With regard to the current state of the genre, I maintain that Westwood's 'Dune II' is the mold in which virtually all RTS games since (to some usually large degree) have been cast. Modular base construction, one-screen GUI+top-down view, not to mention the cornerstone of all such games: the lockstep of game pacing to resource gathering.
Although, IMO, the paradigm is a hoary old Cliche Golem here in 2004, when 'Dune II' arrived more than a decade ago as the unheralded sequel to an unsatisfying adventure title, it was remarkably fun and innovative at the same time. Westwood continued releasing incremental sequels (called 'Command&Conquer' so that it was their own IP and they didn't have to pay licensing to Herbert estate); Blizzard copped it quick with 'Warcraft' (eventually creating the best-balanced penultimate RTS, 'Starcraft'), et al.
Literally, though, "real-time strategy" games have been around much longer; the question becomes the denotation of RTS as a genre. 'Populous' for example, though "real-time" is far more accurately categorized as a Builder due to its gameplay mechanics (abstracted vs. direct control, no military, etc.)
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we have an absolute masterpiece of cluelessness; one demonstrating perfect irony as unspoilt by even an inkling of ironic intent, in which convoluted infantile rationalizations of selfishness are only as preposterous as their self-contradictory dichotomy of arrogant egotism and ignorance.
"Social Darwinism", indeed; this *theory* came into being as a justification for the societal inequities brought about by the inordinate wealth of the robber barons / industrialists during the late 19th / early 20th centuries. It has never had any basis in empirical science..... and for that matter neither does the ludicrous "...reproduce your defunct genes?" assertion, which operates on the obviously incorrect assumption that the ability to be socialized as an educated person is genetically derived (!) as opposed to socioeconomic in nature.
It is so patently clear that this sort of shrill screed is based in the affluent's seeming need to concoct some cockamamie *explanation* for their fortunate circumstance.
"Reward the smart, punish the stupid."
Were this platitude the basis of our society, then it is without doubt that you'd be subject to lifelong imprisonment, Mr. Bios Hakr.
(Note that I am not referring to the legacy of masterful arcade games from the original Midway: Defender, Robotron: 2084 (!), SpyHunter, and Marble Madness are timeless pioneering classics that, if anything, only make the eyecandy-dependent poorly-balanced twitchfests represented by their `90s-present catalogue all the more vapid and forgettable.)
"Do they have dominance over us, or do we have dominance over the non-intelligent life on their planet?"
How a puerile Darwinian hypothetical qualifies as an 'interesting religious question' is beyond me.
Certainly the only 'conflict' between creationism and evolution-derived science is the fear-driven irrationality of a goodly portion of believers in the former.
However, parent post's obsession with some contrived 'dominance' paradigm is a tellingly hierarchial Judeo-Christian oversimplification.
One that also informed the Christian Darwin's own extensions of the implications derived from the data he collected.
...I think [Man's 'dominance'] justifies our selective killing and domestication as needed for food, safety, work or companionship...
That's convenient. However Mankind's intrinsic subsistence on consuming other life is not a unique trait in Earth's ecosystem..... not only natural predators', but also various symbiotic lifeforms' (not to mention any other examples') existence is predicated on their 'dominance' over their subsistence source (i.e., prey).
"...Nice try. But I'll bet that using EAX would have been faster...."
Slashdot should automatically mod down any post lauding EAX; no ifs, nor ands..... and don't even think about buts. (.....thusly mequoth as owner of an original SB Live! since 1999.....)
In response to the mostly spurious/. responses to this announcement, there are a few things I would like to add.
Morrowind was the realization of the Elder Scrolls vision Bethesda's had since Arena, and a vindication after what was in all truth an early-beta packaged Daggerfall release. Yes, the character art in Morrowind was lacking, the non-critical bugs were numerous, and the combat mechanics were oversimplified and dull (don't forget those screeching airborne creatures.....worst. idea. ever.) Despite all that, as the only RPG in the last few years to extend the frontier into non-linear, player-driven game experiences, with an open editing system, breathtaking terrain and atmospheric graphics, and a universe with plenty of interesting ideas and refined development to offset its marginal coherence and its unevenly amateurish prose. It's like much of the best of fantasy in that its power to entertain relies on the audience's willful suspension of disbelief; those looking for a reason to dislike it are more than likely to find several. For those of us who enjoy the increasingly rare concept of open-endedness (in this case co-existent with a fairly involved but ultimately Foozle-foiled plotline), Morrowind was an immense and satisfying experience for all its flaws. ((note: regards only to PC version with patches applied.))
On the other hand, Fallout and Fallout 2 (which comprise the rare original-and-sequel combination that can be rightly referred to as two parts of a whole) were games that ultimately are in a class above anything Bethesda has yet done: an exquisitely balanced tactical battle system, an engaging story presented with amongst the most artful use of production values ever seen in a game including _good_ voice acting (!) and not just competent but at times _evocative_ prose..... oh yeah, and there's the brilliant SPECIAL system of character creation and customization, which manages to show up Morrowind's more-abstracted model because the choices the player made in Fallout&2 _directly affected_ gameplay mechanics, the sign of masterwork RPG design; finally, Fallout&2's branching-important-choice storyline probably represents the best implementation yet of the Ultima IV paradigm of ethical choices acting causally in the plotline.
I think it's safe to say that Fallout 3 will be "3D", but hopefully that doesn't mean first-person. My personal bias is to hope that Bethesda approaches this project with some degree of homage; I would be more interested in seeing what their indubitably talented team could come up with in translating their ideas into a primarily-isometric turn-based tactical combat game with a cohesive branching plot based around a single PC with partially-controlled NPC party members than I would be in seeing them do The Fallout Total Conversion Mod for Morrowind.
In response to the rather snarky comments following up my post:
1. J.Erwin: 'Caffeinated' does not denote added caffeine, be it powdered or otherwise.
2. gz718: Point taken on author Wm. Grimes' specialization and august status (perhaps he should stick to culinary criticism); however my 'Science' jibe was referring to the article's classification on Slashdot.
3. barakn: "The article wasn't science, but your idea isn't either." -- ah, good to see that pedantry is alive and well..... gripping another would-be didact self-caricatured by ignorance. The assertion that subjective experiential data (i.e., my suggested informal 'experiment' to consume each drink on separate succesive nights, which in other words was merely a directive to Try It Yourself) is entirely worthless due to the power of suggestion is absurd -- unsurprising given barakn's facile and flaccid attempt at sardonicism (that old warhorse "the placebo effect" is trotted out despite its complete irrelevance to the comparison of two disparate substances, as a placebo is absent of active ingredients.) It is an emblematic symptom of contemporary first-world cognitive malaise to spastically mis-apply vaguely remembered quasi-scientific Key Terms like "double-blind" in an attempt to establish credibility (hey, it worked well enough on those BS essays in school, right?) Although I never claimed my suggestion satisfies the requirements for a scientifically sound Experiment (and never would make such a patently ridiculous claim), I stand by my recommendation to Try It Yourself as science in the essential Socratic sense. The implications of a paradigm in which each individual's experiences are negated by a pseudoscientific invocation of dubious psychological (oh yeah, I already said 'pseudoscientific', so that's redundant) platitudes are actually quite dire. Think about it.
The NYT article itself is a lark, and a poorly written one at that. As one who consumes espresso regularly and *energy drinks* occasionally, I can assert, experientially (corroborated by several friends & coworkers with whom I've discussed this in the past), that the defining active ingredient in Red Bull and its myriad spawn is Taurine, not Caffeine.
Conduct the experiment yourself: get a double espresso one night, followed the next night by an 8oz *energy drink* (adjust qtys. for your tolerance). Note the differing effects of the caffeinated espresso vs. the taurine+caffeine *energy drink*.
Slashdot Mirror
Just a quick affirmation and approbation directed toward jd's superlative post. Insightful, interesting, and informative all at once. Tres bien!
It's called "the other side of the story". Not so big on slashdot; important, however.
"...Holden brought to mind a number of wonderful yet somehow forgotten memories (e.g., All Your Base Are Belong To Us)"
"Forgotten?"
"Wonderful??"
That's some dry wit.
With regard to the current state of the genre, I maintain that Westwood's 'Dune II' is the mold in which virtually all RTS games since (to some usually large degree) have been cast. Modular base construction, one-screen GUI+top-down view, not to mention the cornerstone of all such games: the lockstep of game pacing to resource gathering.
Although, IMO, the paradigm is a hoary old Cliche Golem here in 2004, when 'Dune II' arrived more than a decade ago as the unheralded sequel to an unsatisfying adventure title, it was remarkably fun and innovative at the same time. Westwood continued releasing incremental sequels (called 'Command&Conquer' so that it was their own IP and they didn't have to pay licensing to Herbert estate); Blizzard copped it quick with 'Warcraft' (eventually creating the best-balanced penultimate RTS, 'Starcraft'), et al.
Literally, though, "real-time strategy" games have been around much longer; the question becomes the denotation of RTS as a genre. 'Populous' for example, though "real-time" is far more accurately categorized as a Builder due to its gameplay mechanics (abstracted vs. direct control, no military, etc.)
I did read your entire comment.
The fact that you contradicted the part of it which I critiqued by stating what you *reminded* me does not, to me, invalidate my critique.
If however, your whole ill-conceived 'Social Darwinism' screed was truly meant as satire, then the harsh statements I made wouldn't apply.
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we have an absolute masterpiece of cluelessness; one demonstrating perfect irony as unspoilt by even an inkling of ironic intent, in which convoluted infantile rationalizations of selfishness are only as preposterous as their self-contradictory dichotomy of arrogant egotism and ignorance.
"Social Darwinism", indeed; this *theory* came into being as a justification for the societal inequities brought about by the inordinate wealth of the robber barons / industrialists during the late 19th / early 20th centuries. It has never had any basis in empirical science..... and for that matter neither does the ludicrous "...reproduce your defunct genes?" assertion, which operates on the obviously incorrect assumption that the ability to be socialized as an educated person is genetically derived (!) as opposed to socioeconomic in nature.
It is so patently clear that this sort of shrill screed is based in the affluent's seeming need to concoct some cockamamie *explanation* for their fortunate circumstance.
"Reward the smart, punish the stupid."
Were this platitude the basis of our society, then it is without doubt that you'd be subject to lifelong imprisonment, Mr. Bios Hakr.
The Gubberment has you all fooled!!!
They really just bounced that first transmission off of a hollywood sound stage.....
"Oh, and by the way Midway guy, 95% of the games your company has put out are trash."
"95%"?
What, are you on Midway's payroll or something?.....
One for you, nineteen for me ~~ maybe for the taxman, but Midway's penchant for execrable games is far more proportionally dominant than that.
http://www.mobygames.com/browse/games/o,100/j,74/
(Note that I am not referring to the legacy of masterful arcade games from the original Midway: Defender, Robotron: 2084 (!), SpyHunter, and Marble Madness are timeless pioneering classics that, if anything, only make the eyecandy-dependent poorly-balanced twitchfests represented by their `90s-present catalogue all the more vapid and forgettable.)
"Do they have dominance over us, or do we have dominance over the non-intelligent life on their planet?"
...I think [Man's 'dominance'] justifies our selective killing and domestication as needed for food, safety, work or companionship...
How a puerile Darwinian hypothetical qualifies as an 'interesting religious question' is beyond me.
Certainly the only 'conflict' between creationism and evolution-derived science is the fear-driven irrationality of a goodly portion of believers in the former.
However, parent post's obsession with some contrived 'dominance' paradigm is a tellingly hierarchial Judeo-Christian oversimplification.
One that also informed the Christian Darwin's own extensions of the implications derived from the data he collected.
That's convenient. However Mankind's intrinsic subsistence on consuming other life is not a unique trait in Earth's ecosystem..... not only natural predators', but also various symbiotic lifeforms' (not to mention any other examples') existence is predicated on their 'dominance' over their subsistence source (i.e., prey).
"...PC Gamer...trustworthy..."
.....almost excepting the dubious employ of textbook irony.
Those are two terms that ought not share a sentence.....
But not quite.
"...Nice try. But I'll bet that using EAX would have been faster. ..."
Slashdot should automatically mod down any post lauding EAX;
no ifs, nor ands..... and don't even think about buts.
(.....thusly mequoth as owner of an original SB Live! since 1999.....)
Well put.
/. responses to this announcement, there are a few things I would like to add.
In response to the mostly spurious
Morrowind was the realization of the Elder Scrolls vision Bethesda's had since Arena, and a vindication after what was in all truth an early-beta packaged Daggerfall release. Yes, the character art in Morrowind was lacking, the non-critical bugs were numerous, and the combat mechanics were oversimplified and dull (don't forget those screeching airborne creatures.....worst. idea. ever.) Despite all that, as the only RPG in the last few years to extend the frontier into non-linear, player-driven game experiences, with an open editing system, breathtaking terrain and atmospheric graphics, and a universe with plenty of interesting ideas and refined development to offset its marginal coherence and its unevenly amateurish prose. It's like much of the best of fantasy in that its power to entertain relies on the audience's willful suspension of disbelief; those looking for a reason to dislike it are more than likely to find several. For those of us who enjoy the increasingly rare concept of open-endedness (in this case co-existent with a fairly involved but ultimately Foozle-foiled plotline), Morrowind was an immense and satisfying experience for all its flaws. ((note: regards only to PC version with patches applied.))
On the other hand, Fallout and Fallout 2 (which comprise the rare original-and-sequel combination that can be rightly referred to as two parts of a whole) were games that ultimately are in a class above anything Bethesda has yet done: an exquisitely balanced tactical battle system, an engaging story presented with amongst the most artful use of production values ever seen in a game including _good_ voice acting (!) and not just competent but at times _evocative_ prose..... oh yeah, and there's the brilliant SPECIAL system of character creation and customization, which manages to show up Morrowind's more-abstracted model because the choices the player made in Fallout&2 _directly affected_ gameplay mechanics, the sign of masterwork RPG design; finally, Fallout&2's branching-important-choice storyline probably represents the best implementation yet of the Ultima IV paradigm of ethical choices acting causally in the plotline.
I think it's safe to say that Fallout 3 will be "3D", but hopefully that doesn't mean first-person. My personal bias is to hope that Bethesda approaches this project with some degree of homage; I would be more interested in seeing what their indubitably talented team could come up with in translating their ideas into a primarily-isometric turn-based tactical combat game with a cohesive branching plot based around a single PC with partially-controlled NPC party members than I would be in seeing them do The Fallout Total Conversion Mod for Morrowind.
In response to the rather snarky comments following up my post:
1. J.Erwin: 'Caffeinated' does not denote added caffeine, be it powdered or otherwise.
2. gz718: Point taken on author Wm. Grimes' specialization and august status (perhaps he should stick to culinary criticism); however my 'Science' jibe was referring to the article's classification on Slashdot.
3. barakn: "The article wasn't science, but your idea isn't either." -- ah, good to see that pedantry is alive and well..... gripping another would-be didact self-caricatured by ignorance. The assertion that subjective experiential data (i.e., my suggested informal 'experiment' to consume each drink on separate succesive nights, which in other words was merely a directive to Try It Yourself) is entirely worthless due to the power of suggestion is absurd -- unsurprising given barakn's facile and flaccid attempt at sardonicism (that old warhorse "the placebo effect" is trotted out despite its complete irrelevance to the comparison of two disparate substances, as a placebo is absent of active ingredients.) It is an emblematic symptom of contemporary first-world cognitive malaise to spastically mis-apply vaguely remembered quasi-scientific Key Terms like "double-blind" in an attempt to establish credibility (hey, it worked well enough on those BS essays in school, right?) Although I never claimed my suggestion satisfies the requirements for a scientifically sound Experiment (and never would make such a patently ridiculous claim), I stand by my recommendation to Try It Yourself as science in the essential Socratic sense. The implications of a paradigm in which each individual's experiences are negated by a pseudoscientific invocation of dubious psychological (oh yeah, I already said 'pseudoscientific', so that's redundant) platitudes are actually quite dire. Think about it.
This is a 'Science' story???
The NYT article itself is a lark, and a poorly written one at that. As one who consumes espresso regularly and *energy drinks* occasionally, I can assert, experientially (corroborated by several friends & coworkers with whom I've discussed this in the past), that the defining active ingredient in Red Bull and its myriad spawn is Taurine, not Caffeine.
Conduct the experiment yourself: get a double espresso one night, followed the next night by an 8oz *energy drink* (adjust qtys. for your tolerance). Note the differing effects of the caffeinated espresso vs. the taurine+caffeine *energy drink*.