Okay youve missinterpreted me. I was saying Games were just as _good_ as music, novels and movies. Not excluding them. Jeez people are really out for a fight on this one.
1. Although I agree with your post in principle, games do actually affect other people thats kind of there whole point. Just as the other examples, music, novels, movies. Its just that they dont affect people in an adverse way.
2. I think the original post was just a joke based on the obvious nature of the sentence. Kind of like saying. 'The main people who hate fridge magnets are the people who really hate fridge magnets.' Rather than a Jack Thompson politial broadcast.
I know people, hard workers, that have fallen on bad times.
They are on benefits. You think a company would pay that if it was ruling? Why bother? It would just lose them profits. Oh but I guess they can vote against them. Wait nooo because theyve no money to do that with. Are you seeing the gaping flaws here yet? There are plenty more.
This is of course ignoring the fact that your already in one of the most capitalist heavy countries in the world. If you dont think its working now why on Earth would you want more of the same? Oh and nice example with Europe by the way. I mean us Europeans are sure ruled by money. Its why those small companies you saw were probably government aided, and why we have some of the most stringent government controlled anti-competition and monopoly laws in the world, as well as government paid for health services... no wait...
'Considering that there's really not been any real consistency throughout MS' product offerings or anything else about Windows' operating environment'
That just isnt true.
Printing? How exactly has this changed in the interface, as in the part that actually matters. The printers are still in control panel you still print from the print option in the file menu in every single application. It is entirely consistent. Maybe on some lower level its different but thats meaningless.
The API? Again has absolutely no bearing on the consistency of the O/S windows applications are still layed out in the same way the API still has the same ability. You rant on about some developer level issue. What the hell does that have to do with the end user interface?
WinCE? Dont remeber this being about WinCE. Desktop Windows is an entirely different line of O/S's
Install/Uninstall? Its up tot he software designer to make the install for Windows. However, just about every install works in the exact same way. Always a next and back button always a EULA followed by a path to install to always the same options for an icon in your startmenu. Just about every piece of software ive ever installed has the uninstall option in the uninstall menu. (Theres a shock.)
DLL's? Once again nothing to do with consistency. Its a meaningless unseen thing that happens and has no bearing on the average use of the system. If you want to go looking around for dll's then its a problem. most of the world doesnt give the first bit of a toss about what dll's are installed or if there dll's are in the right place or even what the hell a dll even is.
'There's tons more.' - If there anything like your current list theyll be equally as unimportant to actual consistency.
'"Windows" only seems consistent because the end-user community sees something that"works like Windows" and is therefore familiar' - Are you simple? If it looks like windows, works like windows, has done since windows 95 thats pretty much the definition of consistency
You sound like your some application developer or some crap whos annoyed that windows scatters certain things or doesnt allow you to make your applications in the way you want. That has _nothing_ to do with the consistency of the operating systems user interface which is what this article was about.
Read the third and fourth article about keystrokes again then come back and start ranting on about the total lack of consistency in the O/S...
and dont anyone be getting all riled up by my ravings. Im just venting because this whole story appears to have turned in to a Linux vs all things MS and Windows argument. (Which isnt really a surprise.) There is a reason why lots of open source copies Windows and its apps. Its so it will be picked up by all those people who know exactly how the _consistent_ systems within Windows work. Which was the whole point of the article, and like the article I sit on the fence. There needs to be the Windows immitators for those needing a free and easy desktop solution. There also needs to be innovation and complex commands for those requiring more power or cutting edge applications.
Err it is the writers fault. The site is breaking because he hasnt closed the span tags. Just because firefox and the others are more tolerant doesnt change the fact that its shitty code. Download it and take a look for yourself.
This is not Opera's problem, and dissapearing text wasnt the only issue with the page. It could do with a complete rewrite. (and not in a web script generator.)
Has anyone I mean ANYONE anywhere. Got _actual_ figures of how many X-Box360's have gone wrong. Anyone, anyone at all?
Doesnt seem like it.
Last MS said no more are going wrong than any other launch. I dont really believe them but the alternative is/. and these quite frankly biassed and rubbish articles that make it seem like every other 360 is blowing up. My friends have about 5 between them non has ever crashed or had any problems at all so this doesnt seem to believable either.
Everyone who hasnt seems to think they are all dying. Everyone in the media are pleased to report on an endless catastrophe. Yet everyone who has one seems to be fairly pleased with them? That doesnt add up.
Until someone has some hard figures on the rate of 360's that are going wrong this remains just one big, annoying, fanboys of other hardware, rumour.
(Note although I doubt it will get anywhere this is a serious question. Can someone please for the love of God find some actual figures on this issue because all my efforts have been futile.)
Errr you realise games run from RAM not the hard disk. That the difference between harddisk and DVD is about 3x while the difference between harddisk and RAM is about 1,000,000x. I mean your talking like the parent is making some kind of dumb suggestion but the only difference running off harddrive makes is loading times.
Loading times that actually manage to be longer on PC than console because the developers often either over look it or are too lazy to sort them out. I.e. PC games often load slower than console ones. Your one reason for not having a game run from the disk has gone.
Im not saying for sure which is a better method but it seems to me that its not something that you can just fob off in a bit of a self superior way like you did with your last two sentances.
You steal a thousand dollars in a nice shiney case. You open the case and blam! there was a paint bomb in it the money is drenched but luckily nothing else was. By your logic when the guy chucks the case in to the trash it should be considered destroyed and unusable. Even if the trash can is sitting in his kitchen and the police are searching his house with a legally obtained warrent.
Your example of being sent an illegal picture is inacurate. The law (at least in the UK anyway) takes in to account the content of the hard drive in total. So if they find one deleted child porn pic on your computer you wont get in to trouble. (Especially when they have records of you reporting the image.) If they find 2 or 3 thousand deleted images thats a whole different kettle of fish.
Unless evidence is obtained illegaly there is no point at which you should just discard it.
No, no, no, this was never an anti-gay statement. (Infact that would be a pretty damn hard thing for me to be.) It was only about positive discrimination.
The whole point was equal view of what people are offended by. The preference for GLBT is giving the GLBT players a right over the prefrence for a Heterosexual group. As someone has already pointed out my view of the situation has jumped to a possibly incorrect assumption that if someone made a heterosexual friendly group they would get in to trouble.
That was because the way I thought of it was that the two sides were either for GLBT or against GLBT rather than being for Heterosexual. My mistake, and it justifies the troll rating though thanks to the guy who stood up for me.
The only way that my original post can be relevant is if Blizzard take action against people advertising as heterosexual friendly.
Im hardly feeling woe and dispair... more mild irritation.
'He's saying punishing someone for saying "GLBT" in game was not an appropriate response.'
The case was someone recruiting GLBT in to a guild not saying GLBT. Theres a bit of a difference. and what are you trying to say? That someone recruiting GLBT in prefrence to others is better than someone who would recruit non-GLBT people in prefrence to others? If you are saying that then isnt that a fairly obvious double standard. If your not then I assume, seeing as you have no problem with people promoting GLBT, that you wont have any problem with people being derogatory about GLBT people either.
'And yes, saying "gay" when you mean "bad" was always punishable, and should continue to be.'
Oh... I guess it was the double standard option then.
'I can't tell if you're a troll, or just not very intelligent.'
Thanks for the choices...
'you seem to be reacting based on bias rather than reason or logic'
Quite the opposite if I was biased id be saying either. 'Damn gays shouldnt have any right to say anything ever.' or 'Homosexuals should be allowed to say whatever they like about anything to do with there sexuality at any time.' Or something along those lines but probably not quite so blatent.
Instead what im saying is that if you have rules that allow people to promote GLBT friendly guilds then unless you want a huge double standard you shouldnt stop people from promoting guilds that dont allow GLBT. Cant really get more reasonable or logical than that.
Now im not even sure if Blizzard do restrict nonGLBT groups but if they dont I could imagine this will be deemed offensive* which is what the rules restricting these things were supposed to stop in the first place. Which is why the rules, in my opinion, should continue to be interpreted that you dont mention sexuality in these ways. (because you're technically right the rules didnt change. The way they were utilised, however, has.) It was a simple, blanket ruling, that probably should have been enforced with a little more tact, but that they have now backed down on. (Which was due to an attack on Blizzard I wasnt entirely comfortable with in the first place.)
*This is a large key to the problem right here. Discussing GLBT shouldnt be offensive. I know this, most reasonable people know this but in the real world where it takes all kinds this just isnt so. People take offense at GLBT heck I used to work with a gay guy who would take offense at people announcing there sexuality because 'I dont see any straight people mouthing off about the fact they like women.' Saying its okay to announce you are GLBT friendly while banning people from announcing they are GLBT unfriendly doesnt seem right to me, no matter what I believe to be the correct way of thinking.
'People shouldn't be offended by the EXISTENCE of other people.'
Your right they shouldnt be. Doesnt change the fact that they are though, and people cant and shouldnt be allowed to choose what others are or are not offended by.
'Think about a guild that has a lot of black people in it. Your logic would say that it should then be fine to have anti-black guilds also.'
Not quite. The first sentance implies a guild simply has a lot of black people in it by chance. Your second implies the anti-black guild would be recruiting only white people. Thats a huge difference.
If a guild can not advertise for a specific colour of skin then that should apply to all guilds and if some end up predominantly white or black or whatever colour you can imagine then so be it.
If a guild can advertise for a specific colour of skin that that should... apply to all guilds and if some guild decides only black people can enter it then there shouldnt be a rule denying a white person to create a guild with only other white people in it.
Applied to what I posted its a case of allowing GLBT promotion while I am uncertain of groups that promote only non GLBT people. If that is allowed then, as I said before, thats going to cause upset on either side and I should think there will be more complaints to come. If that isnt allowed then you have a rather large double standard. Or from your example the right for black people to exist in black only groups while white people are not allowed to do the same.
Either way it isnt exactly laying the issue to rest. The only way that was possible was if they had maintained the original interpretation of the rule and banned getting bogged down in sexuality from the whole thing.
So Blizzard has backed down on its policy, and this is somehow more free now? I wonder.
Can someone now start a guild that excludes GLBT? Can someone discuss, without being threatening, there dislike of GLBT people without being reported?
Id take a guess and say doubtful. After all GLBT people may find it offensive and thats what the rules are there to stop. Oh but hang on. How is that different to people being offended by GLBT discussion and guilds?
I dislike defending biggots and the intolerant but freedom in these things should be universal else it is nothing but a damaging double standard and a dangerous one at that. As I said in a previous post (One that I got marked as a troll for so im not expecting happy joy joy feelings at this rant.) this is a double edged sword and Blizzard have seen fit to blunt one side of it by saying people cant be offended by GLBT but can be offended by those against GLBT. That is unless they are perfectly fine with anti GLBT sentiments but that opens the flood gates in an entirely different set of arguments.
The rule was simple and ment no one no matter what there thoughts on the issue would have to get bogged down with views on sexuality. I.e. they were perfectly reasonable. Now whether it was Blizzard or this Lambda group handling it badly really doesnt matter. Backing down and then claiming its case closed isnt going to work. I wouldnt be surprised if there was a backlash to this. After all maybe me refering to something bad as gay could be considered offensive enough to report now. While perhaps someone of GLBT persuasion could make lewd sex act refrences but be impossible to report because that would be crippling there freedom. I dont know because we no long have simple universal rules anymore.
Itll probably all be fine. Theyve probably reached a happy balance, but lets just say Im glad Blizzard are only determining freedoms within an online game and nothing more. The biggest problem with this whole debate was that it had to take place at all.
As far as im aware no optical drive console with the exception of the dreamcast has ever been cracked.
Early ones didnt have protection so couldnt be cracked. Later ones have all relied on mod chips and the like to run. (I believe the Saturn has a mod that will allow them to run like the others.) So its not unusual that the Saturn is uncracked and may remain uncracked.
The fact is copy protection to stop CD-R's is virtually impossible to stop by using CD-R's. The only reason the DC failed was because they left a gaping hole in the security. (Emphasis on gaping, its not something that will happen regularly, so you cant rely on errors like that to crack consoles.)
Unfortunately your best bet for using your backups (ignoring mods and disk swapping) is to utilise an emulator.
I used to think SC2 wasnt particularly better. Then I went back and played SC1 its just not as fluid a game to play. (Maybe thats just because I use Ivy.) Plus after finishing SC1 on its hardest setting with every character SC2 proved somewhat more difficult to do the same. (Oh also note that the Japanese and American versions appear to differ in speed.)
That said you make a good point that when SC came out it was simply the best fighter around and arguably the SC series still are the best fighters around. (Discounting 2D which is pretty much an entirely different genre and one that, while loved by many, I personally hate.) I do think SC2 is an improvement over the first but it was the first that set the whole thing up and SC2 simply tweaked a few bits and rereleased with prettier graphics.
Women gamers are on the rise the recent study on women gamers in England placed them at about 44% of the entire gaming community how is this 'ignored by the game industry for so long'
'People are assuming that games have to be mindless in order for women to play them' - Since when??? the top game for equal play by the sexes is the Sims. Thats pretty much common knowledge in the industry how would that translate to the industry thinking women need a brainless game and at what point did they think this only applies to games made for women. Last I checked most games dont exactly have the complexity of well thought out book or film.
'with puke-humor' 'sophomoric' - Oh yeah because men love puke and sophomoric humour I mean thats a real seller for every man I know... Games that rely on these things are typically bad games not bad games for women. Just bad games.
'Wallace's advice: Make a game mechanic accessible.' - Genius. Why didnt the industry think of that before. If games didnt make the game mechanics accessible theyd be... bad games. Not bad games for women. Just bad games.
'co-op' - Another brilliant suggestion add co-op modes in games. That will sell them to women... and men, because if games have co-op modes thats a good feature. Not good for women. Just a good feature for everyone.
'I would argue that World of Warcraft actually did design the game with women in mind,' - Really? Do go on.
'crafter roles and supporting roles' - So they believe warcraft was made with women in mind because there are supporting roles such as healers etc. The same roles that are in dozens of games from your FPS's to your RPG's and have been for years now. Yeah clearly Blizzard were making a conscious effort to make it accesible to women and not just utilising a tried and tested mechanic that once again both sexes approve of.
The article has someone claiming They treat women as a mysterious nut to crack. then listing a number of points and holding an entire event based around women as if they are a mysterious nut to crack.
Just about every single point in the whole article on how to make better games applies to everyone not women, not men. Everyone. Which is exactly the point a lot of people and myself have been making for years now. If you make good and varied games women will play them. Its as simple as that.
The second article pretty much backs that view up. Women like FPS, women like puzzles, some like violence, some hate it. Almost as if women have diverse tastes in games just like men. (Although the infighting reminds me of a point Janet Street Porter made about women being the major factor in holding women back.)
Maybe this is a flame, maybe im just a jaded male gamer, but when I look at the other industries they just dont seem to have this problem. Sure you get chick flicks and macho movies in the movie industry but they're just labels and regardless of what genre a film is a good film is a good film. You dont have groups and thousands of people within that industry trying to push all the films in to catering for both sexes absolutely equally. (Nor would I ever want that to happen.)
That said, where on Earth are they pulling these figures. The fact of the matter is that they didnt reach targets. It is not clear if that was just inventory or not. While its likely to be just something to do with shortages how can you jump from 'Oh it was just shortages' to 'The're going to do really well.'
The only piece of evidence they seem to have is that the 360 is going to reach 4.5 to 5 million units by June according to... Microsoft. Not exactly an unbiassed source.
Oh yes and they did a study of units currently in, despite the fact its a known fact that 360's are in short supply and the survey proves absolutely nothing about sales. Genius.
He suggests you could scan across games to find different matches ignoring the fact this would probably be incredibly difficult for the 360 to do how can you possibly make this easy and steamlined. Youd have to have ever single game in the 360 catalogue listed. Maybe you could select the games and then only ever look at your selections. Itd still be adding in a whole bunch of new menues and complications.
As for clans, youd need a page for the whole thing. Youd need a subsection for a given game and another sub section for a given clan. Add 20 or 30 games and the fact that it would be inconsistant, as many games dont have clans and you have a jumbled mess of a system. The way round hes thinking is even more confusing. Having a clan of players which you then apply to games? As if all the players in your clan are going to have all the games every other clan member does. Youd have a list of clans some on some games some on others some on both, itd be ridiculous. He doesnt stop there though he keeps layering more and more controls on top making the whole thing absurdly convoluted for a console system.
'It seems the PC has done it well for years and years' Since when? In his own article he says people use chat programs and all sorts to get in touch with each other and then arrange games. This isnt a smooth process and nor is it one a console can learn from. Its not like im not speaking from experience. Ive had to install new chat programs or sign up to forums just to arrange a simple game. A console simply doesnt have the wealth of apps that the PC does at its disposal.
Ohh but it gets worse. Not content to try overcomplicate and largely break the live interface he wants to introduce user supported servers. Dear lord if there is one problem with online PC gaming it is servers that are up and down like a yoyo. Has been for years. As long as ive been using it Live has remained entirely solid. Not only does he want that compomised he wants to charge people through live for 'fair cost sharing' issues so that if everything does go pear shaped (and it will.) someone (MS) can be held liable. Its a nightmare of a system just in theory. This is ignoring security issues etc.
This guy hasnt thought this through at all. The 360 _isnt_, and I cant stress _isnt_ enough, a PC. You dont run multiple apps with mouse keyboard all lined up in a startbar. You do one thing at a time with a limited controller. It required an entirely new way of organising things and copying the PC is not only a horribly flawed idea it could be detrimental to the development of online console gaming.
If this guy wants his PC systems, use a PC. Ill stick with the awesome relief from all that that live has given me.
Re:Not to be pedantic but,
on
Golf in Space
·
· Score: 1
Why is it bad physics to say weightless?
Very first defintion of weightless in the dictionary.
'Having little or no weight.'
The tee is designed to cope with something that has little or no weight. It is by definition weightless-friendly.
Maybe im missing something but I dont see what the problem is here.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay youve missinterpreted me. I was saying Games were just as _good_ as music, novels and movies. Not excluding them. Jeez people are really out for a fight on this one.
Um two points.
1. Although I agree with your post in principle, games do actually affect other people thats kind of there whole point. Just as the other examples, music, novels, movies. Its just that they dont affect people in an adverse way.
2. I think the original post was just a joke based on the obvious nature of the sentence. Kind of like saying. 'The main people who hate fridge magnets are the people who really hate fridge magnets.' Rather than a Jack Thompson politial broadcast.
I know people, hard workers, that have fallen on bad times.
They are on benefits. You think a company would pay that if it was ruling? Why bother? It would just lose them profits. Oh but I guess they can vote against them. Wait nooo because theyve no money to do that with. Are you seeing the gaping flaws here yet? There are plenty more.
This is of course ignoring the fact that your already in one of the most capitalist heavy countries in the world. If you dont think its working now why on Earth would you want more of the same? Oh and nice example with Europe by the way. I mean us Europeans are sure ruled by money. Its why those small companies you saw were probably government aided, and why we have some of the most stringent government controlled anti-competition and monopoly laws in the world, as well as government paid for health services... no wait...
You sir, are insane.
'Considering that there's really not been any real consistency throughout MS' product offerings or
anything else about Windows' operating environment'
That just isnt true.
Printing? How exactly has this changed in the interface, as in the part that actually matters. The printers are still in control panel you still print from the print option in the file menu in every single application. It is entirely consistent. Maybe on some lower level its different but thats meaningless.
The API? Again has absolutely no bearing on the consistency of the O/S windows applications are still layed out in the same way the API still has the same ability. You rant on about some developer level issue. What the hell does that have to do with the end user interface?
WinCE? Dont remeber this being about WinCE. Desktop Windows is an entirely different line of O/S's
Install/Uninstall? Its up tot he software designer to make the install for Windows. However, just about every install works in the exact same way. Always a next and back button always a EULA followed by a path to install to always the same options for an icon in your startmenu. Just about every piece of software ive ever installed has the uninstall option in the uninstall menu. (Theres a shock.)
DLL's? Once again nothing to do with consistency. Its a meaningless unseen thing that happens and has no bearing on the average use of the system. If you want to go looking around for dll's then its a problem. most of the world doesnt give the first bit of a toss about what dll's are installed or if there dll's are in the right place or even what the hell a dll even is.
'There's tons more.' - If there anything like your current list theyll be equally as unimportant to actual consistency.
'"Windows" only seems consistent because the end-user community sees something that"works like Windows" and is therefore familiar' - Are you simple? If it looks like windows, works like windows, has done since windows 95 thats pretty much the definition of consistency
You sound like your some application developer or some crap whos annoyed that windows scatters certain things or doesnt allow you to make your applications in the way you want. That has _nothing_ to do with the consistency of the operating systems user interface which is what this article was about.
Read the third and fourth article about keystrokes again then come back and start ranting on about the total lack of consistency in the O/S...
and dont anyone be getting all riled up by my ravings. Im just venting because this whole story appears to have turned in to a Linux vs all things MS and Windows argument. (Which isnt really a surprise.) There is a reason why lots of open source copies Windows and its apps. Its so it will be picked up by all those people who know exactly how the _consistent_ systems within Windows work. Which was the whole point of the article, and like the article I sit on the fence. There needs to be the Windows immitators for those needing a free and easy desktop solution. There also needs to be innovation and complex commands for those requiring more power or cutting edge applications.
Okay large line up expected sure.
Larger line up than the first re-release? Thats fairly surprising by any measure.
Err it is the writers fault. The site is breaking because he hasnt closed the span tags. Just because firefox and the others are more tolerant doesnt change the fact that its shitty code. Download it and take a look for yourself.
This is not Opera's problem, and dissapearing text wasnt the only issue with the page. It could do with a complete rewrite. (and not in a web script generator.)
Has anyone I mean ANYONE anywhere. Got _actual_ figures of how many X-Box360's have gone wrong. Anyone, anyone at all?
/. and these quite frankly biassed and rubbish articles that make it seem like every other 360 is blowing up. My friends have about 5 between them non has ever crashed or had any problems at all so this doesnt seem to believable either.
Doesnt seem like it.
Last MS said no more are going wrong than any other launch. I dont really believe them but the alternative is
Everyone who hasnt seems to think they are all dying. Everyone in the media are pleased to report on an endless catastrophe. Yet everyone who has one seems to be fairly pleased with them? That doesnt add up.
Until someone has some hard figures on the rate of 360's that are going wrong this remains just one big, annoying, fanboys of other hardware, rumour.
(Note although I doubt it will get anywhere this is a serious question. Can someone please for the love of God find some actual figures on this issue because all my efforts have been futile.)
Errr you realise games run from RAM not the hard disk. That the difference between harddisk and DVD is about 3x while the difference between harddisk and RAM is about 1,000,000x. I mean your talking like the parent is making some kind of dumb suggestion but the only difference running off harddrive makes is loading times.
Loading times that actually manage to be longer on PC than console because the developers often either over look it or are too lazy to sort them out. I.e. PC games often load slower than console ones. Your one reason for not having a game run from the disk has gone.
Im not saying for sure which is a better method but it seems to me that its not something that you can just fob off in a bit of a self superior way like you did with your last two sentances.
You sound in desperate need of Painkiller.
_ 003.jpg_ 005.jpg
http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/painkiller_012904
To
http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/painkiller_012904
In just a few easy shotgun blasts.
Not once since Doom has slaughtering everything that moves been quite so fun.
You steal a thousand dollars in a nice shiney case. You open the case and blam! there was a paint bomb in it the money is drenched but luckily nothing else was. By your logic when the guy chucks the case in to the trash it should be considered destroyed and unusable. Even if the trash can is sitting in his kitchen and the police are searching his house with a legally obtained warrent.
Your example of being sent an illegal picture is inacurate. The law (at least in the UK anyway) takes in to account the content of the hard drive in total. So if they find one deleted child porn pic on your computer you wont get in to trouble. (Especially when they have records of you reporting the image.) If they find 2 or 3 thousand deleted images thats a whole different kettle of fish.
Unless evidence is obtained illegaly there is no point at which you should just discard it.
'Math is hard. This isn't.'
If its the choice between a maths problem and a making the rules for peoples rights ill choose the maths problem.
That said I do take the point and this whole thing has been caused by a badly made assumption on my part.
No, no, no, this was never an anti-gay statement. (Infact that would be a pretty damn hard thing for me to be.) It was only about positive discrimination.
The whole point was equal view of what people are offended by. The preference for GLBT is giving the GLBT players a right over the prefrence for a Heterosexual group. As someone has already pointed out my view of the situation has jumped to a possibly incorrect assumption that if someone made a heterosexual friendly group they would get in to trouble.
That was because the way I thought of it was that the two sides were either for GLBT or against GLBT rather than being for Heterosexual. My mistake, and it justifies the troll rating though thanks to the guy who stood up for me.
The only way that my original post can be relevant is if Blizzard take action against people advertising as heterosexual friendly.
I take your point it has made me rethink my stance on things somewhat.
I guess im a troll after all.
Im hardly feeling woe and dispair... more mild irritation.
'He's saying punishing someone for saying "GLBT" in game was not an appropriate response.'
The case was someone recruiting GLBT in to a guild not saying GLBT. Theres a bit of a difference.
and what are you trying to say? That someone recruiting GLBT in prefrence to others is better than someone who would recruit non-GLBT people in prefrence to others? If you are saying that then isnt that a fairly obvious double standard. If your not then I assume, seeing as you have no problem with people promoting GLBT, that you wont have any problem with people being derogatory about GLBT people either.
'And yes, saying "gay" when you mean "bad" was always punishable, and should continue to be.'
Oh... I guess it was the double standard option then.
'I can't tell if you're a troll, or just not very intelligent.'
Thanks for the choices...
'you seem to be reacting based on bias rather than reason or logic'
Quite the opposite if I was biased id be saying either. 'Damn gays shouldnt have any right to say anything ever.' or 'Homosexuals should be allowed to say whatever they like about anything to do with there sexuality at any time.' Or something along those lines but probably not quite so blatent.
Instead what im saying is that if you have rules that allow people to promote GLBT friendly guilds then unless you want a huge double standard you shouldnt stop people from promoting guilds that dont allow GLBT. Cant really get more reasonable or logical than that.
Now im not even sure if Blizzard do restrict nonGLBT groups but if they dont I could imagine this will be deemed offensive* which is what the rules restricting these things were supposed to stop in the first place. Which is why the rules, in my opinion, should continue to be interpreted that you dont mention sexuality in these ways. (because you're technically right the rules didnt change. The way they were utilised, however, has.) It was a simple, blanket ruling, that probably should have been enforced with a little more tact, but that they have now backed down on. (Which was due to an attack on Blizzard I wasnt entirely comfortable with in the first place.)
*This is a large key to the problem right here. Discussing GLBT shouldnt be offensive. I know this, most reasonable people know this but in the real world where it takes all kinds this just isnt so. People take offense at GLBT heck I used to work with a gay guy who would take offense at people announcing there sexuality because 'I dont see any straight people mouthing off about the fact they like women.' Saying its okay to announce you are GLBT friendly while banning people from announcing they are GLBT unfriendly doesnt seem right to me, no matter what I believe to be the correct way of thinking.
'People shouldn't be offended by the EXISTENCE of other people.'
Your right they shouldnt be. Doesnt change the fact that they are though, and people cant and shouldnt be allowed to choose what others are or are not offended by.
'Think about a guild that has a lot of black people in it. Your logic would say that it should then be fine to have anti-black guilds also.'
Not quite. The first sentance implies a guild simply has a lot of black people in it by chance. Your second implies the anti-black guild would be recruiting only white people. Thats a huge difference.
If a guild can not advertise for a specific colour of skin then that should apply to all guilds and if some end up predominantly white or black or whatever colour you can imagine then so be it.
If a guild can advertise for a specific colour of skin that that should... apply to all guilds and if some guild decides only black people can enter it then there shouldnt be a rule denying a white person to create a guild with only other white people in it.
Applied to what I posted its a case of allowing GLBT promotion while I am uncertain of groups that promote only non GLBT people. If that is allowed then, as I said before, thats going to cause upset on either side and I should think there will be more complaints to come. If that isnt allowed then you have a rather large double standard. Or from your example the right for black people to exist in black only groups while white people are not allowed to do the same.
Either way it isnt exactly laying the issue to rest. The only way that was possible was if they had maintained the original interpretation of the rule and banned getting bogged down in sexuality from the whole thing.
So Blizzard has backed down on its policy, and this is somehow more free now? I wonder.
Can someone now start a guild that excludes GLBT? Can someone discuss, without being threatening, there dislike of GLBT people without being reported?
Id take a guess and say doubtful. After all GLBT people may find it offensive and thats what the rules are there to stop. Oh but hang on. How is that different to people being offended by GLBT discussion and guilds?
I dislike defending biggots and the intolerant but freedom in these things should be universal else it is nothing but a damaging double standard and a dangerous one at that. As I said in a previous post (One that I got marked as a troll for so im not expecting happy joy joy feelings at this rant.) this is a double edged sword and Blizzard have seen fit to blunt one side of it by saying people cant be offended by GLBT but can be offended by those against GLBT. That is unless they are perfectly fine with anti GLBT sentiments but that opens the flood gates in an entirely different set of arguments.
The rule was simple and ment no one no matter what there thoughts on the issue would have to get bogged down with views on sexuality. I.e. they were perfectly reasonable. Now whether it was Blizzard or this Lambda group handling it badly really doesnt matter. Backing down and then claiming its case closed isnt going to work. I wouldnt be surprised if there was a backlash to this. After all maybe me refering to something bad as gay could be considered offensive enough to report now. While perhaps someone of GLBT persuasion could make lewd sex act refrences but be impossible to report because that would be crippling there freedom. I dont know because we no long have simple universal rules anymore.
Itll probably all be fine. Theyve probably reached a happy balance, but lets just say Im glad Blizzard are only determining freedoms within an online game and nothing more. The biggest problem with this whole debate was that it had to take place at all.
As far as im aware no optical drive console with the exception of the dreamcast has ever been cracked.
Early ones didnt have protection so couldnt be cracked. Later ones have all relied on mod chips and the like to run. (I believe the Saturn has a mod that will allow them to run like the others.) So its not unusual that the Saturn is uncracked and may remain uncracked.
The fact is copy protection to stop CD-R's is virtually impossible to stop by using CD-R's. The only reason the DC failed was because they left a gaping hole in the security. (Emphasis on gaping, its not something that will happen regularly, so you cant rely on errors like that to crack consoles.)
Unfortunately your best bet for using your backups (ignoring mods and disk swapping) is to utilise an emulator.
and the only people not affected by these copy protection issues.
The pirates.
Oh the irony, best get your eye patch on and set sale to bittorrent and usenet!
I used to think SC2 wasnt particularly better. Then I went back and played SC1 its just not as fluid a game to play. (Maybe thats just because I use Ivy.) Plus after finishing SC1 on its hardest setting with every character SC2 proved somewhat more difficult to do the same. (Oh also note that the Japanese and American versions appear to differ in speed.)
That said you make a good point that when SC came out it was simply the best fighter around and arguably the SC series still are the best fighters around. (Discounting 2D which is pretty much an entirely different genre and one that, while loved by many, I personally hate.) I do think SC2 is an improvement over the first but it was the first that set the whole thing up and SC2 simply tweaked a few bits and rereleased with prettier graphics.
Women gamers are on the rise the recent study on women gamers in England placed them at about 44% of the entire gaming community how is this 'ignored by the game industry for so long'
'People are assuming that games have to be mindless in order for women to play them' - Since when??? the top game for equal play by the sexes is the Sims. Thats pretty much common knowledge in the industry how would that translate to the industry thinking women need a brainless game and at what point did they think this only applies to games made for women. Last I checked most games dont exactly have the complexity of well thought out book or film.
'with puke-humor' 'sophomoric' - Oh yeah because men love puke and sophomoric humour I mean thats a real seller for every man I know... Games that rely on these things are typically bad games not bad games for women. Just bad games.
'Wallace's advice: Make a game mechanic accessible.' - Genius. Why didnt the industry think of that before. If games didnt make the game mechanics accessible theyd be... bad games. Not bad games for women. Just bad games.
'co-op' - Another brilliant suggestion add co-op modes in games. That will sell them to women... and men, because if games have co-op modes thats a good feature. Not good for women. Just a good feature for everyone.
'I would argue that World of Warcraft actually did design the game with women in mind,' - Really? Do go on.
'crafter roles and supporting roles' - So they believe warcraft was made with women in mind because there are supporting roles such as healers etc. The same roles that are in dozens of games from your FPS's to your RPG's and have been for years now. Yeah clearly Blizzard were making a conscious effort to make it accesible to women and not just utilising a tried and tested mechanic that once again both sexes approve of.
The article has someone claiming They treat women as a mysterious nut to crack. then listing a number of points and holding an entire event based around women as if they are a mysterious nut to crack.
Just about every single point in the whole article on how to make better games applies to everyone not women, not men. Everyone. Which is exactly the point a lot of people and myself have been making for years now. If you make good and varied games women will play them. Its as simple as that.
The second article pretty much backs that view up. Women like FPS, women like puzzles, some like violence, some hate it. Almost as if women have diverse tastes in games just like men. (Although the infighting reminds me of a point Janet Street Porter made about women being the major factor in holding women back.)
Maybe this is a flame, maybe im just a jaded male gamer, but when I look at the other industries they just dont seem to have this problem. Sure you get chick flicks and macho movies in the movie industry but they're just labels and regardless of what genre a film is a good film is a good film. You dont have groups and thousands of people within that industry trying to push all the films in to catering for both sexes absolutely equally. (Nor would I ever want that to happen.)
Jupiter is vast and im fairly sure the extreme levels of preasure would destroy anything that tried to live on it or in its gasses.
Also Plants do need oxygen. Just because they thrive on CO2 doesnt mean they dont also utilise Oxygen as well.
In the words of my physics teacher.
'Faith is the ability to believe in that which is not true.'
Given religeon is based on faith it rather flies in the face of finding truth.
Im actually a bit of a fan of the 360.
That said, where on Earth are they pulling these figures. The fact of the matter is that they didnt reach targets. It is not clear if that was just inventory or not. While its likely to be just something to do with shortages how can you jump from 'Oh it was just shortages' to 'The're going to do really well.'
The only piece of evidence they seem to have is that the 360 is going to reach 4.5 to 5 million units by June according to... Microsoft. Not exactly an unbiassed source.
Oh yes and they did a study of units currently in, despite the fact its a known fact that 360's are in short supply and the survey proves absolutely nothing about sales. Genius.
He suggests you could scan across games to find different matches ignoring the fact this would probably be incredibly difficult for the 360 to do how can you possibly make this easy and steamlined. Youd have to have ever single game in the 360 catalogue listed. Maybe you could select the games and then only ever look at your selections. Itd still be adding in a whole bunch of new menues and complications.
As for clans, youd need a page for the whole thing. Youd need a subsection for a given game and another sub section for a given clan. Add 20 or 30 games and the fact that it would be inconsistant, as many games dont have clans and you have a jumbled mess of a system. The way round hes thinking is even more confusing. Having a clan of players which you then apply to games? As if all the players in your clan are going to have all the games every other clan member does. Youd have a list of clans some on some games some on others some on both, itd be ridiculous. He doesnt stop there though he keeps layering more and more controls on top making the whole thing absurdly convoluted for a console system.
'It seems the PC has done it well for years and years'
Since when? In his own article he says people use chat programs and all sorts to get in touch with each other and then arrange games. This isnt a smooth process and nor is it one a console can learn from. Its not like im not speaking from experience. Ive had to install new chat programs or sign up to forums just to arrange a simple game. A console simply doesnt have the wealth of apps that the PC does at its disposal.
Ohh but it gets worse. Not content to try overcomplicate and largely break the live interface he wants to introduce user supported servers. Dear lord if there is one problem with online PC gaming it is servers that are up and down like a yoyo. Has been for years. As long as ive been using it Live has remained entirely solid. Not only does he want that compomised he wants to charge people through live for 'fair cost sharing' issues so that if everything does go pear shaped (and it will.) someone (MS) can be held liable. Its a nightmare of a system just in theory. This is ignoring security issues etc.
This guy hasnt thought this through at all. The 360 _isnt_, and I cant stress _isnt_ enough, a PC. You dont run multiple apps with mouse keyboard all lined up in a startbar. You do one thing at a time with a limited controller. It required an entirely new way of organising things and copying the PC is not only a horribly flawed idea it could be detrimental to the development of online console gaming.
If this guy wants his PC systems, use a PC. Ill stick with the awesome relief from all that that live has given me.
Why is it bad physics to say weightless?
Very first defintion of weightless in the dictionary.
'Having little or no weight.'
The tee is designed to cope with something that has little or no weight. It is by definition weightless-friendly.
Maybe im missing something but I dont see what the problem is here.