Not everything in the "license" needs to be legal. Sale of goods is strictly regulated by law, and although we don't yet have specific legislation for digital downloads, this practice seems to cross the boarder.
Well yes it is. Language allows for arithmetically inaccurately defined descriptions when the meaning is conclusive. In this case it's clear that the inverse of the price.
Or would you insist on saying "a car came toward me at minus-twice the speed as me?
They are not present in JRPGs the same way they are in CRPGs. Trying to claim that CRPGs and JRPGs are exactly the same reeks of despair. As I've said, JRPG fans have an inferiority complex.
Here we have another generalisation without a compelling example. Even if some elements which I mentioned are be more "present", the fact remains that you are playing a fully scripted adventure. Almost every game has alternative paths and a fair few have ultiple endings, even one's whih wouldn't be considered RPGs. And I haven't played many "JRPGs" without dialogue trees and a ton of sidequests, a few big-name titles being the exception.
When playing a hard game you get a sense of accomplishment, that much is true. But if that's all your game relies upon, it doesn't stand up to the experience offered by more recent games. There are more ways to reward a player than simply not making him start all over again.
Having said that, I personally do like a medium level of difficulty if it adds to the experience. It's all about perfecting the balance though. Saving and reloading before every battle can make the experience a little shallow, but make me replay hours of the game and I'll just be pissed off.
You haven't really answered his main question. Just give an example of how typical "western" CRPGs are inherently more "role-playing" than "JRPGs".
It boils down to how you define the term. All CRPGs are programmed, i.e. scripted. This makes them inherently different from pen and paper RPGs, where the world you explore is created by the dungeon master and the outcome is completely open. The best we have seen for CRPGs are elements like dialogue trees, side and main quests, alternative paths and endings. And all of them are present in Western as well as Japanese RPGs. The biggest difference I see is in artistic style than anything else.
So to repeat the question: Can you show how a Western RPG allowed a player to influence the game-world and outcome of his actions that is completely unprecendented for Japanese RPGs?
From your statements I can conclude that you haven't really played very many games outside the ones you mention. And as others have pointed out, certain themes are true for almost any mythical story, from ancient myths to acclaimed literature and almost every computer game, including "western RPGs"
Even when new trends establish themselves they will never manage to take over from much more sophisticated systems. The market for PC and console games will not suddenly crumble just because some people discover playing games on the iPhone. It's a wholly different market.
I was pondering what to put, but "unnamed chordate ancestor", "unknown deuterostome ancestor" and "hypothetical bilateral ancestor" seemed a little too generic.
All of them unnecessary. Sure, it's basic algebra but from an engineering perspective it's madness.
It's not just a problem for science, it gets in the way of daily life. Exponentiation of mixed fractions is not something people can do in their heads.
That's a bad start, because some people will never feel comfortble talking to strangers and would be able to best relax by going straight back home. Usually it's best to start talking as soon as the opportunity arises, even if it's just small-talk.
Repeat conversations until you are invited to activities with people.
That one isn't necessarily something you can count on. You have to remember that other people can be anxious too, so it's always a good idea to bring some input yourself. For some people it is rather difficult and "acting naturally" won't work for them, but consciously looking for conversation will (which will become more natural with time)
That's where it helps to talk to lots of people and find out what their interests are. The problem is that most geeks seem to be more socially anxious than the general population. It's kind of a chicken and egg problem.
I came this ><& close to buying the Samsung LN46A650 but I put it off, thinking LED backlighting will go mainstream in the next model.
Considering the price that those go for now, and what I paid for that TV a year ago, I can only recommend the purchase right away.
Waiting for a new technology isn't worth it IMO. You'll probably be better off buying a TV now, and when the technology you do want is eventually released, buying another one after a year or so on the market.
As you point out, the main advantage (local dimming) isn't standard on their LED devices, and even when they are it will likely take a couple of years to mature.
Also remember that SVHS didn't make much of a dent in the VHS market, despite being a very noticable improvement, Essentially it depends on how well they will be able to market BluRay over DVD, before digital distribution takes over the market.
That's assuming that hard-disks will always give a better price/storage ratio. That isn't necessarily the case and within a few years of them becoming economically viable, SSDs could completely bury hard drives if they continue at the pace they have done.
No, but saying that the PSX was the pinnacle of 2D gaming is wrong. The NEOGEO was just an example of how that was even evident at the time, with much older hardware. It wasn't until the PS2 generation that we had maxed out 2D games and animation.
Your reference to MadWorld just shows you're a part of the collective group think of so-called "hardcore gamers" who claim to understand marketing and demographics. Madworld was a mediocre game with practically no marketing. If it had been released for any other console it would have sold like shit and been in the bargain bin within a month. It had mediocre sales.
As Darkness has pointed out, market gap. There are tons of hardcore Wii gamers who would love some quality action-games or open-world adventures by third parties, as well as the chance of finding new customers in the Wii's expanded market. The latest Call of Duty game sold the most on Wii. I bet the publishers feel pretty stupid for sticking to group-think off the internet and ditching the Wii with the previous COD outing.
(and happened to be burned by Nintendo's lack of consumer compassion and their hate for backwards-compatability).
That doesn't make sense. Whenever The hardware has been capable Nintendo have always implemented backwards compatability. (Wii-GameCube, GameBoy-GBC) As for older systems, the games came on circuit boards which were tightly integrated to the original hardware, so nothing short of slapping on the last console could have maintained backwards compatibility.
I for one am glad we're not tied down by legacy designs like we are in the PC market.
We have seen numerous examples of fully open worlds created on systems less capable than the Wii. That pretty much disproves all of the claims about having to water down gameplay. The only tangible difference is resolution and model detail. The developers could simplify the models and cut back on some effects and it would be the same game.
Whenever people criticize the Wii they love to make unqualified claims about what isn't possible and completely ignore precedent.
The PSX was basically the pinnacle of 2D game consoles.
Actually, no, the PSX sucked at 2D. The NEOGEO hardware was much better for 2D graphics (It had a lot to do with the games coming on a truckload of ROM chips). Compare the PS1 and the NEGEO versions of metal slug for example.
The maximum credible accident for a nuclear reactor is that a large portion of the radioactive material within the reactor is released to the environment. Your assumption that it is "a lot worse" is simply misinformed,
With Chernobyl that's basically what happened. The reactor exploded and the following graphite fire released a huge amount of radioactive material to the atmosphere.
With safe designs this mode of failure is not conceivable. There are reactor design which basically can can contain a complete nuclear meltdown.
But there are often potential disasters for nuclear plants that are much worse. We haven't seen any of them, so I presume that the people who said they were extremely unlikely were correct. But if you model "worst case scenario" you don't just model the worst that has happened. You model the worst that could happen.
Umm, no. There are no "secret failure modes". Contrary to popular belief, a power plant will not go off like a thermonuclear weapon if attacked.
Compare "the worst that can happen" in nuclear power to the same with solar, wind, geothermal, or hydroelectric power.
The last one really bugs me. Many more people have lost their lives due to damn failure than because of nuclear power plants. You should really investigate your claims.
This alone should be enough to deter us from nuclear power, because no matter what, mistakes are always made and the unexpected occurs.
By installing mechanisms aimed at multiple redundancy and self-regulation, we can basically exclude many previously feared MCAs like chernobyl and stamp down other safety breaches to statistical insignifgance. We just need the right safety culture and openness.
Solve the waste problem
The problem with final depository is mainly a political one than the science. If we focus on breeder reactors, we'll need far less space than we do today, which by the way isn't all that much to begin with.
solve the security problems
First define "secure". There are plenty of "security problems" with air travel, but that hasn't stopped us.
solve the what-if problems
Solved for people who have faith in science and the laws of physics.
THEN build your nuke plants.
Even then we will be held up by hysterics and scaremongorers who were forged by popular media, and who neither have any interest in engineering and science or of energy politics. They will continue to cause damage and will even criticize scientific research because of their fundamentalist ideals that were entrenched in them decades ago.
In the meantime, we can schlep our way through the problems of other truely clean energy alternatives
Let me guess that in the mean time, you will continue to use your cooker, water boiler, TV and computer, and probably a car and enjoy a variety of food and consumer products made possible because of our energy infrastructure.
So power is a little more expensive
That's one fundamental misconception that many people share. The consequances of energy shortage are very dire and severe. Energy policy need to be planned decades in advance, it's not a "supply and demand" problem like you learned in school. I bet it hasn't once crossed you mind that as little as a generation ago in western countries, there was heavy investment in the electric grid so that people could get out of their backward living conditions and economic burdon. This required many battles for public money and truly long-term investment. I know that with time people tend to take things for granted but sheesh.
Meh. Microsoft have never been very cooperative with antitrust investigations and have always sought maximum advantage irrespective of any laws. For them it will be a choice of: (a) Potentially paying a couple of billion in fines in quite a few years down the line, but ensuring they keep their eternal supremacy in the market. (b) Risk losing it all.
Either way it's not as if fines could change the market, just as the Intel fines can't undo the wrongdoings and missed chances on the processor market.
Slashdot Mirror
Not everything in the "license" needs to be legal. Sale of goods is strictly regulated by law, and although we don't yet have specific legislation for digital downloads, this practice seems to cross the boarder.
Well yes it is. Language allows for arithmetically inaccurately defined descriptions when the meaning is conclusive.
In this case it's clear that the inverse of the price.
Or would you insist on saying "a car came toward me at minus-twice the speed as me?
They are not present in JRPGs the same way they are in CRPGs. Trying to claim that CRPGs and JRPGs are exactly the same reeks of despair. As I've said, JRPG fans have an inferiority complex.
Here we have another generalisation without a compelling example. Even if some elements which I mentioned are be more "present", the fact remains that you are playing a fully scripted adventure.
Almost every game has alternative paths and a fair few have ultiple endings, even one's whih wouldn't be considered RPGs.
And I haven't played many "JRPGs" without dialogue trees and a ton of sidequests, a few big-name titles being the exception.
Yikes, it's fucking huge.
When playing a hard game you get a sense of accomplishment, that much is true. But if that's all your game relies upon, it doesn't stand up to the experience offered by more recent games.
There are more ways to reward a player than simply not making him start all over again.
Having said that, I personally do like a medium level of difficulty if it adds to the experience. It's all about perfecting the balance though. Saving and reloading before every battle can make the experience a little shallow, but make me replay hours of the game and I'll just be pissed off.
You haven't really answered his main question. Just give an example of how typical "western" CRPGs are inherently more "role-playing" than "JRPGs".
It boils down to how you define the term.
All CRPGs are programmed, i.e. scripted. This makes them inherently different from pen and paper RPGs, where the world you explore is created by the dungeon master and the outcome is completely open.
The best we have seen for CRPGs are elements like dialogue trees, side and main quests, alternative paths and endings. And all of them are present in Western as well as Japanese RPGs. The biggest difference I see is in artistic style than anything else.
So to repeat the question: Can you show how a Western RPG allowed a player to influence the game-world and outcome of his actions that is completely unprecendented for Japanese RPGs?
From your statements I can conclude that you haven't really played very many games outside the ones you mention. And as others have pointed out, certain themes are true for almost any mythical story, from ancient myths to acclaimed literature and almost every computer game, including "western RPGs"
Even when new trends establish themselves they will never manage to take over from much more sophisticated systems. The market for PC and console games will not suddenly crumble just because some people discover playing games on the iPhone. It's a wholly different market.
I was pondering what to put, but "unnamed chordate ancestor", "unknown deuterostome ancestor" and "hypothetical bilateral ancestor" seemed a little too generic.
Your Mom.
It's not the feet and inches, it's the square feet, the cubic inches, and the pound-forces.
With the imperial system you have
-mixed fractions
-multiple definitions
-conversion tables
All of them unnecessary. Sure, it's basic algebra but from an engineering perspective it's madness.
It's not just a problem for science, it gets in the way of daily life. Exponentiation of mixed fractions is not something people can do in their heads.
Say nothing until you feel comfortable.
That's a bad start, because some people will never feel comfortble talking to strangers and would be able to best relax by going straight back home. Usually it's best to start talking as soon as the opportunity arises, even if it's just small-talk.
Repeat conversations until you are invited to activities with people.
That one isn't necessarily something you can count on. You have to remember that other people can be anxious too, so it's always a good idea to bring some input yourself.
For some people it is rather difficult and "acting naturally" won't work for them, but consciously looking for conversation will (which will become more natural with time)
That's where it helps to talk to lots of people and find out what their interests are.
The problem is that most geeks seem to be more socially anxious than the general population. It's kind of a chicken and egg problem.
I came this ><& close to buying the Samsung LN46A650 but I put it off, thinking LED backlighting will go mainstream in the next model.
Considering the price that those go for now, and what I paid for that TV a year ago, I can only recommend the purchase right away.
Waiting for a new technology isn't worth it IMO. You'll probably be better off buying a TV now, and when the technology you do want is eventually released, buying another one after a year or so on the market.
As you point out, the main advantage (local dimming) isn't standard on their LED devices, and even when they are it will likely take a couple of years to mature.
Also remember that SVHS didn't make much of a dent in the VHS market, despite being a very noticable improvement,
Essentially it depends on how well they will be able to market BluRay over DVD, before digital distribution takes over the market.
That's assuming that hard-disks will always give a better price/storage ratio. That isn't necessarily the case and within a few years of them becoming economically viable, SSDs could completely bury hard drives if they continue at the pace they have done.
No, but saying that the PSX was the pinnacle of 2D gaming is wrong. The NEOGEO was just an example of how that was even evident at the time, with much older hardware. It wasn't until the PS2 generation that we had maxed out 2D games and animation.
Your reference to MadWorld just shows you're a part of the collective group think of so-called "hardcore gamers" who claim to understand marketing and demographics.
Madworld was a mediocre game with practically no marketing. If it had been released for any other console it would have sold like shit and been in the bargain bin within a month.
It had mediocre sales.
Your point exactly?
As Darkness has pointed out, market gap. There are tons of hardcore Wii gamers who would love some quality action-games or open-world adventures by third parties, as well as the chance of finding new customers in the Wii's expanded market.
The latest Call of Duty game sold the most on Wii. I bet the publishers feel pretty stupid for sticking to group-think off the internet and ditching the Wii with the previous COD outing.
(and happened to be burned by Nintendo's lack of consumer compassion and their hate for backwards-compatability).
That doesn't make sense. Whenever The hardware has been capable Nintendo have always implemented backwards compatability. (Wii-GameCube, GameBoy-GBC)
As for older systems, the games came on circuit boards which were tightly integrated to the original hardware, so nothing short of slapping on the last console could have maintained backwards compatibility.
I for one am glad we're not tied down by legacy designs like we are in the PC market.
We have seen numerous examples of fully open worlds created on systems less capable than the Wii. That pretty much disproves all of the claims about having to water down gameplay.
The only tangible difference is resolution and model detail. The developers could simplify the models and cut back on some effects and it would be the same game.
Whenever people criticize the Wii they love to make unqualified claims about what isn't possible and completely ignore precedent.
The PSX was basically the pinnacle of 2D game consoles.
Actually, no, the PSX sucked at 2D. The NEOGEO hardware was much better for 2D graphics (It had a lot to do with the games coming on a truckload of ROM chips). Compare the PS1 and the NEGEO versions of metal slug for example.
The maximum credible accident for a nuclear reactor is that a large portion of the radioactive material within the reactor is released to the environment.
Your assumption that it is "a lot worse" is simply misinformed,
With Chernobyl that's basically what happened. The reactor exploded and the following graphite fire released a huge amount of radioactive material to the atmosphere.
With safe designs this mode of failure is not conceivable. There are reactor design which basically can can contain a complete nuclear meltdown.
But there are often potential disasters for nuclear plants that are much worse. We haven't seen any of them, so I presume that the people who said they were extremely unlikely were correct. But if you model "worst case scenario" you don't just model the worst that has happened. You model the worst that could happen.
Umm, no. There are no "secret failure modes". Contrary to popular belief, a power plant will not go off like a thermonuclear weapon if attacked.
Compare "the worst that can happen" in nuclear power to the same with solar, wind, geothermal, or hydroelectric power.
The last one really bugs me. Many more people have lost their lives due to damn failure than because of nuclear power plants. You should really investigate your claims.
This alone should be enough to deter us from nuclear power, because no matter what, mistakes are always made and the unexpected occurs.
By installing mechanisms aimed at multiple redundancy and self-regulation, we can basically exclude many previously feared MCAs like chernobyl and stamp down other safety breaches to statistical insignifgance. We just need the right safety culture and openness.
Solve the waste problem
The problem with final depository is mainly a political one than the science. If we focus on breeder reactors, we'll need far less space than we do today, which by the way isn't all that much to begin with.
solve the security problems
First define "secure". There are plenty of "security problems" with air travel, but that hasn't stopped us.
solve the what-if problems
Solved for people who have faith in science and the laws of physics.
THEN build your nuke plants.
Even then we will be held up by hysterics and scaremongorers who were forged by popular media, and who neither have any interest in engineering and science or of energy politics.
They will continue to cause damage and will even criticize scientific research because of their fundamentalist ideals that were entrenched in them decades ago.
In the meantime, we can schlep our way through the problems of other truely clean energy alternatives
Let me guess that in the mean time, you will continue to use your cooker, water boiler, TV and computer, and probably a car and enjoy a variety of food and consumer products made possible because of our energy infrastructure.
So power is a little more expensive
That's one fundamental misconception that many people share. The consequances of energy shortage are very dire and severe. Energy policy need to be planned decades in advance, it's not a "supply and demand" problem like you learned in school.
I bet it hasn't once crossed you mind that as little as a generation ago in western countries, there was heavy investment in the electric grid so that people could get out of their backward living conditions and economic burdon.
This required many battles for public money and truly long-term investment.
I know that with time people tend to take things for granted but sheesh.
Meh. Microsoft have never been very cooperative with antitrust investigations and have always sought maximum advantage irrespective of any laws.
For them it will be a choice of:
(a) Potentially paying a couple of billion in fines in quite a few years down the line, but ensuring they keep their eternal supremacy in the market.
(b) Risk losing it all.
Either way it's not as if fines could change the market, just as the Intel fines can't undo the wrongdoings and missed chances on the processor market.