Question of the Day
When I was 10 years old, I got my first computer. It was a Mac Plus, and I used it mostly to play video games. There are some that I fell in love with and would love to play again. Alas, none of them are available to me in a usable form.
The Ancient Art of War (1984) by Brøderbund. This, and its sequel, The Ancient Art of War at Sea, were my introduction to strategy games. Troops consisted of armored knights, unarmored barbarians, and archers. There were forts where soldiers could get a defensive advantage and villages where they could get resupplied. Best of all, you could design your own scenarios in great detail.
Enchanted Scepters (1984) by Silicon Beach. This was a simple point-and-click adventure game about Saber, a hero who must retrieve four mystical scepters from distant lands in order to protect the kingdom from an invasion. Through great effort, I was able to get three of the scepters, but never the fourth.
Dark Castle (1986) by Silicon Beach and its sequel, Beyond Dark Castle, were arcade-style games about Duncan, a prince who must rescue his kingdom from the Black Knight. He enters the trap-filled castle of the Black Knight, defeats his minions, overcomes physical obstacles, and finally encounters the powerful game boss himself. I loved the challenge this game posed to my motor coordination skills.
Hidden Agenda (1988) by Springboard. You play the leader of an imaginary Central American nation called Chimerica in the 1980s. The country has just experienced a revolution and overthrown its US-friendly, but totalitarian government. Various factions are vying for power, and you're in the crossfire as El Presidente. Your goal is to stay in power for three years. This is exceptionally hard, as you face coups from within your government, right-wing and left-wing forces, and American and Soviet-backed agents. The key, I discovered, is to take as centrist a position as possible. The priest, for example, has big plans for the nation's agriculture. Make him Defense Minister. The ex-guerilla likewise has plans for the nation's military. Make him Agriculture Minister. Try to keep both the Americans and the Soviets happy -- or at least not furious at you.
Which old, lost games would you love to play again?
The Ancient Art of War (1984) by Brøderbund. This, and its sequel, The Ancient Art of War at Sea, were my introduction to strategy games. Troops consisted of armored knights, unarmored barbarians, and archers. There were forts where soldiers could get a defensive advantage and villages where they could get resupplied. Best of all, you could design your own scenarios in great detail.
Enchanted Scepters (1984) by Silicon Beach. This was a simple point-and-click adventure game about Saber, a hero who must retrieve four mystical scepters from distant lands in order to protect the kingdom from an invasion. Through great effort, I was able to get three of the scepters, but never the fourth.
Dark Castle (1986) by Silicon Beach and its sequel, Beyond Dark Castle, were arcade-style games about Duncan, a prince who must rescue his kingdom from the Black Knight. He enters the trap-filled castle of the Black Knight, defeats his minions, overcomes physical obstacles, and finally encounters the powerful game boss himself. I loved the challenge this game posed to my motor coordination skills.
Hidden Agenda (1988) by Springboard. You play the leader of an imaginary Central American nation called Chimerica in the 1980s. The country has just experienced a revolution and overthrown its US-friendly, but totalitarian government. Various factions are vying for power, and you're in the crossfire as El Presidente. Your goal is to stay in power for three years. This is exceptionally hard, as you face coups from within your government, right-wing and left-wing forces, and American and Soviet-backed agents. The key, I discovered, is to take as centrist a position as possible. The priest, for example, has big plans for the nation's agriculture. Make him Defense Minister. The ex-guerilla likewise has plans for the nation's military. Make him Agriculture Minister. Try to keep both the Americans and the Soviets happy -- or at least not furious at you.
Which old, lost games would you love to play again?
We hope you like this article!
Please help us grow by sharing:
Get Updates In Your Inbox
Free weekly emails, plus get access
to subscriber-only prizes.
We won't share your email. You can cancel at any time.
Comments (6)
For those of us with a disposable income, a simple sticker like this can remind us that material goods like these are a frivolous luxury. For those of us who cannot afford the hottest new gadgets on the market, we can smile to ourselves and need not covet.
Or not.
Very rarely have stickers of this ilk done anything but tick people off, if they meant this to have any actual effect on the average person.
There are better ways of getting the message out than defacing property, and if I paid for ad space, gods help the frakker I catch sticking one of those on it.
Having said that, I like the picture of the one pointing at Kathy Griffin.
People using these stickers are probably opposed to certain societal trends, not merely specific products. At best, it's preaching to the choir. To everyone else, the sticker applier is just some crank foisting his unwelcome opinion on people.
There are plenty of other ways to fight marketers. First and foremost, live what you preach. Your wallet is a ballot and companies listen to the voters. Don't buy their products.
If someone tries to strike up a conversation with you while wearing an earpod, ask them to remove it first because you consider it rude.
If you're very serious, picket the store. I doubt people who are anonymously plastering stickers have the courage of their convictions to picket a store though.
For what it's worth, I don't own an iPod or any hand-held music player (nor will I buy one for my kids). Becoming a father has taught me the difference between lip service (stickers) and walking the walk (teaching by example).
Oh, and AJ, give it up. You don't own an iPod, that's fine - but there's nothing wrong with owning one. No need to be smug about it. Personally, I enjoy listening to music. You're just Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694
If we don't already know we "don't need" the things in the ads....that's not something a sticker can change.
It's just his dumb way of trying to change society. Or something.
Seems a little hypocritical, a lot smug, attention-seeking desperate, douchebaggy, vandalist, ineffective.
People do this sort of thing to make themselves feel important. Just take a bath in your Burger King already, and get over it.
Buying what you do not need - huh?!
Are you the same people complaining about Gas prices???
We live in a very materialistic world, where useless products have taken over our lives, hoepfully this'll make people realise we don't need the latest gadget.
Anyway, these people are making millions, I'm hardly gonna feel an ounce of guilt for putting a sticker on one of their millions of adverts.
this is a simple but great idea :)
;)
.-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stickerking/sets/72157601707648957/
This guy (or group of wanna-be artists) has been plastering every light pole, newspaper box, mailbox and pretty much flat surface in a 30 mile radius lately.
Is this the new cool thing? They don't even have the talent of many graffiti artists, it's a joke.
It's my choice if I want to rent my retina out, not someone who decided they own my retinal space.
Advertisers are vandalising my retina with their ugly words and strange messages.
Can no one see the delicious irony in this?
Black hole implosion?
It's not only vandalism, it's self-promotion disguised as a movement, disguised as a message. It's not cool, kids. I don't care if your adhesive is green and doesn't leave a carbon footprint. It's wrong, and shame on those that support this kind of communication. If we were living in a perfect world...
Wow that was easy. and stupid.
I agree. I hate seeing ads everywhere I look and applaud anyone's attempt; lame, patronising, ineffectual and pointless to many that it may well be to reclaim just a little of my visual landscape from advertisers. I don't care how much they paid for that ad. Screw them.
The ads and windowspace may be an eyesore, but they're less of an eyesore than those stickers.
Also, as others have stated, it's vandalism. It doesn't matter how long it is up there, or how hard it is to remove.
From the middle of the baritone section, I don't buy that because companies have paid for advertising space they have a right to have their adverts completely unobstructed all the time. By that measure advertisers should apply for a partial refund and we'd all be fine again. They could set up cameras trained on every billboard in the world and corporations accounts with the billboard owners could be credited every time anyone stands in front of their poster.
Advertising exists to get us to buy stuff we don't need. If we needed it we would find it ourselves. We are now confronted with a wall of unwanted commercial messages in most towns and cities. All this redundant junk costs money and resources to produce. Perhaps it could be better employed elsewhere?
I applaud this effort. In fact, I'm gonna get me some stickers!
I applaud this effort. In fact, I'm going to get some paper bags!
******
What kind of bubble to you live in to think the world around you exists for your personal visual satisfaction? If all people are equal, then they have equal rights to purchase space and use it as they please. Even for advertisement. You're no better than them -- how dare you dictate what they do with their own property? If they tried to control *your* property, you'd be up in arms. A double standard if ever there was one.
To all you people defending the companies 'rights', maybe you should look at what crimes these companies have committed. Sweatshops, false advertising, environmental destruction... I only support the rights of non-criminal enterprises.
Regardless of the truth (or relevance) of the parasitic message, the basic issue here is property rights, not what the ad says. You want to tell people they don't need stuff? Fine. Buy an ad.
This sticker is just more garbage.