Just as an aside, if you haven't checked Anarchy Online out since then, you might want to drop in and see if it's any better now. I've played several other MMOs, including one that's still in beta, and yet I keep coming back to AO. They do a lot of stupid things with it, but they've managed to accrue some good stuff, too, over the years. And you can't beat the price (for the basic version, anyway).
The article pretty much missed the point, here. First of all, the game was crappy. Horrible graphics, even for 'retro', a story that managed to be both simplistic and nonsensical, and bad gameplay. It was worthless as a game or art. However, it showed that games are a form of free speech, as well. Games are limited and lambasted in a way that other media would be shocked at. Far more depraved, gratuitously explicit stuff is shown every day on TV and in theaters than all but the most mature games, but games receive a lion's share of the blame for real-life violence and degeneracy. This game is a first strike back at that. And I like that trend, despite my contempt for the game itself. It's time for games to treat real subjects in a mature manner (by mature here I mean in depth, not necessarily in explicitness).
At this point, dark energy is really nothing more than a fudge factor. It's certainly nothing like the normal concept of energy. We don't even know if it's a cosmological constant or if it varies over time and space, let alone whether it's a property of spacetime or some form of particle. So far, I'm still unconvinced that it actually exists: it seems more likely to me that the current theories are simply slightly off in their formulas, and can be resolved without recourse to another of Occam's entities.
"Sensible World of Soccer" was important as the first game that nobody ever heard of. Before it was published, the game market was small enough that a new game being introduced was a big event, but "Sensible World of Soccer" managed to dodge that trend by combining one of the dullest genres of video gaming with a staid virtue.
There's obviously something going on with the criteria that's not being mentioned in the article. The one that sticks out most to me is Super Mario Bros. 3, when that game is obviously based on Super Mario Bros. (1, of course) Similarly, Zork is based on the earlier Colossal Cave Adventure. Apparently part of the criteria is not just genre-defining but rather some sort of popularization of a genre. So, like any supposedly defining canon, this comes down to a matter of opinion on what is "important".
The problem with non-linearity is that then you're paying to produce content that any single player is probably not going to experience. Sure, he can play the story over again to explore the different branches, but who except hardcore fans wants to do that? The challenge, rather, is to create mainly linear story lines that seem non-linear, by giving the illusion of choice, such as giving several choices that funnel back into the main thread. Another possibility is to give the player control over chronology: he chooses which parts of the story he wishes to advance when he wants. Both of these have applicability limited by the dictates of the story, of course.
The only place true non-linearity fits is when it's the primary selling point of the game. Sandbox games like the GTA series or world-based MMORPGs require non-linearity by their very nature (Of course, they also have storylines but those clearly aren't the main selling points). RPGs, though, are meant to be story-driven, and a story is primarily linear, since that's the way we humans experience time.
Just as a meta question here, I'm at a loss as to why this was rated "Troll". It was meant to point out a legitimate problem. Was it because it used a cliche? I'm relatively new at posting here, so I'd like some clarification since my karma is now in the hole.
1. Get a single flunky aboard the craft. No weapons needed.
2. Flunky makes a scene attacking the cockpit door.
3. Pilot hits panic button.
4. Terrorist ground unit intercepts signal, gains control of plane.
5. Profit???
I think you missed the reference.
robot
1923, from Eng. translation of 1920 play "R.U.R." ("Rossum's Universal Robots"), by Karel Capek (1890-1938), from Czech robotnik "slave," from robota "forced labor, drudgery," from robotiti "to work, drudge," from an Old Czech source akin to Old Church Slavonic rabota "servitude," from rabu "slave" (see orphan), from a Slavic stem related to Ger. Arbeit "work" (O.H.G. arabeit). According to Rawson the word was popularized by Karel Capek's play, "but was coined by his brother Josef (the two often collaborated), who used it initially in a short story." Robotics coined 1941 in a science fiction context by Isaac Asimov, who proposed the "Three Laws of Robotics" in 1968.
At the moment a large number of trolls just replace entire articles with a single line. This sort of edit could be fixed automatically so editors don't have to waste their time doing it.
That actually does happen largely automatically. I've done some counter-vandalism work, and there are bots that compile lists of likely vandalism and scripts that automatically roll edits back. All editors have to do is scan the list to double-check the bot and click roll-back on the proper entries. It takes about five seconds per revision. Two or three causal editors can easily combat normal levels of vandalism.
I think the real problem with Wikipedia at the moment is that the articles are in a constant state of flux, so readers can never be sure that the particular version they're reading is accurate. I'd recommend a 'canonical' version that's been examined and decided by consensus to be accurate. The main page would be the current version, but there'd be a prominent link to the latest canonical version. This has already been partially tried, but the goals and methods were different.
I also like the user karma system. But it would be a big change, technically and social, from the current system.
Well, then you'll be happy to know that this is something Turbine really got right with LOTRO, too. In direct opposition to a certain other recently-released MMO (*cough*vanguard*cough*), LOTRO runs well on any reasonable computer, and looks very good at the same time. Those of us in beta all agree that in this case LOTRO actually beats WoW, which is something considering that's one of WoW's strengths.
With LoTR, it's already build on a foundation by the books, so it should have to follow that,while attempting not to mess with the "Tolkin" Universe.
I'm in beta, and I can tell you they did a very good job with this. There are changes, concessions to the medium, but on the whole they stayed very close to Tolkien's work, both literally and in spirit. If you liked the movies, chances are you'll like the way Turbine handled the lore, although the game is very different from the movies. The world is a little small in purely physical terms, but it's packed with stuff, and beautifully artworked.
Gameplay is another matter, however. I have heard that it is very similar to WoW's; I wouldn't know as I haven't played it. It's certainly nothing revolutionary, or even evolutionary, really. They basically took all the good standard components of various MMOs and put them together into something very familiar, but also very solid and polished. It's fairly easy as MMOs go for a casual player to get into, and there's a lot less grinding than in other MMOs, because most of your experience comes from quests, each of which have entertaining storylines. The gameplay is not for everyone; if you're a power leveler you'll need to change your playstyle because such a style is neither fun nor rewarding in this game. It's all about the journey, not the destination, so take things easy and enjoy the experience.
On the whole, I would definitely recommend at least checking this game out. If it's not your thing, you won't have lost anything by trying, and if it is you'll have discovered a gem.
PS.- In beta, the community was awesome! I don't know if it's just because we were all on our best behavior as beta testers, or because the game naturally attracts more socially well-adjusted people, but all the game-breaking annoyances that go on in most MMOs seemed noticably absent. Here's hoping it stays that way!
I'm fairly sure quasars are thought of as single rotating galaxies (or rather, galaxy-sized black holes) that send a beam from their poles (they blink because the beam is precessing past us). However, regardless of what they are, the "distant future" of a quasar would be on the scale of millions or billions of years; not likely to interfere with current technology.
I agree in principle with your libertarian ideals, but to bring this back to the topic at hand: regardless of whether or not we are allowed to have robotic weapons, is it likely private citizens ever will? These weapons are useful in militaristic situations, not personal ones. Their expense and limited usefulness makes more traditional weapons preferable in pretty much any situation but a battlefield.
You may say that we need to use them in case we need to combat our own government; that if we don't have the weapons to match them, we are in danger of being victims of tyranny. Well, as I said above, we won't have those weapons unless a significant portion of the people are incensed enough to band together for defense; and I suspect by that time it will be too late, in one way or another...
Pragmatically speaking, what I'm saying is governments will have more power than people, and people will have access to weapons, no matter what you or anyone else says about it. We have enough weaponry available to citizens to combat criminal threats: why don't you work on keeping those rights instead of trying to secure more that don't make as much of a difference?
Slashdot Mirror
Just as an aside, if you haven't checked Anarchy Online out since then, you might want to drop in and see if it's any better now. I've played several other MMOs, including one that's still in beta, and yet I keep coming back to AO. They do a lot of stupid things with it, but they've managed to accrue some good stuff, too, over the years. And you can't beat the price (for the basic version, anyway).
The article pretty much missed the point, here. First of all, the game was crappy. Horrible graphics, even for 'retro', a story that managed to be both simplistic and nonsensical, and bad gameplay. It was worthless as a game or art. However, it showed that games are a form of free speech, as well. Games are limited and lambasted in a way that other media would be shocked at. Far more depraved, gratuitously explicit stuff is shown every day on TV and in theaters than all but the most mature games, but games receive a lion's share of the blame for real-life violence and degeneracy. This game is a first strike back at that. And I like that trend, despite my contempt for the game itself. It's time for games to treat real subjects in a mature manner (by mature here I mean in depth, not necessarily in explicitness).
At this point, dark energy is really nothing more than a fudge factor. It's certainly nothing like the normal concept of energy. We don't even know if it's a cosmological constant or if it varies over time and space, let alone whether it's a property of spacetime or some form of particle. So far, I'm still unconvinced that it actually exists: it seems more likely to me that the current theories are simply slightly off in their formulas, and can be resolved without recourse to another of Occam's entities.
"Sensible World of Soccer" was important as the first game that nobody ever heard of. Before it was published, the game market was small enough that a new game being introduced was a big event, but "Sensible World of Soccer" managed to dodge that trend by combining one of the dullest genres of video gaming with a staid virtue.
I believe I will wait for third-party verification of those numbers. Specifications from the producers tend to have somewhat... generous fine print.
There's obviously something going on with the criteria that's not being mentioned in the article. The one that sticks out most to me is Super Mario Bros. 3, when that game is obviously based on Super Mario Bros. (1, of course) Similarly, Zork is based on the earlier Colossal Cave Adventure. Apparently part of the criteria is not just genre-defining but rather some sort of popularization of a genre. So, like any supposedly defining canon, this comes down to a matter of opinion on what is "important".
The problem with non-linearity is that then you're paying to produce content that any single player is probably not going to experience. Sure, he can play the story over again to explore the different branches, but who except hardcore fans wants to do that? The challenge, rather, is to create mainly linear story lines that seem non-linear, by giving the illusion of choice, such as giving several choices that funnel back into the main thread. Another possibility is to give the player control over chronology: he chooses which parts of the story he wishes to advance when he wants. Both of these have applicability limited by the dictates of the story, of course.
The only place true non-linearity fits is when it's the primary selling point of the game. Sandbox games like the GTA series or world-based MMORPGs require non-linearity by their very nature (Of course, they also have storylines but those clearly aren't the main selling points). RPGs, though, are meant to be story-driven, and a story is primarily linear, since that's the way we humans experience time.
Just as a meta question here, I'm at a loss as to why this was rated "Troll". It was meant to point out a legitimate problem. Was it because it used a cliche? I'm relatively new at posting here, so I'd like some clarification since my karma is now in the hole.
1. Get a single flunky aboard the craft. No weapons needed. 2. Flunky makes a scene attacking the cockpit door. 3. Pilot hits panic button. 4. Terrorist ground unit intercepts signal, gains control of plane. 5. Profit???
At the moment a large number of trolls just replace entire articles with a single line. This sort of edit could be fixed automatically so editors don't have to waste their time doing it.
That actually does happen largely automatically. I've done some counter-vandalism work, and there are bots that compile lists of likely vandalism and scripts that automatically roll edits back. All editors have to do is scan the list to double-check the bot and click roll-back on the proper entries. It takes about five seconds per revision. Two or three causal editors can easily combat normal levels of vandalism.
I think the real problem with Wikipedia at the moment is that the articles are in a constant state of flux, so readers can never be sure that the particular version they're reading is accurate. I'd recommend a 'canonical' version that's been examined and decided by consensus to be accurate. The main page would be the current version, but there'd be a prominent link to the latest canonical version. This has already been partially tried, but the goals and methods were different.
I also like the user karma system. But it would be a big change, technically and social, from the current system.
Well, then you'll be happy to know that this is something Turbine really got right with LOTRO, too. In direct opposition to a certain other recently-released MMO (*cough*vanguard*cough*), LOTRO runs well on any reasonable computer, and looks very good at the same time. Those of us in beta all agree that in this case LOTRO actually beats WoW, which is something considering that's one of WoW's strengths.
With LoTR, it's already build on a foundation by the books, so it should have to follow that,while attempting not to mess with the "Tolkin" Universe. I'm in beta, and I can tell you they did a very good job with this. There are changes, concessions to the medium, but on the whole they stayed very close to Tolkien's work, both literally and in spirit. If you liked the movies, chances are you'll like the way Turbine handled the lore, although the game is very different from the movies. The world is a little small in purely physical terms, but it's packed with stuff, and beautifully artworked. Gameplay is another matter, however. I have heard that it is very similar to WoW's; I wouldn't know as I haven't played it. It's certainly nothing revolutionary, or even evolutionary, really. They basically took all the good standard components of various MMOs and put them together into something very familiar, but also very solid and polished. It's fairly easy as MMOs go for a casual player to get into, and there's a lot less grinding than in other MMOs, because most of your experience comes from quests, each of which have entertaining storylines. The gameplay is not for everyone; if you're a power leveler you'll need to change your playstyle because such a style is neither fun nor rewarding in this game. It's all about the journey, not the destination, so take things easy and enjoy the experience. On the whole, I would definitely recommend at least checking this game out. If it's not your thing, you won't have lost anything by trying, and if it is you'll have discovered a gem. PS.- In beta, the community was awesome! I don't know if it's just because we were all on our best behavior as beta testers, or because the game naturally attracts more socially well-adjusted people, but all the game-breaking annoyances that go on in most MMOs seemed noticably absent. Here's hoping it stays that way!
I'm fairly sure quasars are thought of as single rotating galaxies (or rather, galaxy-sized black holes) that send a beam from their poles (they blink because the beam is precessing past us). However, regardless of what they are, the "distant future" of a quasar would be on the scale of millions or billions of years; not likely to interfere with current technology.
How did you post this?
I agree in principle with your libertarian ideals, but to bring this back to the topic at hand: regardless of whether or not we are allowed to have robotic weapons, is it likely private citizens ever will? These weapons are useful in militaristic situations, not personal ones. Their expense and limited usefulness makes more traditional weapons preferable in pretty much any situation but a battlefield.
You may say that we need to use them in case we need to combat our own government; that if we don't have the weapons to match them, we are in danger of being victims of tyranny. Well, as I said above, we won't have those weapons unless a significant portion of the people are incensed enough to band together for defense; and I suspect by that time it will be too late, in one way or another...
Pragmatically speaking, what I'm saying is governments will have more power than people, and people will have access to weapons, no matter what you or anyone else says about it. We have enough weaponry available to citizens to combat criminal threats: why don't you work on keeping those rights instead of trying to secure more that don't make as much of a difference?