You're right, it is my fault for assuming you read the parent post. I quote:
The reason for that are the moronic sheeps that permeate all spheres of human life including (first and foremost) Slashdot.:)
People are idiots. 3 "next-gen" FPS games were released in 2004. Half-Life 2 turned out to be the most popular, despite the fact that it has ordinary graphics, horrible story and 10 hours of gameplay. Doom 3 was the second in popularity, with an engine that looked like a dog, horrible gameplay and boring levels. And one truly innovative game with the most stunning graphics and released on schedule and without as much hype, Far Cry by Crytek, was quickly forgotten.
See, the problem here was that Far Cry was not innovative. Not by any stretch of the imagination. It was just a very polished tech demo with the most basic, ass-simple game grafted onto it (hereafter called the "id" formula).
My question to the parent was, what was innovative about FarCry? The parent did not reply, but you did, somehow managing to reply three times and get worked up while each time admitting that you are completely wrong, have no idea what you're talking about, and so forth.
And, actually, the way to get Karma points is to post holier-than-thou nonsens ("people are idiots!"), or glom on to some popular far-left ideal. One doesn't need to be factually correct about anything.
Interesting. You seem to be adopting the George W. Bush tactic: insist your opponent is changing his story, when in fact you are.
I suggest you actually read the posts. Let me sum up, AGAIN.
The original post: these top-rated games aren't creative! They are just rehashes! Except, of course, Far Cry!
My response: Far Cry wasn't original, it simply had good tech.
Your response: Far Cry was original because it had certain technical items you enjoyed (NOTE: NOT gameplay, NOT new game design, NOT new game concept).
My response: Again pointing out that you are merely listing technical features, not gameplay or game design that sets this game apart from the other run-of-the-mill shooters.
Your reply: AGAIN stating that these technical differences make Far Cry a unique, original game.
Let me put it to you in the form of a simple question, which I'm sure you'll dance around and avoid:
WHAT DID FAR CRY DO, IN THE AREA OF GAME DESIGN, CONCEPT, OR GAME PLAY, THAT WAS:
1. NEW
2. REVOLUTIONARY
3. NOT RUN-OF-THE-MILL
DON'T say "field of view". DON'T say "high quality textures". DON'T say "amazing water".
Hint: it wasn't the "scientist mutates people into killing machines" storyline, or the "walk straight forward, shoot people, and find keys" gameplay. In fact, I think you'll have a hard time finding _anything_ unique in Far Cry's gameplay. Fun game, but that's not the point. Don't open your mouth about how derivative and tired other people's ideas of good games are when the game you fanboy for is exactly the same gift in a different wrapper.
I suggest you actually learn how to read a sentence, comprehend what you've read, and formulate an appropriate reply before posting.
You continue to miss the point. All of the engines mentioned as fodder for "moronic sheep" had technical advancements. That wasn't the subject.
FarCry simply wasn't a revolutionary game. No matter how much you say it was, it wasn't. The tech was impressive, but that wasn't groundbreaking either - if you actually know your games history.
"Unlimited field of view" has been done numerous times, going as far back as Tribes. "Lots of foliage" is also common - see the "trees of pangea" demo, or even "Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising".
Fanboys are only helping to destroy this industry.
To borrow a quote:
"That statement is so stupid, it can only be attributed to higher education. You must have gone to college to say something that dumb."
Rest assured, your concept of what is "educated" or "artistically signifant" (sic) keeps me awake at night.
Now, why is the parent modded interesting? This is just a fanboy post. There is absolutely nothing special about Far Cry to make it stand out from the other FPSs - except possibly the very technical differences you decry (it was outdoors, in the sunlight, etc).
At least be consistent.
And now you're dodging the implications of your own statements.
So you're stating that all the money we spend every year on preventing/punishing murderes is "out of proportion" to the actual risk? Just going by the numbers, it seems so.
This is exactly why citizens don't make policy. Judging anything from an outside position has the inherent fallibility of ignorance. Sure, no terrorist is trying to bomb _you_. So _you_ don't see it as a threat. So you don't want _your_ tax money spent on prevention. As another poster said, "if someone explodes a nuclear bomb in Chicago that doesn't hurt the US as a whole". It's just selfish thinking.
If this type of thinking were actually allowed to influence policy, there would be chaos. Single people wouldn't pay taxes for schools. Those who take public transportation wouldn't fund the highways. Ad nauseum.
Just admit it, your statement was flawed (not to mention somewhat off-topic). Finding ways to shut off GPS in the event of terrorist attack or war seems sensible. It is not hysterical, it is not ridiculous, and it doesn't seem to be a waste of money.
The problem with your first statement is it's purely theoretical. It has no founding in the real world whatsoever. Yes, people die for liberty; but they don't die for this notion of "unrestricted liberty" you seem to be championing.
A purely free society is impossible. There are tradeoffs to be made. Frankly I find it rather tiresome that people revert to the "freedom should never be limited" position just to sound smart and principled, or to criticize an administration. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of valid reasons to criticize the Bush administration. But just objecting to anything that limits some conceptual idea of "freedom" in your mind is silly.
To go back to the parent's analogy: seatbelts save lives. Mandatory seatbelt laws violate our freedom. Are such laws wrong?
Precisely the type of skewed and not fully thought-out reasoning kneejerk anti-government whackos love to shove down our throats.
To put your argument into perspective: FBI statistics show that in 1997 around 18,000 people were murdered in the U.S.
That's less than your figure for traffic-related deaths (41,600) last year.
So, by your reasoning, we shouldn't have laws against murder. After all, statistically it's a waste of time, right?
People who use the "freedoms should never be limited!" argument are living in a dream world. Freedoms are limited every day in exchange for securities. You can yell "fire" in a crowded theater but you will be punished. You may think it's fine for other people to die for your principles. Others don't agree with that position.
Finding ways to shut off a system that allows someone to pinpoint the exact location of a target doesn't seem foolish to me, no matter how anti-government you are. Seems logical.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason for that are the moronic sheeps that permeate all spheres of human life including (first and foremost) Slashdot. :)
People are idiots. 3 "next-gen" FPS games were released in 2004. Half-Life 2 turned out to be the most popular, despite the fact that it has ordinary graphics, horrible story and 10 hours of gameplay. Doom 3 was the second in popularity, with an engine that looked like a dog, horrible gameplay and boring levels. And one truly innovative game with the most stunning graphics and released on schedule and without as much hype, Far Cry by Crytek, was quickly forgotten.
See, the problem here was that Far Cry was not innovative. Not by any stretch of the imagination. It was just a very polished tech demo with the most basic, ass-simple game grafted onto it (hereafter called the "id" formula).
My question to the parent was, what was innovative about FarCry? The parent did not reply, but you did, somehow managing to reply three times and get worked up while each time admitting that you are completely wrong, have no idea what you're talking about, and so forth.
And, actually, the way to get Karma points is to post holier-than-thou nonsens ("people are idiots!"), or glom on to some popular far-left ideal. One doesn't need to be factually correct about anything.
I suggest you actually read the posts. Let me sum up, AGAIN.
The original post: these top-rated games aren't creative! They are just rehashes! Except, of course, Far Cry!
My response: Far Cry wasn't original, it simply had good tech.
Your response: Far Cry was original because it had certain technical items you enjoyed (NOTE: NOT gameplay, NOT new game design, NOT new game concept).
My response: Again pointing out that you are merely listing technical features, not gameplay or game design that sets this game apart from the other run-of-the-mill shooters.
Your reply: AGAIN stating that these technical differences make Far Cry a unique, original game.
Let me put it to you in the form of a simple question, which I'm sure you'll dance around and avoid:
WHAT DID FAR CRY DO, IN THE AREA OF GAME DESIGN, CONCEPT, OR GAME PLAY, THAT WAS:
1. NEW
2. REVOLUTIONARY
3. NOT RUN-OF-THE-MILL
DON'T say "field of view". DON'T say "high quality textures". DON'T say "amazing water".
Hint: it wasn't the "scientist mutates people into killing machines" storyline, or the "walk straight forward, shoot people, and find keys" gameplay. In fact, I think you'll have a hard time finding _anything_ unique in Far Cry's gameplay. Fun game, but that's not the point. Don't open your mouth about how derivative and tired other people's ideas of good games are when the game you fanboy for is exactly the same gift in a different wrapper.
I suggest you actually learn how to read a sentence, comprehend what you've read, and formulate an appropriate reply before posting.
Oh, and stop getting your buddy to mod you up.
FarCry simply wasn't a revolutionary game. No matter how much you say it was, it wasn't. The tech was impressive, but that wasn't groundbreaking either - if you actually know your games history.
"Unlimited field of view" has been done numerous times, going as far back as Tribes. "Lots of foliage" is also common - see the "trees of pangea" demo, or even "Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising".
Fanboys are only helping to destroy this industry.
To borrow a quote: "That statement is so stupid, it can only be attributed to higher education. You must have gone to college to say something that dumb." Rest assured, your concept of what is "educated" or "artistically signifant" (sic) keeps me awake at night.
Now, why is the parent modded interesting? This is just a fanboy post. There is absolutely nothing special about Far Cry to make it stand out from the other FPSs - except possibly the very technical differences you decry (it was outdoors, in the sunlight, etc). At least be consistent.
So you're stating that all the money we spend every year on preventing/punishing murderes is "out of proportion" to the actual risk? Just going by the numbers, it seems so.
This is exactly why citizens don't make policy. Judging anything from an outside position has the inherent fallibility of ignorance. Sure, no terrorist is trying to bomb _you_. So _you_ don't see it as a threat. So you don't want _your_ tax money spent on prevention. As another poster said, "if someone explodes a nuclear bomb in Chicago that doesn't hurt the US as a whole". It's just selfish thinking.
If this type of thinking were actually allowed to influence policy, there would be chaos. Single people wouldn't pay taxes for schools. Those who take public transportation wouldn't fund the highways. Ad nauseum.
Just admit it, your statement was flawed (not to mention somewhat off-topic). Finding ways to shut off GPS in the event of terrorist attack or war seems sensible. It is not hysterical, it is not ridiculous, and it doesn't seem to be a waste of money.
A missile shield, on the other hand ...
The problem with your first statement is it's purely theoretical. It has no founding in the real world whatsoever. Yes, people die for liberty; but they don't die for this notion of "unrestricted liberty" you seem to be championing. A purely free society is impossible. There are tradeoffs to be made. Frankly I find it rather tiresome that people revert to the "freedom should never be limited" position just to sound smart and principled, or to criticize an administration. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of valid reasons to criticize the Bush administration. But just objecting to anything that limits some conceptual idea of "freedom" in your mind is silly. To go back to the parent's analogy: seatbelts save lives. Mandatory seatbelt laws violate our freedom. Are such laws wrong?
Precisely the type of skewed and not fully thought-out reasoning kneejerk anti-government whackos love to shove down our throats.
To put your argument into perspective: FBI statistics show that in 1997 around 18,000 people were murdered in the U.S.
That's less than your figure for traffic-related deaths (41,600) last year.
So, by your reasoning, we shouldn't have laws against murder. After all, statistically it's a waste of time, right?
People who use the "freedoms should never be limited!" argument are living in a dream world. Freedoms are limited every day in exchange for securities. You can yell "fire" in a crowded theater but you will be punished. You may think it's fine for other people to die for your principles. Others don't agree with that position.
Finding ways to shut off a system that allows someone to pinpoint the exact location of a target doesn't seem foolish to me, no matter how anti-government you are. Seems logical.