You forget that the music industry is nothing more than a giant, steaming pile of shit. Let's assume for a second that most of the people who perform songs are actually the ones who composed them. People want to see Mick fucking Jagger play/sing/whateverhedoes "his" songs, yes, but, more importantly, Mick fucking Jagger wants to see Mick fucking Jagger doing that.
A long time ago, when music was actually good and thought-provoking, nothing brought a composer more joy than to hear other people performing his/her works, adding their own subtleties and nuances to the interpretation of the pieces. Copyrighting with respect to music, I'm assuming, was initially supposed to help protect that intangible thing we call "creation." Now copyrighting seems to be promoting a ruthless selfishness in the music industry by discouraging even the performance of another person's works.
Obviously, this is not a cut-and-dried issue, and you'll find various exceptions to musicians' views on copyrighting, but I seem to find that performances of others' works (not so much in the performing arts, but more in the world of "bands" who play "concerts" with "tickets" involved) is viewed as some sort of infringement of copyright.
I find it hilarious, personally, because 99% of songs written in the past 40+ years are so mind-numbingly shallow -- both musically and emotionally -- that they're not worth all the trouble musicians go through to make sure that their name is definitely associated with those songs.
Agreed. A non-savvy computer user will, ultimately, be happier dropping $300 on Windows than going through the crippling agony of getting *nix set up exactly how he'd like it to be.
The only reason I know of Vimeo is because of their game videos. And, after reading: "Gaming videos are by nature significantly larger and longer than any other genre on Vimeo," I'm led to believe that they may also be the most popular and constitute the largest portion of the site's traffic.
So, naturally, deleting them would be the best way to go.
I have a feeling that Vimeo wants to be like the "indie, off-the-wall" video site, whereas YouTube would be more "mainstream." Basically, people who spend 3+ hours a day on their laptops at Starbucks would prefer Vimeo, while the rest of us go to YouTube.
I'm not saying that purchasing everything I mentioned is a necessity. What I'm saying is that to get maximal enjoyment out of the system (that includes four-player capability whenever possible), you're going to need to own a lot of stuff.
I have always loved Nintendo's work, but the whole peripherals thing is getting to be ridiculous. I remember when Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles was released on the Gamecube, and to take full advantage of the (actually quite fun) multiplayer required four Gameboy Advance systems and four GBA to GCN connector cables (hundreds of dollars altogether). The same thing happened with The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures.
I remember a lot of people complaining about the GCN's dependency on other Nintendo products: I thought that the Wii would address these concerns. Instead, a fully-equipped Wii has four remotes (this is fine), four nunchuk attachments (the fact that they must be purchased separately is annoying), two classic controllers, Wii Wheels, Wii Zappers, the Wii Balance Board, and now four new motion-enhancing attachments.
The only way to justify owning this ridiculous amount of white plastic would be for each peripheral to be supported by a pretty solid library of games. Instead, we see a mere handful of low-quality games making halfhearted use of them. Or (and God forbid we see more of this), we see games eschewing everything that makes the Wii unique to make use of good old GCN controllers (more plastic to keep on hand). Honestly, the classic controller is the most useful peripheral right now because it works wonderfully with most of the Virtual Console titles.
All that said, however, I still feel the need for the motion controls to be improved. They have a tendency to be very twitchy and inaccurate, even in some of the bigger games (I noticed a fair amount of this in Super Mario Galaxy). It will be interesting to see how much these new add-ons will help the issue.
What I'd really like to see instead of more and more tangible objects that I can plug into my Wii remote are games that make interesting, fun, and intelligent use of the already existing systems. There's a ton of potential for the hardware, and I'd love to see it really take off.
No, you slap that online warning clause onto the rating that the game earns when played with no other human interaction at all. There's no way to stop a kid from turning off a chat filter, just as there's no way to stop any random player from saying words like "fuck" and "penis."
Don't worry, jpardey, I think it's hilarious how he's humiliating people. Look at Clives, the last guy mentioned in part one. The things he says are downright ignorant. If he's being serious, then he deserves to have everything taken from him. And then to be punched in the jaw.
I'm trying the same kind of thing with Guild Wars. I'm documenting everything. I hope I can get material this humorous out of it.
Personally, I think any game where players want to skip ahead that badly has serious design issues to begin with.
I agree, wholeheartedly. I used to play Diablo II a lot, and almost NOBODY actually played the games. There were, out of the 27 quests, maybe 15 that were completed a lot; some players chose to run through the game completing far fewer quests than this. Everyone asked for a "rush" to the next difficulty, and then to the next, and then to the last boss in the last difficulty, at which point they, well, fought him over and over and over. Nobody actually liked playing the game, and that's because the second and third sections (the two largest of the five) were boring and uncreative.
The same thing happens in Guild Wars, which I play right now. People pay other people to be "ran" to very difficult-to-reach areas very early in the game, so that they can buy nicer stuff.
I played WoW for about two months, and then I couldn't stand it any longer. The game was more grind than anything that I had ever experienced. And all of my friends were like "dude, just keep playing. It gets better and better." And I would say "well, it's kind of a grind right now," to which my friends would say "yeah, the teens are a grind. Wait till you're at twenty." So I get to twenty. The grind triples. "Just wait it out, man, the twenties are a pain in the ass." Thirty. Exponential grind increase. And so on, and so on.
There's nothing in WoW to keep me from killing myself (in real life). So I quit. I now only play Diablo II with friends who want to actually go through the game, because everyone else on the Internet just wants to skip to the very end.
Guild Wars I like a lot, because it's newer, especially the Factions expansion, and there are a lot of people who, like me, want to play through every single quest. Plus the skill system makes you really think about how you want to go into battle, which I like. Crazy-damage combinations may end up getting you killed, while status-affecting skills might incapacitate your enemies enough for you to easily dispose of them.
Also, Guild Wars has a definite "end," where you've finished all the quests and beaten the last boss. So does Diablo II. WoW, however, and I'm guessing many similar games, have no progressing storyline, nor an ending. In WoW, there is no goal. To reach level 60, some say, but so what? What do you do then? Pat yourself on the back for wasting hundreds of hours in grind sessions? Cool.
I want to see an MMORPG where there's a great storyline that you're forced to play through, where picking a character class really makes for an experience completely unique from any of the other classes, and where interaction with people and smart team play are essential to winning. Maybe someday...
I like games where some of the powers/abilities you can obtain are optional. In particular, the Gamecube's two Metroid Prime games do this fantastically.
There's a certain number of items that you're required to get (without exploiting glitches), and they're introduced regularly throughout the game, all the way up until the last couple of boss fights. In addition to these, however, there are extra weapons (such as MP1's wavebuster or ice spreader) that are immensely powerful and helpful, but also completely optional. The same goes with health and ammunition increases. They're all completely optional.
Giving the player this choice allows him to, essentially, choose his own difficulty. He can go through the game with minimal energy and ammo, or he can go through it completely maxed out. If he wants to be maxed out, though, he has to go through the challenge of locating all of these powerups, as they're often extremely well-hidden.
I think that more games should implement a similar system. I don't think that it would only work for a Metroid Prime-style game, either. RPGs could definitely benefit, and FPS games could perhaps hold off on giving you that BFG-equivalent 12% through the game. I'd like to see if any progress is made in games in this area, or if these same mistakes are repeated endlessly.
Until it's available, I'm going to have an "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude, which, surprisingly, is normally the right thing to do with news like this.
Please tell me that that ballpoint pen does not only write on black paper. Because I would really like to get my hands on one, but black on black just doesn't suit my writing, even my lucifer-driven writing.
I don't think that's what the parent was getting at, lennier. He was more getting at the fact that, because celebrities are so famous, they think they have the need to let everyone know how they feel about everything.
Take the Dixie Chicks, for example, and the whole deal against them because they're "ashamed that the US's president is from Texas." Excuse my language, but who gives a flying fuck? Who gives a flying fuck where the president's from? Who gives a flying fuck what they think about the president's home state? If we had elected a liberal president from Texas, I'm sure they wouldn't have said a word. It's the president they don't like, not where he's from.
Anyway, that's just one example of something retarded that celebrities say. And it's not that I'm against anyone voicing their thoughts, it's just that I'd prefer that he/she does it tastefully. A celebrity should not adopt an I'm-famous-so-people-have-to-listen-to-me attitude to get his/her point across.
I'm extremely surprised that someone has yet to answer this correctly:
Simply put, Mr. Hawking, the human race can't survive the next 100 years. In fact, the human race can't even survive the next two years, for, you see, the Sony Playstation 3 will be released at such an amazingly high price that it will cause the crash of not just the United States' economy, but every economy in the world (yes, even Haiti's). There's really just no chance for us.
Ask yourselves then, Sony: did the world really need the BluRay format?
I'm not particularly religious. In fact, I don't believe in anything much past the existence of some kind of God. I go to church every week, yes, but only because I get paid to play the piano. Otherwise, you'd never see me there. The only real reason I believe in a God is because it's really the only way for me to explain some things.
Let's say the world was created through the big bang. I'm perfectly fine with this theory. But where'd all the shit that caused the bing bang come from? Where'd the very first atom, or subatomic particle, or string or superstring, or whatever -- where'd it come from? Until I have a solid answer to this, and not just a theory, I've got to believe that some kind of God put it there. That may be all the work he's ever done in his whole existence, just putting one tiny little thing there, but at least he was there, and he did it. Maybe he's gone away since; I don't know, and I certainly can't claim to know.
It's a deep subject, to say the least, and there's a lot that could be said on it. I think solid proof of, say, the string theory, could shatter very quickly any religious belief I have.
If you don't think sex is a sport, you must've missed college.
I'm trying to count the number of times the guy down the hall from me in my dorm said "Nah, baby, I didn't -- and wouldn't!! -- have sex with her!" to his girlfriend. I might have lost count, but sixty-six thousand, four hundred eleven sounds fairly solid.
So which would you pick: one PS3 or two-and-a-half years of playing WOW?
Like anyone could stop themselves at two-and-a-half years of WoW...
you know the Lays Chips saying? "Bet you can't eat just one!" I think WoW's the same way: "Bet you can't just play for just one two-and-a-half-year session!
"You know, once I killed my girlfriend for cheating on me by shooting her in the face, and I got 20,000 points!
Then I killed my next girlfriend for cheating on me -- with the same dude -- by slicing open her stomach and making her choke on her own guts, and I got SO MANY MORE POINTS!! It seriously had to be like 2,000,000. No joke."
C'mon, Louisiana. That's what you're worried about?!
Slashdot Mirror
You forget that the music industry is nothing more than a giant, steaming pile of shit. Let's assume for a second that most of the people who perform songs are actually the ones who composed them. People want to see Mick fucking Jagger play/sing/whateverhedoes "his" songs, yes, but, more importantly, Mick fucking Jagger wants to see Mick fucking Jagger doing that.
A long time ago, when music was actually good and thought-provoking, nothing brought a composer more joy than to hear other people performing his/her works, adding their own subtleties and nuances to the interpretation of the pieces. Copyrighting with respect to music, I'm assuming, was initially supposed to help protect that intangible thing we call "creation." Now copyrighting seems to be promoting a ruthless selfishness in the music industry by discouraging even the performance of another person's works.
Obviously, this is not a cut-and-dried issue, and you'll find various exceptions to musicians' views on copyrighting, but I seem to find that performances of others' works (not so much in the performing arts, but more in the world of "bands" who play "concerts" with "tickets" involved) is viewed as some sort of infringement of copyright.
I find it hilarious, personally, because 99% of songs written in the past 40+ years are so mind-numbingly shallow -- both musically and emotionally -- that they're not worth all the trouble musicians go through to make sure that their name is definitely associated with those songs.
Agreed. A non-savvy computer user will, ultimately, be happier dropping $300 on Windows than going through the crippling agony of getting *nix set up exactly how he'd like it to be.
So THIS is what the Mayans have been predicting. Linux calls forth Armageddon in 2012. Wonderful.
The only reason I know of Vimeo is because of their game videos. And, after reading: "Gaming videos are by nature significantly larger and longer than any other genre on Vimeo," I'm led to believe that they may also be the most popular and constitute the largest portion of the site's traffic.
So, naturally, deleting them would be the best way to go.
I have a feeling that Vimeo wants to be like the "indie, off-the-wall" video site, whereas YouTube would be more "mainstream." Basically, people who spend 3+ hours a day on their laptops at Starbucks would prefer Vimeo, while the rest of us go to YouTube.
I'm not saying that purchasing everything I mentioned is a necessity. What I'm saying is that to get maximal enjoyment out of the system (that includes four-player capability whenever possible), you're going to need to own a lot of stuff.
I have always loved Nintendo's work, but the whole peripherals thing is getting to be ridiculous. I remember when Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles was released on the Gamecube, and to take full advantage of the (actually quite fun) multiplayer required four Gameboy Advance systems and four GBA to GCN connector cables (hundreds of dollars altogether). The same thing happened with The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures.
I remember a lot of people complaining about the GCN's dependency on other Nintendo products: I thought that the Wii would address these concerns. Instead, a fully-equipped Wii has four remotes (this is fine), four nunchuk attachments (the fact that they must be purchased separately is annoying), two classic controllers, Wii Wheels, Wii Zappers, the Wii Balance Board, and now four new motion-enhancing attachments.
The only way to justify owning this ridiculous amount of white plastic would be for each peripheral to be supported by a pretty solid library of games. Instead, we see a mere handful of low-quality games making halfhearted use of them. Or (and God forbid we see more of this), we see games eschewing everything that makes the Wii unique to make use of good old GCN controllers (more plastic to keep on hand). Honestly, the classic controller is the most useful peripheral right now because it works wonderfully with most of the Virtual Console titles.
All that said, however, I still feel the need for the motion controls to be improved. They have a tendency to be very twitchy and inaccurate, even in some of the bigger games (I noticed a fair amount of this in Super Mario Galaxy). It will be interesting to see how much these new add-ons will help the issue.
What I'd really like to see instead of more and more tangible objects that I can plug into my Wii remote are games that make interesting, fun, and intelligent use of the already existing systems. There's a ton of potential for the hardware, and I'd love to see it really take off.
No, you slap that online warning clause onto the rating that the game earns when played with no other human interaction at all. There's no way to stop a kid from turning off a chat filter, just as there's no way to stop any random player from saying words like "fuck" and "penis."
Don't worry, jpardey, I think it's hilarious how he's humiliating people. Look at Clives, the last guy mentioned in part one. The things he says are downright ignorant. If he's being serious, then he deserves to have everything taken from him. And then to be punched in the jaw.
I'm trying the same kind of thing with Guild Wars. I'm documenting everything. I hope I can get material this humorous out of it.
Yeah, and I've totally got an extra fifty six billion years to spend doing it.
But in the grand scheme of things, 12,000 does not make a dent in 5,000,000.
Of course it does! A 0.24% dent!
A game that will be ready "when it's done"?!
Oh....kind of like Duke Nukem Forever! Well, I guess we'll never see this mysterious new hit. Too bad. I had my hopes up for a second, there.
By "I was looking at these," I meant "I was looking at the practice test posted by neonprimetime." Sorry about that!
I hope not -- I don't want to have to chase down creepy Gollum if he comes and steals it from me.
Of course, while he's stroking it and hissing "precious," I can probably just go buy another one.
Personally, I think any game where players want to skip ahead that badly has serious design issues to begin with.
I agree, wholeheartedly. I used to play Diablo II a lot, and almost NOBODY actually played the games. There were, out of the 27 quests, maybe 15 that were completed a lot; some players chose to run through the game completing far fewer quests than this. Everyone asked for a "rush" to the next difficulty, and then to the next, and then to the last boss in the last difficulty, at which point they, well, fought him over and over and over. Nobody actually liked playing the game, and that's because the second and third sections (the two largest of the five) were boring and uncreative.
The same thing happens in Guild Wars, which I play right now. People pay other people to be "ran" to very difficult-to-reach areas very early in the game, so that they can buy nicer stuff.
I played WoW for about two months, and then I couldn't stand it any longer. The game was more grind than anything that I had ever experienced. And all of my friends were like "dude, just keep playing. It gets better and better." And I would say "well, it's kind of a grind right now," to which my friends would say "yeah, the teens are a grind. Wait till you're at twenty." So I get to twenty. The grind triples. "Just wait it out, man, the twenties are a pain in the ass." Thirty. Exponential grind increase. And so on, and so on.
There's nothing in WoW to keep me from killing myself (in real life). So I quit. I now only play Diablo II with friends who want to actually go through the game, because everyone else on the Internet just wants to skip to the very end.
Guild Wars I like a lot, because it's newer, especially the Factions expansion, and there are a lot of people who, like me, want to play through every single quest. Plus the skill system makes you really think about how you want to go into battle, which I like. Crazy-damage combinations may end up getting you killed, while status-affecting skills might incapacitate your enemies enough for you to easily dispose of them.
Also, Guild Wars has a definite "end," where you've finished all the quests and beaten the last boss. So does Diablo II. WoW, however, and I'm guessing many similar games, have no progressing storyline, nor an ending. In WoW, there is no goal. To reach level 60, some say, but so what? What do you do then? Pat yourself on the back for wasting hundreds of hours in grind sessions? Cool.
I want to see an MMORPG where there's a great storyline that you're forced to play through, where picking a character class really makes for an experience completely unique from any of the other classes, and where interaction with people and smart team play are essential to winning. Maybe someday...
I like games where some of the powers/abilities you can obtain are optional. In particular, the Gamecube's two Metroid Prime games do this fantastically.
There's a certain number of items that you're required to get (without exploiting glitches), and they're introduced regularly throughout the game, all the way up until the last couple of boss fights. In addition to these, however, there are extra weapons (such as MP1's wavebuster or ice spreader) that are immensely powerful and helpful, but also completely optional. The same goes with health and ammunition increases. They're all completely optional.
Giving the player this choice allows him to, essentially, choose his own difficulty. He can go through the game with minimal energy and ammo, or he can go through it completely maxed out. If he wants to be maxed out, though, he has to go through the challenge of locating all of these powerups, as they're often extremely well-hidden.
I think that more games should implement a similar system. I don't think that it would only work for a Metroid Prime-style game, either. RPGs could definitely benefit, and FPS games could perhaps hold off on giving you that BFG-equivalent 12% through the game. I'd like to see if any progress is made in games in this area, or if these same mistakes are repeated endlessly.
What about that particular construction needs to be used more often? The usage of "for" as a conjunction, or this particular usage of "it's"?
Until it's available, I'm going to have an "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude, which, surprisingly, is normally the right thing to do with news like this.
Please tell me that that ballpoint pen does not only write on black paper. Because I would really like to get my hands on one, but black on black just doesn't suit my writing, even my lucifer-driven writing.
I don't think that's what the parent was getting at, lennier. He was more getting at the fact that, because celebrities are so famous, they think they have the need to let everyone know how they feel about everything.
Take the Dixie Chicks, for example, and the whole deal against them because they're "ashamed that the US's president is from Texas." Excuse my language, but who gives a flying fuck? Who gives a flying fuck where the president's from? Who gives a flying fuck what they think about the president's home state? If we had elected a liberal president from Texas, I'm sure they wouldn't have said a word. It's the president they don't like, not where he's from.
Anyway, that's just one example of something retarded that celebrities say. And it's not that I'm against anyone voicing their thoughts, it's just that I'd prefer that he/she does it tastefully. A celebrity should not adopt an I'm-famous-so-people-have-to-listen-to-me attitude to get his/her point across.
I'm extremely surprised that someone has yet to answer this correctly:
Simply put, Mr. Hawking, the human race can't survive the next 100 years. In fact, the human race can't even survive the next two years, for, you see, the Sony Playstation 3 will be released at such an amazingly high price that it will cause the crash of not just the United States' economy, but every economy in the world (yes, even Haiti's). There's really just no chance for us.
Ask yourselves then, Sony: did the world really need the BluRay format?
Sorry, but this was obligatory.
I'm not particularly religious. In fact, I don't believe in anything much past the existence of some kind of God. I go to church every week, yes, but only because I get paid to play the piano. Otherwise, you'd never see me there. The only real reason I believe in a God is because it's really the only way for me to explain some things.
Let's say the world was created through the big bang. I'm perfectly fine with this theory. But where'd all the shit that caused the bing bang come from? Where'd the very first atom, or subatomic particle, or string or superstring, or whatever -- where'd it come from? Until I have a solid answer to this, and not just a theory, I've got to believe that some kind of God put it there. That may be all the work he's ever done in his whole existence, just putting one tiny little thing there, but at least he was there, and he did it. Maybe he's gone away since; I don't know, and I certainly can't claim to know.
It's a deep subject, to say the least, and there's a lot that could be said on it. I think solid proof of, say, the string theory, could shatter very quickly any religious belief I have.
If you don't think sex is a sport, you must've missed college.
I'm trying to count the number of times the guy down the hall from me in my dorm said "Nah, baby, I didn't -- and wouldn't!! -- have sex with her!" to his girlfriend. I might have lost count, but sixty-six thousand, four hundred eleven sounds fairly solid.
So which would you pick: one PS3 or two-and-a-half years of playing WOW?
Like anyone could stop themselves at two-and-a-half years of WoW...
you know the Lays Chips saying? "Bet you can't eat just one!" I think WoW's the same way: "Bet you can't just play for just one two-and-a-half-year session!
"You know, once I killed my girlfriend for cheating on me by shooting her in the face, and I got 20,000 points!
Then I killed my next girlfriend for cheating on me -- with the same dude -- by slicing open her stomach and making her choke on her own guts, and I got SO MANY MORE POINTS!! It seriously had to be like 2,000,000. No joke."
C'mon, Louisiana. That's what you're worried about?!