The most discussed item of this update is the "Removal of host name from Ranked Matches." The game still has the option to create a Player Match, in which you can invite your friends and play with them to your hearts content. However, for whatever reason this is of no consequence and people are demanding they be able to play Ranked! matches with their friends. The difference between the two game types?
Currently they are as follows:
1) Ranked matches list you on a leaderboard for your individual contribution (not as a team)
2) Player matches allow you to invite your friends, but do not track your statistics
3) Ranked matches usually consist of 1 team of friends led by the host, with the other team being a random selection of people
After the update, things will change as follows:
1) Ranked matches list you on a leaderboard for your individual contribution (not as a team)
2) Player matches allow you to invite your friends, but do not track your statistics
3) Ranked matches will consist of 2 teams of random people
So I'm not sure why everyone is all up in arms about it. If you want to get your precious ranked points, you'll have to be able to communicate with people outside of your circle of friends. I know it may be scary, but if it is too nerve-racking - you can go back to your player matches to work up the courage to do it again.
FTA: For the fourth year in a row, EA resides at the top of our ranking. Despite a loss reported in its earnings for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2006, a $15.6 million settlement paid to end a lawsuit over the company's labor practices, and results below company expectations in 2005's holiday season, the publisher managed to maintain robust revenue.
So aside from mistreating employees, monopolizing sports licenses, and releasing buggy/featureless/innovationless drivel - they are the #1 Publisher? Fantastic. Maybe the rest of the world will catch on to this business model. Imagine, the next time you go out to a restaurant you are greeted by a hostess who spits in your face, serves you Chef Boyardee, and then proceeds to drop-kick the bus boy.
I hope everyone enjoys their next copy of Madden with New live-action direct bank account debits. It'll be the shiz.
The achievements attached to video games are nice, and they give you milestones to shoot for in a game you enjoy. However, there is a downside to certain achievements that can only be unlocked in a multiplayer scenerio...
Multiplayer Past: Avid players rack up countless hours honing their abilities to be god-like in their game of choice. Those that play casually can respect the fact that these players are very good and have dedicated time to becoming so.
Multiplayer Present: Games with achievements based upon Ranking Position or Kill Total are typically held by those that "boost" their statistics. This isn't accomplished by playing hour upon hour against opponents and raising your ability, it is now done by having multiple Xbox Live accounts and repeatedly "beating yourself" to rack up kills/points/whatever. So now, you can hold the #1 spot in any category, but you will not get recognition for it, instead you will hear "Way to go moma's boy. I wish I could spend all day boosting my stats. Loser"
Achievements are nice, but they're also changing our culture quite a bit. Do you try to accumulate these points the regular (hard) way, or do you opt for the cheap route?
Which would be more open to conspiracy theories.......
Russian Rocket debris crashing down into Wyoming
or
U.S. Missile Defense system shoots down unidentified incoming missile?
I, personally, am glad it's been listed as a russian rocket falling out of space and that it has impacted in Wyoming. At least now Mr. Bush SHOULD NOT be able to declare war on the Kremlin.
People put off by those comments were reassured this past weekend, when Sony sent around an email letting everyone know they could register for their online IDs with the PlayStation Network.
So people are reassured that they will receive PS3's soon, because they can register their gametags? Who are these people? The only thing that would "reassure" me would be the physical presence of the system in front of me with my receipt in hand.
When I talk about dual-screens, I typically refer to the ability to utilize two screens at the same time to accomplish tasks. Having a screen on top of my laptop would just one more thing to replace when someone slams their overpacked suitcase up against my laptop case in the overhead.
Now show me a laptop that folds open to have two 19" screens side-by-side and you have yourself a deal.
So the flamewar has been going on for a few years now, but the one key difference that gives the edge to the PC gamers is the ability to patch a game. Personally, I've made the switch to console games for basically the same reason as the article author - time, money, convenience. The one major problem with console games is the speed at which patches are created for them - aside from the fact that patches are needed.
We are talking about console games, and they need patches today. Why? Because games are being rushed to market. Imagine buying your nintendo, getting it home, popping in Super Mario Bros, and every time you jumped on the flag at the end of the first level - your game froze. That is basically where we are heading with console games, as it is becoming obvious the mentality is - we'll put it out there, they'll buy it, and then we'll worry about fixing it.
Now, after accepting the fact that console games NEED patches these days...you would think that by having a standardized platform you would be able to patch a problem with a game relatively quickly. This is also not the case, as typically this patch is given a low priority and even after it is created, it needs to pass through "QA" before it is even given to the public. Which takes a few weeks, or months.
With console systems being packed with hard drives being standard and online play becoming the norm in every household - are we as consumers going to put up with this laziness?
If the pain of having to wait for a patch to play your new game vastly outweighs the pain of building/buying a new computer system, people may start migrating back.
Who are these kids talking to? When I was 8, I would ride my bike somewhere and meet up with my friends or my parents would drop me off at their house. They definitely didn't drop me off at the mall or have me running around town thinking that the fact I had a cell phone was good enough to keep tabs on me.
Just because your kid has a cell phone doesn't mean they are protected.
That book was by Jim Collins. His point was not that companies with higher paid executives performed worse, it was that in taking a cross-section of successful companies - those with higher paid CEO's didn't necessarily become more successful.
He has written a follow-up book titled "From Good to Great" which does another analysis concerning what it takes for a company to really elevate itself above its competitors. This book was written as a prequel to "Built to Last". It also highlights the same ideals, in that money is not necessarily THE PRIMARY motivator in a company that can become very successful. Successful being that its stock price displays gains of more than 3.2 points above the market consistantly across 15 years.
It all makes so much sense..... obviously when your the Chief Executive you know what's going on in every layer of your business... why else would you be "on the top"?
The best part is, the stock price rose $0.11 after the announcement. So what if he completely removes the wrong area - saving $1 billion is the important part right?
I would most definitely invest in a company that is led by someone who has no problem throwing it into the mud....[/sarcasm]
Spreadsheets were nice once. I personally am trying to eliminate them one person at a time. In an age where reporting databases are expansive, and information is being stored on record levels - why would you opt for something manual, when you could just automate a report?
Fights never get easier, or harder, as you level. Everything becomes more powerful as you become more powerful, ensuring you come out of a fight exactly the way you did in earlier levels. Good for balance, extremely poor decision for conveying to the player that they are getting stronger.
I'm not sure if we're playing the same game or not.... because in my experience, this isn't exactly the case. I'm not exactly running around "power-leveling" my character so that he is some immortal force to be reckoned with, I'm more or less just exploring and I get stat increases as I would naturally come across them.
The creatures I've been fighting have been getting pretty strong, and I'm seeing new character types each time I play. I haven't encountered some old monster dropping brand new loot either.
Also, if you're looking for a challenge - turn the difficulty meter up.
It's not news when a company advertises its own products.
It is also nothing new when slashdot throws MS a free advertisement for one of their products.
For being such a strong follower of the movie, why is his suit yellow? I mean, I can get past the fact he's wearing a leotard, but where was the yellow suit in the movie? Was it a deleted scene or something?
If you read their announcment, it is stated that the "basic level" of the online system is free. I have no idea what it will contain, but I would assume it is IDENTICAL to the silver version of Live for the Xbox 360 - which is free. It doesn't look like Sony's planning on revolutionizing anything, more like they're trying to play catch-up.
I'm sure Sony will just dominate the US market with this product that will probably be available for about 200 dollars more than what the premium 360 will sell for at the time...
The reason why they won't move to a bi-yearly model is that it would result in a loss in profits. They can keep cranking out the same game each year, having people like yourself shell out the $50 or $60 for it, and all they do is update the graphics engine a little and tweak a game aspect here or there. It doesn't require a whole lot of effort, they aren't really creating something revolutionary, and they already have an adequate demand on the market. Do you think EA bought out the NFL licensing rights so that they innovate gameplay? I'm sure that was their plan when they pushed Sega's 2k series out of the picture.
It would be up to the consumer to force them to switch to this bi-yearly model. So go grab your brethren and boycott the "next version" of your Madden game. They won't chance until you give them a reason.
Manipulating the brain of a living being is not quite where I want science to explore. First you have a stealth shark that you control with a joystick, next a chimp, then a human.
Sure, the shark and chimp didn't object, because "they're just animals and they don't know any better." But haven't you noticed over the past few years that our government knows what's best for America? So that'll bypass any objections you might have to getting your head split open, and next thing you know you'll be sipped your latte and suddenly slap yourself in the face. Later on you will notice the guy in the corner that continually laughs at you while you keep repeating this action - and he keeps pressing that little red button in his jacket.
Moral of the story -> Just because it's a shark getting it's brain messed with doesn't mean the same thing couldn't happen to you.
Slashdot Mirror
The most discussed item of this update is the "Removal of host name from Ranked Matches." The game still has the option to create a Player Match, in which you can invite your friends and play with them to your hearts content. However, for whatever reason this is of no consequence and people are demanding they be able to play Ranked! matches with their friends. The difference between the two game types?
Currently they are as follows:
1) Ranked matches list you on a leaderboard for your individual contribution (not as a team)
2) Player matches allow you to invite your friends, but do not track your statistics
3) Ranked matches usually consist of 1 team of friends led by the host, with the other team being a random selection of people
After the update, things will change as follows:
1) Ranked matches list you on a leaderboard for your individual contribution (not as a team)
2) Player matches allow you to invite your friends, but do not track your statistics
3) Ranked matches will consist of 2 teams of random people
So I'm not sure why everyone is all up in arms about it. If you want to get your precious ranked points, you'll have to be able to communicate with people outside of your circle of friends. I know it may be scary, but if it is too nerve-racking - you can go back to your player matches to work up the courage to do it again.
FTA: For the fourth year in a row, EA resides at the top of our ranking. Despite a loss reported in its earnings for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2006, a $15.6 million settlement paid to end a lawsuit over the company's labor practices, and results below company expectations in 2005's holiday season, the publisher managed to maintain robust revenue.
So aside from mistreating employees, monopolizing sports licenses, and releasing buggy/featureless/innovationless drivel - they are the #1 Publisher? Fantastic. Maybe the rest of the world will catch on to this business model. Imagine, the next time you go out to a restaurant you are greeted by a hostess who spits in your face, serves you Chef Boyardee, and then proceeds to drop-kick the bus boy.
I hope everyone enjoys their next copy of Madden with New live-action direct bank account debits. It'll be the shiz.
The achievements attached to video games are nice, and they give you milestones to shoot for in a game you enjoy. However, there is a downside to certain achievements that can only be unlocked in a multiplayer scenerio...
Multiplayer Past: Avid players rack up countless hours honing their abilities to be god-like in their game of choice. Those that play casually can respect the fact that these players are very good and have dedicated time to becoming so.
Multiplayer Present: Games with achievements based upon Ranking Position or Kill Total are typically held by those that "boost" their statistics. This isn't accomplished by playing hour upon hour against opponents and raising your ability, it is now done by having multiple Xbox Live accounts and repeatedly "beating yourself" to rack up kills/points/whatever. So now, you can hold the #1 spot in any category, but you will not get recognition for it, instead you will hear "Way to go moma's boy. I wish I could spend all day boosting my stats. Loser"
Achievements are nice, but they're also changing our culture quite a bit. Do you try to accumulate these points the regular (hard) way, or do you opt for the cheap route?
Which would be more open to conspiracy theories.......
Russian Rocket debris crashing down into Wyoming
or
U.S. Missile Defense system shoots down unidentified incoming missile?
I, personally, am glad it's been listed as a russian rocket falling out of space and that it has impacted in Wyoming. At least now Mr. Bush SHOULD NOT be able to declare war on the Kremlin.
So that's how they do it? I always thought video games were made with magic.
People put off by those comments were reassured this past weekend, when Sony sent around an email letting everyone know they could register for their online IDs with the PlayStation Network.
So people are reassured that they will receive PS3's soon, because they can register their gametags? Who are these people? The only thing that would "reassure" me would be the physical presence of the system in front of me with my receipt in hand.
What will be used to scroll the page on /. after the Wii and PS3 releases are old news?
Big Oil only has 124 more years to have quarterly record profits!
When I talk about dual-screens, I typically refer to the ability to utilize two screens at the same time to accomplish tasks. Having a screen on top of my laptop would just one more thing to replace when someone slams their overpacked suitcase up against my laptop case in the overhead.
Now show me a laptop that folds open to have two 19" screens side-by-side and you have yourself a deal.
So the flamewar has been going on for a few years now, but the one key difference that gives the edge to the PC gamers is the ability to patch a game. Personally, I've made the switch to console games for basically the same reason as the article author - time, money, convenience. The one major problem with console games is the speed at which patches are created for them - aside from the fact that patches are needed.
We are talking about console games, and they need patches today. Why? Because games are being rushed to market. Imagine buying your nintendo, getting it home, popping in Super Mario Bros, and every time you jumped on the flag at the end of the first level - your game froze. That is basically where we are heading with console games, as it is becoming obvious the mentality is - we'll put it out there, they'll buy it, and then we'll worry about fixing it.
Now, after accepting the fact that console games NEED patches these days...you would think that by having a standardized platform you would be able to patch a problem with a game relatively quickly. This is also not the case, as typically this patch is given a low priority and even after it is created, it needs to pass through "QA" before it is even given to the public. Which takes a few weeks, or months.
With console systems being packed with hard drives being standard and online play becoming the norm in every household - are we as consumers going to put up with this laziness?
If the pain of having to wait for a patch to play your new game vastly outweighs the pain of building/buying a new computer system, people may start migrating back.
Who are these kids talking to? When I was 8, I would ride my bike somewhere and meet up with my friends or my parents would drop me off at their house. They definitely didn't drop me off at the mall or have me running around town thinking that the fact I had a cell phone was good enough to keep tabs on me.
Just because your kid has a cell phone doesn't mean they are protected.
That book was by Jim Collins. His point was not that companies with higher paid executives performed worse, it was that in taking a cross-section of successful companies - those with higher paid CEO's didn't necessarily become more successful.
He has written a follow-up book titled "From Good to Great" which does another analysis concerning what it takes for a company to really elevate itself above its competitors. This book was written as a prequel to "Built to Last". It also highlights the same ideals, in that money is not necessarily THE PRIMARY motivator in a company that can become very successful. Successful being that its stock price displays gains of more than 3.2 points above the market consistantly across 15 years.
It all makes so much sense..... obviously when your the Chief Executive you know what's going on in every layer of your business... why else would you be "on the top"? The best part is, the stock price rose $0.11 after the announcement. So what if he completely removes the wrong area - saving $1 billion is the important part right? I would most definitely invest in a company that is led by someone who has no problem throwing it into the mud....[/sarcasm]
That all depends...
What time of day did you make the boobie? If it was after 10pm EST, then it's probably alright.
Spreadsheets were nice once. I personally am trying to eliminate them one person at a time. In an age where reporting databases are expansive, and information is being stored on record levels - why would you opt for something manual, when you could just automate a report?
Fights never get easier, or harder, as you level. Everything becomes more powerful as you become more powerful, ensuring you come out of a fight exactly the way you did in earlier levels. Good for balance, extremely poor decision for conveying to the player that they are getting stronger.
I'm not sure if we're playing the same game or not.... because in my experience, this isn't exactly the case. I'm not exactly running around "power-leveling" my character so that he is some immortal force to be reckoned with, I'm more or less just exploring and I get stat increases as I would naturally come across them.
The creatures I've been fighting have been getting pretty strong, and I'm seeing new character types each time I play. I haven't encountered some old monster dropping brand new loot either.
Also, if you're looking for a challenge - turn the difficulty meter up.
It's not news when a company advertises its own products. It is also nothing new when slashdot throws MS a free advertisement for one of their products.
For being such a strong follower of the movie, why is his suit yellow? I mean, I can get past the fact he's wearing a leotard, but where was the yellow suit in the movie? Was it a deleted scene or something?
What exactly are you emailing all over the place that would leave you this much cause for concern? Wait.. are you one of those sick bastards?
Say what? Thinking is hard?
If you read their announcment, it is stated that the "basic level" of the online system is free. I have no idea what it will contain, but I would assume it is IDENTICAL to the silver version of Live for the Xbox 360 - which is free. It doesn't look like Sony's planning on revolutionizing anything, more like they're trying to play catch-up. I'm sure Sony will just dominate the US market with this product that will probably be available for about 200 dollars more than what the premium 360 will sell for at the time...
The reason why they won't move to a bi-yearly model is that it would result in a loss in profits. They can keep cranking out the same game each year, having people like yourself shell out the $50 or $60 for it, and all they do is update the graphics engine a little and tweak a game aspect here or there. It doesn't require a whole lot of effort, they aren't really creating something revolutionary, and they already have an adequate demand on the market. Do you think EA bought out the NFL licensing rights so that they innovate gameplay? I'm sure that was their plan when they pushed Sega's 2k series out of the picture. It would be up to the consumer to force them to switch to this bi-yearly model. So go grab your brethren and boycott the "next version" of your Madden game. They won't chance until you give them a reason.
last I checked... Administration George Bush There are a couple other people hanging out in the government too
I mean, this administration has already buried us way beyond repair. I personally have started reading brochures from our future owners, namely China.
Manipulating the brain of a living being is not quite where I want science to explore. First you have a stealth shark that you control with a joystick, next a chimp, then a human. Sure, the shark and chimp didn't object, because "they're just animals and they don't know any better." But haven't you noticed over the past few years that our government knows what's best for America? So that'll bypass any objections you might have to getting your head split open, and next thing you know you'll be sipped your latte and suddenly slap yourself in the face. Later on you will notice the guy in the corner that continually laughs at you while you keep repeating this action - and he keeps pressing that little red button in his jacket. Moral of the story -> Just because it's a shark getting it's brain messed with doesn't mean the same thing couldn't happen to you.