Where's the proof that it won't reflect researched fact? The implication here seems to be that the masses of stupid sub-human retards, as you folks seem to enjoy deeming anyone not possessing your massive paranoid knowledge, are going on there and making shit up to suit there purposes. In the same breath your telling me the masses are half-literate retards and also telling me that half-literate retards can write long and detailed articles on politics and history. You're also suggesting, by stating that Wikipedia's articles will change over time due to public opinion (which in your mind happens spontaneously and with no rationale), that there is an alternative solution in which a source of information can be 100% authoritative, which is nonsense. You're also disregarding the type of reseach for which Wikipedia is uniquely well suited, following ever changing cultural memes and ideologies at lightning quick speed. If I need a excruciatingly accurate account of George Washingtons life, I'll read a half dozen sources at least, if I need info on just what the hell AYBABTU, or just a quick and convenient reference, I'll go to Wiki.
the use of "Overclass", "Majoritarian" and abreviating "Main Stream Media" as "MSM" are three reasons I want to revert your post. Referencing a "book" doesn't mean jack if you're referencing paranoid left wing ramblings and revisionist historical books with no sense of fact or research.
Watch out, I'm just a tool of the overclass!! We are all being brainwashed and forced to live comfortable lives with lots of extra money to by entertainment!!
There's also an added benefit in "previewing" items and features. Once you get to Tallon in Metroid Prime, you see a small opening and immediately go "Oh, I could get in there if I had the morph ball, I'll have to remember that." It's a great way to make the puzzles less obscure with out blatently pointing them out.
How can all those vegans up in vermont be against "exploiting" animals but for burning their manure?
Screw them, lets just go nuclear allready, dammit.
I hate GTA:SA with a fiery passion.
GTA3 was fantastic, the city was incredibly immersive, I loved just wandering around its streets and listening to the sound of the city, I wasted hours doing this. People complained about the Joe Nobody main character, but I liked him, he WAS ME, not some goof ball in the 80's or some lame gang banger in the 90's, neither of whom I could relate to in the least. The story was minimal and unobtrusive, and the creativity of most of the missions was great.
Then GTA:VC happened.
The new emphasis on the main character I did not like. I didn't care about this guy, and I didn't like the 80's Miami Vice setting. I guess I'm just a bit too young to be nostalgic about that. But the gameplay was still great and it introduced some truley addictive features (Who hasn't cruised around town at top speed on a bullet bike, hit a ramp and then ditched in mid air?).
And now we come to GTA:SA.
Call me any name you want, but I hated everything about the story of this game, the lame cliched characters, the crap writing, the complete lack of humour, everything. The gameplay expanded to feature tons of mostly broken features. This is a game that does EVERYTHING... badly. The missions were just tedious as all hell, I only played them far enough to actually be able to explore this whole world at my own pace. And oddly enough, the PC controls took a large step back, perhaps to take the emphasis off the fact that the console controls still sucked. We had a huge world to play with, but with so much space to fill, every particular location lacked any attention to detail or style. This game is just so insubstanial, it's like eating a bucket of cheap gravy, sure it feels you up, and there's a lot of it, but it's just not very good.
http://curmudgeongamer.com/2006/05/history-of-cons ole-prices-or-500-aint.html
Fun stuff that inflation. $500 is pretty far from the highest price for a console, inflation taken into consideration or not. Either way, I don't think it's a terribly competitive price, we're getting into the "decent" PC range here.
To what I'll pay for a game. The economics of making the game don't effect my decision to buy it, it's the publishers/developers job to find better, cheaper ways to make games that sale, it's not my job to cover there bloated budgets. I'd only pay over $40 for a game if I'm REALLY looking forward to it, and NEVER OVER $60. There is a point when I say, you know, I should find a cheaper hobby.
Yeah, you people, yeesh. God forbid a company try to protect their product. No no, every business should just be totally altruistic, and run themselves into the ground giving there expensive products away. Look at it this way, if you paid for it, this isn't a hassle, if you didn't, you've got absolutely no right to it anyways. I'm not neccesarily against pirating, I view it as a game of sorts, and congratulations to the winners, they are generally the ones who worked harder to win.
Slashdot Mirror
Where's the proof that it won't reflect researched fact? The implication here seems to be that the masses of stupid sub-human retards, as you folks seem to enjoy deeming anyone not possessing your massive paranoid knowledge, are going on there and making shit up to suit there purposes. In the same breath your telling me the masses are half-literate retards and also telling me that half-literate retards can write long and detailed articles on politics and history. You're also suggesting, by stating that Wikipedia's articles will change over time due to public opinion (which in your mind happens spontaneously and with no rationale), that there is an alternative solution in which a source of information can be 100% authoritative, which is nonsense. You're also disregarding the type of reseach for which Wikipedia is uniquely well suited, following ever changing cultural memes and ideologies at lightning quick speed. If I need a excruciatingly accurate account of George Washingtons life, I'll read a half dozen sources at least, if I need info on just what the hell AYBABTU, or just a quick and convenient reference, I'll go to Wiki.
the use of "Overclass", "Majoritarian" and abreviating "Main Stream Media" as "MSM" are three reasons I want to revert your post. Referencing a "book" doesn't mean jack if you're referencing paranoid left wing ramblings and revisionist historical books with no sense of fact or research. Watch out, I'm just a tool of the overclass!! We are all being brainwashed and forced to live comfortable lives with lots of extra money to by entertainment!!
There's also an added benefit in "previewing" items and features. Once you get to Tallon in Metroid Prime, you see a small opening and immediately go "Oh, I could get in there if I had the morph ball, I'll have to remember that." It's a great way to make the puzzles less obscure with out blatently pointing them out.
Hey, if you can get the results of a senate election to affect whether or not I get my Zelda fix, I'll be all over that shit!
How can all those vegans up in vermont be against "exploiting" animals but for burning their manure? Screw them, lets just go nuclear allready, dammit.
God I WISH govenment were run like a business. Then maybe we wouldn't have that enormous deficit.
Wow, that a bucket of gravy "feels you up" is fairly alarming. Must have been a freudian slip.
I hate GTA:SA with a fiery passion. GTA3 was fantastic, the city was incredibly immersive, I loved just wandering around its streets and listening to the sound of the city, I wasted hours doing this. People complained about the Joe Nobody main character, but I liked him, he WAS ME, not some goof ball in the 80's or some lame gang banger in the 90's, neither of whom I could relate to in the least. The story was minimal and unobtrusive, and the creativity of most of the missions was great. Then GTA:VC happened. The new emphasis on the main character I did not like. I didn't care about this guy, and I didn't like the 80's Miami Vice setting. I guess I'm just a bit too young to be nostalgic about that. But the gameplay was still great and it introduced some truley addictive features (Who hasn't cruised around town at top speed on a bullet bike, hit a ramp and then ditched in mid air?). And now we come to GTA:SA. Call me any name you want, but I hated everything about the story of this game, the lame cliched characters, the crap writing, the complete lack of humour, everything. The gameplay expanded to feature tons of mostly broken features. This is a game that does EVERYTHING... badly. The missions were just tedious as all hell, I only played them far enough to actually be able to explore this whole world at my own pace. And oddly enough, the PC controls took a large step back, perhaps to take the emphasis off the fact that the console controls still sucked. We had a huge world to play with, but with so much space to fill, every particular location lacked any attention to detail or style. This game is just so insubstanial, it's like eating a bucket of cheap gravy, sure it feels you up, and there's a lot of it, but it's just not very good.
Always recall that one levels a playing field with a bulldozer.
http://curmudgeongamer.com/2006/05/history-of-cons ole-prices-or-500-aint.html
Fun stuff that inflation. $500 is pretty far from the highest price for a console, inflation taken into consideration or not. Either way, I don't think it's a terribly competitive price, we're getting into the "decent" PC range here.
To what I'll pay for a game. The economics of making the game don't effect my decision to buy it, it's the publishers/developers job to find better, cheaper ways to make games that sale, it's not my job to cover there bloated budgets. I'd only pay over $40 for a game if I'm REALLY looking forward to it, and NEVER OVER $60. There is a point when I say, you know, I should find a cheaper hobby.
Yeah, you people, yeesh. God forbid a company try to protect their product. No no, every business should just be totally altruistic, and run themselves into the ground giving there expensive products away. Look at it this way, if you paid for it, this isn't a hassle, if you didn't, you've got absolutely no right to it anyways. I'm not neccesarily against pirating, I view it as a game of sorts, and congratulations to the winners, they are generally the ones who worked harder to win.