So... EP2 is worth $20, portal is worth $10? That leaves TF2, which should easily be worth the remaining $15. Unless you don't want any of the above. The only way to get the "reasonable" $20 price is to buy them all. Ep1 was 17.95 pre-order by itself (19.95 on release). You are supposed to get a better deal with package - not have to get the package for the same deal.
These two comments seem to contradict each other:
Oh for the days, when computer games rewarded ability rather than perseverance. and
Computer games used to be about developing a skill, playing it [for hours and hours, repetively] until you got sufficiently good that you were able to complete something on a higher level. Nowadays, it's about who can put the most amount of time into a game. (bold statement added by me - but it is accurate)
Old games were TOTALLY about perseverance. You had to play that game to death until you mastered every move and memorized every aspect of every enemy. You talk about putting time in with current games, so what do you call the constant pracice/replaying to get good in the older ones?
I don't think that type of gameplay was all that great, and it certainly required MORE time and was less interesting than current games.
All of them bundle cameras, PDAs, MP3 players, and a kitchen sink with a battery life of 2 hours, all for the low price of $350 or more.. Personal experience, but I haven't seen the tradeoff that is stated here (basically more features == less battery life).
My phone has all kinds of crap I never use, but it does calls just fine and lasts a week on pure standby, a few days if I use it regularly. It has lots of power saving features you can turn on before you hand it over to mom, like turning out the blinding backlight after just a few seconds rather than whatever the default is (like laptops, I think the display/backlight chug alot of power). If anything, phones have gotten much longer lasting even while becoming smaller.
You can just open and dial if you want. The internet/bluetooth are there, but you can disable them. Camera is there, but doesn't add much bulk (the phone is razr-sized) and doesn't drain battery if you don't use it. The case is a sturdy plastic, and holds up better than the razr it is imitating (in my experience - I know people with razrs and have compared).
I got mine at $20 with contract, but I imagine it would be pretty expensive otherwise (if you could even get it at all without contract in the US - which is a different rant I am sure everyone knows about).
This reminds me of when napster first came out and college connections weren't swamped with p2p and also weren't restricting anything.
I had friends that didn't keep any music they downloaded. If they wanted to listen to something, they would queue it up, hit play, and when they were done with it, delete the file. Napster downloaded things in-order, so you could start listening before it had finished.
that people who bought DX10 cards so that in the future they will be able to play DX10 games when they come out have basically been sold a "Pig in a Poke". You are correct IF that is the only reason they bought them.
But the fact is, anyone who bought an 8800 of any variety (the "dx10 cards") bought the fastest DX9 card on the market for use with any game they wanted at the time of purchase. It spanked the next card down, and didn't carry any more of a price premium than any other high end card in the history of discrete graphics (indeed, it carried less of a premium if you looked at price/performance). It was a fast card "right then" regardless of DX10. They didn't sacrifice anything, the DX10 compatibility was just value-added bonus.
I wasn't criticizing your use of anecdotal evidence, per se. I took your use of it to to mean you think it as good enough, and so figured I would throw in my own, to provide opposite examples. (hence me saying "I've got plenty of my own")
I also clearly acknowledged the correlation between "who you are and who you will be" that you bring up with this statement:
It is of course somewhat easier for some than others, but it is not totally outside one's control as you claim. So yes, you misunderstand.
As for my corroboration of your one point there, I also mentioned a reason why and also why its outside the discussion (you may have read that, but just wanted to make sure because you didn't quote it). Plus I was talking about one specific group, not broadly.
I think I made it pretty clear that I was not subscribing to that A/B fallacy you describe (which, btw, could be considered "Affirming the consquence" ? idk, I don't remember them all). I stated very clearly that it is not "the only thing that matters" (which is the "prosperity => work" as you put it) but I take issue with saying "it doesn't matter at all" or that "circumstances are all that matters" (which is what my points were specifically to refute - they weren't to imply anything more). That was all I was saying, and really as far as I want to go with it here, as this could quickly wend off into a discussion of the broader generational view, making a better life for your family/posterity, "the American dream", etc. that I don't really want to get into.
Just for the record, I don't subscribe to the "its all their own fault" pet peeve that you explain as causing your feelings, so there is no need to paint my comments with that brush. I think giving to people that are genuinely in need of assistance is good. For example, I had no problem with that roomate I described getting assistance, but I would be lying to say it didn't annoy me that he threw it away a gift that I was paying for out of pocket. "Give a man a fish" and all that, I guess.
But playing devil's advocate again, "its not their fault at all" could be seen as a total abrogation of personal responsibility. People blaming everything on their circumstances is as much a pet peeve for some as blaming it all on their actions is for you. A balance is definitely in order. For example, the welfare program where I live has a large job/work component to actually help people take care of themselves rather than just straight support. Additionally, I imagine that the sentiment you hate isn't necessarily (or wholly) because of the fallacy you described - I bet a lot of it is reactionary (e.g. seeing people in the inner city with fancy clothes/cars/phones and then seeing their community leaders complaining how poor they are and how there is nothing they can do about it). Just bringing up an another possibility (not advocating anything). If you ever search my posts, (no reason to:-) but just saying) you'd find that is mostly what they are - bringing up other points of view on minor parts (mostly because the shear bulk of posts on/. ensures the salient points are already dealt with, so I don't bother with taking them up).
People like Paris Hilton are outliers - and not in great abundance. They wouldn't be affected whether you taxed them more or not.
The illegal immigrant thing is irrelevant, as they are not citizens and wouldn't (or rather shouldn't) be privy to a national benefits system. They work in the manner they do because they don't have a choice (being illegal means you have less options . . as it should since they are breaking the law).
Aside from that, scarce resources can only take you so far on the excuse train. The fact is, massive program exist to help disadvantaged people get out of ruts. One of my roomates in college was black, and was on a full ride scholarship to my school because of it. He didn't work hard and eventually just dropped out while people like me who worked through school could have used that free ride and would have used/appreciated it rather than waste it. So he couldn't even conjure that "base level of work" (as you put it) even with everything else being handed to him. If I didn't work hard whilst in high school / college (both academically and job-wise) I wouldn't have what I have - so you can't tell me it was just handed to me and I should be thankful.
The intelligence thing is a non-starter as well. You bring up your own anecdotal evidence, but I have plenty of my own. People that were way smarter (naturally talented / "born with it") than me, everything came easy, but pissed it away because they were lazy. Some of them went to drugs, and are in ruts, others just kind of coasted through life and don't take responsibility. Likewise, I know people that aren't as naturally quick/smart as I am, but know far more and are more capable because they applied brute force learning (massive studying). Intelligence is not sufficient.
Likewise hard work alone is not sufficient, as you stated. You have to think ahead. Working hard physically at a dead end labor job is of course not going to amount to much, but nobody is fooled into thinking it is, and you can apply that work ethic to getting some education and working your way up - even with few means.
Likewise, the number of teens that have to drop out of school "to support the family" is low to non-existent this day and age. Any family at that level is already paying little to no taxes and is eligible for public assistance in so many ways its silly; their kids have the opportunity to go to school if they have the desire. You just have to have the ambition and work ethic to do so, and many don't. It is of course somewhat easier for some than others, but it is not totally outside one's control as you claim. People are not doomed from birth (what a defeatist attitude) and favorable initial circumstances are not a panacea for success.
I occasionally read the blog of a guy who was born to a single-parent welfare home who is now the CEO of his own software company (Stardock, if you know them).
Sadly, excuses have become the norm so people don't have to take responsibility for their lives. Our circumstances do not totally define us - what we do with them has a big impact.
Regardless of what you are I think, I was simply playing devils advocate and pointing out other people's thinking. When one thinks as you do, of course the answer is as you say - but many people do not. I saw many people that replied to other pieces of your post, so I didn't address them, but thinking life is all luck just stuck out at me from the rest.
I think the whole "public healthcare raises taxes" argument is lost right there -- if the States had a system anywhere close to the efficiency of other industrialized nations', they could theoretically be spending just as much at the government level and chuck most of the private health costs. Of course, that's probably unrealistic in that it would likely be politically difficult to build a system like that out of the one in place now. I think you hit upon it right here. People think it will cost more if the government does it because state proposals for gov-funded healthcare come with giant spending/tax increases. (My state is attempting this right now)
If you told people "we can give you universal healthcare for no extra money" as you are saying could be done, then they would jump on it. But that never happens.
I agree, there hasn't been a strong attempt by the actual game company, but the fans have tried to use existing AI APIs to do some awesome work. Some examples:
just because I have been lucky enough to have money I think many of the people you disagree with would also disagree with the word "luck" in this statement. You know, they might think they actually earned the money by working hard when maybe they didn't have to (in school, work, etc) and now have gotten their just rewards over those who didn't do those things. For most people, money didn't come magically down from the sky and just happened to fall on them. They worked hard for it.
There is actually a book about this that just came out that I am reading. Might interest people that wish we could go back to the simple, proven methods of teaching:
But games, etc can really benefit from this. Just stick AI on 1 core, terrain on another, etc etc. Indeed. I know Supreme Commander actually does this - and they recommend multi-core processors. I believe they said it uses up to 4 cores.
How is this different than any other time? For example, if I want to run OSX, I have to buy an Apple computer - even though the hardware they are using is no longer any different than a regular PC.
Apple has never had any qualms about locking anyone into things if it benefits them - same with many other businesses - ESPECIALLY cell phone carriers.
No, no, you have it wrong. It's because of "To Each Their Own" that I can think your tired FPS rehashes are not just trite and boring, but an utter ripoff. But it also means that if you want to keep paying to play the same game over and over, you can feel free to do so. And you can even ridicule me for finding new games instead of playing the same thing over and over. I don't need completely different gameplay to enjoy a game (that is fine if you do, but it is not automatically superior - sorry). An evolution or refinement of a good concept is a perfectly acceptable game. So is altering elements of an already existing genre. But regardless, I am certain there are games that differ from this very ambiguous "formula" you keep mentioning. Further, you will notice it is you who are doing all the ridiculing, not me. I have no problem with you enjoying your type of game and have stated so in every post. All I have been saying are there are more points of view than yours, and yours is not "all superior" as you seem to imply.
It also means that if you think that a 24" monitor, some nice speakers and a comfy chair approximates a home theater, I am free to ridicule your seclusion.:) For me, gaming is a social experience, and often people are sitting next to me enjoying it. It is for me too, but they don't have to be sitting next to me. Thinking that they would have to be, or that my setup amounts to "seclusion", is a pretty narrow view in this day and age. Most of my best friends don't live nearby, but I still get to enjoy playing/socializing with them over this thing we call the internet. It's nice that your friends are close enough to pop over on a regular basis, but acting all high and mighty ("more social than though" lol) because of that is laughable.
Now, everyone can like whatever they like, that's only sensible... but... it just seems like there are two games on the professional PC game circuit, FPS flavor-of-the-month and RTS flavor-of-the-month games. I occasionally play some PC games, and some of them are good, but I certainly am not clamoring for anything that comes out on the PC. All the real public momentum outside of a few key institutions (e.g., Starcraft 2) are console based.
And quite frankly, my HD television setup is such a more powerful medium for gaming than my monitors could ever be, given the price-performance ratios. I know you could jerry-rig something, but PC gaming is poorly setup for this very natural idea, whereas consoles are designed ground-up for it. Well, it seems you just don't like PC games, and you have arranged your equipment a certain way because of it. That's fine, but a PC setup does not have to be poor. I have a 24" Widescreen CRT (HD and then some), a nice comfy gaming chair, surround sound system, etc - all hooked up to my PC. My setup is not jerry-rigged. I don't know how we would measure/compare price-performance ratios, but my monitor cost $250 bucks and my GPU (the only part of this computer that is truly dedicated to gaming) cost about $375. So, assume I am sitting closer to the screen than you would be the larger TV (and the resolution is usually 1600x1000 or 1920x1280 depending on the game)- so the viewing area is about the same, and then add up the cost of Wii+peripherals and the PS3+peripherals. I don't think I am doing so bad for price-performance - and the games are probably cheaper too.
(btw, what does the "professional gaming circuit" have to do with anything? I play whatever I like the same as anyone else- I don't even know what games they play at the moment)
To each their own, Exactly. This includes not thinking the PC games I play are "trite" or "boring" - maybe you just aren't playing the right ones?;) Regardless, it kind of goes without saying that I don't think they suck. If you do, that is fine, but it is not a fault of the platform - it's just not your cup of tea (just as the console games I have played are not mine).
As for the upgrade cycle, I build a new computer every 3 years or so. I don't feel burdened by it. Besides being a fun thing to do, I get a nicer all-around computer for doing everything I would normally work on.
I think is all very much personal preference. If all the PC games magically were ported to the xbox right this instant and I suddenly had to play all my games on a console, I would still hook it up to the system my PC is hooked up to, I would still be sitting in that same chair, looking at that same monitor, and I would still want to play them with a mouse/keyboard (which wouldn't be very effective on a couch - going back to your "built this way from the ground up" point).
These days there's little reason to invest in a computer that I can't take with me should I need to. There are plenty of people that would say otherwise. Those "computers you can't take with you" have many advantages.
All that snarkiness aside, I am really into games, so I did exactly what you said. Powerful system, peripherals, and huge monitor. It's called my Wii, PS3, and my HD television.:) You said "all snarkiness aside" but then continued to be snarky:P
In any event, I am sure the the poster was referring to PC games and, to go further, newer games that are coming out that the video card in the macbook wouldn't be able to handle well (as well as not being upgradeable and the fact laptop vid cards are always slightly behind their desktop counterparts).
Oh, and there are currently 0 games I play or am planning to play that are available on consoles.
"I hope the Olympics quits defining 'speed' as how fast a person can run, because I'm not fond of risking muscle damage just so I can be good at an athletic sport." Not to diminish the reply of the OP (which was good) but your analogy doesn't make any sense. The stated purpose of olympic running, is being the fastest runner. The stated purpose of strategy games is not "being the best clicker" - it is STRATEGY; essentially, decision-making. What units to use, when to use them, where to use them, when to build them, etc.
Fantastic comments - I am glad I am not the only one that wants a UI that doesn't artificially limit what you do. Games like Supreme Commander have a REAL UI that does all the things you talk about, and I love it. Here's hoping Blizzard gets a clue.
Crippling the UI is not a good design decision, it just creates unnecessary work to accomplish the same task.
Everyone seems to be all for bigger government, just on their terms. How about we limit governments power, all the way down the line, and make people live with their bad choices? Here here!
Slashdot Mirror
It's the movie Toys: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105629/
Old games were TOTALLY about perseverance. You had to play that game to death until you mastered every move and memorized every aspect of every enemy. You talk about putting time in with current games, so what do you call the constant pracice/replaying to get good in the older ones?
I don't think that type of gameplay was all that great, and it certainly required MORE time and was less interesting than current games.
My phone has all kinds of crap I never use, but it does calls just fine and lasts a week on pure standby, a few days if I use it regularly. It has lots of power saving features you can turn on before you hand it over to mom, like turning out the blinding backlight after just a few seconds rather than whatever the default is (like laptops, I think the display/backlight chug alot of power). If anything, phones have gotten much longer lasting even while becoming smaller.
I have a Sanyo Katana if you want to look further: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanyo_katana
You can just open and dial if you want. The internet/bluetooth are there, but you can disable them. Camera is there, but doesn't add much bulk (the phone is razr-sized) and doesn't drain battery if you don't use it. The case is a sturdy plastic, and holds up better than the razr it is imitating (in my experience - I know people with razrs and have compared).
I got mine at $20 with contract, but I imagine it would be pretty expensive otherwise (if you could even get it at all without contract in the US - which is a different rant I am sure everyone knows about).
My 2c
This reminds me of when napster first came out and college connections weren't swamped with p2p and also weren't restricting anything.
I had friends that didn't keep any music they downloaded. If they wanted to listen to something, they would queue it up, hit play, and when they were done with it, delete the file. Napster downloaded things in-order, so you could start listening before it had finished.
But the fact is, anyone who bought an 8800 of any variety (the "dx10 cards") bought the fastest DX9 card on the market for use with any game they wanted at the time of purchase. It spanked the next card down, and didn't carry any more of a price premium than any other high end card in the history of discrete graphics (indeed, it carried less of a premium if you looked at price/performance). It was a fast card "right then" regardless of DX10. They didn't sacrifice anything, the DX10 compatibility was just value-added bonus.
I also clearly acknowledged the correlation between "who you are and who you will be" that you bring up with this statement: It is of course somewhat easier for some than others, but it is not totally outside one's control as you claim. So yes, you misunderstand.
As for my corroboration of your one point there, I also mentioned a reason why and also why its outside the discussion (you may have read that, but just wanted to make sure because you didn't quote it). Plus I was talking about one specific group, not broadly.
I think I made it pretty clear that I was not subscribing to that A/B fallacy you describe (which, btw, could be considered "Affirming the consquence" ? idk, I don't remember them all). I stated very clearly that it is not "the only thing that matters" (which is the "prosperity => work" as you put it) but I take issue with saying "it doesn't matter at all" or that "circumstances are all that matters" (which is what my points were specifically to refute - they weren't to imply anything more). That was all I was saying, and really as far as I want to go with it here, as this could quickly wend off into a discussion of the broader generational view, making a better life for your family/posterity, "the American dream", etc. that I don't really want to get into.
Just for the record, I don't subscribe to the "its all their own fault" pet peeve that you explain as causing your feelings, so there is no need to paint my comments with that brush. I think giving to people that are genuinely in need of assistance is good. For example, I had no problem with that roomate I described getting assistance, but I would be lying to say it didn't annoy me that he threw it away a gift that I was paying for out of pocket. "Give a man a fish" and all that, I guess.
But playing devil's advocate again, "its not their fault at all" could be seen as a total abrogation of personal responsibility. People blaming everything on their circumstances is as much a pet peeve for some as blaming it all on their actions is for you. A balance is definitely in order. For example, the welfare program where I live has a large job/work component to actually help people take care of themselves rather than just straight support. Additionally, I imagine that the sentiment you hate isn't necessarily (or wholly) because of the fallacy you described - I bet a lot of it is reactionary (e.g. seeing people in the inner city with fancy clothes/cars/phones and then seeing their community leaders complaining how poor they are and how there is nothing they can do about it). Just bringing up an another possibility (not advocating anything). If you ever search my posts, (no reason to
Pure coincidence - I happened upon this post just now that expresses the same sort of thing, with a different point:
http://www.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=153749
People like Paris Hilton are outliers - and not in great abundance. They wouldn't be affected whether you taxed them more or not.
The illegal immigrant thing is irrelevant, as they are not citizens and wouldn't (or rather shouldn't) be privy to a national benefits system. They work in the manner they do because they don't have a choice (being illegal means you have less options . . as it should since they are breaking the law).
Aside from that, scarce resources can only take you so far on the excuse train. The fact is, massive program exist to help disadvantaged people get out of ruts. One of my roomates in college was black, and was on a full ride scholarship to my school because of it. He didn't work hard and eventually just dropped out while people like me who worked through school could have used that free ride and would have used/appreciated it rather than waste it. So he couldn't even conjure that "base level of work" (as you put it) even with everything else being handed to him. If I didn't work hard whilst in high school / college (both academically and job-wise) I wouldn't have what I have - so you can't tell me it was just handed to me and I should be thankful.
The intelligence thing is a non-starter as well. You bring up your own anecdotal evidence, but I have plenty of my own. People that were way smarter (naturally talented / "born with it") than me, everything came easy, but pissed it away because they were lazy. Some of them went to drugs, and are in ruts, others just kind of coasted through life and don't take responsibility. Likewise, I know people that aren't as naturally quick/smart as I am, but know far more and are more capable because they applied brute force learning (massive studying). Intelligence is not sufficient.
Likewise hard work alone is not sufficient, as you stated. You have to think ahead. Working hard physically at a dead end labor job is of course not going to amount to much, but nobody is fooled into thinking it is, and you can apply that work ethic to getting some education and working your way up - even with few means.
Likewise, the number of teens that have to drop out of school "to support the family" is low to non-existent this day and age. Any family at that level is already paying little to no taxes and is eligible for public assistance in so many ways its silly; their kids have the opportunity to go to school if they have the desire. You just have to have the ambition and work ethic to do so, and many don't. It is of course somewhat easier for some than others, but it is not totally outside one's control as you claim. People are not doomed from birth (what a defeatist attitude) and favorable initial circumstances are not a panacea for success.
I occasionally read the blog of a guy who was born to a single-parent welfare home who is now the CEO of his own software company (Stardock, if you know them).
Sadly, excuses have become the norm so people don't have to take responsibility for their lives. Our circumstances do not totally define us - what we do with them has a big impact.
Regardless of what you are I think, I was simply playing devils advocate and pointing out other people's thinking. When one thinks as you do, of course the answer is as you say - but many people do not. I saw many people that replied to other pieces of your post, so I didn't address them, but thinking life is all luck just stuck out at me from the rest.
If you told people "we can give you universal healthcare for no extra money" as you are saying could be done, then they would jump on it. But that never happens.
I agree, there hasn't been a strong attempt by the actual game company, but the fans have tried to use existing AI APIs to do some awesome work. Some examples:
0 9
5
The Skirmish AI mod for Dawn of War: http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=1530
Sorian AI (and a host of others) for Supreme Commander: http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic.php?t=1432
I wish the actual companies would put some effort in.
There is actually a book about this that just came out that I am reading. Might interest people that wish we could go back to the simple, proven methods of teaching:
r e-Education/dp/1419653474/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6797 704-3161602?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182809578&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Amys-Game-Concealed-Structu
Mod parent "+1 Misleading Headline" ;)
How is this different than any other time? For example, if I want to run OSX, I have to buy an Apple computer - even though the hardware they are using is no longer any different than a regular PC.
Apple has never had any qualms about locking anyone into things if it benefits them - same with many other businesses - ESPECIALLY cell phone carriers.
It isn't very nice, but it also isn't "new".
And quite frankly, my HD television setup is such a more powerful medium for gaming than my monitors could ever be, given the price-performance ratios. I know you could jerry-rig something, but PC gaming is poorly setup for this very natural idea, whereas consoles are designed ground-up for it. Well, it seems you just don't like PC games, and you have arranged your equipment a certain way because of it. That's fine, but a PC setup does not have to be poor. I have a 24" Widescreen CRT (HD and then some), a nice comfy gaming chair, surround sound system, etc - all hooked up to my PC. My setup is not jerry-rigged. I don't know how we would measure/compare price-performance ratios, but my monitor cost $250 bucks and my GPU (the only part of this computer that is truly dedicated to gaming) cost about $375. So, assume I am sitting closer to the screen than you would be the larger TV (and the resolution is usually 1600x1000 or 1920x1280 depending on the game)- so the viewing area is about the same, and then add up the cost of Wii+peripherals and the PS3+peripherals. I don't think I am doing so bad for price-performance - and the games are probably cheaper too.
(btw, what does the "professional gaming circuit" have to do with anything? I play whatever I like the same as anyone else- I don't even know what games they play at the moment) To each their own, Exactly. This includes not thinking the PC games I play are "trite" or "boring" - maybe you just aren't playing the right ones?
As for the upgrade cycle, I build a new computer every 3 years or so. I don't feel burdened by it. Besides being a fun thing to do, I get a nicer all-around computer for doing everything I would normally work on.
I think is all very much personal preference. If all the PC games magically were ported to the xbox right this instant and I suddenly had to play all my games on a console, I would still hook it up to the system my PC is hooked up to, I would still be sitting in that same chair, looking at that same monitor, and I would still want to play them with a mouse/keyboard (which wouldn't be very effective on a couch - going back to your "built this way from the ground up" point).
In any event, I am sure the the poster was referring to PC games and, to go further, newer games that are coming out that the video card in the macbook wouldn't be able to handle well (as well as not being upgradeable and the fact laptop vid cards are always slightly behind their desktop counterparts).
Oh, and there are currently 0 games I play or am planning to play that are available on consoles.
I was trying to figure out where I had seen something like this recently:
- stove-generator-refrigerator-combo-aimed-at-develo ping-nations.html
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070527-new
this thing also uses thermoacoustic technology.
Fantastic comments - I am glad I am not the only one that wants a UI that doesn't artificially limit what you do. Games like Supreme Commander have a REAL UI that does all the things you talk about, and I love it. Here's hoping Blizzard gets a clue.
Crippling the UI is not a good design decision, it just creates unnecessary work to accomplish the same task.
Don't let that stop you! It's a fun movie with giant stop-motion robots. CGI is nice, but stop-motion has something special imo.