Comment Re:And it went a little something like this: (Score 1) 234
Oh, sorry, that's my responsible this. I'll keep a better watch on it next time.
Bach is shit. I'm more of a Beethoven guy myself. Classical is better than baroque.
And while you do have a point that The Beatles are receiving less exposure these days due to the fact that they're not on Spotify/iTunes/whatever I just have to make the point that I don't really think they need much more exposure. They're The Beatles.
I'm kind of sick of this argument. I'm 20 and absolutely love The Beatles. They're my third most-played on last.fm and I spent the $250 recently to buy the full set of Beatles: Rock Band equipment. Not only that, almost all of my friends love them just as much as I do. That said, I do know people who don't like them. There's probably some sample bias in here, but in general I've found that the majority of people my age at least know who The Beatles are and know a few songs, even if they don't particularly like them.
I'm going to assume (actually, I'm certain based on how low your UID is) that you're a good deal older than me, and probably not really in contact with people my age. But believe me when I say that people my age do know and love The Beatles and many other older bands that you might think have disappeared. Hell, the music that my first girlfriend and I listened to the most was 1920s big band jazz. How often do you listen to music that old?
Actually, I've seen the idea of doing something like this with movies before here on Slashdot, and thought it was a clever way to try to pinpoint the location of leaks. Say the main character in a movie drinks a soda at some point. Have the can that he actually lifts up to his mouth be blue, and then edit it to be a Coke or Pepsi in two different versions of the final reel. Repeat this with, say, 16 different unimportant changes and you've managed to encode your movie with a 16-bit pattern that unambiguously identifies each one of the original reels. Now when your movie leaks before release date, you go and download the copy, watch it, and figure out where the leak came from. I think that just so long as nothing significant was changed nobody would mind too much.
Fallout 3 definitely worked better than Oblivion. In FO3, Bethesda basically set up zones around the game world, where each zone had a level range (say, 8-12). If you were beneath the range, the level of the area was the minimum of the zone. If you were above, the level was the maximum. If you were inside the range, your level was the zone's level. Not only that, once you reached a zone its level was locked for the rest of the game. This does mean that you can cheat the game and do early runs to minimize levels, but at least it's better how in Oblivion everything was always autoscaling to your level.
Where Bethesda really messed up, though, was that they don't know how to do difficulty. I bought Broken Steel and Operation: Anchorage, got the best power armor in the game (Winterized T-51b) and leveled up to 22. Then I bought Point Lookout, grabbed my plasma rifle, tri-beam laser rifle, minigun, rocket launcher, and gatling laser and went to explore the new area. Cue me getting my ass handed to me by unarmored tribals. Why? Because Bethesda saw fit to outfit them with 35 points unresistable damage per hit. This is bad design. I certainly understand that if I had gone at, say, level 3, I should have died. A game that does level scaling needs to preserve the feelings of the dangers of early levels (which FO3 did beautifully) while providing players with a sense of accomplishment (which FO3 sucked at). FWIW, it's not just Point Lookout that sucked at that. Your first trip to downtown DC sees a bunch of super mutants kicking your ass. Your later trips see you mowing down super mutants but getting killed by super mutant masters. And never, ever go back once you play Broken Steel. Super mutant overlords are worse than tribals.
If a thing's worth having, it's worth cheating for. -- W.C. Fields
