$9 magazine just for that demo. I might have leafed through the magazine, and played a couple of other demos as well, but pretty much, I was after a specific demo. Paying a couple of bucks for one, where I don't have to even leave the house doesn't sound so bad.
Seems to me, someone needs to start flexing some muscle.
Giving the songs away for free seems like it would create far more benefits for everyone involved.
1) RedOctane would benefit because word would spread, and more people would likely buy GH2. 2) Microsoft benefits because it'd probably draw more people to Xbox Live subscriptions. Perhaps #1 would even cause some people to buy Xbox360's to get the GH2 on the Xbox due to the free songs. 3) The song publishers would benefit because this is free, interactive airplay. Know how a song gets stuck in your head after hearing it on the radio? Playing it in the game increases this effect. I've bought many records I would normally not have bought or been exposed to due to listening to and playing them in GH1 and GH2.
Perhaps its too soon, but instead of begging publishers for the right to pay for using their song, I would think good PR could go to publishers and ask how much they're willing to pay to get their songs in the game. And smart publishers would line up.
Perhaps that's the tack Harmonix will take with their next game, Rock Band.
A lot of people are saying there's no skill involved, it's all about your gear and how much time you spend raiding.
This isn't quite as true anymore, since the expansion. The best PvP gear comes as PvP rewards. Raiding offers nice gear, true, but most of it is more tailored towards raiding. You'll want more stamina and resilience stats that is way more available in the PvP gear rewards.
Blizzard is trying to draw the lines between PvP and PvE, and it could close the gear gap. If you really like to PvP, you'll eventually get the gear. Once everyone is in similar gear, skill and tactics become way more of a factor.
There's always the indefeatable boss that you're supposed to lose to. But hey, surprise, instead of a game over screen, your hero is knocked unconcious and the game goes on.
I really hate those. I end up using all my consumables trying to stay alive and win, only to be meant to lose, and end up wasting all my potions.
Of course, the other side of this is when I suspect this is the token unbeatable boss, I don't waste any potions, and just lose on purpose -- oops, game over. I guess this wasn't the token unbeatable boss.
Are people really so egotistical as to think that Microsoft or any corporation cares about them and their habits individually?
We're all just statistics. They care if 70% of a given demographic searches for 'PS2' over 'Xbox'. They don't care that you personally search for 'hot naked redheads'.
Personally, if I'm going to see ads, I'd rather see ones that are more likely to match my interests. I know, ads are evil and all that, and I usually just tune them out anyway, but if one actually does help me discover a product that I end up liking, well hell, what's the harm?
It's not about WoW taking all of the gamer's money. $15 a month is not even a dent in even a casual gamer's entertainment budget.
It's about time. Between work, WoW, and the occasional outing into the real world, there is no time left for these other games.
In fact, WoW has actually SAVED me money. Now I spend $15 a month for my gaming needs, instead of the $200 I previous spent buying a new game every week.
Maybe they get conquered in 2 days because everyone can do them? The guilds with 400 people, the guilds with 20 people, the guilds with 5 people, and lo', even pick up groups!
Imagine that. The non raiders who pay the same $15 a month everyone else does can actually access the content!
The other issue is... so what? Isn't that what the content is there for? To be experienced, and to be beaten?
Agreed. As I said in an earlier message, this is a game, not a simulator. There are cases where certain poetic licences are taken for the sake of gameplay.
I play guitar, and still enjoy the game. As my subject says, it's designed to be a game, not a guitar simulator. And as such, it fulfills the goals of most games. It's something you can sit down, quickly pick up and play, and get some instant gratification from.
I don't know how good you are, but picking up a new song on a guitar takes me a little practice. It's fun to be able to sit down and instantly start wailing on a song I've never even seen the sheet music for.
Most folks debate whether the 25% number is inflated or not. They say "No way 25%, it's probably more like 15%!"
That shouldn't even be the point of the argument. If ONLY 25% of level 60s have downed the boss of the easist raid dungeon in the game, why the hell do they keep making more raid dungeons?
Every time I see these types of posts, I have to wonder if they're a victim of their own success. With something like 6 million subscribers, it can't be an easy job maintaining the service.
Then again, they're getting $15 a month from 6 million people, you'd think throwing some money at the problem could help, but it's never that simple.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, the good ol' days. I remember having a 10 minute discussion with a user, trying to explain to them why a 3.5" was indeed still a floppy.
Finally gave up with the explanation, and ripped one open to show them that indeed, it was floppy, inside.
I don't know if it's standard, but it's pretty common. I don't know about marketing trick. Usually context is enough to figure it out.
I mean, the difference between 0.283 and 283 is significant to make someone double take, and find that leading decimal point, I'd think.
Wouldn't being able to revoke reviews entirely defeat the whole purpose of user submitted review?
Metallica was approached, but Lars nixxed it citing losing control of the IP.
I imagine a lot of the reason is turbo cars tend to be performance/sporty cars. Since the goal tends to be performance over comfort, they usually strip off the convenient features that add no performance but increase the weight.
Everyone always says "Oh, a delay. That's cool. It means they're making sure they get it right. I'd much rather have it be good and late than on time and crappy."
While I agree, can't anyone get it done right, AND on time? Or is "good" and "on time" now mutually exclusive?
I actually disagree. It turns certain sections of the game from a "hide behind cover and take out everyone you can see" sort of gameplay to a "take out the biggest threats, pop a flashbang/smoke grenade and run for your objective" sort of gameplay.
It doesn't use the infinite spawn thing everywhere, either. Usually just where there's heavy, heavy fighting. It simulates the fact that you're outnumbered, and standing your ground and killing everyone won't win the war. You have to complete the mission in spite of overwhelming odds, not take a stand and kill the entire opposing army single handedly.
I do wish they would have added some sort of overt clue as to when they spawn infinitely, though. Some sort of radio communication such as "We're getting swarmed and are outnumbered! GET TO THE OBJECTIVE!" type of thing would work.
I really liked the way Bioshock did it. Very few cutscenes. However, a ton of story and backstory information was present. Most of it was carried out on your radio as you did relevent stuff in the game. There were also many audio diaries scattered through the levels. These gave backstory and filled in a lot of gaps about what you knew.
The amusing thing was, I started off picking them up, and just half listening to them as I went on with the game. But the deeper I got, the more interesting the story because, and I found myself stopping and focusing just on what was being said. It probably would have annoyed me if it forced me to stop and listen, but given the choice, with an interesting enough story line, I did so of my own accord.
Step 1) Warranty is only void if modification caused the problem
:)
Step 2) Issue a firmware update that bricks the phone if it is modified
Step 3) ???
Step 4) Profit!
Seems to me, the modification caused the malfunction.
The idea is to rate the game based on its content. So they create a DVD with a range of the various types of content.
You can't expect them to play through the whole game. And what good would they get out of playing the tutorial? They're not rating how good the game is, how the controls work out, how well the gameplay works. They're rating its content. They don't need to play it to do that.
The only flaw is when the developer does not include a true spectrum of the game's content on the DVD, but they have policies in place to cover that, I'm sure, as we saw with the whole Hot Coffee crap.
I'm really not sure how else you could go about doing it. Perhaps a DVD that contained the entire game played through, but for some of the longer games, you couldn't expect them to watch it all. And how do you handle more open ended games, with multiple branching storylines? (do those even exist anymore?)
I think the system probably works reasonably well as is, as long as everyone is honest. And its usually in their interests to be honest, so it works out.
It's hard to say one is better, or more scary than the other. Each media has its own distinct differences that the other cannot really emulate.
As has been stated already, video games can be more immersive. You're actually controlling a lot of the action. So in a sense, you have a more vested interest in preserving your life. So when that zombie jumps through the window, it's more tense reacting to and dealing with it.
But what movies have going from them is the helpless lack of control. Take the Resident Evil example. You're confronted with the zombie through the window. While you are initially shocked, you can deal with the situation. You have a gigantic shotgun and tons of ammo, so your reaction to the shock is to go aggressive and blast the zombie.
Movies however can set you up in a helpless situation. You can see the zombie creeping up on the hero, but the hero doesn't see him. There's nothing you can do except watch. That's its own unique type of horror -- a sense of helplessness to prevent or react to what's going on.
It's not so much the idiots blinding themselves, as a previous poster pointed out. It's them blinding everyone else around them that's more worrying. You know, the ones that bring laser points to movie theaters? One malicious person could go to the front and start randomly shining it over the crowd.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/05/12/
:)
Maybe Spore would be on time if he'd stop wasting all this time at parties and benefits!
I actually like this method. Why the hell even tell us about it when it's still 3 years out? I guess it's all hype and marketing, but it just tends to breed disappointment. People mentally embellish on the features that are described, then when it finally does come out, it doesn't meet their expectations.
This is why I typically don't even read previews for games. For one, they're almost always too optimistic. I guess this is to please the advertisers, but I've never read a preview that said "This game looks really cool, but let me tell ya, it's probably going to suck."
I tend to enjoy the games that came out of nowhere (for me, anyway) and surprised me with how good they were.
I understand that due to rising budget costs in game development, the previous use for using demos as a try-before-you-buy demonstration of the game is now obsolete and outdated.
But if we could get a demo of the demo before buying, it would let us make a well informed judgement.
On a serious note, I have mixed feelings about this. Previously, those demo magazines were a bit more expensive than usual magazines. I understand this to be due to the cost of compiling the content on the discs, producing the discs, etc. That's fine.
But at this point, you're eliminating that step, but still charging? What are you charging for? Does the game company get a cut of that? Or is this a deal where the demo magazine is paying a game company for exclusive use of their demo, then charging for it on the hopes of netting a profit?
On the other hand, there have been a handful of games I've wanted to get a taste of badly enough that I went out and bought an $8-$9 magazine just for that demo. I might have leafed through the magazine, and played a couple of other demos as well, but pretty much, I was after a specific demo. Paying a couple of bucks for one, where I don't have to even leave the house doesn't sound so bad.
Seems to me, someone needs to start flexing some muscle.
Giving the songs away for free seems like it would create far more benefits for everyone involved.
1) RedOctane would benefit because word would spread, and more people would likely buy GH2.
2) Microsoft benefits because it'd probably draw more people to Xbox Live subscriptions. Perhaps #1 would even cause some people to buy Xbox360's to get the GH2 on the Xbox due to the free songs.
3) The song publishers would benefit because this is free, interactive airplay. Know how a song gets stuck in your head after hearing it on the radio? Playing it in the game increases this effect. I've bought many records I would normally not have bought or been exposed to due to listening to and playing them in GH1 and GH2.
Perhaps its too soon, but instead of begging publishers for the right to pay for using their song, I would think good PR could go to publishers and ask how much they're willing to pay to get their songs in the game. And smart publishers would line up.
Perhaps that's the tack Harmonix will take with their next game, Rock Band.
A lot of people are saying there's no skill involved, it's all about your gear and how much time you spend raiding.
This isn't quite as true anymore, since the expansion. The best PvP gear comes as PvP rewards. Raiding offers nice gear, true, but most of it is more tailored towards raiding. You'll want more stamina and resilience stats that is way more available in the PvP gear rewards.
Blizzard is trying to draw the lines between PvP and PvE, and it could close the gear gap. If you really like to PvP, you'll eventually get the gear. Once everyone is in similar gear, skill and tactics become way more of a factor.
There's always the indefeatable boss that you're supposed to lose to. But hey, surprise, instead of a game over screen, your hero is knocked unconcious and the game goes on.
I really hate those. I end up using all my consumables trying to stay alive and win, only to be meant to lose, and end up wasting all my potions.
Of course, the other side of this is when I suspect this is the token unbeatable boss, I don't waste any potions, and just lose on purpose -- oops, game over. I guess this wasn't the token unbeatable boss.
Are people really so egotistical as to think that Microsoft or any corporation cares about them and their habits individually?
We're all just statistics. They care if 70% of a given demographic searches for 'PS2' over 'Xbox'. They don't care that you personally search for 'hot naked redheads'.
Personally, if I'm going to see ads, I'd rather see ones that are more likely to match my interests. I know, ads are evil and all that, and I usually just tune them out anyway, but if one actually does help me discover a product that I end up liking, well hell, what's the harm?
It's not about WoW taking all of the gamer's money. $15 a month is not even a dent in even a casual gamer's entertainment budget.
It's about time. Between work, WoW, and the occasional outing into the real world, there is no time left for these other games.
In fact, WoW has actually SAVED me money. Now I spend $15 a month for my gaming needs, instead of the $200 I previous spent buying a new game every week.
Maybe they get conquered in 2 days because everyone can do them? The guilds with 400 people, the guilds with 20 people, the guilds with 5 people, and lo', even pick up groups!
Imagine that. The non raiders who pay the same $15 a month everyone else does can actually access the content!
The other issue is... so what? Isn't that what the content is there for? To be experienced, and to be beaten?
Agreed. As I said in an earlier message, this is a game, not a simulator. There are cases where certain poetic licences are taken for the sake of gameplay.
I play guitar, and still enjoy the game. As my subject says, it's designed to be a game, not a guitar simulator. And as such, it fulfills the goals of most games. It's something you can sit down, quickly pick up and play, and get some instant gratification from.
I don't know how good you are, but picking up a new song on a guitar takes me a little practice. It's fun to be able to sit down and instantly start wailing on a song I've never even seen the sheet music for.
Most folks debate whether the 25% number is inflated or not. They say "No way 25%, it's probably more like 15%!"
That shouldn't even be the point of the argument. If ONLY 25% of level 60s have downed the boss of the easist raid dungeon in the game, why the hell do they keep making more raid dungeons?
Every time I see these types of posts, I have to wonder if they're a victim of their own success. With something like 6 million subscribers, it can't be an easy job maintaining the service.
Then again, they're getting $15 a month from 6 million people, you'd think throwing some money at the problem could help, but it's never that simple.