For the time, it was amazingly deep in terms of gameplay. I don't know what other real-time game you could even compare it to. You had several tactical views, you had to manage fuel, system-specific damage, the AI felt menacing (in terms of how it would home in on your starbases). Fuel wasn't just magic; you had to dock with a starbase to get more. The whole game was highly interactive in a real-time way: AI units would move when you were looking at the map view, you could veer off course in hyperspace and end up in adjacent sectors
I actually thought the visual side of things was fairly lame.
Some of us prefer to have a computer over a console. I'd rather play Fallout 3 on my computer because I can't stand console controllers, especially for FPSs. Its nice to be able to Alt-tab out of games and check things out, and to be able to download patches for buggy games, and extra content for the expandable ones. Consoles also suck for RTS games,
This is just the same old argument that sounds like it's from 2000. Funny thing is, everyone owns a computer regardless of whether they own a console or not, so there really isn't anything as a "console only" owner. As such, people tend to not be nearly as defensive about their consoles as the PC-only die-hards are. Anyone with a "big, fancy PS3" can go buy an RTS for their computer if they want to.
But PCs as full replacements for consoles isn't flying for a couple of big reasons:
* Hundreds of millions of dollars are being poured annually into developing console games, so if you care about games at all, then you're missing out by boycotting consoles. There are good PC games and ports, too (like Fallout 3), but they're in the small minority. Consoles are where the action is.
* Mobility and, as a result, low power consumption are driving PC sales. Most people would prefer a slick laptop with 6 hours battery life over a thousand-watt gaming rig.
Honestly, a console--or a handheld game system like the Nintendo DS--is relatively inexpensive, so there's no reason to over-justify your insistence on only playing PC games. Just pick up a $130 DS and you can get some amazing experiences. And I'm seriously glad I own an Xbox 360, because some of the best games in recent years are for that system.
Of COURSE digital cameras supersede the original Polaroid dream of instant pictures. Insert a big "duh" here." This is more about some people liking the quirky qualities of Polaroid film. There's been a resurgence in Polaroid photos on Flickr, and they're coming from people who also own thousands of dollars worth of digital photography gear. It's an artistic novelty, doing low-res pixel art (all the rage in Flash games) or playing music on a scanner.
Pipes are good, but they were designed for a specific paradigm, not the kind of thing you'd use sockets for. Bidirectional pipe communication is clunky, to say the least.
I love video games, and I've played them since I was a kid. But most "real" games have two big problems:
1. You need to play for hours at a time in order to make any progress.
2. They're designed to be frustrating. Fight some boss or do some level, then die, then do it again, sometimes a dozen times or more. That's the whole point of these games, to force you to push yourself and bang your head against a wall in order to beat them.
Once I started seeing this pattern in "gamers" games, I got tired of them very quickly. I'm all for new experiences that aren't based upon time and frustration.
There's clearly a lot more to the cost of a product than the raw materials. Look at, oh, any video game or application software.
Atmosphere, art direction, and writing were all spot on. But none of them made any sense in what amounted to a generic shooter.
As much as I like action games, I got very annoyed with how the gameplay got in the way of the overall experience. It should have been an adventure game or something else with a slower pace, not hyper action shooter part 50.
I think the research is worth looking into, but this is exactly the wrong kind of post for Slashdot. It's the "everything you know is wrong" epiphany that geeks just love to latch onto (unless it's something about Linux being overrated or religion being good, in which case no one will buy it). Now we've got people with no clue at all, who have never run in their lives, vehemently putting down people who disagree with the article. Come on folks, no need to get all high on a quick snort of anti-establishmen views.
To some extent, the author is spinning the article in a certain direction. Of course people who are dedicated runners and buy expensive running shoes are going to have more injuries. They'd have more injuries if they ran barefoot, too.
Except a lot of people LIKE big games like Gears of War and Halo 3 and BioShock and Mass Effect and Dawn of War II, just as people like movies that cost, you know, lots of money to make.
I think you're severely underestimating what it takes to build a game. It's not like EA could just start making bubble-popping games and everyone would be happy. Anything with good art and good music and so on is not going to be cheap.