Slowtrain

WHy does the idea of authentication, internet check-ins, etc bother people so much? I'm curious, since I've never really understood why people get so lathered up about authenticating windows and so forth. Is it a matter of principle? That you just shouldn't have to do it? Or is there a pragmatic concern that makes you not like the idea?

From what I have understood over the years, exercising within your "fat burning zone" does burn a higher percentage of fat calories, but raising your workout level to a higher intensity, though makign sure to remain still within your training zone, will burn a lower percentage of fat calories but more total calories including more fat calories (as an absolute number). As a result I am not a big believer in the concept of the fat burning zone, except as a way to get people who might not like to exercise as much to do so anyway. I enjoy exercise and enjoy pushing my body so I tend to exercise at the higher end of my training zone for long periods of time. This does not mean I am burning less fat than a person working out at a lower level fopr less time.

I looked of Nauru on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru ANyway, if the BMI is being compared evenly across the world then relatively it isn't looking good for the US regardless of whether BMI is accurate or not. My advice to my fellow americans: Go to the gym and eat less junk.

Isn't the US population aging though? As people get older they do tend to gain weight. Also, wasn't the BMI recalculated a few years ago, greatly increasing the number of people in the obese category? Also I've heard that the BMI is to some degree a tool of the insurance companies since it allows them to charge higer rates to people based on their BMI. No argument that the US has weight issues. I think most of that is simpy do to the fact we live in an increasingly passive society that requires less daily physical exterion than it once did. And if someone is not doing something physical it's physically easier to eat something as well. And if you eat Big Macs and sodas it is even worse. But I think the use of BMI is at least questionable as a method of evaluation.

That's true and Master of Orion 3 was released a couple years before that. Some of these ongoing series are still lingering about, but they seem much more fringe than they used to be. Note that I am not equating fringe with anything bad here, but rather simply marginalized. Although isn't there a HoMM MMORPG in development or something? That actually could be kind of interesting.

I should point out as well that entire genres of games have severly diminished or disappeared entirely sicne the 90s: FLight sims used to be so common you could find 5 or six new ones at any given time, heck sims of any kind are pretty rare now. Squad tactics games used to be common. They are pretty much gone now. CRPGS are more or less non-existent now. HoMM, Warlords, there are no games like that anymore. Galactic domination games are almost gone. Hopefully some of this is merely cyclic, but it appears to me that the game industry has significantly reduced much of its variety as well as its quality.

No it's not. All the games, movies, music, books, food, whatever else that you've consumed in your life, you like it just as much as every other time? Every game you've ever played you'd like or dislike just as much as you always did if you were to play it today? Maybe you're the exact same person you were 15 years ago, but I'm not. Of course 15 years ago I was 13, so I sure as hell hope I'm not that same. I loved the game Midwinter 2 back on the Amiga, but playing it now (though emulation) is pretty horrible, and that's purely a technology issue, with the core gameplay being so primitive compared to modern games. There are some games I no longer play because I know them so well that it's just not that fun anymore. Sometime it might just depend on my mood, there have been many a demo that I've tried and dismissed, only to try again later and think it's great. I have about 30 CDs in my music collection, and none were bought this century. Does that mean music today just isn't as good? That's just silly. OK, but you didn't even try to answer my question it seems. My personal experience shows that I was more likely to buy a game in 1998 then I am now. I maintain that is because there were more games worth buying. I will modify that statement by acknowledging that certain genres of games lie consistently outside my interest area: sports games didn't interest me in 1998, they don't interest me now. But within the genres of my interest there has definitely been a decline in games worth purchasing. It may be "silly" but regardless that is the way it is. My taste in games has oblviously NOT changed since I still enjoy the games I purchased in 1998, although extreme repetition can take its toll to be sure. But I also buy and play a decent amount of current games most of which I enjoy to some degree or another so I am just as obviously not stuck in the past chewing on the dried bones of what once was. In fact, I am in a position of having a good awareness of what computer gaming was like in the 90's when we used to hang null modem cables out the windows for multi-player Doom sessions on our 486's as well as a good awareness of what computer gaming is like today when I am running broadband internet on a dual core sli box. As a matter of fact let me just list the games that come to mind that I've played in the last couple years: Bioshock STALKER Jagged Alliance 2 Crysis The Witcher FEAR Oblivion Far Cry X3 That is certainly not a huge list of games played compared to some people on this forum, but it is very heavily weighted in favor of current games. Ergo, I am not still spritually ditzing around in the late 90s. I was there once; I am here now and honestly, I don't really want to go back. All I'm saying is what my experience tells me: the 90's produced more and a wider variety of engrossing games within the genres I frequent.

I find keeping my living area relatively free of old unused junk is good for my spiritual space as well. Seriously.

lol. well, first I offer them around and then what's left over gets tossed. So um yes and no.

I give them away to people I know if they want them. Same with my cds and dvds and stuff.

I refuse to let me life fill up with junk. If I own somethign for more than a year and never use it then it gets tossed, unless there is something very specific about it that makes it worth being saved. If I ever get enough money to have an apartment bigger than 1 room maybe I'll consider saving a bit more junk. Donations to such a cause are welcome.

Fair enough. There's always going to be the issue of taste and tolerance. For examples, there are certain genres of games that I don't ever play, such as sports games, or very rarely play, such as rts games, simply because it doesn't appeal to me to do so. However, given that personal taste is consistent, ie my tastes and likes and dislikes haven't changed in the last 15 years regarding games, that still leaves the question of why did I buy and love so many games in the nineties and not so many now?

Army of two, MC! I thought it was a pretty good game. a little too maze like to really be tactical, but still fun.

I recognize we've been through variations on this discussion many times, HK, but what can I say, I believe what my experience shows me. I bought far more games in the mid to late 90s then I do now. Far far more. That tells me that there were more games worth buying during those days. If there were far more games worth buying then it is probably because there were more good games then there are now. I agree that good games have always been a small percentage of total games released, but that small percentage was a lot bigger back in 1998. ALl I have to do is look at the game boxes in my closet to verify this. *shrugs*

Well, all I know is if I have six dialogue options for slicing a cake and I can make my baby player character cry and gurgle by pressing F then I am already 90% sold on pre-ordering the collector's edition. lol. I'm just kidding around. FO3 may be awesome. (or maybe not ). Bethesda's PR process is just so darn funny. And you got to admit that the way so many of these game magazines are hyping FO3 is pretty over the top. I think we aall re entitled to be a little skeptical over such obviously unfounded hyperbole, especially in the wake of Oblivion. Here's a little thing I ran into on James Berardinelli's Reelviews website the other day. (He's my favorite movie reviewer btw). It is not directly related to gaming but it immediately made me think of Oblivion and Fallout 3 and Bethesda and game reviews: Heres a link to the whole column. It is the second article as of today if you are interested. http://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts.html

His point has plenty of merit. Some of our parents probably enjoy 50 Cent, Rihanna, or Fallout Boy, just as much as they like the Stones, Beatles, Zep, etc. 'course...exception/rule and all that. Oh, I misread his point then. I thought he was drawing an analogy to those people who dismiss anything new as crap and praise everything that they grew up with as great. If he is making more the point that some people can appreciate things that are both old and new, but aren't neccessarily young and totally hip, then OK, fair enough. I think so, but I probably love the game to much to be taken as a credible source. It does have some problems: a fairly fractured narrative*, fairly weak story (but no more so than most FPS games), some misc quest bugs, AI that is sometimes great but sometimes pretty iffy. But for me, all that is good about the game far outweighs those things by such a huge margin that I don't even really notice them. *edit: By fractured I mean broken, as in "what the hell does this make any sense and what do I do now and I think they left out some important information during the translation process". lol

Whenever I use the word EVAR you should be able to smell the sarcasm dripping from the EVAR. Those are my favorite games though.

That looks pretty cool, Meshugger. I'll download it and gave it a go. Thank you.

Your point might have merit except for the fact that some of us who played those games still buy and play and enjoy new games as well. Oh, well.

Crysis' problem is that it makes use of amazing visuals that are interesting only because they are advanced and as such not the amazing visuals themselves. Games that inspire awe in the gamer because of graphics (STALKER, DoW1, CoH are all on my favorite recent games list) inspire awe because they use graphics in interesting and non-generic ways i.e. not rockslides. People often talk about graphics being a problem, but they aren't. The problem is developers who don't know how to make graphics into a factory of awesome. That's my rant for the day. *Realizes that Jazz Jackrabbit is gone and looks for the sequel* I agree, but that crumbling mountain was still pretty freaking amazing to watch. I think both STALKER and Crysis get excellent atmosphere from their visuals. STALKER just has a lot more game to go along with that, then Crysis does. STALKER also makes excellent use of ambient sound and weather effects and the night/day cycle, which Crysis doesn't do as much.

lol. That reminds me of the couple of times I've seen guards in Oblivion running around in the treetops. I keep meaning to grab a screenie, but I'm always so taken aback by looking at a guard floating 20 meters in the air that I forget.

I disagree on both the pointlessness of the games mentioned and the importance of the toolset. Without a toolset The Elder Scrolls would have been nothing in my eyes, nor would have either of the Neverwinter Nights games attained a place of honor on my drive. In fact, I have had more fun modding and using mods than I could have ever could have had without the toolset - strange, maybe, but I do love mods and their availability automatically makes a game look a little-bit better. This may be because modders do not have the same restraints developers do, and thus can target a very small market without the fear of loosing money. I agree with where MC is coming from though. Developers are paid to develop finished quality products. However, I also agree that MW and especially Oblivion would have been close to unplayable without the awesome fan community that fixed so many bad design decisions with the toolset. And they did it so fast too. I remember it seemed like mods were up to slow down the leveling speeds so you could actually use your major skills within hours of the game's release. That was pretty awesome

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll double check. I thought that the game setup had enabled it by default on my machine, but I didn't set it myself so I may be wrong.

What do you guys mean by an art game and art market? Is that any game that has limited appeal, like a TB tactical squad combat game?

I'd like to order a double serving of "something else" in my next game purchase, please. Bethesda? Bioware? EA? Anyone? ANyone?