Ever hear of the patent race of the telephone? Where Bell got his patent app in just before someone else? Certainly you won't tell me that it was an obvious idea simply because both of them came up with it at the same time?
Halo 2 was a more or less uninspired FPS. It changed somewhat from Halo:Combat Evolved, and I applaud that. However, the changes were, for the most part, not so good.
The ability to dual wield was a good change, for the most part. It was logically done, making sure nobody was trying to dual wield a rocket launcher and sniper rifle or crazy stuff like that. On the other hand, the 37th time you get hit with the "noob combo" you'll start to wonder just how well they did implemented this.
Eliminating fall damage: Good for new or inexperienced players, not so good for game quality, especially in multiplayer. It does a lot to eliminate some skill from the game.
Auto-aim: Same as the previous point.
Overpowered weaponry: The sword? Auto-lock for the rockets? And the "noob combo"? There are some serious issues here.
The single-player campaign: Definitely not nearly as good as Halo 1, though the story is pretty good.
I could go on longer, but I honestly don't feel like it.
I know. Nobody wants to watch other people play games! That's why televised sports are such a failure! Oh, and don't even get me started about televised poker!
Seriously, as long as it's done well, people will watch anything.
It was clearly relegating sound to a distinct second place, which I don't believe it deserves. The two need to work together. If Citizen Kane had had Loony Tunes as a soundtrack, do you think it would still have been praised as a great film? No. (They may well have said it had great potential, but that that potential was ruined by the soundtrack, but that's a different matter.) The sound needs to be appropriate to the visuals, and vice versa.
Herein I think we see where our disagreement is. We agree in principle, but we're interpreting the same thing differently.
I (and the article, insofar as I can see it) in no way is trying to downplay the sound, trying to say you can throw any odd sound in and make a masterpiece as long as the visuals are good. An appropriate soundtrack is key. But think about this: If you alter the soundtrack, the movie is the same. You alter the visual performance, and the movie isn't the same. (Altering the script will also change the movie, yes, but a script also isn't an essential part. Ever see Fantasia?)
All in all, I think the film comparison was off, but not completely horrible. I think it was more referring to the visuals compared to the soundtrack than compared to the script and, in reality, the visual performance really is what sets the silver screen apart from the radio or a print book.
No, but "visual performance" alone does not make a movie either, which was what was suggested.
Well, nobody is suggesting in the least to have a visual performance alone, neglecting all else. Nobody is saying that removing all of the dialogue and sound, leaving a purely visual performance, would make a decent movie (I'd still watch it, but that's beside the point). What is being said is that the visual performance is the biggest and most important part.
You don't believe that movies are judged by visual performance? Let's take the AFI number one movie of all time: Citizen Kane.
What are the main reasons people praise Citizen Kane? The visual performance. Lighting, deep focus, jump cuts. These would be worthless alone, but they are the biggest part.
In a similar fashion, the graphics service the gameplay, but they are far from the focus. A better example, in my opinion, would have been to say that the graphics are like the taste of food: that chocolate may taste better than that salad, but the salad is much better for you nutritionally. But, alas, the film example was chosen and I still say that it is a good one.
Yeah, right. Soundtrack doesn't matter?
Where do you get that idea. The article at NO point says that the soundtrack doesn't matter. But it does say that a stunning soundtrack won't make your movie great or that a crappy one won't make your movie the crapfest of the year. Yes, a good soundtrack can enhance a movie. A bad soundtrack can detract from a movie. But a soundtrack alone does not make a movie.
And a quote now comes to mind. It's about television, I believe, but the concept holds the same for movies. Unfortunately, I don't know from whose lips it came, but it goes a little something like this: "If a blind man listens to your program and walks away understanding, you have failed. If a deaf man watches your program and walks away understanding, you have succeeded."
A movie is ideally measured by visual performance, just like a song is ideally measured by the way it sounds and a game is ideally measured by how well it plays.
And, for those of you who haven't played, here's an idea of how bad the Jedi now are. This is from a video my friend made and showed me (I'd link you, but it's on his OSU page and I don't know where that is. If he tells me later, I'll put it here.)
Anyway, the basic gist of the video is this: He is playing a medic. He is fighting two Jedi. Because of an error with the medic's area healing, he couldn't heal without also healing the Jedi. He completely owned both of them without ever worrying about his health. I repeat, this was a medic.
You laugh, but it's all so true. I would definitely pay the required cost to get that domain. Just imagine.... Get a few per page view ads on there and you're rich overnight.
I don't remember who did the original experiment, but there was someone (or a group?) who rang a bell everytime they served food to an animal. After a while, the animal came whenever a bell was rung and expected food to be ready.
Ivan Pavlov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov). He rang a bell and gave the dogs food. They eventually started to salivate when the bell was rung. Interesting stuff.
Two things: You're right, digg isn't purely a news site. It is somewhat more prone to "nostalgia" stories than slashdot. But by definition, if they get to the top, then enough people thought it was worth seeing to vote it up. Basically, this means that you share different tastes than the average digger. That's OK - it doesn't mean the site is inferior somehow, it just isn't for you. Different strokes, ya know?
The thing isn't so much that my tastes are different (I quite enjoy many of those such stories, in fact). The thing is that the Digg site actually says that Digg is a technology news website, but it isn't living up to that. Well, that, and the number of "stories" that are on Digg several dozen times get REALLY REALLY annoying.
Not to be pedantic, but it's hard for digg to have any editorializing when it has no editors.
No, please, be pedantic. This is Slashdot, after all.;)
However, dictionary.com has a different take on this issue:
editorialize: "To present an opinion in the guise of an objective report."
Real example from Digg: There was a posting of a link that was a list of media players. Ignoring for the moment the issue of whether or not it belongs on Digg, the summary ended with the phrase "and get away from that windows media player!" If that's not editorializing, I don't know what is.
More things you won't find on digg: slashvertisements, propaganda stories, flamewars (for the most part), trolls (for the most part), punitive modding from editors (timothy and michael were fantastic for that), and more.
Slashvertisements: More or less absent on Digg (unless it's from Apple)
propaganda stories: More or less absent on Digg (unless it's about Apple)
flamewars: More or less absent on Digg (unless it's about Apple, evolution, or whether or not Digg should be just technology news and related issues)
trolls: Absent on Digg (but you just wait until Digg has a notable audience and comments get notable use, and you'll see the trolls roll in)
punitive modding from editors: Of course, because there are no real editors, and nobody bothers to mod comments.
I'm not saying digg is better than slashdot (I'm still here, evidently), but it can often be refreshing in a lot of ways. But as far as you're concerned, you're looking for a pure news site with a fully-featured message board system. Well, that's not digg. That's slashdot. So you have what you need right? No probelms.
I'm not saying one is inherently better than the other (I still go to both more than daily), I'm just saying that Digg's problems are greater than most people know. If Digg fixed their problems, I'm sad to say that I would likely jump off of Slashdot in an instant. I'm not looking for a pure news site (not even Slashdot really provides that). I'm looking for a site that does what it says it does (in Digg's case, provide technology news in a user-driven manner). If Digg continues like it does, it should compare itself constantly to del.icio.us, not Slashdot.
You are getting away from the FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM with Digg. Namely that the display of the 'stories' or articles is not linear in nature. This is good if you are viewing digg infrequently, but when you are going back regularly, new stories will not necesarilly be at the top. The mechanism that determines this is not at all clear.
Stories stay at the top if they are consistently "dug." Stories that are consitently "dug" are new to the majority of active "diggers." Therefore, a digger that is as active as the average digger consistently sees new stories.
That's true/in theory/. But I'e seen a ton of people say "Wow, I remember when I saw this back in 1996. Dugg!" or something stupid like that. Certainly you aren't trying to tell us that those are new for those people?
You're right in that new stories don't go straight to the top. *Popular* stories stay at the top. But that's good - less popular stories fade faster. This is a much superior system in that important news is persistent. If you've seen the lead story, ignore it and scroll down, but other people will probably want to see it.
Once more, this is true/in theory/. However, people Digg random crap that doesn't belong. The site says in multiple places that Digg is for technology news, but people still Digg stupid things that certainly can't be considered important news. In fact, these things usually get the most Diggs (especially ones that say "DIGG IS GONNA BEAT SLASHDOT LOLZ0R!!!!!).
Therefore, Digg is completely inferior to Slashdot.
Hard to buy that considering that digg lacks the blatant editorializing, dupes, and other crap that plagues slashdot.
Wow. What Digg do you read? I look at Digg and I find more editorializing by more people, tons more dupes (and then people yell at me when I point out the fact), and plenty more crap including and beyond that which plagues Slashdot.
The whole point of my original post was merely because people were trying to tout the inability to prove God's existence as proof that He doesn't exist. My simple point was that it is a basic statement and thereby inherently unprovable. I meant nothing more, nothing less.
Perchance now is the time to state that I am not anti-science myself. I firmly believe in both God and evolution. I enjoy watching Evolution v. Creation debates, but the instant I saw the "I'm right because you can't prove God exists" argument enter, I had to strike. The [however-many-greats]grandparent insisted on formal logic, so I used the same.
That's not indisputable evidence. How do you know the right bits didn't rot on the server that just happened to form that message? It's got about the same likelihood as evolution.
The odds of a server accidentally generating said message are practically impossible. Not only is the time frame narrow, but the cohesion and appropriateness of the message data pretty much seals it (right down to your noticing my grammar-mistake-from-after-editing).
You seem to be missing the point. The point is that you can't logically *prove* it, you can just say whether it is likely in your mind.
But you can't logically prove it. It's not physically possible to logically prove that he exists.
Sure. I suppose I can't logically prove Linus exists, since I could go fly and shake his hand and there's always the possibility that I'm just in a computer simulation or that he's a facsimile. But such claims are more unlikely than him simply existing.
But that in no way proves it at all to me when you tell me you shook his hand. Or even comes close. Once more, you're missing the point that it can't be logically *proven*.
I'm looking at a chair right now. Do you believe me?
God exists. Do you believe me?
Of course not. And I wasn't looking at a chair.
I am the antichrist. Do you believe me? (Please answer my question)
Of course not, but it's not at all relevant, so it doesn't matter.
Logically prove that I exist. Can't be done, can it?
You posted the your message.(sic)
That's not indisputable evidence. How do you know the right bits didn't rot on the server that just happened to form that message? It's got about the same likelihood as evolution.
Better yet, logically prove that Linus Torvalds exists. Since you can't, you must (according to you) assume he doesn't.
I have no reason to assume he doesn't. He could be... an actor, pretending to be Linus, but it seems fairly reasonable to me that he does in fact exist.
But you can't logically prove it. It's not physically possible to logically prove that he exists.
Therefore Linux must have evolved naturally out of a C compiler.
That statement is nonsense.
That's exactly my point. I was using the same line of reasoning the parent & such had invoked
"God exists" is a basic statement that cannot be proven any more than you can prove to me that you see a chair.
I'm looking at a chair right now. Do you believe me?
God exists. Do you believe me?
Logically prove that I exist. Can't be done, can it?
Better yet, logically prove that Linus Torvalds exists. Since you can't, you must (according to you) assume he doesn't. Therefore Linux must have evolved naturally out of a C compiler.
"God exists" is a basic statement that cannot be proven any more than you can prove to me that you see a chair.
Does a company own the G, PG etc. rating system, and they simply won't license it for games?
The ratings symbols are all trademarked. I don't know if they simply won't license or if the game industry just didn't want to bother, but the ESRB couldn't simply using those ratings if they wanted to.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever hear of the patent race of the telephone? Where Bell got his patent app in just before someone else? Certainly you won't tell me that it was an obvious idea simply because both of them came up with it at the same time?
Wait...
Amazingly, you didn't even need to quote that much! Congratulations!
Halo 2 was a more or less uninspired FPS. It changed somewhat from Halo:Combat Evolved, and I applaud that. However, the changes were, for the most part, not so good.
The ability to dual wield was a good change, for the most part. It was logically done, making sure nobody was trying to dual wield a rocket launcher and sniper rifle or crazy stuff like that. On the other hand, the 37th time you get hit with the "noob combo" you'll start to wonder just how well they did implemented this.
Eliminating fall damage: Good for new or inexperienced players, not so good for game quality, especially in multiplayer. It does a lot to eliminate some skill from the game.
Auto-aim: Same as the previous point.
Overpowered weaponry: The sword? Auto-lock for the rockets? And the "noob combo"? There are some serious issues here.
The single-player campaign: Definitely not nearly as good as Halo 1, though the story is pretty good.
I could go on longer, but I honestly don't feel like it.
Seriously, as long as it's done well, people will watch anything.
I have got to stop reading...
Hallelujah! I think we just found the first MMORPG I'll ever play!
Herein I think we see where our disagreement is. We agree in principle, but we're interpreting the same thing differently.
I (and the article, insofar as I can see it) in no way is trying to downplay the sound, trying to say you can throw any odd sound in and make a masterpiece as long as the visuals are good. An appropriate soundtrack is key. But think about this: If you alter the soundtrack, the movie is the same. You alter the visual performance, and the movie isn't the same. (Altering the script will also change the movie, yes, but a script also isn't an essential part. Ever see Fantasia?)
All in all, I think the film comparison was off, but not completely horrible. I think it was more referring to the visuals compared to the soundtrack than compared to the script and, in reality, the visual performance really is what sets the silver screen apart from the radio or a print book.
Well, nobody is suggesting in the least to have a visual performance alone, neglecting all else. Nobody is saying that removing all of the dialogue and sound, leaving a purely visual performance, would make a decent movie (I'd still watch it, but that's beside the point). What is being said is that the visual performance is the biggest and most important part.
You don't believe that movies are judged by visual performance? Let's take the AFI number one movie of all time: Citizen Kane.
What are the main reasons people praise Citizen Kane? The visual performance. Lighting, deep focus, jump cuts. These would be worthless alone, but they are the biggest part.
In a similar fashion, the graphics service the gameplay, but they are far from the focus. A better example, in my opinion, would have been to say that the graphics are like the taste of food: that chocolate may taste better than that salad, but the salad is much better for you nutritionally. But, alas, the film example was chosen and I still say that it is a good one.
Only 3 people have enough gold bars to buy one.
Where do you get that idea. The article at NO point says that the soundtrack doesn't matter. But it does say that a stunning soundtrack won't make your movie great or that a crappy one won't make your movie the crapfest of the year. Yes, a good soundtrack can enhance a movie. A bad soundtrack can detract from a movie. But a soundtrack alone does not make a movie.
And a quote now comes to mind. It's about television, I believe, but the concept holds the same for movies. Unfortunately, I don't know from whose lips it came, but it goes a little something like this:
"If a blind man listens to your program and walks away understanding, you have failed. If a deaf man watches your program and walks away understanding, you have succeeded."
A movie is ideally measured by visual performance, just like a song is ideally measured by the way it sounds and a game is ideally measured by how well it plays.
As far as I understand, it used to be that one used the captcha if they had low karma, but it's not like that anymore.
The point of my post, which I guess seems rather unclear now that I reread it, is that *now* a captcha is still required, but if you aren't logged in.
I apologize for the confusion.
It's called posting without being logged in.
Anyway, the basic gist of the video is this: He is playing a medic. He is fighting two Jedi. Because of an error with the medic's area healing, he couldn't heal without also healing the Jedi. He completely owned both of them without ever worrying about his health. I repeat, this was a medic.
How sad is that?
Hmmm... learn something new every day.
The number of times that I alone accidentally type "localhost" onto non-server computers more than justifies it, AFAIAC.
You laugh, but it's all so true. I would definitely pay the required cost to get that domain. Just imagine.... Get a few per page view ads on there and you're rich overnight.
Ivan Pavlov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov). He rang a bell and gave the dogs food. They eventually started to salivate when the bell was rung. Interesting stuff.
The thing isn't so much that my tastes are different (I quite enjoy many of those such stories, in fact). The thing is that the Digg site actually says that Digg is a technology news website, but it isn't living up to that. Well, that, and the number of "stories" that are on Digg several dozen times get REALLY REALLY annoying.
Not to be pedantic, but it's hard for digg to have any editorializing when it has no editors.
No, please, be pedantic. This is Slashdot, after all. ;)
However, dictionary.com has a different take on this issue:
editorialize: "To present an opinion in the guise of an objective report."
Real example from Digg: There was a posting of a link that was a list of media players. Ignoring for the moment the issue of whether or not it belongs on Digg, the summary ended with the phrase "and get away from that windows media player!" If that's not editorializing, I don't know what is.
More things you won't find on digg: slashvertisements, propaganda stories, flamewars (for the most part), trolls (for the most part), punitive modding from editors (timothy and michael were fantastic for that), and more.
Slashvertisements: More or less absent on Digg (unless it's from Apple)
propaganda stories: More or less absent on Digg (unless it's about Apple)
flamewars: More or less absent on Digg (unless it's about Apple, evolution, or whether or not Digg should be just technology news and related issues)
trolls: Absent on Digg (but you just wait until Digg has a notable audience and comments get notable use, and you'll see the trolls roll in)
punitive modding from editors: Of course, because there are no real editors, and nobody bothers to mod comments.
I'm not saying digg is better than slashdot (I'm still here, evidently), but it can often be refreshing in a lot of ways. But as far as you're concerned, you're looking for a pure news site with a fully-featured message board system. Well, that's not digg. That's slashdot. So you have what you need right? No probelms.
I'm not saying one is inherently better than the other (I still go to both more than daily), I'm just saying that Digg's problems are greater than most people know. If Digg fixed their problems, I'm sad to say that I would likely jump off of Slashdot in an instant. I'm not looking for a pure news site (not even Slashdot really provides that). I'm looking for a site that does what it says it does (in Digg's case, provide technology news in a user-driven manner). If Digg continues like it does, it should compare itself constantly to del.icio.us, not Slashdot.
Stories stay at the top if they are consistently "dug." Stories that are consitently "dug" are new to the majority of active "diggers." Therefore, a digger that is as active as the average digger consistently sees new stories.
That's true /in theory/. But I'e seen a ton of people say "Wow, I remember when I saw this back in 1996. Dugg!" or something stupid like that. Certainly you aren't trying to tell us that those are new for those people?
You're right in that new stories don't go straight to the top. *Popular* stories stay at the top. But that's good - less popular stories fade faster. This is a much superior system in that important news is persistent. If you've seen the lead story, ignore it and scroll down, but other people will probably want to see it.
Once more, this is true /in theory/. However, people Digg random crap that doesn't belong. The site says in multiple places that Digg is for technology news, but people still Digg stupid things that certainly can't be considered important news. In fact, these things usually get the most Diggs (especially ones that say "DIGG IS GONNA BEAT SLASHDOT LOLZ0R!!!!!).
Therefore, Digg is completely inferior to Slashdot.
Hard to buy that considering that digg lacks the blatant editorializing, dupes, and other crap that plagues slashdot.
Wow. What Digg do you read? I look at Digg and I find more editorializing by more people, tons more dupes (and then people yell at me when I point out the fact), and plenty more crap including and beyond that which plagues Slashdot.
Perchance now is the time to state that I am not anti-science myself. I firmly believe in both God and evolution. I enjoy watching Evolution v. Creation debates, but the instant I saw the "I'm right because you can't prove God exists" argument enter, I had to strike. The [however-many-greats]grandparent insisted on formal logic, so I used the same.
The odds of a server accidentally generating said message are practically impossible. Not only is the time frame narrow, but the cohesion and appropriateness of the message data pretty much seals it (right down to your noticing my grammar-mistake-from-after-editing).
You seem to be missing the point. The point is that you can't logically *prove* it, you can just say whether it is likely in your mind.
But you can't logically prove it. It's not physically possible to logically prove that he exists.
Sure. I suppose I can't logically prove Linus exists, since I could go fly and shake his hand and there's always the possibility that I'm just in a computer simulation or that he's a facsimile. But such claims are more unlikely than him simply existing.
But that in no way proves it at all to me when you tell me you shook his hand. Or even comes close. Once more, you're missing the point that it can't be logically *proven*.
I'm looking at a chair right now. Do you believe me? God exists. Do you believe me?
Of course not. And I wasn't looking at a chair.
I am the antichrist. Do you believe me? (Please answer my question)
Of course not, but it's not at all relevant, so it doesn't matter.
You posted the your message.(sic)
That's not indisputable evidence. How do you know the right bits didn't rot on the server that just happened to form that message? It's got about the same likelihood as evolution.
Better yet, logically prove that Linus Torvalds exists. Since you can't, you must (according to you) assume he doesn't.
I have no reason to assume he doesn't. He could be... an actor, pretending to be Linus, but it seems fairly reasonable to me that he does in fact exist.
But you can't logically prove it. It's not physically possible to logically prove that he exists.
Therefore Linux must have evolved naturally out of a C compiler.
That statement is nonsense.
That's exactly my point. I was using the same line of reasoning the parent & such had invoked
"God exists" is a basic statement that cannot be proven any more than you can prove to me that you see a chair.
I'm looking at a chair right now. Do you believe me?
God exists. Do you believe me?
I've got one for you...
Logically prove that I exist. Can't be done, can it?
Better yet, logically prove that Linus Torvalds exists. Since you can't, you must (according to you) assume he doesn't. Therefore Linux must have evolved naturally out of a C compiler.
"God exists" is a basic statement that cannot be proven any more than you can prove to me that you see a chair.
The ratings symbols are all trademarked. I don't know if they simply won't license or if the game industry just didn't want to bother, but the ESRB couldn't simply using those ratings if they wanted to.