I really can't imagine many people queueing up to play any of those games. Or Nethack.
What you imagine and what takes place aren't the same thing. Nethack is popular.
I wouldn't say that the game arbitrarily decides to kill you. It has its own rules, like any other game. Common sense usually helps a lot, but it's difficult to remember common sense in games because few games are as life-like as Nethack. I once killed myself by falling into a pit with an iron ball shackled to my leg, because the ball fell on my head when I landed. Maybe I would have survived with just injuries if I had been wearing a helmet, as tends to happen if a rock falls from the ceiling.
Of course it's frustrating to repeatedly die and start over, but the game is so random and relatively fast paced that it doesn't matter too much.
How about Final Fantasy VII? It sounded so great on my SB32 AWE that it took me a long time to actually realize that I was listening to MIDI. I knew that it was MIDI, but it just didn't seem to register. Must be the best MIDI music I've ever heard.
I've played both System Shocks, so this should be good.
However, I'm a little concerned about the Creepy Little Girl in the game. It's been done to death for years now. It's completely uninspired and unoriginal.
No, I'm talking about completely and utterly incoherent nonsense, not informal English. They aren't writing informally, they're just unable to write English.
I often notice that I (a European) have far better English than many Americans who, at worst, can't even write an understandable and coherent sentence. If you tell them that they're being incoherent, they might reply that people don't need to write properly on the Internet. Oh, I see.
They could make the case from gold and diamonds, and then point out that $50,000 isn't really that expensive when you consider how valuable the case's materials are. What a bargain!
There's that annoying buzz word again: innovation. I'm copy-pasteing this from an earlier post of mine (with some additions), because apparently nobody saw it:
People always complain about "lack of innovation" yet can't exactly explain what kind of games we should be getting from developers. Adventure games, graphical and non-graphical, pretty much died out. Traditional roleplaying games are few and far between. Simulators are a distant memory. Non-realtime strategy games are rare. Sidescrollers are a novelty. I can only assume that those genres faded away or became marginal because people weren't interested anymore, yet now everyone is crying and moaning about repetitive and unoriginal FPS and GTA-esque games, and demanding innovation from developers. I think people are just getting exactly what they ordered, so I don't understand where all the complaining is coming from. "Innovation," as I understand it, refers to quirky and strange games that are clearly out of the ordinary, like Katamari Damacy. But is a game fun just because it's innovative? No. Innovation for innovation's sake doesn't guarantee a good game. Maybe people feel guilty and shallow about enjoying good production values, so they demand "innovation" in order to feel better about themselves, just like some people refuse to enjoy popcorn movies because they aren't edgy, artsy and avant-garde.
There's going to be a lot of money lost the next few years, a lot of articles written, a lot of panic, a lot of changes. And when gaming comes back, it will hopefully be different and innovative and based on something other than eye candy and the shock value of blood and guts and hookers. Hopefully it will allow for creativity from the players, and room for small, independent game makers to create content. Hopefully it will be something every working person can afford.
People always complain about "lack of innovation" yet can't exactly explain what kind of games we should be getting from developers. Adventure games, graphical and non-graphical, pretty much died out. Traditional roleplaying games are few and far between. Simulators are a distant memory. Non-realtime strategy games are rare. I can only assume that those genres faded away or became marginal because people weren't interested anymore, yet now everyone is crying and moaning about repetitive and unoriginal FPS and GTA-esque games, and demanding innovation from developers. I think people are just getting exactly what they ordered, so I don't understand where all the complaining is coming from. "Innovation," as I understand it, refers to quirky and strange games that are clearly out of the ordinary, like Katamari Damacy. But is a game fun just because it's innovative? No. Innovation for innovation's sake doesn't guarantee a good game.
Another thing in TFA: independent developers. Does this refer to small groups and solo projects? If so, independent developers can fuck right off, because if I want independent games, I'll surf to the nearest flash portal or download shareware games. Are people really suggesting that they'd rather use their shiny new PS3 to play some lame flash games instead of Metal Gear Solid 4, or are they trying to stick it up to the man in a rebellious fit of anti-consumerism rage?
I'm finding the more I spend time NOT doing something digital, the more I enjoy my day. Every time I sit down to watch a movie, play a game, or read Slashdot, I look up and realize I've lost two hours. Where did it go? I never can seem to find those extra 90 minutes that I don't remember having spent.
Now I ride my bike for fun, or sit on the couch with my pet and call my mother, or hang out with some friends. I'm finding I have all the time in the world now to enjoy myself, and it's all passing at the speed it should. Forget computers, forget movies, forget entertainment centers: I want to live my own life, not watch someone live theirs.
You have all the time in the world to do absolutely nothing? Fantastic.
Are you serious? You think that a boxer will get in a knock-out blow before someone can drop to the ground? How am I supposed to believe anything you say isn't lies? Legs are longer than arms. The person going for the legs will start his drop before the boxer can reach him. The boxer isn't going to take two steps in, punch the guy on the ground, and knock him out before he is able fall to the ground. No matter who is successful, the boxer isn't going to knock anyone out whose goal is simply to drop to the ground as soon as his feet can reach the opponent.
Even if he does reach the ground, it still doesn't matter because he isn't going to win by laying on the ground.
Ah, now you've changed your story. You'll use your expert training to be across the room by the time he's on the ground. But that isn't a move that will knock him unconscious.
I've changed nothing. The first paragraph discussed an imaginary boxer, while the second one discusses me (not a boxer).
Getting on top of him is not a boxing technique. You will have abandoned your technique for that move, which negates the whole discussion of technique vs skill.
It's not supposed to be a boxing technique. Since the other fighter is using non-boxing techniques, it only stands to reason that the boxer is allowed to use other techniques.
You are so busy explaining how you will kick everyone's ass, that you forgot to answer the question asked.
No, I was busy explaining how I'd kick the ass of some retard who thinks he could pull off his ridiculous bullshit technique.
What good is technique if you don't have the skill to apply it? You aren't going to win againts a boxer because he'll knock you unconscious before you have time to "drop to the floor." Even if you do drop to the floor, he can just move out of your reach with his superior speed, footwork and reflexes (in real fights, people move around, particularly in boxing). And then you'll be lying on the floor like a retard. But since you're not in a boxing match, he might as well kick you or start grappling (he's probably stronger, tougher and more accustomed to violence than you, so you'll get beaten to death).
You say you're going to drop to the floor and do your technique? In cardio boxing (I know what you're thinking, but I'm starting real boxing when I'm in better shape), we often have a warmup/footwork drill where we try to touch our partner's foot with our own. It's like tag. Now if I, a person of very limited skill and technique, can very easily dodge my partner's tagging attempts, what makes you think that you'll have time to drop down to the floor and do your leg technique? By the time you're down, I'll be on the other side of the room, or already on top of you.
Last time I checked, Nintendo makes a profit with GameCube sells, unlike Microsoft or Sony with their consoles. I also recall reading that the GameCube managed to outsell the Xbox 360 in Japan.
I think they've decided to _not_ compete directly with MS and Sony for the same market, they've decided to try to expand the existing market into people who either do not play videogames or haven't in a long time.
More breaking news: Jesus is dead and dinosaurs have become extinct.
Technical ineptitude has to be the only thing that can explain the dreaded problem of spyware. During my ~9 years of Internet usage, I've yet to be infected with spyware or viruses. Well, there was one spyware infection, but I let it happen on purpose because I was installing some warez thingy that I needed. Every single time I've scanned my system (using two or three different scanners), I've come up with nothing except tracking cookies. I don't even use anti-virus or anti-spyware programs continuously, I just manually scan every now and then. I've went through every imaginable porn site on the Internet, and some warez sites, and I'm still not infected.
Maybe I'm safe because I always have the latest updates, a firewall and Firefox. By the way, I never get spam either, possibly because I don't distribute my e-mail address all over the place.
Not true. Nobody seems to be concerned that men outnumber women in suicides (in developed countries, with the exception of Chine -- if you count them as developed), or that men outnumber women as drug users, or that most of the people in jail are men, or that most garbagemen (garbagepeople, sorry) are men, or that most coal miners (or any other crap job) are men. If only there was some sort of conclusion we could draw from all of this...
Feminists are almost always full of shit, especially if they're talking about games. I don't think I've yet to see a piece of feminist writing about games that hasn't been completely ridiculous. Like this one piece at Escapist where some feminist explained that male gamers are afraid of the sexual dominance of female zombies in games, and that female characters are being sexually oppressed because they're controlled by males. WHAT THE FUCK?!
FF7 was and remains my favourite of the FF series. It was not my first, nor my last, but it is my favourite. I hated the Materia system, but I loved the characters and to a lesser extent the storyline.
I loved the Materia system, it was very interesting.
And I detect a note of truth in this guy's suggestion that Cloud was the ultimate geek hero. I think that to some extent I identified with him. I wanted him to save the world and get the girl, because that's what I would've wanted.
You make it sound like it was some happy Hollywood ending. Maybe it was, but I never saw it that way. The game felt very dark and sad because of Aerith's death. I remember feeling sad at the end of the game.
Anyway, I could tell by just the article's summary that the guy is full of shit and not worth listening to. In fact, I didn't even bother reading the article.
So, it's a good monitor, apart from the LCD panel. Forgive me if I don't rush out to get one... (Or am I completely out of touch and all LCD monitors are this bad?)
I've yet to find an LCD monitor that's as good as a CRT and isn't ridiculously expensive. If I were to buy a new monitor now, I'd probably go for a CRT. I just can't understand what's supposed to be so great about LCDs - they're either too expensive and/or suited to only one task.
And what about roleplaying games, where you must make moral choices, instead of watching someone else do so? In Oblivion (spoilers follow), you work for the Dark Brotherhood and interact with several of their members while performing missions of dubious morality, until you are told that there's a traitor in the Brotherhood, and now you must kill all your friends just to be safe. To be sure, they're a bunch of murderers and psychos, and so are you, but they're your friends, and now you're going to kill them all.
When you're playing a roleplaying game, you actually have to think about the choices you're facing, and what they mean. Alright, so maybe most of the problems are a clear case of good vs. evil, but not always.
One of the problems with this "can video games be art" discussion is that the people participating in it have a very limited grasp of the history of games. You can't argue about the subject when all you've played or seen are Doom and Grand Theft Auto. I mean, has Ebert ever seen Grim Fandango, for instance?
I don't even count it as gaming. But then, the article does say this:
Women were found to be slightly less likely than men in the 25-34 bracket to play traditional console games on systems like the PlayStation 2 or Xbox, while they gravitated more heavily towards simple types of games like Tetris or other puzzle games and card games like solitaire. These casual titles are typically found on web portals like Yahoo!, AOL Games, PopCap Games, EA's Pogo.com and elsewhere.
There's a major difference between playing Tetris on your coffee break and grinding World of Warcraft until 6 AM or obsessing over a singleplayer game until every secret and bonus is revealed.
And why's that? Am I not a grownup if I don't start my own company and get a wife and two kids (or get involved in amateur athletics), and then loudly complain that there's no time to play games anymore? It was your choice to invest your time in those things. The line of work I'm getting into will be something like a nine to five job (physical labour) which doesn't require me to do anything, like paperwork, when I'm not at work. I also won't be getting married. I guess I'll have lots of time to play games, at the terrible cost of not growing up (for the record, I'm 21 as of now).
Slashdot Mirror
Why was this modded as Troll? Is talking about MMORPGs considered trolling?
What you imagine and what takes place aren't the same thing. Nethack is popular.
I wouldn't say that the game arbitrarily decides to kill you. It has its own rules, like any other game. Common sense usually helps a lot, but it's difficult to remember common sense in games because few games are as life-like as Nethack. I once killed myself by falling into a pit with an iron ball shackled to my leg, because the ball fell on my head when I landed. Maybe I would have survived with just injuries if I had been wearing a helmet, as tends to happen if a rock falls from the ceiling.
Of course it's frustrating to repeatedly die and start over, but the game is so random and relatively fast paced that it doesn't matter too much.
How about Final Fantasy VII? It sounded so great on my SB32 AWE that it took me a long time to actually realize that I was listening to MIDI. I knew that it was MIDI, but it just didn't seem to register. Must be the best MIDI music I've ever heard.
I've played both System Shocks, so this should be good.
However, I'm a little concerned about the Creepy Little Girl in the game. It's been done to death for years now. It's completely uninspired and unoriginal.
No, I'm talking about completely and utterly incoherent nonsense, not informal English. They aren't writing informally, they're just unable to write English.
I often notice that I (a European) have far better English than many Americans who, at worst, can't even write an understandable and coherent sentence. If you tell them that they're being incoherent, they might reply that people don't need to write properly on the Internet. Oh, I see.
If I wanted to force children to start reading, I doubt I'd start with Moby Dick. Even I couldn't be bothered to read Moby Dick.
They could make the case from gold and diamonds, and then point out that $50,000 isn't really that expensive when you consider how valuable the case's materials are. What a bargain!
There's that annoying buzz word again: innovation. I'm copy-pasteing this from an earlier post of mine (with some additions), because apparently nobody saw it:
People always complain about "lack of innovation" yet can't exactly explain what kind of games we should be getting from developers. Adventure games, graphical and non-graphical, pretty much died out. Traditional roleplaying games are few and far between. Simulators are a distant memory. Non-realtime strategy games are rare. Sidescrollers are a novelty. I can only assume that those genres faded away or became marginal because people weren't interested anymore, yet now everyone is crying and moaning about repetitive and unoriginal FPS and GTA-esque games, and demanding innovation from developers. I think people are just getting exactly what they ordered, so I don't understand where all the complaining is coming from. "Innovation," as I understand it, refers to quirky and strange games that are clearly out of the ordinary, like Katamari Damacy. But is a game fun just because it's innovative? No. Innovation for innovation's sake doesn't guarantee a good game. Maybe people feel guilty and shallow about enjoying good production values, so they demand "innovation" in order to feel better about themselves, just like some people refuse to enjoy popcorn movies because they aren't edgy, artsy and avant-garde.
People always complain about "lack of innovation" yet can't exactly explain what kind of games we should be getting from developers. Adventure games, graphical and non-graphical, pretty much died out. Traditional roleplaying games are few and far between. Simulators are a distant memory. Non-realtime strategy games are rare. I can only assume that those genres faded away or became marginal because people weren't interested anymore, yet now everyone is crying and moaning about repetitive and unoriginal FPS and GTA-esque games, and demanding innovation from developers. I think people are just getting exactly what they ordered, so I don't understand where all the complaining is coming from. "Innovation," as I understand it, refers to quirky and strange games that are clearly out of the ordinary, like Katamari Damacy. But is a game fun just because it's innovative? No. Innovation for innovation's sake doesn't guarantee a good game.
Another thing in TFA: independent developers. Does this refer to small groups and solo projects? If so, independent developers can fuck right off, because if I want independent games, I'll surf to the nearest flash portal or download shareware games. Are people really suggesting that they'd rather use their shiny new PS3 to play some lame flash games instead of Metal Gear Solid 4, or are they trying to stick it up to the man in a rebellious fit of anti-consumerism rage?
You have all the time in the world to do absolutely nothing? Fantastic.
Even if he does reach the ground, it still doesn't matter because he isn't going to win by laying on the ground.
I've changed nothing. The first paragraph discussed an imaginary boxer, while the second one discusses me (not a boxer).
It's not supposed to be a boxing technique. Since the other fighter is using non-boxing techniques, it only stands to reason that the boxer is allowed to use other techniques.
No, I was busy explaining how I'd kick the ass of some retard who thinks he could pull off his ridiculous bullshit technique.
What good is technique if you don't have the skill to apply it? You aren't going to win againts a boxer because he'll knock you unconscious before you have time to "drop to the floor." Even if you do drop to the floor, he can just move out of your reach with his superior speed, footwork and reflexes (in real fights, people move around, particularly in boxing). And then you'll be lying on the floor like a retard. But since you're not in a boxing match, he might as well kick you or start grappling (he's probably stronger, tougher and more accustomed to violence than you, so you'll get beaten to death).
You say you're going to drop to the floor and do your technique? In cardio boxing (I know what you're thinking, but I'm starting real boxing when I'm in better shape), we often have a warmup/footwork drill where we try to touch our partner's foot with our own. It's like tag. Now if I, a person of very limited skill and technique, can very easily dodge my partner's tagging attempts, what makes you think that you'll have time to drop down to the floor and do your leg technique? By the time you're down, I'll be on the other side of the room, or already on top of you.
Last time I checked, Nintendo makes a profit with GameCube sells, unlike Microsoft or Sony with their consoles. I also recall reading that the GameCube managed to outsell the Xbox 360 in Japan.
Oh, the drama. Contrary to popular belief, Nintendo is doing just fine, especially on the handheld market.
Technical ineptitude has to be the only thing that can explain the dreaded problem of spyware. During my ~9 years of Internet usage, I've yet to be infected with spyware or viruses. Well, there was one spyware infection, but I let it happen on purpose because I was installing some warez thingy that I needed. Every single time I've scanned my system (using two or three different scanners), I've come up with nothing except tracking cookies. I don't even use anti-virus or anti-spyware programs continuously, I just manually scan every now and then. I've went through every imaginable porn site on the Internet, and some warez sites, and I'm still not infected.
Maybe I'm safe because I always have the latest updates, a firewall and Firefox. By the way, I never get spam either, possibly because I don't distribute my e-mail address all over the place.
I think the conclusion might be called feminism.
Feminists are almost always full of shit, especially if they're talking about games. I don't think I've yet to see a piece of feminist writing about games that hasn't been completely ridiculous. Like this one piece at Escapist where some feminist explained that male gamers are afraid of the sexual dominance of female zombies in games, and that female characters are being sexually oppressed because they're controlled by males. WHAT THE FUCK?!
And what about roleplaying games, where you must make moral choices, instead of watching someone else do so? In Oblivion (spoilers follow), you work for the Dark Brotherhood and interact with several of their members while performing missions of dubious morality, until you are told that there's a traitor in the Brotherhood, and now you must kill all your friends just to be safe. To be sure, they're a bunch of murderers and psychos, and so are you, but they're your friends, and now you're going to kill them all.
When you're playing a roleplaying game, you actually have to think about the choices you're facing, and what they mean. Alright, so maybe most of the problems are a clear case of good vs. evil, but not always.
One of the problems with this "can video games be art" discussion is that the people participating in it have a very limited grasp of the history of games. You can't argue about the subject when all you've played or seen are Doom and Grand Theft Auto. I mean, has Ebert ever seen Grim Fandango, for instance?
Maybe so, but in practise anti-semitism = anti-Jew.