Fair enough, but I think you can admit that there is room enough in the world for both kinds of games. I'm a person who genuinely enjoys survival horror, and I think that video games in theory can be infinitely more scary than movies. Having a personal involvement with the safety of your onscreen avatar can make even the most mediocre survival horror game ten times scarier than a great horror movie (which is probably why the stories in Resident Evil have been pretty worthless).
I actually agree with the destructoid article that traditional survival horror games have disappeared (the last Silent Hill was actually very 'traditional' but it felt too much like a PS2 game with a heavy coat of polish).
We can't go back to those crummy controls and camera angles, because people won't stand for it anymore and they shouldn't. But now we just need to wait and see if the developers can figure out new and better ways to scare us. Which is why i'm looking forward to playing Dead Space soon.
yeah i don't think that's true. That should only really happen if you had your console replaced and you had bought the games earlier and they're tied to the early account. I'm not defending that DRM, but it really does only apply to a minority of users. I haven't played every XBLA game tho, so you may be right.
Why do we never hear the other side of the arguement: That a keyboard and mouse completely suck for anything other than FPSs? Yeah if all you want to do is play shooters and RTSs then a PC is great. Have you ever tried playing a platformer on a PC? It's impossible.
I'll take a controller, which is 90 percent as good as a keyboard/mouse for FPSs and infinitely better for the million other kinds of games that PC users know nothing about.
I wouldn't say the combat system is especially deep (yeah it is pretty much "use magic, then hack and slash") but I think the real fun is trying to kill enemies as efficiently as possible so you can earn good prizes and use those to level quickly. I like Odin Sphere because it doesn't try to do too much, but everything it does do it does perfectly. I can definitely understand not liking the game tho.
I just finished Odin Sphere and one feature I liked was the ability to change difficulty at any point. I know this is kinda lame for hardcore gamers, but if you're a real hardcore gamer then you would just ignore this anyway. I loved the game and story, but towards the end there a fair amount of level grinding you had to do. I'm not as young as I used to be and I felt like I had better things to spend my time on, so I just set the difficulty to easy and finished the game. I don't think I would have gotten to the end otherwise, so for game writers who would like their stories to be appreciated by all levels of gamers this feature is a great idea.
I think it's actually a very bad idea to get into sound-byte debates with creationists, because that is exactly the kind of debate they want. You can't explain the science in 30 seconds, but they can certainly rattle off all their "evidence" in that amount of time. You also run the risk of legitimizing them by getting into a debate in the first place. You don't see geologists getting into debates with crazy people on the street who say the Earth is flat, because it's not something that sane people debate. This is a problem that needs to be attacked at the root (in schools while children are young) and in long-format discussions.
discussion. I found it barely playable when I first got it, due to a horrible controller layout and mediocre graphics (for a 360 game), but the mindless slaughter of zombies has definitely grown on me. Nothing is dumber and funnier than smashing undead skull with a weight set. It's also interesting because this game is actually trying to be a B movie.
I don't really know where you're getting your information from, but there are plenty of examples of "vestigial" or wasted parts in biology. Evolution does not lead to ideal solutions, it only leads to solutions that are good enough to survive. If junk DNA doesn't harm the organism then there is no selection against it, hence it will stick around (regardless of how ugly we think it is).
Plus we've been evolving for a long time (and perhaps we've stopped). If we were going to lose the junk DNA, we would have done so a long time ago.
I was in the same boat as you. Mini-game compilations just don't hold my interest and after Zelda I was basically just downloading stuff for the virtual console. Thankfully Paper Mario came out, which is a great game and should satisfy your RPG needs for a while. Although now that I beat it I guess it's back to waiting for the next "real" game.
I use FF pretty much all the time. I would like to use Safari because it is much faster but it really comes down to Bookmarks. I use a couple different computers (crossplatform) and Foxmarks synchronizer is just too useful for me to do without.
I'm pretty happy too because i finally got FF to look almost identical to Safari (as was said earlier FF is a pretty hideous app under default conditions). Get the GrApple(Uno) theme from Arronax and install Uno to get rid of that ugly line running through the top of the window. Uno is also really nice for changing the appearance of a lot of programs (personally not a big fan of brushed metal).
I totally agree with this guy and have had a similar recent epiphany. I am (was?) a huge Final Fantasy fan and I've played and beaten all of them since FFIII. I put 25 hours into FFXII before it dawned on me. The story is really cool, and it's nice to look at, but they forgot to make the game fun. I ended up wishing the game was a movie so I could just find out what happened to the characters and then move on with my life. I got really tired of having to level for 3 hours just to get to the next boss. I stopped playing FFXII because I bought a wii and of course I had to play Zelda. Zelda, on the other hand, is ridiculously fun to play and not tedious at all (even though both games are superficially similar in terms of story and subject matter). Now that I'm done with Zelda i'm trying to get back into FFXII, but my heart isn't in it anymore. I think i might just read a walkthrough to find out what happens.
Journals like Nature and Science get by mainly on advertisements, subscriptions to institutions, and to a lesser extent on subscriptions to individual scientists. It isn't like they are trying to publish sensational news stories so people will rush out to the newstands to buy the latest issue (it's actual quite difficult to even find these journals unless you have a subscription).
The reason everyone wants to publish in Nature and Science is because Nature and Science publish only the best research. Therefore the journals would sabotage themselves pretty quickly if all they did was publish unsubstantiated research articles. I think it's true that "sexy" articles will sometimes get through with a little less evidence than is warranted, but these journals would never knowingly publish false results. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot.
Plus peer review can only do so much. This is actually a good thing to see every once in a while. It means the system is working, which is really what keeps scientists honest.
Well I hope this opens the way for more GM crops. The "hippies" who are against GM foods, while being well-meaning, have actually hurt a good cause. While it's definitely necessary for us to be careful when genetically engineering crops, I think the only hope the world has of supporting its current (and higher) populations is genetically engineered strains of food with higher yields and nutritional value. It actually seems quite selfish to me to insist on only organically grown crops when organically grown crops could not possibly support the entire world.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough, but I think you can admit that there is room enough in the world for both kinds of games. I'm a person who genuinely enjoys survival horror, and I think that video games in theory can be infinitely more scary than movies. Having a personal involvement with the safety of your onscreen avatar can make even the most mediocre survival horror game ten times scarier than a great horror movie (which is probably why the stories in Resident Evil have been pretty worthless). I actually agree with the destructoid article that traditional survival horror games have disappeared (the last Silent Hill was actually very 'traditional' but it felt too much like a PS2 game with a heavy coat of polish). We can't go back to those crummy controls and camera angles, because people won't stand for it anymore and they shouldn't. But now we just need to wait and see if the developers can figure out new and better ways to scare us. Which is why i'm looking forward to playing Dead Space soon.
yeah i don't think that's true. That should only really happen if you had your console replaced and you had bought the games earlier and they're tied to the early account. I'm not defending that DRM, but it really does only apply to a minority of users. I haven't played every XBLA game tho, so you may be right.
Why do we never hear the other side of the arguement: That a keyboard and mouse completely suck for anything other than FPSs? Yeah if all you want to do is play shooters and RTSs then a PC is great. Have you ever tried playing a platformer on a PC? It's impossible. I'll take a controller, which is 90 percent as good as a keyboard/mouse for FPSs and infinitely better for the million other kinds of games that PC users know nothing about.
In terms of oldskool gaming I don't think there is much that can beat Mega Man 3, especially the title screen music.
I wouldn't say the combat system is especially deep (yeah it is pretty much "use magic, then hack and slash") but I think the real fun is trying to kill enemies as efficiently as possible so you can earn good prizes and use those to level quickly. I like Odin Sphere because it doesn't try to do too much, but everything it does do it does perfectly. I can definitely understand not liking the game tho.
I just finished Odin Sphere and one feature I liked was the ability to change difficulty at any point. I know this is kinda lame for hardcore gamers, but if you're a real hardcore gamer then you would just ignore this anyway. I loved the game and story, but towards the end there a fair amount of level grinding you had to do. I'm not as young as I used to be and I felt like I had better things to spend my time on, so I just set the difficulty to easy and finished the game. I don't think I would have gotten to the end otherwise, so for game writers who would like their stories to be appreciated by all levels of gamers this feature is a great idea.
I think it's actually a very bad idea to get into sound-byte debates with creationists, because that is exactly the kind of debate they want. You can't explain the science in 30 seconds, but they can certainly rattle off all their "evidence" in that amount of time. You also run the risk of legitimizing them by getting into a debate in the first place. You don't see geologists getting into debates with crazy people on the street who say the Earth is flat, because it's not something that sane people debate. This is a problem that needs to be attacked at the root (in schools while children are young) and in long-format discussions.
discussion. I found it barely playable when I first got it, due to a horrible controller layout and mediocre graphics (for a 360 game), but the mindless slaughter of zombies has definitely grown on me. Nothing is dumber and funnier than smashing undead skull with a weight set. It's also interesting because this game is actually trying to be a B movie.
...gotta nuke something.
I don't really know where you're getting your information from, but there are plenty of examples of "vestigial" or wasted parts in biology. Evolution does not lead to ideal solutions, it only leads to solutions that are good enough to survive. If junk DNA doesn't harm the organism then there is no selection against it, hence it will stick around (regardless of how ugly we think it is). Plus we've been evolving for a long time (and perhaps we've stopped). If we were going to lose the junk DNA, we would have done so a long time ago.
I was in the same boat as you. Mini-game compilations just don't hold my interest and after Zelda I was basically just downloading stuff for the virtual console. Thankfully Paper Mario came out, which is a great game and should satisfy your RPG needs for a while. Although now that I beat it I guess it's back to waiting for the next "real" game.
Yes. Foxmarks rules. End of story.
I use FF pretty much all the time. I would like to use Safari because it is much faster but it really comes down to Bookmarks. I use a couple different computers (crossplatform) and Foxmarks synchronizer is just too useful for me to do without. I'm pretty happy too because i finally got FF to look almost identical to Safari (as was said earlier FF is a pretty hideous app under default conditions). Get the GrApple(Uno) theme from Arronax and install Uno to get rid of that ugly line running through the top of the window. Uno is also really nice for changing the appearance of a lot of programs (personally not a big fan of brushed metal).
I totally agree with this guy and have had a similar recent epiphany. I am (was?) a huge Final Fantasy fan and I've played and beaten all of them since FFIII. I put 25 hours into FFXII before it dawned on me. The story is really cool, and it's nice to look at, but they forgot to make the game fun. I ended up wishing the game was a movie so I could just find out what happened to the characters and then move on with my life. I got really tired of having to level for 3 hours just to get to the next boss. I stopped playing FFXII because I bought a wii and of course I had to play Zelda. Zelda, on the other hand, is ridiculously fun to play and not tedious at all (even though both games are superficially similar in terms of story and subject matter). Now that I'm done with Zelda i'm trying to get back into FFXII, but my heart isn't in it anymore. I think i might just read a walkthrough to find out what happens.
Journals like Nature and Science get by mainly on advertisements, subscriptions to institutions, and to a lesser extent on subscriptions to individual scientists. It isn't like they are trying to publish sensational news stories so people will rush out to the newstands to buy the latest issue (it's actual quite difficult to even find these journals unless you have a subscription). The reason everyone wants to publish in Nature and Science is because Nature and Science publish only the best research. Therefore the journals would sabotage themselves pretty quickly if all they did was publish unsubstantiated research articles. I think it's true that "sexy" articles will sometimes get through with a little less evidence than is warranted, but these journals would never knowingly publish false results. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot. Plus peer review can only do so much. This is actually a good thing to see every once in a while. It means the system is working, which is really what keeps scientists honest.
Well I hope this opens the way for more GM crops. The "hippies" who are against GM foods, while being well-meaning, have actually hurt a good cause. While it's definitely necessary for us to be careful when genetically engineering crops, I think the only hope the world has of supporting its current (and higher) populations is genetically engineered strains of food with higher yields and nutritional value. It actually seems quite selfish to me to insist on only organically grown crops when organically grown crops could not possibly support the entire world.
This might be interesting to use on the Wii, which has a browser but no real 'OS' to speak of.