now don't get me wrong. i'm a huge starcraft fan and have probably spent hundreds of hours playing the game (if not thousands). it is most deffinitly one of the most well balanced rts games ever.
but really, was the campaign that much more compelling than any other rts of the period? all the story was, was an excuse to build a base and go blow up your opponent's base. sure there was the occasional non base building mission that seemed to show up in alot of rts games of the period but this certainly wasnt done first or better in starcraft (and to be honest i always hated these missions). As far as the campaign goes (and the campaign only) i really dont see how starcraft did anything that any other rts hadnt already done.
yeah, i like how the post seems to suggest some sort of global conspiracy based off this ones person's single experience. why was this even posted on slashdot? next we'll see posts about how some random guy found a hair in his soup and then proceeds to link it to some broader hair based conspiracy.
there will always been sales people who will lie to make the sale. does this mean it's company policy? no.
I don't think you got mine. I was making fun of your lame internet short hand and not commenting on you being a girl. "ur" is not a word.
Your entire post is also irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the authors are from. The fact that they are in the UK only makes the system rarer, which only strengthens my point.
My favorite part is when you tell me you're a girl though. That has nothing to do with anything and why would I care?
You are truly the 133t35t of the 133t. While everyone else wallows in their own ignorance you are the shining beacon of insight.
Who are you to tell anyone that they have nothing to contribute? Since you are so more insightful and set apart from "the unwashed masses" and aren't a member of :the self-absorbed, illogical, ignorant, dumb, arrogant, fragile, and generally horrifying human mind: your opinion if far more valid than everyone else's, right? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be claiming to be some sort of intellectual superiority for your self here, right?
amen to that. i might vote for a republican that would actually lower the federal deficit. as both parties seem to be debt spenders i'll vote democrat so at least the money is spent here at home.
That wouldnt be true about the winner of an election being in the center politicaly. Roosevelt was not a centrists no matter how many times he won an election. Sometimes people just want some one on the left or right. Currently with Bush, his and the Republicans success is being blamed, at least some what, on an extremely effective mobilization of their concervative base, which is to say they're getting far more people on the right into the voting booths than those on the left are getting leftists. Another good chunk came from the fact that we're at war and war time presidents are always popular unless the war starts to go really badly (like right now).
Also, going to the left may be what the Democrats need to win elections again. It worked for the Republicans when from the 80's on forward they moved increasingly from the center to the right (they had been more or less centrists since WWII). This won them the House in 1994 and the Presidency in 2000. Meanwhile, over the same period, the Democrats moved from the left to the center. I'm not saying moving to the left will garuntee Democrat success, I'm just saying that a shift to the left for Democrats may not be as bad as some people think.
Political catagorization is not relative. Communists are basicaly the far left, fascists basicaly the far right (although this is less well defined, perhaps libertarians are) and they meet in the center. There is no relativity here. Some one who is less liberal than I but left of center is not of the right. Lifewise, just because the center is left of where your own ideology is at does not make those in the center of the left.
Probably because you didn't support it at all. It seems to me that you're opinion here is making a statement equivalent to stating that the sky is green. Mainstream political science just doesn't back your claim that Clinton was much of a leftist at all. If you want examples of American leftist presidents in recent times look to Roosevelt or Johnson.
Unless you are willing to support your unusual claim with reasonable evidence a mod down isn't uncalled for as it seems to be a claim that is pretty out there.
I don't know if you're familiar with the history of the American South but it used to be far harder for a black person to vote in elections down there than it is today. If you want "wholesale, systemic manipulation of the electoral process" that dwarfs our last two elections try the virtual elimination of blacks from the voting process. American history is full of this sort of crap and you'll have to furnish me with some evidence before I'll believe that election fraud is any more severe than it has ever been in this country.
I am completely boggled by your statement. Clinton a leftist? We went too far to the left?
The Clinton presidency was incredibly centrist and even if it was leftist the Republicans controled the Senate for his entire two terms and the House for 6 of his 8 years so really if the government was going left during that period it was because of Republican legislature (as that's where the laws are made).
Well I'll have to take your word for that as I have no way to either verify or disprove your claims. I would suggest however, that since the TurboGrafx was not officially released in the UK it was even more niche than in the US. If that then is the case it only furthers my point that they are going out of their way to name niche games.
I'd say it's the new and improved version of a great game.
Wouldnt that make it a greater game? I'm pretty sure it would. If I have a cookie that tastes great and then am handed a similiar cookie that tastes even better I'm certainly not going to say the first one is my favorite.
In regards to Dune 2, it was an exceptional game for the period. Certainly not as good as modern RTS games but given the fact that it is truely the first of its kind it is an exceptional game. The game was re-released for modern OS's around 1999-2000 if you're interested in playing it. (the Genesis version features smaller maps due to the systems limited power so it would be best to try the PC version)
And as far as GalCiv II, havent had a chance to play it yet but I hear the AI is at least interesting.
I also love how offensive posts like this are always done under "anonymous coward". grow some balls. if you're really insightful you'll be rated as such. if your not you'll rightfully lose karma. I've got +1 karma running right now and I never post under the coward option (and trust me, I say some offensive/stupid things sometimes)
The option to post anonymously on slashdot is terrible.
Just because a game is ground breaking does not make it a better game (which seems to be your hole argument now). If the first game in a series is ground breaking but the second offers more game play options and more fun without sacraficing anything then the sequel would be the better game. Hands down.
As an example, I love the traditional base building, military, RTS game. Certainly the PC (and later the sega genesis) game Dune 2 was revolutionary in this venue (as the first of the base building, military, RTS games) and I played this game for hours upon hours when it came out on both platforms. Would I name it the best in the genre or name it one of my top five games? Hell no. There have been so many better RTS games based on this concept since then. I might look back on it fondly but it certainly does not offer the game play options of say StarCraft or any of the countless other RTS games based on this concept.
In regards to Civ2, all of the true eye candy like the advisors, thrown room and city view could be turned off or just plain not accessed by the user (I will readily admit that these options were in fact frivolous). The other graphic improvements that took place on the main game screen made Civ2 so much easier to look at and for a turn based game which players often spent hours looking at, this was much appreciated. When I go back for nostalgia gaming I reach for Civ2 rather than Civ1 because it offers me more game play options and better graphics while not sacrificing any of the brilliant game play from Civ1.
I'm not sure I follow. The TurboGraphx wasn't even released in the UK (as some one corrected me on) thus making it even more obscure then it would be to me here in the US. All of those super early PC games are obscure just by virtue of the fact that computers didn't have much in the way of market penetration at the time of their release, especially compared to consoles (this is universally true).
I really don't see how my post was US centered at all except for my mistake in not noticing these people were writing from GB (and given the fact that slashdot is a US centered site as stated by the admins this wasn't a completely off the wall assumption on my part). This one mistake really doesn't change any of my points.
Well for starters some of those games I really don't think were as ground braking as you seem to. Furthermore, at least a few of those games have sequels or similar titles released later by the same developer which were just plain better. SimCity is the best example of this as number 2 is basically the same game only you have more control over zoning. More control over what you're doing in a Sim strikes me as a good thing.
As for your specific bit on Civ1 vs Civ2, you'll have to let me get something straight with you. You're telling me Civ2 was a "horrid game" because you didn't have a powerful enough computer to run it quickly? That's the only reason I see given there and if that's the problem it sounds like much more your own problem than the games.
In further defense of Civ2, the game offered a bit more than "eye-candy with some bug fixes" over Civ1. The world maps were bigger (this was a huge bonus for me), there were added units, additional wonders, and extra technologies. None of these additions took away from the experience and they all added to some degree or another. The improved graphics were a big deal for me as well as it made it far easier to stare at the game map for hours on end. The core game play on Civ1 and Civ2 is virtually identical, Civ2 just offers a bit more to its players.
My issue is they seemed to have named alot of good obscure games over alot of great well known games. Of course there's no way for me to know this, it's just what this list seems like to me.
Also (for clarity), my opinion of games on the list is not based entirely off graphic quality. I completely recognize the fact that game play is more important.
I couldnt verify this and I could be completely wrong but I would assume the Turbo was regioned coded (like most game systems). If this was the case than a British person would likely want the American version vs the Japanese so they could play games in 100 percent English. Plus getting something like the Turbo imported from the US into GB would be far easier during the 80s than it would be getting it from Japan, not to mention getting games from the US would be easier as well.
This list looks much more like a bunch of people trying to prove their gaming 133TN355 by claiming obscure favorites. I'll site as an example Dungeon Explorer. For starters the author of the article refers to the system it came out on by its Japanese name "PC Engine" rather than what it was marketed as in the US, "TurboGrafx-16", which is what most American gamers would know it as (I myself was confused for a few minutes until I remembered this fact). Then there's the very fact that this person is naming it one of their top 5 games ever. I've played Dungeon Explorer. Allot. Me and my older brother played the hell out of it when I was younger. It was great. But to call a slightly more advanced Gauntlet one of the best games of all time is absurd.
There's plenty of other examples to go from on the list (like naming civilization instead of civ2), most of which is comprised of good games that didn't sell well, are really old, came from systems most people didn't own or some combination of the previous three. "Good games" is the key phrase here too. Most of the games on the list are in fact good games, they're just not, for the most part, top 5 list worthy.
So in summary, I felt like I was reading an article written by those kids we all knew in school who wouldn't listen to anything that sold over 10,000 albums just so they could look cool.
it had what made every SciFi movie great: Tons and tons of robots
I had a real problem with the tons of robots in EP1-3. While there were some really cool ones, the default robot soldier was much more of a bumbling idiot than any kind of comelling bad guy. I mean, who the hell would use a soldier with the mental capacity of a re-re and the coordination of a 2 year old?
I think it is safe to assume that in a request for the original theatrical version of the movie on DVD it is implied that people would like a full remastering effort, like what is done with pretty much every other classic movie brought to DVD. It's sort of like some one asking for a hamburger and getting a patty of cooked meat placed in their hand. The bun is sort of implied in the request.
Basically, this is not what people screamed for and whether he "stuck it to us or not" is not debatable.
Slashdot Mirror
now don't get me wrong. i'm a huge starcraft fan and have probably spent hundreds of hours playing the game (if not thousands). it is most deffinitly one of the most well balanced rts games ever.
but really, was the campaign that much more compelling than any other rts of the period? all the story was, was an excuse to build a base and go blow up your opponent's base. sure there was the occasional non base building mission that seemed to show up in alot of rts games of the period but this certainly wasnt done first or better in starcraft (and to be honest i always hated these missions). As far as the campaign goes (and the campaign only) i really dont see how starcraft did anything that any other rts hadnt already done.
yeah, i like how the post seems to suggest some sort of global conspiracy based off this ones person's single experience. why was this even posted on slashdot? next we'll see posts about how some random guy found a hair in his soup and then proceeds to link it to some broader hair based conspiracy.
there will always been sales people who will lie to make the sale. does this mean it's company policy? no.
Hope you got my point, though:)
I don't think you got mine. I was making fun of your lame internet short hand and not commenting on you being a girl. "ur" is not a word.
Your entire post is also irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the authors are from. The fact that they are in the UK only makes the system rarer, which only strengthens my point.
My favorite part is when you tell me you're a girl though. That has nothing to do with anything and why would I care?
You are truly the 133t35t of the 133t. While everyone else wallows in their own ignorance you are the shining beacon of insight.
:the self-absorbed, illogical, ignorant, dumb, arrogant, fragile, and generally horrifying human mind: your opinion if far more valid than everyone else's, right? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be claiming to be some sort of intellectual superiority for your self here, right?
9 1&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=161825 77#16182631) based on their experience on slashdot is a real class act. No one who didn't have a lengthy record of posting on slashdot could possibly have any real incite on anything....
Who are you to tell anyone that they have nothing to contribute? Since you are so more insightful and set apart from "the unwashed masses" and aren't a member of
Plus the judging of some one (as you did on another comment on this post http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1974
Of course I don't have a thousand posts like you do so what do I know?
Clinton enjoyed an economic boom that had nothing to do with his own policies. Balancing the budget under such conditions is fairly easy.
amen to that. i might vote for a republican that would actually lower the federal deficit. as both parties seem to be debt spenders i'll vote democrat so at least the money is spent here at home.
That wouldnt be true about the winner of an election being in the center politicaly. Roosevelt was not a centrists no matter how many times he won an election. Sometimes people just want some one on the left or right. Currently with Bush, his and the Republicans success is being blamed, at least some what, on an extremely effective mobilization of their concervative base, which is to say they're getting far more people on the right into the voting booths than those on the left are getting leftists. Another good chunk came from the fact that we're at war and war time presidents are always popular unless the war starts to go really badly (like right now).
Also, going to the left may be what the Democrats need to win elections again. It worked for the Republicans when from the 80's on forward they moved increasingly from the center to the right (they had been more or less centrists since WWII). This won them the House in 1994 and the Presidency in 2000. Meanwhile, over the same period, the Democrats moved from the left to the center. I'm not saying moving to the left will garuntee Democrat success, I'm just saying that a shift to the left for Democrats may not be as bad as some people think.
Political catagorization is not relative. Communists are basicaly the far left, fascists basicaly the far right (although this is less well defined, perhaps libertarians are) and they meet in the center. There is no relativity here. Some one who is less liberal than I but left of center is not of the right. Lifewise, just because the center is left of where your own ideology is at does not make those in the center of the left.
I don't understand where you're coming from on so many levels here. Clinton left of Roosevelt? Bush left of Roosevlt? I'm sorry, you're just wrong.
Probably because you didn't support it at all. It seems to me that you're opinion here is making a statement equivalent to stating that the sky is green. Mainstream political science just doesn't back your claim that Clinton was much of a leftist at all. If you want examples of American leftist presidents in recent times look to Roosevelt or Johnson.
Unless you are willing to support your unusual claim with reasonable evidence a mod down isn't uncalled for as it seems to be a claim that is pretty out there.
I don't know if you're familiar with the history of the American South but it used to be far harder for a black person to vote in elections down there than it is today. If you want "wholesale, systemic manipulation of the electoral process" that dwarfs our last two elections try the virtual elimination of blacks from the voting process. American history is full of this sort of crap and you'll have to furnish me with some evidence before I'll believe that election fraud is any more severe than it has ever been in this country.
I am completely boggled by your statement. Clinton a leftist? We went too far to the left?
The Clinton presidency was incredibly centrist and even if it was leftist the Republicans controled the Senate for his entire two terms and the House for 6 of his 8 years so really if the government was going left during that period it was because of Republican legislature (as that's where the laws are made).
Well I'll have to take your word for that as I have no way to either verify or disprove your claims. I would suggest however, that since the TurboGrafx was not officially released in the UK it was even more niche than in the US. If that then is the case it only furthers my point that they are going out of their way to name niche games.
I'd say it's the new and improved version of a great game.
Wouldnt that make it a greater game? I'm pretty sure it would. If I have a cookie that tastes great and then am handed a similiar cookie that tastes even better I'm certainly not going to say the first one is my favorite.
In regards to Dune 2, it was an exceptional game for the period. Certainly not as good as modern RTS games but given the fact that it is truely the first of its kind it is an exceptional game. The game was re-released for modern OS's around 1999-2000 if you're interested in playing it. (the Genesis version features smaller maps due to the systems limited power so it would be best to try the PC version)
And as far as GalCiv II, havent had a chance to play it yet but I hear the AI is at least interesting.
ur
lol
I also love how offensive posts like this are always done under "anonymous coward". grow some balls. if you're really insightful you'll be rated as such. if your not you'll rightfully lose karma. I've got +1 karma running right now and I never post under the coward option (and trust me, I say some offensive/stupid things sometimes)
The option to post anonymously on slashdot is terrible.
Just because a game is ground breaking does not make it a better game (which seems to be your hole argument now). If the first game in a series is ground breaking but the second offers more game play options and more fun without sacraficing anything then the sequel would be the better game. Hands down.
As an example, I love the traditional base building, military, RTS game. Certainly the PC (and later the sega genesis) game Dune 2 was revolutionary in this venue (as the first of the base building, military, RTS games) and I played this game for hours upon hours when it came out on both platforms. Would I name it the best in the genre or name it one of my top five games? Hell no. There have been so many better RTS games based on this concept since then. I might look back on it fondly but it certainly does not offer the game play options of say StarCraft or any of the countless other RTS games based on this concept.
In regards to Civ2, all of the true eye candy like the advisors, thrown room and city view could be turned off or just plain not accessed by the user (I will readily admit that these options were in fact frivolous). The other graphic improvements that took place on the main game screen made Civ2 so much easier to look at and for a turn based game which players often spent hours looking at, this was much appreciated. When I go back for nostalgia gaming I reach for Civ2 rather than Civ1 because it offers me more game play options and better graphics while not sacrificing any of the brilliant game play from Civ1.
small correction on my part in "...would be far easier during the 80s than it would be getting it from Japan". "80s" should be "80s and early 90s".
I'm not sure I follow. The TurboGraphx wasn't even released in the UK (as some one corrected me on) thus making it even more obscure then it would be to me here in the US. All of those super early PC games are obscure just by virtue of the fact that computers didn't have much in the way of market penetration at the time of their release, especially compared to consoles (this is universally true).
I really don't see how my post was US centered at all except for my mistake in not noticing these people were writing from GB (and given the fact that slashdot is a US centered site as stated by the admins this wasn't a completely off the wall assumption on my part). This one mistake really doesn't change any of my points.
So yeah, "Have a nice day".
Well for starters some of those games I really don't think were as ground braking as you seem to. Furthermore, at least a few of those games have sequels or similar titles released later by the same developer which were just plain better. SimCity is the best example of this as number 2 is basically the same game only you have more control over zoning. More control over what you're doing in a Sim strikes me as a good thing.
As for your specific bit on Civ1 vs Civ2, you'll have to let me get something straight with you. You're telling me Civ2 was a "horrid game" because you didn't have a powerful enough computer to run it quickly? That's the only reason I see given there and if that's the problem it sounds like much more your own problem than the games.
In further defense of Civ2, the game offered a bit more than "eye-candy with some bug fixes" over Civ1. The world maps were bigger (this was a huge bonus for me), there were added units, additional wonders, and extra technologies. None of these additions took away from the experience and they all added to some degree or another. The improved graphics were a big deal for me as well as it made it far easier to stare at the game map for hours on end. The core game play on Civ1 and Civ2 is virtually identical, Civ2 just offers a bit more to its players.
My issue is they seemed to have named alot of good obscure games over alot of great well known games. Of course there's no way for me to know this, it's just what this list seems like to me.
Also (for clarity), my opinion of games on the list is not based entirely off graphic quality. I completely recognize the fact that game play is more important.
I couldnt verify this and I could be completely wrong but I would assume the Turbo was regioned coded (like most game systems). If this was the case than a British person would likely want the American version vs the Japanese so they could play games in 100 percent English. Plus getting something like the Turbo imported from the US into GB would be far easier during the 80s than it would be getting it from Japan, not to mention getting games from the US would be easier as well.
This list looks much more like a bunch of people trying to prove their gaming 133TN355 by claiming obscure favorites. I'll site as an example Dungeon Explorer. For starters the author of the article refers to the system it came out on by its Japanese name "PC Engine" rather than what it was marketed as in the US, "TurboGrafx-16", which is what most American gamers would know it as (I myself was confused for a few minutes until I remembered this fact). Then there's the very fact that this person is naming it one of their top 5 games ever. I've played Dungeon Explorer. Allot. Me and my older brother played the hell out of it when I was younger. It was great. But to call a slightly more advanced Gauntlet one of the best games of all time is absurd.
There's plenty of other examples to go from on the list (like naming civilization instead of civ2), most of which is comprised of good games that didn't sell well, are really old, came from systems most people didn't own or some combination of the previous three. "Good games" is the key phrase here too. Most of the games on the list are in fact good games, they're just not, for the most part, top 5 list worthy.
So in summary, I felt like I was reading an article written by those kids we all knew in school who wouldn't listen to anything that sold over 10,000 albums just so they could look cool.
it had what made every SciFi movie great: Tons and tons of robots
I had a real problem with the tons of robots in EP1-3. While there were some really cool ones, the default robot soldier was much more of a bumbling idiot than any kind of comelling bad guy. I mean, who the hell would use a soldier with the mental capacity of a re-re and the coordination of a 2 year old?
I think it is safe to assume that in a request for the original theatrical version of the movie on DVD it is implied that people would like a full remastering effort, like what is done with pretty much every other classic movie brought to DVD. It's sort of like some one asking for a hamburger and getting a patty of cooked meat placed in their hand. The bun is sort of implied in the request.
Basically, this is not what people screamed for and whether he "stuck it to us or not" is not debatable.