alt.slack

Well, that is presumably like every other FF title going to be an adventure game.

I was just talking about the two standard OS's out there. Windows and OSX. I use Ubuntu more often than my windows install and love it. But as far as the two default OS's go Windows offers far more functionality and customizability than OSX. Sorry but saying Macs are better somehow for art and music just shows your biased. Photoshop is the exact same program on the PC as it is on the Mac and it's always performed far better for me under XP than any OSX machine I've used it on. Ableton Live and Sony Acid work better on XP than on OSX and offer far more configurability and control and silly Logic. Avid destroys Final Cut for video editing hands down and again runs smoother on the PC. If I want to get the most possible use out of my computer I would always stick with the PC side. I have the most control over what components I want to put inside my computer, I won't get dramatically overcharged for the same hardware. I have far more software available on the PC. Again back to the point I made in my original post on this matter, there isn't even a decent media player on OSX. OSX just lacks the software support of it's competitors. As far as interface theres a few things that OSX still doesn't allow you to do. When I'm working on a word document I don't want to see anything on screen but the doc. On OSX I still can't easily maximize a window to full screen and have it locked to the edges. Theres still part of the wallpaper visible. Just distracting. Why when I close every instance of the program does the program still remain open taking up system resources??? Theres no explanation you can give that will make that seem logical. Every mac desktop I've seem is always far more cluttered and random feeling than any power users Window desktop I've seen. The fact that they need to add so called features like expose and the hot corners to get around a cluttered desktop instead of properly designing window layout in the beginning just shows that apple never thinks that far forward.

God, if you're really that concerned about the interweb maybe you need to actually leave your machine once in a while. Most of my posts are just quick responses and I just don't feel like doing the whole cut and paste multiple actions to properly quote multiple people within one post. Again, if the way people post on a virtual message board means that much to you I'd hate to see how you do in real life social situations.

They never answered the Question about neo being the 6th one.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Christian Bale is a terrible Bruce Wayne/Batman. He's too damn small and skinny for either role. His voice as Batman is just laughable not to mention the way he felt he needed to stick out his bottom jaw 4 inches made absolutely no sense. Heath's performance was good, Frank Millers version of the Joker however is not. He's far to serious and because of this lost a lot of the scariness that the character posesses. You always knew exactly what he was going to do. The Dark Knight was more of a Joker movie than it was a Batman movie. It seemed like they were directing it just to give the Joker as much screen time as possible. Not what I want to see when I go to a Batman movie. I'm a huge and I mean HUGE Batman fan. After Batman Begins came out I said to myself "God, I hope they don't try and do a sequel to that." Then we got The Dark Knight, whoever had the idea to try and do a Batman movie without any of the campyness that is Batman needs to be shot. I'm sorry but you just can't take Batman seriously. No matter how hardcore or how much of a badass he is, it's still a guy in a bat suit. Same with the Joker, Nichelsons joker was far supperior. He didn't take it so seriously, he was more of a "joker" than Ledgers was. You couldn't take some criminal wearing green and white face paint seriously either. If they were real life characters, I would be like yeah, Batman is awesome and one hardcore motherfucker, but I'd still chuckle everytime I say a picture of a full grown male in a bat suit, acting serious.

It's the best video game movie made to date though. It encompasses the game better than any other movie to be based off of a video game to date. It has pretty much every enemy and character from the Mario games in it and come on, nothing will ever beat Dennis Hopper as King Koopa.

The remake is awful, the original from 1973 is quite good.

Fargo was absolutely brilliant. The Cohen brothers did what very few directors have that ability too. Make a dramatic comedy. Very similar to what P.T. Anderson pulled off with Boogie Nights. The cinematography in Fargo was brilliant, amazing score, absolutely incredible acting. The first time I saw it I couldn't believe how accurate they got the Minnesota accent. But I just realized you called the Life Aquatic shit as well, either your just some 12 year old that needs T&A in every movie for it to be good, or you lack the understanding of what visual imagery can convey.

You like the fact that they took all the interesting questions and ideas that they brought up in the second movie and completely threw them out the window just to turn it into a jesus storyline complete with a big glowing orange cross on Neo's chest at the end??? Damn, first person I've ever heard say that.

I enjoyed The Spirit a lot more than most of the comic book movies this year. But I'm also a big fan of the original comic. I thoroughly enjoyed it more than both The Hulk and The Dark Knight (but TDK was just an atrocious look at Batman anyways). It was no Iron Man but I really enjoyed the visual style and the dialogue was terribly campy just like it is in the comic. Miller did a good job of bringing The Spirit to the screen IMO.

What what?!?!?!? Theres only 2 good RPG's on the 360 PS3 and they've both been ported to the PS3 as well. Fallout 3 and Oblivion. Get yourself Little Big Planet, Mega Man 9, and Deadspace. Drakes Fortune was an amazing adventure game though. You want RPG's stick to the PC.

Google Search a band called Ignorant Mob. Reggae from the U.P. of Michigan, but rather innovative. They've gotten past the use of that terribly annoying simplistic guitar riff that 99 percent of reggae seems to think it needs.

[quote name= I hope that was a reasonable' date=' well-thought out description of what I, at least, enjoy more about Mac OS. I didn't belittle Windows users for their choice (cost is a big consideration), and I still recommend it for people who want nothing more than to write up documents and check their email. But if you're a power user who likes to do as much with a computer as you can, then I would definitely recommend Mac OSX. And with EFIX you don't have to buy a ridiculously expensive Mac Pro either. Also note that we have a pretty good idea of what Snow Leopard is going to do (OpenCL, tighter sized programs, etc), but I don't know what Microsoft really has up their sleeve for 7.

I don't think he's being smug about it all, he just stated facts about the Mac ads. As a lifelong PC user and someone who can't find a single reason why anyone would want to spend that much extra on a Mac just so they can use a very very limiting operating system is way beyond me. Being an audiophile and huge archiver of music and video, OSX is the last thing I'd ever want to use. It doesn't even have a good media player.

If you think pressing the same button whenever you see something red, but I really don't. Mirrors Edge was epic fail.

I'm just curious what you mean by calling MM9 and NES games BS. I have plenty of friends that never had an NES and have played one very little, never played a Mega Man game that absolutely love MM9. It's the challenge that makes it so addictive. Again what do you mean by BS?

When did I ever say that? I'm just using those as good examples of putting gameplay before graphics.

I feel sorry for you that your eyes must really be that bad, or you're really just that unwilling to give great games a chance because they don't have shader 3.0 support. Honestly, when did you start playing video games if a game that recent looks that bad to you?

Thank you, good graphics don't need to be super pretty. I totally agree with that. But games shouldn't be knocked for having bad graphics if the gameplay is still good. I agree with most of your statement here except that art style is the most important aspect. Gameplay is still the most important aspect. Even if the art style feels totally foreign to the how the game plays and feels it can still be a very enjoyable game. Why does how the game looks at all whether it be realisitc or just a good art direction is so important to gamers is beyond me. It didn't used to be, but since technology has given game developers the ability to make a game look however they want it seems to have become the first thing a gamer looks for and judges the game on. Very very sad IMO.

Saying that it needs to look good enough to play is being jaded. By that reasoning if a game looke like a 2600 title but had amazing gameplay you probably wouldn't want to give it a chance. Video games are simply a way of interacting with a visual cue, usually on a screen. Sure we can make those visuals look incredible now a days, but more often than not that seems to be the main focus of a games design in modern day. Look at games like Crysis and COD4 as prime examples. Crysis looks incredible yes, but it's gameplay is terrible. The wow factor of bullet wholes in leaves only lasts a few minutes after that you realize theres no AI, all the weapons are the same, and the game offers no replay value. \ I just wish developers wouldn't focus on how good a game needs to look so much and focus more on the gameplay. I don't see that happening very much now a days. I, never tried to say it's either or. But the fact remains if a game looks incredible the average gamer now a days is imediately attracted to it more than even a very good looking but not realistic stylized game. So in turn developers seem to be working on how good a game looks first and how good it plays second. I wish it would remain the other way around.

It's the skill to still be able to pull off a perfect run thru the level once memorized. Feels a lot better than getting an easy snipe shot in CS or Crysis thats for sure. Find me a game from 08 that offers anywhere near the challenge of MM9 and I'll be very impressed.

They are called video games because you visually look at them in order to interact. That is where the video comes in, nowhere does it say it has to look amazing to be a fun experience. If the brown blobs still create a fun gameplay experience I really don't mind what they look like. I'm sorry you'll miss out on a lot of good gameplay experiences due to your highly jaded attitude towards games. Then why were people so quick to judge an olf FPS game for having terrible graphics by todays standards, yet when it first came out it was called a beutiful game.

It would have to be when I first downloaded and played Mega Man 9. What a relief. I felt like I was 7 years old again, playing games on saturday morning with my best friend who spent the night. The music, the look, the gameplay, the sound effects. All perfect. It's not just the retro look and feel to the game that made it so amazing, it's that Capcom to the incentive to show how addicting a game can be when teh gameplay is put at the core of the games design. Every level, every boss battle, every powerup has been thought out so well. Then the speedrun ladders, they equal instant replayability. It brings back the gameplay that made gaming so much fun to begin with. When you die you know it's due to your lack of skill. When you finally master a stage and have every inch memorized it's an insane feeling of accomplishment knowing that you beat a machine at something. Knowing that you can do something so perfect a computer can't beat you feels rather good.

I don't understand why so many people are overconcerned with how good a game looks now a days. Often time when a game looks amazing the gameplay suffers a lot due to the developer spending to much time and resources on the trivial parts of the game. Yet you ask if people want to play an old game and the first 5 responses are that game looks nasty, or it's not worth my time if it looks that bad. I feel sorry for anyone that feels that way because you are going to miss out on a ton of great games. It's a game afterall isn't it? So shouldn't what really makes you want to play or not play it be the GAMEPLAY? I just have a really hard time comprehending how people can consider themselves gamers but yet be so quick to judge a game on it's most trivial aspects.

Learning curve totally depends on the shooter. A game like CS:S has little to none, where a game like Quake or TFC has quite a big learning curve. I've played 90 percent of the FPS games to come out since the hey day of TFC and very few have given me the sense of accomplishment or enjoyment as the originals that set the standard. The more realistic FPS games become the easier the become IMO. As far as strat I'll gladly rape you at WC2 or C&C whatever any day of the week.