I agree,
I know a few people who have played a few hundred hours in total between those three games. I guess devs don't put content in huh? Oh and did Mario really have content? Not really. You could complete that in no time if you knew the shortcuts.
In short, the gameplay of a game is what you make of it alot of the time.
I suppose i naturally expect, being a programmer, for people to be atleast as practical as me. But without wishing to cast a stereotype, i hear stories from family members about administrators and receptionists that they have to work with. These people shouldn't really be employed to use a computer.
No it's not.
MW2 and BC2 are completely different styles of games. BC2 is designed to be a more full-scale-war based game like Delta Force Black Hawk Down, Joint Operations et al, where as MW2 is a more spec-ops-quick-fast-action game.
You've apparently never played either.
Yes you are correct about my point. I should have been more clear, unpredictability in the service of ADSL from BT as a whole was meant to be the focus of my original point. In my experience it just wont work for real time stuff unless you are in the ideal location etc, which most people arn't.
The problem with ADSL is that the service deteriorates rapidly the further away from the exchange you are. So while this might be ok for browsing web pages, i have had profound problems with services such as iPlayer, youtube et al. Also, unless you ring up BT and request it, you basically get lumped with a poor ping (approx 40-100ms based on the service i am getting now) which is hopeless for anything real time.
In my experience ADSL broadband has always been out performed by DSL in both speed and quality. Given the technical requirements of OnLive i can't possible see how this is going to work for any real time games. Looks like you're going to have to be practically sat on top of the exchange box for this to work.
I agree that people can get a bit hyper about shit sequels. The same is done for computer games though to be honest and while i have more important things to worry about in my life, they clearly don't:D
the point in this because, for gaming in say MW2 or CS:S, you arn't interested in anything further out than a single monitor provides. The good players don't look around, they look blankly at the screen until they see something move and then twitch to it. Given that screen space of this vastness is going to put more of the game to your peripheral vision, i can't see the advantage. I'd be very surprised if you went to LAN parties and the 'elite' players used a setup like this.
It does have its advantages for strategy games however where more screen real-estate is valuable and for movies, but for that to be any fun to use manufacturers will have to make specialist monitors with no screen frames.
Isn't pirating for consoles still doable? If we stop making PC games will the pirates do the same for the consoles as they have done for the PC, if they're not already doing it?
How do we test software written to be heavily parallel? For example, the games industry, we'd love to have ultra complicated path finding for 1000s of NPCs, we'd love to have bazillions of particles in a scene, but when we are presented with the task of developing a game for a quad core machine, or the PS3 (which are both about as parallel-capable as you can get at the moment), how do we write software that we can test on 16, 32 or 64 cores. TBH, we'll do what the games industry has always done and write for the target hardware.
Each one of the devices outputting data in the list you mentioned is working in parallel to the other devices, but in serial to itself. The CPU is providing data to those devices in serial, so yes, it is still a serial system, but seemingly parallel.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, I know a few people who have played a few hundred hours in total between those three games. I guess devs don't put content in huh? Oh and did Mario really have content? Not really. You could complete that in no time if you knew the shortcuts. In short, the gameplay of a game is what you make of it alot of the time.
It's a shame its barely accurate to know if you have your legs crossed.
In order to decrease our use of energy, or atleast to have any chance of doing it at all, we need to stop making babies.
I suppose i naturally expect, being a programmer, for people to be atleast as practical as me. But without wishing to cast a stereotype, i hear stories from family members about administrators and receptionists that they have to work with. These people shouldn't really be employed to use a computer.
If someone needs to be trained to use Windows 7 then there is something wrong with them.
But why is this hole almost perfectly circular? I was under the impression this wasn't man-made.
How do we identify them?
Not sure why this is marked as flamebait, he's drawing a relevant comparison between the services mentioned in TFA.
neural networks to me!
No it's not. MW2 and BC2 are completely different styles of games. BC2 is designed to be a more full-scale-war based game like Delta Force Black Hawk Down, Joint Operations et al, where as MW2 is a more spec-ops-quick-fast-action game. You've apparently never played either.
Yes you are correct about my point. I should have been more clear, unpredictability in the service of ADSL from BT as a whole was meant to be the focus of my original point. In my experience it just wont work for real time stuff unless you are in the ideal location etc, which most people arn't.
The problem with ADSL is that the service deteriorates rapidly the further away from the exchange you are. So while this might be ok for browsing web pages, i have had profound problems with services such as iPlayer, youtube et al. Also, unless you ring up BT and request it, you basically get lumped with a poor ping (approx 40-100ms based on the service i am getting now) which is hopeless for anything real time.
In my experience ADSL broadband has always been out performed by DSL in both speed and quality. Given the technical requirements of OnLive i can't possible see how this is going to work for any real time games. Looks like you're going to have to be practically sat on top of the exchange box for this to work.
PATENT THAT NOW!
browsers because there will be no internet.
the necklace and make it work for multiple people at the same time and then it will be more than just a gimmick.
She the founder?
Why would they take iPads? If nasa thought pads were useful in space they would have built their own years ago.
I agree that people can get a bit hyper about shit sequels. The same is done for computer games though to be honest and while i have more important things to worry about in my life, they clearly don't :D
Because sequels are often a complete cop-out.
the point in this because, for gaming in say MW2 or CS:S, you arn't interested in anything further out than a single monitor provides. The good players don't look around, they look blankly at the screen until they see something move and then twitch to it. Given that screen space of this vastness is going to put more of the game to your peripheral vision, i can't see the advantage. I'd be very surprised if you went to LAN parties and the 'elite' players used a setup like this. It does have its advantages for strategy games however where more screen real-estate is valuable and for movies, but for that to be any fun to use manufacturers will have to make specialist monitors with no screen frames.
Isn't pirating for consoles still doable? If we stop making PC games will the pirates do the same for the consoles as they have done for the PC, if they're not already doing it?
How do we test software written to be heavily parallel? For example, the games industry, we'd love to have ultra complicated path finding for 1000s of NPCs, we'd love to have bazillions of particles in a scene, but when we are presented with the task of developing a game for a quad core machine, or the PS3 (which are both about as parallel-capable as you can get at the moment), how do we write software that we can test on 16, 32 or 64 cores. TBH, we'll do what the games industry has always done and write for the target hardware.
Each one of the devices outputting data in the list you mentioned is working in parallel to the other devices, but in serial to itself. The CPU is providing data to those devices in serial, so yes, it is still a serial system, but seemingly parallel.
I'm wearing an invisibility cloak right now and im right beside you.