The stores messed up by allowing a minor to purchase the game, but suing Take Two Interactive? All they did was make a product. It's not their fault how it got distributed by their retailers.
First off, it's a $49.99 game. Secondly, the game is not available in stores due to Blizzard's cutting back on new users due to server issues. Considering the lack of availability of the game in stores, a used copy that someone doesn't want after having tried it should still have value.
I for one and sick and tired of software companies bullying their consumers around. I should be able to return software. I should be able to sell software I purchased to other people. I should be able to run games that already have cd-keys for online-only play without requiring that I keep the CD in the drive while playing!
With variations in altitude, it can be difficult for GPS to be accurate. Also, the military doesn't provide super-accurate GPS to civilians. In addition, all the driver has to do is cover up the GPS unit so it can't signal the satellite.
Valid points, but is your need to save on swapping out machines worth bringing forward an older architecture and all its flaws that could be resolved by a fresh design? Anyone who has done low-level programming for the x86 architecture can tell you that there are a ton of things that have been carried forward due to the fact that each new x86 processor had to maintain backwards-compatibility with the one that came before it. The advantage of the console market is that they can completely junk an old architecture and start fresh. For my new console, I'd rather see new games completly unhindered by clunky old architecture than save a little hassle on my end by having to reconnect my systems.
Valid points, but:
1) The original poster already has the first XBox and doesn't want his current games to become obsolete
2) By the time the new unit gets to market, the old unit's price has dropped to the point where it can be had very cheaply.
So short of the hassle of having multiple units hooked up to your telivision at once, what advantages are there?
Why is backwards-compatibility such a big deal for consoles? You can have more than one console attached to a television, or set it up so that it's easy to swap one out when you want to play the games from the other system.
A game has to do at least one of these things well. I find that games that don't do any of these, such as Everquest, are the worst.
Last time I checked, Legos are not considered a game! Perhaps Legos are a puzzle or a work of art. I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that paragraph, but it makes no sense as you contradict yourself. I was limiting myself to the field of video games so Legos are irrelevant anyway. I'm guessing you think that Photoshop is one of the best games ever!
3 of the examples I gave (Space Invaders, Knights of the Old Republic, and Civilization) are games that only excel in one category, but you'll note that I don't say that detracts from them in any way. All 3 of those games are fun and I enjoy them. A game can do any or all of these things and still be enjoyable. Combining the elements does lead to more depth and replayability. Of course a poor implementation will be bad, and there is no guarantee of fun just like a piece of music that follows all the rules of the theory of music will not necessarily be good.
I think the other categories you mention stem from my 4 ideas. Difficulty stems from requiring more from the user in terms of hand-eye coordination as well as tactical and strategic knowledge. Sense of accomplishment is directly related to overcoming difficulty. Immersion comes from the fact that you are using real-life problem-solving skills to solve problems in a virtual world. Replayability requires from requiring deep thought in tactical and strategic terms as well as many tactical and strategic options.
I've done much thinking on the subject, and I contend that there are 4 main elements that lead to a game being fun:
#1) Storyline. This is the most basic element; a computer game can be looked at as a form of interactive movie. However, storyline is not essential since games have elements that movies cannot provide. An example of a game the excels at storyline without the other elements is Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. It basically immerses the player in the Star Wars universe without requiring too much in the way of critical thought or reflexes.
#2) Hand-eye coordination. At it's most basic level, a game requires the player to learn how to interact with the environment via some input device, whether it's a mouse, keyboard, joystick, or what have you. An example of a game that does this without the other elements is the original Space Invaders. Not much thought is needed to perform in that game, but learning how to press the fire button and move quickly is important.
#3) Tactics. Forcing the player to make a decision that has both benefits and weaknesses. Forcing players to make real-time decisions in a fantasy world leads to a sense of immersion. It's hard to think of a game that is purely tactical-based, but for an example of what I'm talking about, let's look at Contra. The game takes the basic shooter hand-eye coordination premise that a game like Space Invaders has, and adds the requirement that the user be smart enough to figure out what weapon to use for a given scenario. There are of course better examples, but this particular example gives you the basics of how tactics can be used to enhance a game.
#4) Strategy. Forcing the user to come up with an overall plan for how to do things. An example of a game that excels in this area is Civilization. Provoking critical thought from the user in order to solve a detailed problem (albeit a fictional one) involves the user on a higher level that can be appreciated. I find that the games with the most longevity tend to feature a lot of strategy.
The most successful of games will combine all 4 of these elements. My favorite game is Starcraft, and it is clear to see how all of these elements are used. The storyline is okay, the hand-eye coordination required is immense, the tactics involved are complex, and the strategy level is great. Other games can be broken down similarly. For example, Counter-Strike has no storyline, but there's hand-eye coordination required for aiming the weapon, tactics for deciding what equipment to use, and strategy for deciding how to approach the level with your team.
Think about it, and I bet you'll be hard-pressed to find another way to evaluate gameplay. I only wish there was a game review magazine that took these factors into account!
Since Starcraft requires the ability to manage many different actions all at once I can clearly see why it would be easy to program an AI for Starcraft that always wins. I can also write a program that can add two random 16 digit numbers faster than a human.
Who did this war exactly benefit? Was it worth it? Are we safer because Saddam is holed up and Al Qaeda is running around in Iraq? Iraqis say that thanks to America they got freedom in exchange for insecurity. Guess what? They say theyâd take security over freedom any day, even if it means having a dictator ruler.
Some might say that if they are willing to sacrifice freedom for security then they deserve neither!
Slashdot Mirror
The stores messed up by allowing a minor to purchase the game, but suing Take Two Interactive? All they did was make a product. It's not their fault how it got distributed by their retailers.
First off, it's a $49.99 game. Secondly, the game is not available in stores due to Blizzard's cutting back on new users due to server issues. Considering the lack of availability of the game in stores, a used copy that someone doesn't want after having tried it should still have value.
I for one and sick and tired of software companies bullying their consumers around. I should be able to return software. I should be able to sell software I purchased to other people. I should be able to run games that already have cd-keys for online-only play without requiring that I keep the CD in the drive while playing!
With variations in altitude, it can be difficult for GPS to be accurate. Also, the military doesn't provide super-accurate GPS to civilians. In addition, all the driver has to do is cover up the GPS unit so it can't signal the satellite.
Valid points, but is your need to save on swapping out machines worth bringing forward an older architecture and all its flaws that could be resolved by a fresh design? Anyone who has done low-level programming for the x86 architecture can tell you that there are a ton of things that have been carried forward due to the fact that each new x86 processor had to maintain backwards-compatibility with the one that came before it. The advantage of the console market is that they can completely junk an old architecture and start fresh. For my new console, I'd rather see new games completly unhindered by clunky old architecture than save a little hassle on my end by having to reconnect my systems.
Valid points, but: 1) The original poster already has the first XBox and doesn't want his current games to become obsolete 2) By the time the new unit gets to market, the old unit's price has dropped to the point where it can be had very cheaply. So short of the hassle of having multiple units hooked up to your telivision at once, what advantages are there?
Why is backwards-compatibility such a big deal for consoles? You can have more than one console attached to a television, or set it up so that it's easy to swap one out when you want to play the games from the other system.
I meant to constrain my system to the field of video games.
A game has to do at least one of these things well. I find that games that don't do any of these, such as Everquest, are the worst. Last time I checked, Legos are not considered a game! Perhaps Legos are a puzzle or a work of art. I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that paragraph, but it makes no sense as you contradict yourself. I was limiting myself to the field of video games so Legos are irrelevant anyway. I'm guessing you think that Photoshop is one of the best games ever!
3 of the examples I gave (Space Invaders, Knights of the Old Republic, and Civilization) are games that only excel in one category, but you'll note that I don't say that detracts from them in any way. All 3 of those games are fun and I enjoy them. A game can do any or all of these things and still be enjoyable. Combining the elements does lead to more depth and replayability. Of course a poor implementation will be bad, and there is no guarantee of fun just like a piece of music that follows all the rules of the theory of music will not necessarily be good.
I think the other categories you mention stem from my 4 ideas. Difficulty stems from requiring more from the user in terms of hand-eye coordination as well as tactical and strategic knowledge. Sense of accomplishment is directly related to overcoming difficulty. Immersion comes from the fact that you are using real-life problem-solving skills to solve problems in a virtual world. Replayability requires from requiring deep thought in tactical and strategic terms as well as many tactical and strategic options.
I've done much thinking on the subject, and I contend that there are 4 main elements that lead to a game being fun:
#1) Storyline. This is the most basic element; a computer game can be looked at as a form of interactive movie. However, storyline is not essential since games have elements that movies cannot provide. An example of a game the excels at storyline without the other elements is Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. It basically immerses the player in the Star Wars universe without requiring too much in the way of critical thought or reflexes.
#2) Hand-eye coordination. At it's most basic level, a game requires the player to learn how to interact with the environment via some input device, whether it's a mouse, keyboard, joystick, or what have you. An example of a game that does this without the other elements is the original Space Invaders. Not much thought is needed to perform in that game, but learning how to press the fire button and move quickly is important.
#3) Tactics. Forcing the player to make a decision that has both benefits and weaknesses. Forcing players to make real-time decisions in a fantasy world leads to a sense of immersion. It's hard to think of a game that is purely tactical-based, but for an example of what I'm talking about, let's look at Contra. The game takes the basic shooter hand-eye coordination premise that a game like Space Invaders has, and adds the requirement that the user be smart enough to figure out what weapon to use for a given scenario. There are of course better examples, but this particular example gives you the basics of how tactics can be used to enhance a game.
#4) Strategy. Forcing the user to come up with an overall plan for how to do things. An example of a game that excels in this area is Civilization. Provoking critical thought from the user in order to solve a detailed problem (albeit a fictional one) involves the user on a higher level that can be appreciated. I find that the games with the most longevity tend to feature a lot of strategy.
The most successful of games will combine all 4 of these elements. My favorite game is Starcraft, and it is clear to see how all of these elements are used. The storyline is okay, the hand-eye coordination required is immense, the tactics involved are complex, and the strategy level is great. Other games can be broken down similarly. For example, Counter-Strike has no storyline, but there's hand-eye coordination required for aiming the weapon, tactics for deciding what equipment to use, and strategy for deciding how to approach the level with your team.
Think about it, and I bet you'll be hard-pressed to find another way to evaluate gameplay. I only wish there was a game review magazine that took these factors into account!
Since Starcraft requires the ability to manage many different actions all at once I can clearly see why it would be easy to program an AI for Starcraft that always wins. I can also write a program that can add two random 16 digit numbers faster than a human.
I for one welcome our Artificially-Intelligent overlords who in Soviet Russia program us to do ??? then profit.
In Soviet Russia, iPod hacks YOU!!!
I for one welcome our new scrotum temperature-raising overlords.