This could insignificant or false because the selection pressures were the same on neanderthals and humans in northern Europe: the cold. I learned in my physical anthropology class that the reason for neanderthals having larger brains and muscles is that it naturally keeps bodies warmer. The extra brain tissue may not have had a purpose other than to keep the brain warmer. This comes from It would be interesting to know if they took this into account with their research.
One thing about the wii that it encourages you to do is to bring your controllers with you to play with others since it keeps your mii character with it (and possibly game data?) Even without that, one can still bring their own wii controllers.
Also consider (whether you feel it is right or wrong) that people ultimatelyonly use a certain percentage of their budgets to actually pay for entertainment per year. If they exceed that they lose out on housing or food or whatever. If someone pirates whatever software or music or whatever but uses the same amount of entertainment dollars each year then how is anything changing? (looking for an honest answer here.)
I don't think anyone is getting the big picture. This is more of a move towards powering larger and larger vessels up to the size of today's fuel-burning ships. I don't think they're going "lol, who needs wind guys, am I right?" I think they realize as you must that it's rather impossible to make modern day ferries and passenger liners that don't burn fuel with current research. Hey maybe it's even possible to add to the technology of sails so much that you could make faster boats that use sails. Who knows?All I'm saying is, they're probably looking at this as the first step in a larger process and picture. If they're not, then they're missing out.
I just think that with a little more work and attention that game companies could transform what we think of as "good replayability" or even simply good gameplay. I would even settle for the same gameplay we've had all these years if they at least increased enemy AI.
there's another issue that you're hitting on. Replayability mixed with difficulty levels. Every time you play you should be assured that random things will happen that will be fun to react to and see how everything unfolds. For instance, I don't want to have to memorize where snipers are, I want to use squad tactics to take out another group of combatants rather than memorize, point and shoot. I want to have a varied experience unique to the game I'm playing and have it different every time. There are certain game types like adventure games that you beat once and it is a linear story and you probably will remember how to beat 2/3rds of the game any given time you play it. Those games are fine, but that is only one side of gaming.
not exactly, considering you are supposed to be able to sneak attack and at the level I was (somewhere in the 30's) the highest level of sneak attack just didn't do very much damage. I didn't mention it, but I had been playing warrior characters where it did get unbalanced as well. It comes down to the fact that no matter what class you play in Oblivion, you have to kill sometimes you can't JUST be a non-combatant effectively.
After I read your comment on having to beat Donkey Kong to beat Donkey Kong 64, I realized that one of the things that games should make sure to do is tell you what kind of game they are. They shouldn't make the game tailored to what they think everyone is going to like, they should make the game with different difficulty levels maybe and tell you what kind of skills it will require. In addition to this,
I like very challenging games and I like very easy games depending on my mood. Each of these is also a different kind of challenging. For instance when you play something like Prince of Persia you have to do crazy acrobatic things that you only get a few chances to do. I like to play Rome: Total War where it is very hard to siege a city or to even survive against the Gauls for the first 30 yrs or so(if you play SPQR.) However, it is not a fast-reaction spacial skill you have to use, it's a fast-reaction planning and organization skill to beat battles. On the main campaign map it's turn-based and that is a different kind of difficult. It's the thinking that you use in chess. Also, you can play through RTW without playing any of the battles on the battle map or you can fight all of your battles on the battle map. That is one way that users can regulate the playstyle/difficulty level by themselves and then you can adjust the difficulty level from the menu as well.
The quality of Difficulty levels also varies. If there are any super smash bros melee players here, you will know (whether you agree or not) that some believe level 7 is somewhat harder than level 9 in the AI settings. Super Smash Bros Melee also has a wonderful AI difficulty system compared to other games. It actually works.
Many games have inadequate difficulty settings(depends on genre.) Many games have difficulty settings where all it does is increase enemy HP, decrease player damage etc etc. In Deus Ex, another annoying aspect of these sub-par difficulty sliders comes into play. At the higher difficulty levels, enemy snipers will almost instantly shoot you in the head for full damage, killing you at inhuman speed. That isn't more difficult, that's just frustrating.
In Prince of Persia: Warrior Within, the first boss does about 1/3 of your health in damage with each combo she does and it takes about 10 times that much to kill her(first boss!) In Oblivion, (I haven't messed with the slider bar yet) the levelling system is messed up so that even when you aren't increasing your combat skills, the enemies become stronger and so strong you aren't able to kill them (I had a thief that I just had sneak around for the rest of the game because he couldn't kill all of the top level enemies.)
If it was ever a time to say quantity doesn't equal quality, it's in this realm of gaming. I like things to be challenging, not frustrating.
I don't see what you're saying about "the same genre." The old Indiana Jones games by Lucasarts were all adventure games (with a little bit of action put in.) The later games were all 3rd person action games. I think that anyone with a little bit of imagination and the will can make a game that is unique, fun and has fresh ideas.
I don't know about today's Lucasarts, but the Lucasarts of the past had quite a knack for innovation even in the waning genre of adventure games. People like Tim Schafer continue that tradition, just not at Lucasarts. I hope that this Indiana Jones game will be good, because I've been missing the Lucasarts that had such talent and vision.
I don't think that just because something works, it should stay the same. I think that people should constantly push the boundaries even when they are successful. I hope to play games that continue to push boundaries as well as play old favorites and games done well in general.
It may not be easy to innovate, but I think it is necessary.
I'm sure it has the "potential" to cause it to happen when there are many extenuating factors. Factors such as parents who pay no attention, depression, a myriad of other mental problems etc., etc. However, even with that, how do you gauge how messed up a person has to be for something like a video game to affect you so openly?
You would not only have to be depressed and mentally sick but you would also have to be socially isolated so that you have no idea how social interactions work and don't get to experience living in the real world whatsoever.
All jokes about Slashdotters aside, it would have to be much worse than your average or geeky teenager. Let's also not forget that they are doing this test on 18-20 yr olds. At this age, the brain is more set and more unlikely to react to something such as a video game trying to change it.
Sounds like in ancient times with irrigation if someone upriver gets greedy. "If you don't do what I say, I'll divert this water into the desert instead of your fields!"
I would agree with you about not liking seniority in charge simply because of seniority. When you take an anthropological standpoint, it is easy to see good reasons for seniority taking precedence especially in societies without writing. However, Even the ancient Greeks would agree with you to a certain extent that someone in charge shouldn't be in charge just because they are in charge.
Slashdot Mirror
"P.S. There was no specification to ensure they were "computer" games.... ;-)"
sex.
This could insignificant or false because the selection pressures were the same on neanderthals and humans in northern Europe: the cold. I learned in my physical anthropology class that the reason for neanderthals having larger brains and muscles is that it naturally keeps bodies warmer. The extra brain tissue may not have had a purpose other than to keep the brain warmer. This comes from It would be interesting to know if they took this into account with their research.
One thing about the wii that it encourages you to do is to bring your controllers with you to play with others since it keeps your mii character with it (and possibly game data?) Even without that, one can still bring their own wii controllers.
Also consider (whether you feel it is right or wrong) that people ultimatelyonly use a certain percentage of their budgets to actually pay for entertainment per year. If they exceed that they lose out on housing or food or whatever. If someone pirates whatever software or music or whatever but uses the same amount of entertainment dollars each year then how is anything changing? (looking for an honest answer here.)
I think it's more like having to buy 20 tv's to get a free dvd
if you've ever used Rosetta Stone, you understand how inspiring it can be to learn using mediums other than text.
I don't think anyone is getting the big picture. This is more of a move towards powering larger and larger vessels up to the size of today's fuel-burning ships. I don't think they're going "lol, who needs wind guys, am I right?" I think they realize as you must that it's rather impossible to make modern day ferries and passenger liners that don't burn fuel with current research. Hey maybe it's even possible to add to the technology of sails so much that you could make faster boats that use sails. Who knows?All I'm saying is, they're probably looking at this as the first step in a larger process and picture. If they're not, then they're missing out.
I just think that with a little more work and attention that game companies could transform what we think of as "good replayability" or even simply good gameplay. I would even settle for the same gameplay we've had all these years if they at least increased enemy AI.
I was actually referring to games in general with my statements in the previous post
there's another issue that you're hitting on. Replayability mixed with difficulty levels. Every time you play you should be assured that random things will happen that will be fun to react to and see how everything unfolds. For instance, I don't want to have to memorize where snipers are, I want to use squad tactics to take out another group of combatants rather than memorize, point and shoot. I want to have a varied experience unique to the game I'm playing and have it different every time. There are certain game types like adventure games that you beat once and it is a linear story and you probably will remember how to beat 2/3rds of the game any given time you play it. Those games are fine, but that is only one side of gaming.
not exactly, considering you are supposed to be able to sneak attack and at the level I was (somewhere in the 30's) the highest level of sneak attack just didn't do very much damage. I didn't mention it, but I had been playing warrior characters where it did get unbalanced as well. It comes down to the fact that no matter what class you play in Oblivion, you have to kill sometimes you can't JUST be a non-combatant effectively.
oops, I formatted the above but it didn't keep it.
After I read your comment on having to beat Donkey Kong to beat Donkey Kong 64, I realized that one of the things that games should make sure to do is tell you what kind of game they are. They shouldn't make the game tailored to what they think everyone is going to like, they should make the game with different difficulty levels maybe and tell you what kind of skills it will require. In addition to this, I like very challenging games and I like very easy games depending on my mood. Each of these is also a different kind of challenging. For instance when you play something like Prince of Persia you have to do crazy acrobatic things that you only get a few chances to do. I like to play Rome: Total War where it is very hard to siege a city or to even survive against the Gauls for the first 30 yrs or so(if you play SPQR.) However, it is not a fast-reaction spacial skill you have to use, it's a fast-reaction planning and organization skill to beat battles. On the main campaign map it's turn-based and that is a different kind of difficult. It's the thinking that you use in chess. Also, you can play through RTW without playing any of the battles on the battle map or you can fight all of your battles on the battle map. That is one way that users can regulate the playstyle/difficulty level by themselves and then you can adjust the difficulty level from the menu as well. The quality of Difficulty levels also varies. If there are any super smash bros melee players here, you will know (whether you agree or not) that some believe level 7 is somewhat harder than level 9 in the AI settings. Super Smash Bros Melee also has a wonderful AI difficulty system compared to other games. It actually works. Many games have inadequate difficulty settings(depends on genre.) Many games have difficulty settings where all it does is increase enemy HP, decrease player damage etc etc. In Deus Ex, another annoying aspect of these sub-par difficulty sliders comes into play. At the higher difficulty levels, enemy snipers will almost instantly shoot you in the head for full damage, killing you at inhuman speed. That isn't more difficult, that's just frustrating. In Prince of Persia: Warrior Within, the first boss does about 1/3 of your health in damage with each combo she does and it takes about 10 times that much to kill her(first boss!) In Oblivion, (I haven't messed with the slider bar yet) the levelling system is messed up so that even when you aren't increasing your combat skills, the enemies become stronger and so strong you aren't able to kill them (I had a thief that I just had sneak around for the rest of the game because he couldn't kill all of the top level enemies.) If it was ever a time to say quantity doesn't equal quality, it's in this realm of gaming. I like things to be challenging, not frustrating.
Too bad you can only be a Zoroastrian fanboy because of the whole "having to be born into it" thing.
hug the world with nuclear arms!!
I don't see what you're saying about "the same genre."
The old Indiana Jones games by Lucasarts were all adventure games (with a little bit
of action put in.) The later games were all 3rd person action games.
I think that anyone with a little bit of imagination and the will can make a game
that is unique, fun and has fresh ideas.
I don't know about today's Lucasarts, but the Lucasarts of the past had quite a knack for innovation even in the waning genre of adventure games. People like Tim Schafer continue that tradition, just not at Lucasarts. I hope that this Indiana Jones game will be good, because I've been missing the Lucasarts that had such talent and vision.
I don't think that just because something works, it should stay the same.
I think that people should constantly push the boundaries even when they are successful.
I hope to play games that continue to push boundaries as well as play old favorites and
games done well in general.
It may not be easy to innovate, but I think it is necessary.
...you sit down at tables and everything flies off of them.
I'm sure it has the "potential" to cause it to happen when there are many extenuating factors. Factors such as parents who pay no attention, depression, a myriad of other mental problems etc., etc. However, even with that, how do you gauge how messed up a person has to be for something like a video game to affect you so openly? You would not only have to be depressed and mentally sick but you would also have to be socially isolated so that you have no idea how social interactions work and don't get to experience living in the real world whatsoever. All jokes about Slashdotters aside, it would have to be much worse than your average or geeky teenager. Let's also not forget that they are doing this test on 18-20 yr olds. At this age, the brain is more set and more unlikely to react to something such as a video game trying to change it.
Sounds like in ancient times with irrigation if someone upriver gets greedy. "If you don't do what I say, I'll divert this water into the desert instead of your fields!"
I would agree with you about not liking seniority in charge simply because of seniority. When you take an anthropological standpoint, it is easy to see good reasons for seniority taking precedence especially in societies without writing. However, Even the ancient Greeks would agree with you to a certain extent that someone in charge shouldn't be in charge just because they are in charge.