Those are games with some art tacked on. The art would be better without a game holding it back, and the games would probably have been made better if there was no art distracting from the problems.
For the best JRPG, read "Fate/Stay Night". All cut scenes all the time! There's the same battles and statistics and magic items you'd expect, but none of that tedious "gameplay". It even has the same illusionary choice as with traditional JRPG "optional" content, with a completion meter to make sure you exhaustively explore all of it.
Pac-Man, Galaga and Space Invaders are indeed good games, but they are obsoleted by modern arcade games. Play some of Cave's recent games for example (or for something more easily accessible but still superb, DoDonPachi). Fast paced competitive FPSs are also good, such as Quake 3.
I played FFVII when it was first released. I even cried when Aeris died. But I was a child back then, so I had much lower standards.
I already played Ico. The combat system really sucked. I liked some of the level design, but the "storytelling" would have worked better as a movie (even as machinima).
Movies are art because movies can inspire the full range of human emotions. The only emotions a good game inspires are frustration of defeat and joy of victory (which cannot exist without the former). These emotions are intrinsically linked to the game itself, and don't require any cutscenes or dialog.
If a game is trying to inspire any other emotion it is failing as a game. You can tell this is true because removing all the "gameplay" would improve it, eg. JRPGs would be better without all the random battles, wandering about the map, item management, etc. If the game were really good you would get annoyed at all the interruptions to the playable parts. It would be better to separate the "artistic" parts and repackage them as a movie or illustrated novel.
Games are supposed to be fun, not something you have to grind through to get to the "plot" and "achievements". The fun comes from challenging yourself and developing your skills, not mindlessly pressing buttons like a laboratory rat.
Games are not art, and games are not a substitute for novels and movies. Games are games, and should play to their own strengths instead of poorly emulating other media. I hope that 20 years from now people will have realized that "narrative games" are a dead end. Interactive storytelling is "AI complete", so the only satisfactory way to include it in games is to use a real intelligent storyteller, as with pencil and paper RPGs. As graphics and physics simulation improve but narrative choice remains the same the railroading will only get more distracting.
The only change I anticipate in my game playing is switching from action to strategy if my reaction time slows too much.
It's short for "I emphasize the finality of the preceding sentence by drawing attention to the period", and it's a complete sentence. The long form is too much effort to read and type so normal people use the abbreviation.
And I want to get paid to post to Slashdot! Doesn't mean I deserve the money.
Authors do not arbitrarily get to put conditions on their work. The public decided to allow them to impose those conditions as consideration in a social contract. But as with all contracts, if there is a severe imbalance of power between those making the contract it may not be valid. In the case of modern copyright law this is very much the case, as it has been extended long past any plausibly mutually beneficial arrangement for the benefit of a small elite. There is no longer any moral duty to obey such an unjust law.
As in the case of all negative externalities, reducing ignorance is a justified use of taxation. A true free market cannot exist in practice, so governments have the responsibility of resolving market failures.
Lack of mobility mostly harms the immobile. It does reduce market efficiency somewhat, but it is nowhere near as harmful as ignorance. Ignorance acts as a multiplier to every other bad thing there is. Ignorance is the single biggest factor reducing market efficiency. If every human could access education without limits the world would be a much better place.
Ignorance is the biggest negative externality. By restricting people's education you're making everyone else suffer, because ignorance ruins everything.
The monopoly holders are the parasites, by holding onto monopolies far longer than necessary to encourage progress of science and useful arts. Sharing information is natural human behavior. The only reason information monopoly holders have the right to restrict sharing is because the public gave them that right. When the deal is no longer profitable we can rescind it.
A combination of donations and cost cutting, eg. distributing large files only through p2p, switching to text only designs, optimizing sever software for lower hardware requirements.
Wikipedia doesn't have adverts, GNU webpages (including GNU Savannah) don't have adverts, most.edu pages don't have adverts, Usenet doesn't have adverts except for the spam. The only really important website with adverts is Google.
In a truly free market a monopoly is unlikely. The semiconductor market is not a free market at all, but one based around artificial monopolies (patents and copyrights). In this case adding regulation actually makes it freer.
Font hinting is distorting fonts to make them uglier. I'd rather use a higher DPI display or increase the font size. And if antialiasing is slow you're doing something horribly wrong, because RISC OS had usable text antialiasing back in 1989. The only cause of slowdown in GNOME menus is loading icons from disc, and most of the time they will be cached.
Ghosting is a still a problem, because LCD motion is sample-and-hold rather than CRTs' impulse response. The problem was reduced with the recently released ViewSonic VX2265wm and Samsung 2233rz, but only for games capable of running at 120Hz.
LCD response time, latency and motion quality has nothing to do with human reaction time. Humans can distinguish differences in time interval much shorter than their reaction time. Look at graphs of beat length variance of skilled drummers.
About 14 years, and every year it's got better. The "Eternal September" was a good thing. The benefits of mass Internet use (Wikipedia, Youtube, etc.) far outweigh the increased effort needed to ignore the worthless content. If newbies are really so intolerable maybe the problem is with your own skills.
In the unlikely case that the novel is still popular after five years the author will be able to afford an extension. If the novel is not popular after five years then adapting it into a movie is a risky proposition. If the adaptation succeeds anyway then clearly those who adapted it are responsible for the success. Encouraging authors to sit on their monopolies hoping for this unlikely scenario does not give greatest benefit to the public.
Slashdot Mirror
Those are games with some art tacked on. The art would be better without a game holding it back, and the games would probably have been made better if there was no art distracting from the problems.
For the best JRPG, read "Fate/Stay Night". All cut scenes all the time! There's the same battles and statistics and magic items you'd expect, but none of that tedious "gameplay". It even has the same illusionary choice as with traditional JRPG "optional" content, with a completion meter to make sure you exhaustively explore all of it.
Pac-Man, Galaga and Space Invaders are indeed good games, but they are obsoleted by modern arcade games. Play some of Cave's recent games for example (or for something more easily accessible but still superb, DoDonPachi). Fast paced competitive FPSs are also good, such as Quake 3.
I played FFVII when it was first released. I even cried when Aeris died. But I was a child back then, so I had much lower standards.
I already played Ico. The combat system really sucked. I liked some of the level design, but the "storytelling" would have worked better as a movie (even as machinima).
I have, and Pac-Man is better than most of them.
Movies are art because movies can inspire the full range of human emotions. The only emotions a good game inspires are frustration of defeat and joy of victory (which cannot exist without the former). These emotions are intrinsically linked to the game itself, and don't require any cutscenes or dialog.
If a game is trying to inspire any other emotion it is failing as a game. You can tell this is true because removing all the "gameplay" would improve it, eg. JRPGs would be better without all the random battles, wandering about the map, item management, etc. If the game were really good you would get annoyed at all the interruptions to the playable parts. It would be better to separate the "artistic" parts and repackage them as a movie or illustrated novel.
Games are supposed to be fun, not something you have to grind through to get to the "plot" and "achievements". The fun comes from challenging yourself and developing your skills, not mindlessly pressing buttons like a laboratory rat.
What I expect is such basic features as "copy and paste" and "multitasking". I don't even have to try the iPhone to know that it's bad.
Games are not art, and games are not a substitute for novels and movies. Games are games, and should play to their own strengths instead of poorly emulating other media. I hope that 20 years from now people will have realized that "narrative games" are a dead end. Interactive storytelling is "AI complete", so the only satisfactory way to include it in games is to use a real intelligent storyteller, as with pencil and paper RPGs. As graphics and physics simulation improve but narrative choice remains the same the railroading will only get more distracting.
The only change I anticipate in my game playing is switching from action to strategy if my reaction time slows too much.
It's short for "I emphasize the finality of the preceding sentence by drawing attention to the period", and it's a complete sentence. The long form is too much effort to read and type so normal people use the abbreviation.
And I want to get paid to post to Slashdot! Doesn't mean I deserve the money.
Authors do not arbitrarily get to put conditions on their work. The public decided to allow them to impose those conditions as consideration in a social contract. But as with all contracts, if there is a severe imbalance of power between those making the contract it may not be valid. In the case of modern copyright law this is very much the case, as it has been extended long past any plausibly mutually beneficial arrangement for the benefit of a small elite. There is no longer any moral duty to obey such an unjust law.
How is it "collectivism" to want a reduction in artificial government granted monopolies?
And if anyone doubts this, look at how many "new" releases are sequels or remakes.
As in the case of all negative externalities, reducing ignorance is a justified use of taxation. A true free market cannot exist in practice, so governments have the responsibility of resolving market failures.
Lack of mobility mostly harms the immobile. It does reduce market efficiency somewhat, but it is nowhere near as harmful as ignorance. Ignorance acts as a multiplier to every other bad thing there is. Ignorance is the single biggest factor reducing market efficiency. If every human could access education without limits the world would be a much better place.
Ignorance is the biggest negative externality. By restricting people's education you're making everyone else suffer, because ignorance ruins everything.
Copyright is NOT there to protect the artist. Copyright is there to benefit the public by encouraging creation of new works.
The monopoly holders are the parasites, by holding onto monopolies far longer than necessary to encourage progress of science and useful arts. Sharing information is natural human behavior. The only reason information monopoly holders have the right to restrict sharing is because the public gave them that right. When the deal is no longer profitable we can rescind it.
A combination of donations and cost cutting, eg. distributing large files only through p2p, switching to text only designs, optimizing sever software for lower hardware requirements. Wikipedia doesn't have adverts, GNU webpages (including GNU Savannah) don't have adverts, most .edu pages don't have adverts, Usenet doesn't have adverts except for the spam. The only really important website with adverts is Google.
In a truly free market a monopoly is unlikely. The semiconductor market is not a free market at all, but one based around artificial monopolies (patents and copyrights). In this case adding regulation actually makes it freer.
Font hinting is distorting fonts to make them uglier. I'd rather use a higher DPI display or increase the font size. And if antialiasing is slow you're doing something horribly wrong, because RISC OS had usable text antialiasing back in 1989. The only cause of slowdown in GNOME menus is loading icons from disc, and most of the time they will be cached.
Several years ago:
http://3d-eros.com/ (NWS obviously)
Ghosting is a still a problem, because LCD motion is sample-and-hold rather than CRTs' impulse response. The problem was reduced with the recently released ViewSonic VX2265wm and Samsung 2233rz, but only for games capable of running at 120Hz.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/TempRate.mspx
The ViewSonic VX2265wm is the only LCD I consider acceptable for gaming, and it's still inferior to a good CRT.
LCD response time, latency and motion quality has nothing to do with human reaction time. Humans can distinguish differences in time interval much shorter than their reaction time. Look at graphs of beat length variance of skilled drummers.
About 14 years, and every year it's got better. The "Eternal September" was a good thing. The benefits of mass Internet use (Wikipedia, Youtube, etc.) far outweigh the increased effort needed to ignore the worthless content. If newbies are really so intolerable maybe the problem is with your own skills.
Network effects. The more people on the Internet the more valuable it is to everybody.
In the unlikely case that the novel is still popular after five years the author will be able to afford an extension. If the novel is not popular after five years then adapting it into a movie is a risky proposition. If the adaptation succeeds anyway then clearly those who adapted it are responsible for the success. Encouraging authors to sit on their monopolies hoping for this unlikely scenario does not give greatest benefit to the public.