I like & Play online games . Mostly I like Shooting Games in online games > and you ????
"Foldit" is an online game that is full of puzzles (for smart or creative people). The solutions to the puzzles are submitted and used to advance biological research.
If you like puzzle games, Foldit is worth your time. Not only is it challenging, but it makes humanity better, too.
http://fold.it/portal/
If you like puzzle games, Foldit is worth your time. Not only is it challenging, but it makes humanity better, too.
http://fold.it/portal/
QUOTE (ryandonald+Jan 6 2012, 07:28 AM)
I like & Play online games . Mostly I like Shooting Games in online games > and you ????
yes no body play shooting in games dude all body like ..............
yes no body play shooting in games dude all body like ..............
battlefield 3 is where its at at the moment
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Jan 6 2012, 05:05 PM)
"Foldit" is an online game that is full of puzzles (for smart or creative people). The solutions to the puzzles are submitted and used to advance biological research.
If you like puzzle games, Foldit is worth your time. Not only is it challenging, but it makes humanity better, too.
http://fold.it/portal/
yes...i fully agree that..Foldit is worth playing game...and checks one's creativity.. patience...nd concentration...
If you like puzzle games, Foldit is worth your time. Not only is it challenging, but it makes humanity better, too.
http://fold.it/portal/
yes...i fully agree that..Foldit is worth playing game...and checks one's creativity.. patience...nd concentration...
I have never tried it.
I am a big fan of game. so many game i have played online. but mu most favorite games are
blackjack
keno
slots
blackjack
keno
slots
I like Real Time Strategy, but my concentration and multi-tasking is getting far too weak to pay it any more at a competitive level.
In terms of strategy and theory, I understand the game at near grand master level.
But in terms of concentration, multi-tasking and just reaction speed I am getting worse and worse and play like a bronze noob. So my ranking is top of platinum in the dead center, I guess.
Although I am undefeated all time in Free for All, and win most of them effortlessly and embarrass the other players, because FFA is more about manipulation of the mind and slowing down the game and grinding with everyone, which almost nobody else realizes how to do properly.
Not even Grand Master 1v1 players know how to play FFA properly. They play hyper aggressive and too much micro, and screw themselves over. If you ever watch an 8 player Grand Master FFA, they look like random first game noobs in terms of strategy, in spite of having 4 or 5 times my Actions per Minute. They over extend themselves in the first few minutes of the game, and get crushed by a third party, etc.
Other than that, I'm very "retro" and prefer single player RPGs or first person shooters. I used to be very good at them, but not any more. Too old for it I guess.
I haven't played FPS in a very long time. Usually what happens is there are two people in a game who are head and shoulders above everyone else in skill, and they pretty much just concentrate on fighting one another; dodging the other guys attacks requires relatively no skill, since if you dodge the better attacker, you will usually be dodging the less skilled attacker automatically, and you can typically get a "side not kill" on the inferior opponents without any real effort, while dodging and fighting the best opponent.
These games get old after a while, because when you play them at a high skill level the kill count will be pretty much an 80/20 rule. The top two players are playing 1vs1 with some guests interfering, and it's a race to see who gets the most side note kills in the process.
* the Starcraft APM counter and other systems is one way I know objectively that my concentration and multi-tasking has come down by as much as 50% in the past several years, and has always been below average, at least among Starcraft players, even lower than many opponents I beat, but I beat people on timing, build order, or technical understanding; but that's not good enough when some people have so much faster reaction speed, micro, and multitasking, because they can beat you on pure activity, even with inferior theory or understanding.
In terms of strategy and theory, I understand the game at near grand master level.
But in terms of concentration, multi-tasking and just reaction speed I am getting worse and worse and play like a bronze noob. So my ranking is top of platinum in the dead center, I guess.
Although I am undefeated all time in Free for All, and win most of them effortlessly and embarrass the other players, because FFA is more about manipulation of the mind and slowing down the game and grinding with everyone, which almost nobody else realizes how to do properly.
Not even Grand Master 1v1 players know how to play FFA properly. They play hyper aggressive and too much micro, and screw themselves over. If you ever watch an 8 player Grand Master FFA, they look like random first game noobs in terms of strategy, in spite of having 4 or 5 times my Actions per Minute. They over extend themselves in the first few minutes of the game, and get crushed by a third party, etc.
Other than that, I'm very "retro" and prefer single player RPGs or first person shooters. I used to be very good at them, but not any more. Too old for it I guess.
I haven't played FPS in a very long time. Usually what happens is there are two people in a game who are head and shoulders above everyone else in skill, and they pretty much just concentrate on fighting one another; dodging the other guys attacks requires relatively no skill, since if you dodge the better attacker, you will usually be dodging the less skilled attacker automatically, and you can typically get a "side not kill" on the inferior opponents without any real effort, while dodging and fighting the best opponent.
These games get old after a while, because when you play them at a high skill level the kill count will be pretty much an 80/20 rule. The top two players are playing 1vs1 with some guests interfering, and it's a race to see who gets the most side note kills in the process.
* the Starcraft APM counter and other systems is one way I know objectively that my concentration and multi-tasking has come down by as much as 50% in the past several years, and has always been below average, at least among Starcraft players, even lower than many opponents I beat, but I beat people on timing, build order, or technical understanding; but that's not good enough when some people have so much faster reaction speed, micro, and multitasking, because they can beat you on pure activity, even with inferior theory or understanding.
One thing I can say about Starcraft 2 is that in Protoss mirror match, do NOT expand. At least between platinum level up to at least mid diamond level, the vast majority of the time whoever attempts to expand first dies.
The protoss mirror became my best matchup, in which I was nearly undefeated even against players a league above me, because of my strategy of keeping the game small, and crushing the opponent with a certain build order trick and timing push.
I had gotten in an argument with a guy in a 2vs 3 computers game where he got pissed off at me and claimed I didn't know how to play protoss. So I sort of complained at him too, and we challenged one another to protoss mirror.
To make a long story short, I crushed him on my first wave in the challenge match. He had attempted a 4 sentry harrass drop in my main while my first wave was moving out, but there was no way for him to stop what I had; stalkers, zealots, and 3 immortals. I demolished his army and most of his main with my first wave, and even though I lost my probes to his harrass, I killed off the sentries, and he types "You are the better protoss".
His APM was at least two or three times higher than mine, but I beat him on understanding; both technical, intuitive, and experiencial.
Unfortunately, I can't play with or against Zerg for anything in SC2, in part because there is just too darn much multitasking and micro management involved in the games.
The protoss mirror became my best matchup, in which I was nearly undefeated even against players a league above me, because of my strategy of keeping the game small, and crushing the opponent with a certain build order trick and timing push.
I had gotten in an argument with a guy in a 2vs 3 computers game where he got pissed off at me and claimed I didn't know how to play protoss. So I sort of complained at him too, and we challenged one another to protoss mirror.
To make a long story short, I crushed him on my first wave in the challenge match. He had attempted a 4 sentry harrass drop in my main while my first wave was moving out, but there was no way for him to stop what I had; stalkers, zealots, and 3 immortals. I demolished his army and most of his main with my first wave, and even though I lost my probes to his harrass, I killed off the sentries, and he types "You are the better protoss".
His APM was at least two or three times higher than mine, but I beat him on understanding; both technical, intuitive, and experiencial.
Unfortunately, I can't play with or against Zerg for anything in SC2, in part because there is just too darn much multitasking and micro management involved in the games.
I usually prefer bigger-scale RTS games like Rise of Nations or Age orf Empires. I'm trying to get into Total War, but it's not easy to figure out.
FPS-wise, I play mostly Day of Defeat and TF2.
FPS-wise, I play mostly Day of Defeat and TF2.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 26 2012, 01:46 PM)
I usually prefer bigger-scale RTS games like Rise of Nations or Age orf Empires. I'm trying to get into Total War, but it's not easy to figure out.
FPS-wise, I play mostly Day of Defeat and TF2.
I played Age of Empires 2 a few times, and played Age of Empires 3 to completion.
The games tend to be longer, at least against the computer, because the tech tree and economy is a bit bigger to develop.
In Age of Empires 3, the mounted archers from the Native American mercenary camps are broken. They are the best generalist unit ever, and beat almost anything cost for cost with a bit of micro and positional play. You can probably win a lot of 1vs1 games against humans by fast tech and hiring them. I know I won the only game I played online so easily it was a joke like that, but I felt dirty, because it's so good it's almost cheating.
The campaign was ok, I guess, and actually had a couple difficult missions, at least on max difficulty.
In regular games against the computer 1vs1 it's pretty hard to beat max difficulty in Age of Empires, because the terrain is less abusive than in starcraft, and to win you have to literally out macro and out micro the computer, on what amounts to open terrain many times. Honestly, I don't know if I've ever won it before. I know I won the second highest difficulty, many times, and it requires passive/aggressive play, and turtling key points like mad, and can take a couple hours to win one game, depending on map.
I doubt the majority of players have ever won above the middle difficulty against the computer.
Player vs player is different. You can finish somebody off in one attack if you micro properly and tower rush with mounted archer support. Even the computer can't stop that most of the time, but players screw up even worse.
In contrast, in Starcraft because micro, position, and terrain make so much a difference, I can crush the second highest difficulty level (highest that doesn't cheat,) Zerg computer; handicapping myself to using just exactly one of each unit as Terran or Protoss, and it only takes about 15 to 20 minutes to wear it down like that. My 8 to 10 units will have like 20 to 60 kills each vs the enemy...
Now the highest difficulty, insane, cheats on money, and if you intend to win that you will be in for a very long positional game, and probably on mad defense the entire time. It is winnable, but it usually will not be short.
If you can beat the Protoss Insane computer in a mirror match, in a "standard" game without using a hyper-aggressive cannon rush, then you are starting to get very good, because the computer's "standard" build is very solid, and it's cheating, and Protoss vs Protoss is the most "honest" matchup, because they get in the enemy's face and slug it out; big units vs big units. Beating the cheating insane computer in that contest is very, very hard...
FPS-wise, I play mostly Day of Defeat and TF2.
I played Age of Empires 2 a few times, and played Age of Empires 3 to completion.
The games tend to be longer, at least against the computer, because the tech tree and economy is a bit bigger to develop.
In Age of Empires 3, the mounted archers from the Native American mercenary camps are broken. They are the best generalist unit ever, and beat almost anything cost for cost with a bit of micro and positional play. You can probably win a lot of 1vs1 games against humans by fast tech and hiring them. I know I won the only game I played online so easily it was a joke like that, but I felt dirty, because it's so good it's almost cheating.
The campaign was ok, I guess, and actually had a couple difficult missions, at least on max difficulty.
In regular games against the computer 1vs1 it's pretty hard to beat max difficulty in Age of Empires, because the terrain is less abusive than in starcraft, and to win you have to literally out macro and out micro the computer, on what amounts to open terrain many times. Honestly, I don't know if I've ever won it before. I know I won the second highest difficulty, many times, and it requires passive/aggressive play, and turtling key points like mad, and can take a couple hours to win one game, depending on map.
I doubt the majority of players have ever won above the middle difficulty against the computer.
Player vs player is different. You can finish somebody off in one attack if you micro properly and tower rush with mounted archer support. Even the computer can't stop that most of the time, but players screw up even worse.
In contrast, in Starcraft because micro, position, and terrain make so much a difference, I can crush the second highest difficulty level (highest that doesn't cheat,) Zerg computer; handicapping myself to using just exactly one of each unit as Terran or Protoss, and it only takes about 15 to 20 minutes to wear it down like that. My 8 to 10 units will have like 20 to 60 kills each vs the enemy...
Now the highest difficulty, insane, cheats on money, and if you intend to win that you will be in for a very long positional game, and probably on mad defense the entire time. It is winnable, but it usually will not be short.
If you can beat the Protoss Insane computer in a mirror match, in a "standard" game without using a hyper-aggressive cannon rush, then you are starting to get very good, because the computer's "standard" build is very solid, and it's cheating, and Protoss vs Protoss is the most "honest" matchup, because they get in the enemy's face and slug it out; big units vs big units. Beating the cheating insane computer in that contest is very, very hard...
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+May 26 2012, 11:03 PM)
In Age of Empires 3, the mounted archers from the Native American mercenary camps are broken. They are the best generalist unit ever, and beat almost anything cost for cost with a bit of micro and positional play. You can probably win a lot of 1vs1 games against humans by fast tech and hiring them. I know I won the only game I played online so easily it was a joke like that, but I felt dirty, because it's so good it's almost cheating.
Mounted archers are cheap and effective? No wonder the Mongolians conquered most of the world!
Mounted archers are cheap and effective? No wonder the Mongolians conquered most of the world!
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 26 2012, 10:10 PM)
Mounted archers are cheap and effective? No wonder the Mongolians conquered most of the world!
Yeah, but in RTS mechanics it's laughable how good they are sometimes.
You can pick off like half the enemy workers before they even realize their being attacked, and then when their army shows up, you can hit and run and wipe them out too....meanwhile you're planting a tower on the other side of their base and taking map...
Yeah, but in RTS mechanics it's laughable how good they are sometimes.
You can pick off like half the enemy workers before they even realize their being attacked, and then when their army shows up, you can hit and run and wipe them out too....meanwhile you're planting a tower on the other side of their base and taking map...
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+May 26 2012, 11:22 PM)
You can pick off like half the enemy workers before they even realize their being attacked, and then when their army shows up, you can hit and run and wipe them out too....meanwhile you're planting a tower on the other side of their base and taking map...
That's pretty much exactly what the Mongols did, minus the tower-building part.
That's pretty much exactly what the Mongols did, minus the tower-building part.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 26 2012, 10:36 PM)
That's pretty much exactly what the Mongols did, minus the tower-building part.
Well, that's how every game of starcraft plays, at least in the cross-race matchups, so Starcraft tactics and strategy translate well and are brutally devastating in AoE 3.
Playing protoss vs Zerg or Terran vs Zerg in Starcraft 2, against human players, is like trying to play two games of AoE 3 AND a FPS simultaneously.
The cross race unit matchups have sickeningly devastating attacks which in some cases one or two units can wipe out half or more of your entire army, or your worker line, in the blink of an eye. this is where reaction time and multi-tasking kills me, because I just can't keep my macro going while keeping an active scan for cheap baneling busts or Infestor trickery. Plus, because of less brutal terrain in SC2 compared to broodwar, it is harder to recover from a mistake. By the time you get to top of platinum, the skill gap is enough that losing half an army, or half a base worth of workers is usually impossible to recover.
Now protoss vs protoss is often a free win for me, because there is very little multi-tasking until really mid or late game, but I usually win the game in early game, before first expand completes. I time my attack so the other guy's expand finishes, but he hasn't got a benefit from it yet, and crush him immediately. I've only had two or three times where someone survived long enough to force me to have to expand in order to win.
Now protoss vs Terran is the most dynamic matchup, because Terran tech tree has so many early and mid game options. It's not as micro-intensive as the zerg matchups in early and mid game, but then late game it becomes micro intensive because the protoss needs to mass colossi and high templars(spell casters) and the Terran will mass medivacs and Ghosts(destroys about half of protoss shields in one hit). So neither side can afford to let their army get hit by the other side's spell casters. And then you use colossi for the protoss, or tanks for the terran, to deny position and try to FORCE the opponent into accidentally stepping into a spell cast.
But the terran can do so many options early. They can just try to mass pure marines and rush you, which is often effective, or they can go for fast reapers, which is devasting if you don't go for fast stalkers, so much so that going fast stalkers is almost an absolute requirement for the protoss, just because the Terran "might" make a reaper or two...or the T can do 1/1/1 and go fast banshee ( a cloaked air unit) and those are insane hard to deal with too if the Terran knows how to hit and run and do circle strafing with them, because you need mobile range, detection, and really two prongs to contain just one Banshee and keep it from murdering your probes. Average Banshee gets like 10 probe kills in it's lifetime, and can easily get 20 or 30 if the Protoss screws up...
It's a very, very complicated matchup sometimes...
Well, that's how every game of starcraft plays, at least in the cross-race matchups, so Starcraft tactics and strategy translate well and are brutally devastating in AoE 3.
Playing protoss vs Zerg or Terran vs Zerg in Starcraft 2, against human players, is like trying to play two games of AoE 3 AND a FPS simultaneously.
The cross race unit matchups have sickeningly devastating attacks which in some cases one or two units can wipe out half or more of your entire army, or your worker line, in the blink of an eye. this is where reaction time and multi-tasking kills me, because I just can't keep my macro going while keeping an active scan for cheap baneling busts or Infestor trickery. Plus, because of less brutal terrain in SC2 compared to broodwar, it is harder to recover from a mistake. By the time you get to top of platinum, the skill gap is enough that losing half an army, or half a base worth of workers is usually impossible to recover.
Now protoss vs protoss is often a free win for me, because there is very little multi-tasking until really mid or late game, but I usually win the game in early game, before first expand completes. I time my attack so the other guy's expand finishes, but he hasn't got a benefit from it yet, and crush him immediately. I've only had two or three times where someone survived long enough to force me to have to expand in order to win.
Now protoss vs Terran is the most dynamic matchup, because Terran tech tree has so many early and mid game options. It's not as micro-intensive as the zerg matchups in early and mid game, but then late game it becomes micro intensive because the protoss needs to mass colossi and high templars(spell casters) and the Terran will mass medivacs and Ghosts(destroys about half of protoss shields in one hit). So neither side can afford to let their army get hit by the other side's spell casters. And then you use colossi for the protoss, or tanks for the terran, to deny position and try to FORCE the opponent into accidentally stepping into a spell cast.
But the terran can do so many options early. They can just try to mass pure marines and rush you, which is often effective, or they can go for fast reapers, which is devasting if you don't go for fast stalkers, so much so that going fast stalkers is almost an absolute requirement for the protoss, just because the Terran "might" make a reaper or two...or the T can do 1/1/1 and go fast banshee ( a cloaked air unit) and those are insane hard to deal with too if the Terran knows how to hit and run and do circle strafing with them, because you need mobile range, detection, and really two prongs to contain just one Banshee and keep it from murdering your probes. Average Banshee gets like 10 probe kills in it's lifetime, and can easily get 20 or 30 if the Protoss screws up...
It's a very, very complicated matchup sometimes...
Video Games Depict Religion as Violent, Problematized, Study Shows
QUOTE
In the past few years, the video game industry has grown from a niche market into a major part of mainstream media. This increase in popularity and use of technology has allowed video game developers to insert more detail and nuance into the storylines of their games. Many video games have begun incorporating religion as a key aspect to plot points and story lines. Greg Perreault, a doctoral student in the University of Missouri School of Journalism, found that the many newer-generation video games equate religion with violence in the game narratives.
Perreault examined five recent video games that incorporate religion heavily into the storyline. The video games he studied were "Mass Effect 2," "Final Fantasy 13," "Assassin's Creed," "Castlevania: Lords of Shadow" and "Elder Scrolls: Oblivion." Perreault found that all of these video games problematize religion by closely tying it in with violence.
"In most of these games there was a heavy emphasis on a "Knights Templar" and crusader motifs," Perreault said. "Not only was the violent side of religion emphasized, but in each of these games religion created a of problem that the main character must overcome, whether it is a direct confrontation with religious zealots or being haunted by religious guilt."
While Perreault observed a relationship between violence and video games, he does not believe video game developers are creating an intentional commentary on religion.
"It doesn't appear that game developers are trying to purposefully bash organized religion in these games," Perreault said. "I believe they are only using religion to create stimulating plot points in their story lines. If you look at video games across the board, most of them involve violence in some fashion because violence is conflict and conflict is exciting. Religion appears to get tied in with violence because that makes for a compelling narrative."
Perreault presented his findings at the Center for Media Religion and Culture Conference on Digital Religion.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/...20227132833.htm
Perreault examined five recent video games that incorporate religion heavily into the storyline. The video games he studied were "Mass Effect 2," "Final Fantasy 13," "Assassin's Creed," "Castlevania: Lords of Shadow" and "Elder Scrolls: Oblivion." Perreault found that all of these video games problematize religion by closely tying it in with violence.
"In most of these games there was a heavy emphasis on a "Knights Templar" and crusader motifs," Perreault said. "Not only was the violent side of religion emphasized, but in each of these games religion created a of problem that the main character must overcome, whether it is a direct confrontation with religious zealots or being haunted by religious guilt."
While Perreault observed a relationship between violence and video games, he does not believe video game developers are creating an intentional commentary on religion.
"It doesn't appear that game developers are trying to purposefully bash organized religion in these games," Perreault said. "I believe they are only using religion to create stimulating plot points in their story lines. If you look at video games across the board, most of them involve violence in some fashion because violence is conflict and conflict is exciting. Religion appears to get tied in with violence because that makes for a compelling narrative."
Perreault presented his findings at the Center for Media Religion and Culture Conference on Digital Religion.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/...20227132833.htm
Inexperienced Video Gamers Show Macbeth Effect
QUOTE
Current research from the University of Luxembourg, found that when participants were asked to select gift products after they had played a violent video game, inexperienced players selected more hygienic products, such as shower gel, toothpaste and deodorant, compared to those who played violent video games more often. Inexperienced players also felt higher moral distress from playing violent games.
"Out, damned spot," from Shakespeare's Macbeth, resonates with these recent findings which link cleanliness and morality in violent video games. Dr. André Melzer, along with Dr. Mario Gollwitzer, Philipps-University Marburg, examined 76 participants following 15 minutes of violent video game play. "The need to cleanse to keep moral purity intact, the Macbeth effect, is a psychological phenomenon in which a person attempts to purify oneself in order to cope with feelings of moral distress," describes Melzer. "We find that the Macbeth effect can result from playing violent video games, especially when the game involves violence against humans." Melzer also stresses that experienced gamers seem to use different strategies to cope with violence in games.
Future studies aimed at bridging moral psychology and the effects of violent media, will help to reveal how the long term exposure to violent media negatively affects attitudes towards aggression.
Dr. André Melzer will present his research findings at the International Society for Research on Aggression (ISRA) World Meeting 2012 at the University of Luxembourg, and study findings will be published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
What are the factors that lead to aggression? Is aggression genetic? Do hormones, family dynamics or violent video games play a role? On 17 to 21 July, members of ISRA, will meet to discuss the latest research findings in all facets of aggression, from violence in the media, to the impacts of violent video games, to cyber bullying, alcohol-related aggression, violence towards the police, and more.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/...20712092441.htm
"Out, damned spot," from Shakespeare's Macbeth, resonates with these recent findings which link cleanliness and morality in violent video games. Dr. André Melzer, along with Dr. Mario Gollwitzer, Philipps-University Marburg, examined 76 participants following 15 minutes of violent video game play. "The need to cleanse to keep moral purity intact, the Macbeth effect, is a psychological phenomenon in which a person attempts to purify oneself in order to cope with feelings of moral distress," describes Melzer. "We find that the Macbeth effect can result from playing violent video games, especially when the game involves violence against humans." Melzer also stresses that experienced gamers seem to use different strategies to cope with violence in games.
Future studies aimed at bridging moral psychology and the effects of violent media, will help to reveal how the long term exposure to violent media negatively affects attitudes towards aggression.
Dr. André Melzer will present his research findings at the International Society for Research on Aggression (ISRA) World Meeting 2012 at the University of Luxembourg, and study findings will be published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
What are the factors that lead to aggression? Is aggression genetic? Do hormones, family dynamics or violent video games play a role? On 17 to 21 July, members of ISRA, will meet to discuss the latest research findings in all facets of aggression, from violence in the media, to the impacts of violent video games, to cyber bullying, alcohol-related aggression, violence towards the police, and more.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/...20712092441.htm
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.