I never said it was distributive! I merely said that if you're running a single subroutine multiple times, and the subroutine can be simplified to O(1), then the larger algorithm that calls it multiple times becomes the actual problem space, the actual algorithmic complexity. I never insinuated that you could compare multiple different sets of algorithms run different amount of times! That's completely different!
It sounds like you're worrying about the environment handling all those "instances". That's really more of a space problem, so comparing it to big-O is entirely apples and oranges and is nonsensical. If you want to say that space more than time is a factor in some programs, and may choose taking one over another, then that may be fair, but I feel like you're going to have to get very machine specific. I guess you're against Java and you're concerned that it won't be able to handle your "bizillion" instances versus C, but it'd have to be a pretty special case. Even then, there are solutions in Java...
Agreed. Having stream insertion and bit shifting operations near each other is ugly as hell. I like having the freedom to define crazy operator overloads if I want to in custom classes, but it almost always ends up being a mistake in the long run. So while I complained at first, I'm actually glad Java doesn't let you, and I think C# only lets you overload the more basic operators. Its too easy to forget what exactly + one class does versus / another class.
Having access to sorting libraries or existing code libraries isn't really a feature of a high level language. Low level languages can have a sort library too. You don't need OOP for that. You could have a GOTO SORT or whatever.
But I agree on your analysis that real world value matters.
If you've got a bizillion instances, then that is your n. If you've got a problem O(1) and you've got to run it n times, that O(n). Just because its parallel doesn't change the algorithm complexity.
Almost all Windows AAA games are written in C++.
Fixed that for you.
First, they're mostly written in C++ because you don't prematurely optimize. Its the root of all evil, as Knuth said.
Then, you go back, and you find your extremely critical sections, your bottlenecks, and THOSE you write specific libraries in C to optimize. But even then, lots of your work is going to be done by existing windows or directx libraries. Those DirectX libraries are written in C, sure, as are drivers... but that amounts to a pretty TINY amount of code.
If anything, we're moving the other direction, even in mainstream games. Games like Rage, which while running in an engine of C++, have scripting languages running ON TOP of them. Those scripting languages are FAAAAR less efficient than compiled OOP C++, so if that was such a concern, why would they use scripting languages?
Because for your non-bottlenecks, IT DOES NOT MATTER. Most of the game development just needs to get done as fast as possible, with as little effort as possible, and more and more major game developers are turning to inefficient scripting engines to handle the actual game logic. They only do the absolute bare minimum in hard C.
So, yeah. C++ is backwards compatible with C, but if you're writing C code in C++, you're almost 100% guaranteed to be doing it wrong. Backwards compatible doesn't mean equivalence.
Thats fair, but the point was I reject his argument that it can't be done in java, or that it will be godawful in java. It has its limitations, but Minecraft runs just fine, and has redstone circuits, so his comment comes down to just general java-bashing without any real evidence or expertise.
Man, Java isn't my favorite language in the world, but you really need to get over yourself. Notch can make whatever games he cares about, and you're free not to play them if you don't like the engine. Programming is WORK, and if he's putting it in, he can decide what language he wants to work in. If he thinks that being able to run it on any device without recompiling and targeting a separate architecture is worth the performance problems (and these days you can get away with quite a lot) and limitations, then thats his call. No, he can't do the sort of state-of-the-art efficiency that Frostbite 2 engine can pull off, but Notch isn't interested in that, and he doesn't have a big enough team to try to do that, and again, he can do whatever the fuck he wants. You're free to ignore it, but we don't need to hear your "AGH, JAVA!" moans over and over. "Java sucks" isn't really a joke anymore, java is what java is. Use it for what you will. Its one tool of many.
I can only imagine how godawful this would be if written in Java. Minecraft was bad enough on that front. I don't want to know what an emulated CPU would do in a JVM...
You mean like redstone computers that ALREADY EXIST? There's plenty of turing-complete implementations. And notch wasn't even TRYING to do that with minecraft. So please eat your words, immediately.
You're just showing how ignorant you are about software languages.
Agreed. But it matters little in the light of the law. You don't have to be ordered not to break the law for it to be illegal to do so. Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse.
Can a 9-1-1 operator give you an order? No.
Can a citizen give another citizen an order? No.
If a citizen tells you not to do something, because its stupid, dangerous, and illegal, should you do it? NO!
Does it give you an excuse to do something because somebody didn't ORDER you NOT to? No, absolutely not. You are responsible for your actions.
It doesn't matter if it was an order or not.
Its no different from telling my friend "hey, you can't do that, its illegal" and then he does it, and gets arrested. "But you can't order me!!!"
It SERIOUSLY depends upon what questions you ask, and your tone and how you look when you ask them.
Somebody comes up to me and asks the time, smiling? Sure, thats fine, non-confrontational.
Somebody gets out of his car, looks me straight in the eye, comes running towards me, saying "hey, you! Come here!", that's sure pretty confrontational. I'm pretty sure I'd try to run.
The details are EXTREMELY important. Again, like so many others:
I'm not saying he's guilty. Innocent until proven in a court of law.
Just saying: There is NO REASON he shouldn't currently be in jail awaiting a trial by grand jury to see if there is enough evidence to hear him for aggravated manslaughter of a child. This is an extremely serious case, and there is MORE than enough doubt to charge him. We know he killed Trayvon, he admits it. There should be no doubt that an investigation of self-defense is necessary.
Its applied science. The software, the formulas, the theories, are all very scientific, and have been studied and verified in peer-reviewed journals.
The actual end product software is not, and the application to every single case is not. This is how the real world works, with anything.
By your definition, engineering isn't science, nor is most "science". You're being too picky about research and verification. All the scientific theories at play here have long since been verified.
Do you expect the phone company to hang up and dial you back to double-check that the concept of voice transmission is consistent? No. We've proved that. We've moved on. You want to research it, you can, but when it comes to the practical application of things that have been verified, you're mixing things up.
When the police asked him to not follow the person, they asked out of an interest for his safety, not because it was illegal for him to do so.
This, so much that it bears repeating: When the police asked him to not follow the person, they asked out of an interest for his safety, not because it was illegal for him to do so.
Most likely what happened is, this poor kid got scared and tried to defend himself and then the guy got scared and tried to defend himself. Since only one of them was carrying a gun and trigger happy, we all know how that worked out.
The problem was that, while Zimmerman's idea of "got scared" was to dial 911 and follow at a safe distance, the kid's idea of "got scared" was call your girlfriend and then give this white dude a beat-down to teach him a lesson. We all know how that worked out.
THIS is EXACTLY why they actually DO NOT want you to follow someone and start a confrontation when you are not a police officer: YOU ARE NOT TRAINED. You are just as likely to make the situation FAR, FAR WORSE than to improve it. If only for EXACTLY the reason you specified, that both people might freak out, and defend themselves and somebody might get hurt.
The whole point is that the law defends you from defending yourself. You don't have to try to run away. But NO law, NOWHERE, says that citizens are allowed to go vigilante and track down suspects. That isn't what the neighborhood watch was EVER intended for.
Agreed. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, that is one of our main tenants.
But what we all want to know is, how is it he hasn't been ARRESTED YET? He should be in jail, RIGHT NOW, awaiting a hearing on charges of aggravated manslaughter of a child.
The 9-1-1 operator told him not to follow after Trayvon, but he did anyways. This seems like it would have to be some form of negligent homicide if nothing else.
But the problem is the math is natural, it is INHERENT to the world we exist in. You're not inventing something, you're just discovering what always was, what is out there waiting for us.
There's a very good reason why you can't patent math: It wouldn't work. Imagine if somebody had patented the Pythagorean Theorem. Anybody who wanted to use it would have to pay. You couldn't NOT use it, because it is FUNDAMENTAL to mathematics and the universe and further mathematics. You can't develop the rest of geometry, calculus, diffeq, etc. without it. You simply CAN'T. Patenting it STOPS all development and gives a monopoly to all future math to whoever got there first. And they don't even HAVE to let you licence their patent, they're free to sit on it and now THEY ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN WORK ON NEW MATHEMATICS. That would hold us back technologically for thousands and thousands of years. Math and Science REQUIRE a large community of peer-review and collaboration and oversight. No one man could ever invent all the modern mathematics. we have now.
Math CANNOT be patented. And therefor, Software CANNOT be allowed to either. Software is a form of math.
Sorry, NASA, you can't send rockets to space because all the functions and algorithms you'd need have been patented.
See, that doesn't work.
Patents should only be allowed for a unique creation, something that was your igenuity. Math is never that, math and science are our slowly increasing understanding of the existing natural world. "Discovering" Newton's Laws is not your own creation, its your insight to the universe.
I'm an Atheist personally, but if you're a Theist, I'd say God has prior art on all Math and Science.:P Un-patent-able!
Someone came out with an interpreter that could convert any program in a certain language to Lambda Calculus. That language is turing-complete, so any software could be implemented in it, any algorithm. That means that ALL algorithms are equivalent to lambda calculus. That means all software is math. Math isn't patent-able. QED.
Because software is, ultimately, math. And math isn't patentable. Why is math so special? Because it is already existent in the world, it isn't an innovation you create but rather the patterns and algorithms of nature.
Just another case of why software shouldn't be patent-able. Copyright does everything you'd ever need from a patent. Patents on software are just government sponsored monopolies, and directly HARM innovation, instead of protecting it.
Oh man, where was the news story when these were still for sale?! $200 for a blade server doesn't sound bad, but then you look at the work they did with the paneling and the plaque and this thing looks like a pretty sweet piece. Practically belongs in a museum! $200 seems like a steal.
Did you mean to say "Halo" ? (taking a guess, since you mentioned Bungie). Kinda left out the most important part of your post, sir.
And I said "This year". There are plenty of examples of split-screen games, especially on older consoles before live. Xbox had lots of them, N64 had lots of them, etc. It wasn't until late xbox early 360 generation that internet became ubiquitous for consoles. Halo didn't come out this year, unless you mean the remake of Halo 1, which was more of a graphical update than a full game. The point still stands, and I MYSELF pointed out several examples in my post that there ARE a few, so good job. I already mentioned MW3 and Gears of War and admitted that there are others. So good jorb.
The dominant genres among adult gamers as of 2012 are FPS, RTS, and MMO. Other genres have little commercial appeal, or they appeal more to kids.
Not quite. Its not just that FPS and RTS are popular, again I feel like I have to fight to get you to recognize what I'm saying. Its not that half of the multiplayer games work for split-screen and half don't; almost none do. Its not just FPS and RTS, its EVERY GENRE except the couple we listed (fighting games, party games, etc.) The default of a video game is requiring a camera that follows the player to show him things, which requires split-screen. Only a few games can still be fun within those limitations (both players will stay in the same area) because their gameplay doesn't have an issue with it. But you're inherently limiting your options for a game if you select that. You could do a shared-screen third person shooter, but it would be awful unless you built the game around it and made it more of an arcade game. The direction that gamers have wanted from games, the games that are popular, regardless of genre, do not support this.
That or only the big labels can afford to get into shared-screen because apart from XBLIG, only the big labels can afford console licenses, and people have become unwilling to do shared-screen on a PC. So innovative shared-screen game concepts from indie developers end up never getting produced.
Your argument is fallacious. If only big labels could afford shared-screen because only big labels can afford console licences, we wouldn't see any indie games on console, period. But we do see several. And whats your problem with Xbox live arcade games? You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Big AAA developers who invest $50M+ budgets can only make games that appeal to a very wide audience, because they need tons of sales to recoup that cost. So that means doing what the market demands, which is single player games, and online multiplayer. If you want indie companies to develop a smaller budget game to appeal to a niche market, then you should be willing to accept xbox live arcade games. Thats what they're there for. Whats wrong? And again, on the Wii, the console more focused on group party play and gimmicks, a large portion of games DO feature 4-player gaming and shared-screen gaming. Thats what the Wii owners want, so there's a market for it. Most more hardcore gamers, the 360 and PS3 owners, simply don't care to go to their friends house and crowd around a couch to get the same experience they could get from the comfort of their own home, and with a bigger screen. Having people around is nice, but with voice chat having become ubiquitous, it isn't really as necessary.
Super Mario Galaxy both is and isn't multiplayer. In single-player mode, player 1 controls both Mario and the star bit cursor. In "co-star" mode, player 2 can vacuum up the star bits, so even less-skilled players can join in casually. I imagine that this model can be extended to other 3D platformers or even other genres.
Are you joking? Have you played Super Mario Galaxy "multiplayer"? Its really just a "girlfriend mode". The second player experience is EXTREMELY limited. If you're at all a hardcore gamer, you'll get bored in SECONDS. Literally you'd rather just sit the 2nd player controller down and watch the person play single-player and trade off with them. I know lots of non-gamers who have enjoyed this experience, it lets them interact with their gamer spouse, but it isn't for gamers. Its great for less skilled players, but doesn't work as a mainstream option. It is used very rarely. They threw it in, again, because the wii is the gimmick console, the toy console. It specifically goes for a different market than xbox and ps3, so that it doens't have to compete with them. The gamer market doesn't care for it.
Internet is fine for genres where actions are more or less predictable over the course of 200 ms. Fighting games, for exa
Nonono, this has nothing to do with the cost of a game at retail. We were talking about the cost to develop. Games are allowed to cost massively more to develop and barely more at retail because they're more mainstream, more sales means less cost per sale. The larger scope of modern games and the more advanced graphics require far more detail to implement. Yes, there's a difference between pc and console cost... but that is an entirely different discussion.
Thats a very large part of it. But you can play FPS games on split-screen goldeneye being one of my examples, and a perfect example of being able to cheat by looking players screens. It only works for split-screen, if you have a shared-screen game then obviously you can't cheat, there isn't a second screen to look at, there's no secret information. But on split-screen games there is. Unfortunately, shared-screen really, REALLY limits what you can do in multiplayer gaming, which is why we see so little of it. Games that do have shared-screen multiplayer DO have local multiplayer, from what I've seen. Its just that those games are super, super rare. Like I said, most games aren't even multiplayer, and of those that are, its a tiny subset that would work for shared-screen. Only fighting games, board games, and party games really let you do that. There's a lot more than FPS or RTS that don't work that way either. hack n slash RPGs work, but not MMORPGs. Racing games need to be split-screen.
Looking at a list of games that came out last year, next to none of them would work as shared screen. So you have the option of split-screen, which annoys most people and would go unused, or you can do internet. You're expected to do internet anyways, thats what everybody wants, so developing split-screen is a nice to have, and most games have all kinds of features and nice to haves that the developers would love to put in, but they don't have the time or the resources.
Again, I love playing a good fighting game on a couch with friends, smash bros is tons of fun, and when I was in high school we all played halo (the first one) split-screen, 4 player battles.
But it simply isn't done very often anymore. We did it out of neccesity back then, it was the only option for multiplayer. But for day to day gaming, internet is so much more convenient. You can still play with the same people, and you can all just connect from your homes. The mainstream hardcore gamer rarely or never plays that way. I'm not condemning it, I love doing it, but other people don't seem keen on it anymore. And the money follows the customers. Trying to remember where the article was that I read awhile ago on the subject of how little people play local multiplayer, but its slipping my mind.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said it was distributive! I merely said that if you're running a single subroutine multiple times, and the subroutine can be simplified to O(1), then the larger algorithm that calls it multiple times becomes the actual problem space, the actual algorithmic complexity. I never insinuated that you could compare multiple different sets of algorithms run different amount of times! That's completely different!
It sounds like you're worrying about the environment handling all those "instances". That's really more of a space problem, so comparing it to big-O is entirely apples and oranges and is nonsensical. If you want to say that space more than time is a factor in some programs, and may choose taking one over another, then that may be fair, but I feel like you're going to have to get very machine specific. I guess you're against Java and you're concerned that it won't be able to handle your "bizillion" instances versus C, but it'd have to be a pretty special case. Even then, there are solutions in Java...
Somebody mod parent up :)
I lol'd hard
Agreed. Having stream insertion and bit shifting operations near each other is ugly as hell. I like having the freedom to define crazy operator overloads if I want to in custom classes, but it almost always ends up being a mistake in the long run. So while I complained at first, I'm actually glad Java doesn't let you, and I think C# only lets you overload the more basic operators. Its too easy to forget what exactly + one class does versus / another class.
Having access to sorting libraries or existing code libraries isn't really a feature of a high level language. Low level languages can have a sort library too. You don't need OOP for that. You could have a GOTO SORT or whatever.
But I agree on your analysis that real world value matters.
If you've got a bizillion instances, then that is your n. If you've got a problem O(1) and you've got to run it n times, that O(n). Just because its parallel doesn't change the algorithm complexity.
Almost all Windows AAA games are written in C++.
Fixed that for you.
First, they're mostly written in C++ because you don't prematurely optimize. Its the root of all evil, as Knuth said. Then, you go back, and you find your extremely critical sections, your bottlenecks, and THOSE you write specific libraries in C to optimize. But even then, lots of your work is going to be done by existing windows or directx libraries. Those DirectX libraries are written in C, sure, as are drivers... but that amounts to a pretty TINY amount of code.
If anything, we're moving the other direction, even in mainstream games. Games like Rage, which while running in an engine of C++, have scripting languages running ON TOP of them. Those scripting languages are FAAAAR less efficient than compiled OOP C++, so if that was such a concern, why would they use scripting languages?
Because for your non-bottlenecks, IT DOES NOT MATTER. Most of the game development just needs to get done as fast as possible, with as little effort as possible, and more and more major game developers are turning to inefficient scripting engines to handle the actual game logic. They only do the absolute bare minimum in hard C.
So, yeah. C++ is backwards compatible with C, but if you're writing C code in C++, you're almost 100% guaranteed to be doing it wrong. Backwards compatible doesn't mean equivalence.
Thats fair, but the point was I reject his argument that it can't be done in java, or that it will be godawful in java. It has its limitations, but Minecraft runs just fine, and has redstone circuits, so his comment comes down to just general java-bashing without any real evidence or expertise.
I can only imagine how godawful this would be if written in Java. Minecraft was bad enough on that front. I don't want to know what an emulated CPU would do in a JVM...
You mean like redstone computers that ALREADY EXIST? There's plenty of turing-complete implementations. And notch wasn't even TRYING to do that with minecraft. So please eat your words, immediately.
You're just showing how ignorant you are about software languages.
Agreed. But it matters little in the light of the law. You don't have to be ordered not to break the law for it to be illegal to do so. Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse.
Can a 9-1-1 operator give you an order? No. Can a citizen give another citizen an order? No. If a citizen tells you not to do something, because its stupid, dangerous, and illegal, should you do it? NO! Does it give you an excuse to do something because somebody didn't ORDER you NOT to? No, absolutely not. You are responsible for your actions.
It doesn't matter if it was an order or not.
Its no different from telling my friend "hey, you can't do that, its illegal" and then he does it, and gets arrested. "But you can't order me!!!"
It SERIOUSLY depends upon what questions you ask, and your tone and how you look when you ask them.
Somebody comes up to me and asks the time, smiling? Sure, thats fine, non-confrontational.
Somebody gets out of his car, looks me straight in the eye, comes running towards me, saying "hey, you! Come here!", that's sure pretty confrontational. I'm pretty sure I'd try to run.
The details are EXTREMELY important. Again, like so many others: I'm not saying he's guilty. Innocent until proven in a court of law.
Just saying: There is NO REASON he shouldn't currently be in jail awaiting a trial by grand jury to see if there is enough evidence to hear him for aggravated manslaughter of a child. This is an extremely serious case, and there is MORE than enough doubt to charge him. We know he killed Trayvon, he admits it. There should be no doubt that an investigation of self-defense is necessary.
When the government fails, the people take action.
Its applied science. The software, the formulas, the theories, are all very scientific, and have been studied and verified in peer-reviewed journals. The actual end product software is not, and the application to every single case is not. This is how the real world works, with anything.
By your definition, engineering isn't science, nor is most "science". You're being too picky about research and verification. All the scientific theories at play here have long since been verified.
Do you expect the phone company to hang up and dial you back to double-check that the concept of voice transmission is consistent? No. We've proved that. We've moved on. You want to research it, you can, but when it comes to the practical application of things that have been verified, you're mixing things up.
When the police asked him to not follow the person, they asked out of an interest for his safety, not because it was illegal for him to do so.
This, so much that it bears repeating: When the police asked him to not follow the person, they asked out of an interest for his safety, not because it was illegal for him to do so.
Most likely what happened is, this poor kid got scared and tried to defend himself and then the guy got scared and tried to defend himself. Since only one of them was carrying a gun and trigger happy, we all know how that worked out.
The problem was that, while Zimmerman's idea of "got scared" was to dial 911 and follow at a safe distance, the kid's idea of "got scared" was call your girlfriend and then give this white dude a beat-down to teach him a lesson. We all know how that worked out.
THIS is EXACTLY why they actually DO NOT want you to follow someone and start a confrontation when you are not a police officer: YOU ARE NOT TRAINED. You are just as likely to make the situation FAR, FAR WORSE than to improve it. If only for EXACTLY the reason you specified, that both people might freak out, and defend themselves and somebody might get hurt. The whole point is that the law defends you from defending yourself. You don't have to try to run away. But NO law, NOWHERE, says that citizens are allowed to go vigilante and track down suspects. That isn't what the neighborhood watch was EVER intended for.
Agreed. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, that is one of our main tenants.
But what we all want to know is, how is it he hasn't been ARRESTED YET? He should be in jail, RIGHT NOW, awaiting a hearing on charges of aggravated manslaughter of a child.
The 9-1-1 operator told him not to follow after Trayvon, but he did anyways. This seems like it would have to be some form of negligent homicide if nothing else.
But the problem is the math is natural, it is INHERENT to the world we exist in. You're not inventing something, you're just discovering what always was, what is out there waiting for us.
:P Un-patent-able!
There's a very good reason why you can't patent math: It wouldn't work. Imagine if somebody had patented the Pythagorean Theorem. Anybody who wanted to use it would have to pay. You couldn't NOT use it, because it is FUNDAMENTAL to mathematics and the universe and further mathematics. You can't develop the rest of geometry, calculus, diffeq, etc. without it. You simply CAN'T. Patenting it STOPS all development and gives a monopoly to all future math to whoever got there first. And they don't even HAVE to let you licence their patent, they're free to sit on it and now THEY ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN WORK ON NEW MATHEMATICS. That would hold us back technologically for thousands and thousands of years. Math and Science REQUIRE a large community of peer-review and collaboration and oversight. No one man could ever invent all the modern mathematics. we have now.
Math CANNOT be patented. And therefor, Software CANNOT be allowed to either. Software is a form of math.
Sorry, NASA, you can't send rockets to space because all the functions and algorithms you'd need have been patented. See, that doesn't work. Patents should only be allowed for a unique creation, something that was your igenuity. Math is never that, math and science are our slowly increasing understanding of the existing natural world. "Discovering" Newton's Laws is not your own creation, its your insight to the universe.
I'm an Atheist personally, but if you're a Theist, I'd say God has prior art on all Math and Science.
Someone came out with an interpreter that could convert any program in a certain language to Lambda Calculus. That language is turing-complete, so any software could be implemented in it, any algorithm. That means that ALL algorithms are equivalent to lambda calculus. That means all software is math. Math isn't patent-able. QED.
Because software is, ultimately, math. And math isn't patentable. Why is math so special? Because it is already existent in the world, it isn't an innovation you create but rather the patterns and algorithms of nature.
Just another case of why software shouldn't be patent-able. Copyright does everything you'd ever need from a patent. Patents on software are just government sponsored monopolies, and directly HARM innovation, instead of protecting it.
Oh man, where was the news story when these were still for sale?! $200 for a blade server doesn't sound bad, but then you look at the work they did with the paneling and the plaque and this thing looks like a pretty sweet piece. Practically belongs in a museum! $200 seems like a steal.
:(
I want one
Did you mean to say "Halo" ? (taking a guess, since you mentioned Bungie). Kinda left out the most important part of your post, sir.
And I said "This year". There are plenty of examples of split-screen games, especially on older consoles before live. Xbox had lots of them, N64 had lots of them, etc. It wasn't until late xbox early 360 generation that internet became ubiquitous for consoles. Halo didn't come out this year, unless you mean the remake of Halo 1, which was more of a graphical update than a full game. The point still stands, and I MYSELF pointed out several examples in my post that there ARE a few, so good job. I already mentioned MW3 and Gears of War and admitted that there are others. So good jorb.
The point is they're rare now.
The dominant genres among adult gamers as of 2012 are FPS, RTS, and MMO. Other genres have little commercial appeal, or they appeal more to kids.
Not quite. Its not just that FPS and RTS are popular, again I feel like I have to fight to get you to recognize what I'm saying. Its not that half of the multiplayer games work for split-screen and half don't; almost none do. Its not just FPS and RTS, its EVERY GENRE except the couple we listed (fighting games, party games, etc.) The default of a video game is requiring a camera that follows the player to show him things, which requires split-screen. Only a few games can still be fun within those limitations (both players will stay in the same area) because their gameplay doesn't have an issue with it. But you're inherently limiting your options for a game if you select that. You could do a shared-screen third person shooter, but it would be awful unless you built the game around it and made it more of an arcade game. The direction that gamers have wanted from games, the games that are popular, regardless of genre, do not support this.
That or only the big labels can afford to get into shared-screen because apart from XBLIG, only the big labels can afford console licenses, and people have become unwilling to do shared-screen on a PC. So innovative shared-screen game concepts from indie developers end up never getting produced.
Your argument is fallacious. If only big labels could afford shared-screen because only big labels can afford console licences, we wouldn't see any indie games on console, period. But we do see several. And whats your problem with Xbox live arcade games? You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Big AAA developers who invest $50M+ budgets can only make games that appeal to a very wide audience, because they need tons of sales to recoup that cost. So that means doing what the market demands, which is single player games, and online multiplayer. If you want indie companies to develop a smaller budget game to appeal to a niche market, then you should be willing to accept xbox live arcade games. Thats what they're there for. Whats wrong? And again, on the Wii, the console more focused on group party play and gimmicks, a large portion of games DO feature 4-player gaming and shared-screen gaming. Thats what the Wii owners want, so there's a market for it. Most more hardcore gamers, the 360 and PS3 owners, simply don't care to go to their friends house and crowd around a couch to get the same experience they could get from the comfort of their own home, and with a bigger screen. Having people around is nice, but with voice chat having become ubiquitous, it isn't really as necessary.
Super Mario Galaxy both is and isn't multiplayer. In single-player mode, player 1 controls both Mario and the star bit cursor. In "co-star" mode, player 2 can vacuum up the star bits, so even less-skilled players can join in casually. I imagine that this model can be extended to other 3D platformers or even other genres.
Are you joking? Have you played Super Mario Galaxy "multiplayer"? Its really just a "girlfriend mode". The second player experience is EXTREMELY limited. If you're at all a hardcore gamer, you'll get bored in SECONDS. Literally you'd rather just sit the 2nd player controller down and watch the person play single-player and trade off with them. I know lots of non-gamers who have enjoyed this experience, it lets them interact with their gamer spouse, but it isn't for gamers. Its great for less skilled players, but doesn't work as a mainstream option. It is used very rarely. They threw it in, again, because the wii is the gimmick console, the toy console. It specifically goes for a different market than xbox and ps3, so that it doens't have to compete with them. The gamer market doesn't care for it.
Internet is fine for genres where actions are more or less predictable over the course of 200 ms. Fighting games, for exa
You'd mod me redundant for explaining rather than just posting a link? Wow. I'd mod you troll.
Nonono, this has nothing to do with the cost of a game at retail. We were talking about the cost to develop. Games are allowed to cost massively more to develop and barely more at retail because they're more mainstream, more sales means less cost per sale. The larger scope of modern games and the more advanced graphics require far more detail to implement. Yes, there's a difference between pc and console cost... but that is an entirely different discussion.
Thats a very large part of it. But you can play FPS games on split-screen goldeneye being one of my examples, and a perfect example of being able to cheat by looking players screens. It only works for split-screen, if you have a shared-screen game then obviously you can't cheat, there isn't a second screen to look at, there's no secret information. But on split-screen games there is. Unfortunately, shared-screen really, REALLY limits what you can do in multiplayer gaming, which is why we see so little of it. Games that do have shared-screen multiplayer DO have local multiplayer, from what I've seen. Its just that those games are super, super rare. Like I said, most games aren't even multiplayer, and of those that are, its a tiny subset that would work for shared-screen. Only fighting games, board games, and party games really let you do that. There's a lot more than FPS or RTS that don't work that way either. hack n slash RPGs work, but not MMORPGs. Racing games need to be split-screen.
Looking at a list of games that came out last year, next to none of them would work as shared screen. So you have the option of split-screen, which annoys most people and would go unused, or you can do internet. You're expected to do internet anyways, thats what everybody wants, so developing split-screen is a nice to have, and most games have all kinds of features and nice to haves that the developers would love to put in, but they don't have the time or the resources.
Again, I love playing a good fighting game on a couch with friends, smash bros is tons of fun, and when I was in high school we all played halo (the first one) split-screen, 4 player battles.
But it simply isn't done very often anymore. We did it out of neccesity back then, it was the only option for multiplayer. But for day to day gaming, internet is so much more convenient. You can still play with the same people, and you can all just connect from your homes. The mainstream hardcore gamer rarely or never plays that way. I'm not condemning it, I love doing it, but other people don't seem keen on it anymore. And the money follows the customers. Trying to remember where the article was that I read awhile ago on the subject of how little people play local multiplayer, but its slipping my mind.