Scene: Google turn up at the acutions, bidding in joke numbers as their bids. MS, Apple & Oracle knowing that individually they won't be able to beat google team up against them. Google stops bidding after pi, it's work there having been done The Axis of Evil win the patents Google now claim that the purchase of the patents for nearly 5 times their estimated value is purely for anti-competitive purposes which triggers the DOJ to investigate the deal and potentially invalidate all the patents, or force fair licencing or lead to a reform of the patent structure.
Result: Google convinces it's competitors to spend 4.5 billion to reform the patent system to something a bit more sane.
What it shows me is that if the game is free, people will trust the review implicitly and get the game purely on the reviewers opinion. If the game costs money, people are more likely to wait and see the reaction from the gaming community before buying.
At pretty much every point in the game, death is meaningless. Death just slows you down. Look at ALL FPS games and point me to one that did anything more than port you back to a spawn point or your last save location. Taking away some of your cash is actually the harshest punishment I've ever seen in an FPS game.
It was awesome on the PS3. I'm still playing it with my financee. It's one of the few games that we both enjoy. It has entry level simplicity with some cool character refinements that go beyond any previous FPS. Yes it might be a little repetitive, but what FPS isn't?
Care to name for me an FPS that doesn't just throw you up against the same 5 mobs over and over?
The really good thing about borderlands (for me) was the splitscreen campaign. The teamwork wasn't forced (you press this button while I pull this lever) instead it was build upon the strengths of the characters (and your customisation). I played the soldier on my first time through, my GF played a sniper. She get's a little panicky when surrounded by guys meleeing her, so I let her stand back shooting while I waded into the baddies with shotgun. On our current playthrough I'm the siren while she's the soldier.
The missions are simple, and standard. There's collection, kill and talk missions. You can find these in any game now. Many people are fine with this. As Borderlands was supposed to be a casual shooter with a smigin of RPG you don't want the missions to be complicated, just enough to drive along the action and plot.
There's also a bunch of stuff there for us completionists, like getting your Maliwan Hellfire and 50 SMG skill + firefly mod and going about spraying baddies with fire.
The DLC was worth buying, the zombie island being my favourite, with Knoxx coming second.
I didn't try it on the sony network, preferring to keep it splitscreen only. I am eagerly awaiting the sequel. I hope they do as good a job on it as they did on the first, and if they come up with improvements, then I'll be even happier.
This is going to be great for the tourist industry. Being able to advertise that all of London has free wifi will encourage people to visit. I was in Paris recently and trying to find a particular restaurant. I don't have a WAP phone (and if I had I'd be annoyed at the roaming charges) but I has my iPod Touch. I stalked about looking for an unsecured wifi to try load up google maps, and eventually found a McDonalds free hotspot. If what Virgin is planning to offer had been available I'd be able to open my maps anywhere and follow it right to my destination.
Add to that Skype/Google voice, email, web searching etc. and it will boost London's attractiveness for tourists.
When I got my new iPhone, the first thing I did was scratch out 4 impressions onto the screen. Why 4? Well, that's the smart thing. I have markers for both portrait AND landscape orientation.
There are so few true diehard touch typists these days.
Consensus is that gaming PCs can be easily moved from room to room. Perhaps some people are used to having laptops or small-form-factor desktop PCs designed for easy transport to and from a LAN party.
The occasions where we would play games together would be regular, but not prolonged, say one night a week. Moving the second gaming PC about like this would be inconvenient, especially if something would come up and we have to stop. A gaming 'session' might only be 20 minutes long. For this, a console, with game in the drive and ready to go in under 1 minute comes out to me as the only realistic choice.
But can you play anything homemade? Or if not for the PS3, then for which platform should indie co-op split-screen games be developed?
And, ideally, where PCs with capability for more than one controller come in. PCs since about 1999 have had USB ports that allow for four gamepads and more. And TVs made since about 2006 have had inputs to show PC video: VGA ports for VGA video and HDMI ports for DVI-D video. So why don't people make use of that?
As are home theater PCs. But consensus is that home theater PCs don't exist. Consensus is that PCs can't be moved from room to room. Yes, this means the consensus is self-contradictory: people are willing to move a PC for a LAN party but not move it next to a TV.
This is definitely something that I would quiesce to, If there are good Indie games on the PC, that would justify the investment in controllers and cabling to allow my primary PC to connect to my 37" HD TV. I'm not as tech savvy as the average/. reader (I'm a scientist/chemist by profession) so for me it has just been the convenience of having separate PC and Console set-up in my living room. I own all 3 Humble Bundles, but none of them has the multiplayer co-op I'm looking for. I do regular googles, and I look here for reviews, but I can't find any quality Indy campaign driven splitscreen co-op game for the PC.
But Slashdot consensus is that PC games are so much cheaper than PS3 games that it's just as cheap for a player to buy two copies of a $30 PC game that doesn't support split-screen as it is to buy one copy of a $60 PS3 game that does support split-screen.
The Slashdot consensus is that PC games should be free. Or at the very least, you should be able to crack your own version to allow install on more than one PC
Sounds like Super Mario Galaxy for Wii: player 1 controls Mario and player 2 shoots candy at the enemies to get them to stop.
I don't like the controls of the Wii, but that aside, I'd definitely enjoy adventure games like you describe.
The end result is that I know only a small handful of games that were/are enjoyable in splitscreen mode. Borderlands, Hunted & Overlord 2. These have all been on the PS3 and I enjoyed them immensely with my fiancee. I've supported these developers by buying the games fullprice, and I avoid PS3 titles that only support single player (I have a gaming rig, so why block use of the TV while leaving my PC idle?).
I understand from your article that you would like to see more PC multiplayer splitscreen games, but you can see the flaws with FPS/RTS games on one screen. That I would consider to be out of the scope of this conversation, as I'm only interested in co-op games. Co-op FPS works (as seen in Borderlands) and RTS might be too slow and boring for her, taking too long to get a single session going and completed.
I even tried Untold legends Dark Kingdom, a co-op shared screen (not split) but that didn't work where one player controlled the pace of movement, often leaving someone stuck on the edge somewhere.
I wouldn't have any issue with the platform, be it PS3 of PC, but there just doesn't seem to be games out there (or incoming) that really play well splitscreen. Where is the Final Fantasy or Elder Scrolls co-op game? Where is the team racing game? Where is the Diablo game?
I came from a generation of playing the SEGA with my brothers, Golden Axe, Streets of Rage, "lives and levels" of Kid Chamelon/Sonic/Strider. They liked games, but I was a natural nerd/geek and far better than them. So when Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat came along, the fun rapidly disappated as they got beaten a lot. Eventually I was left (post it's release) playing my PS1, and Tekken, alone as they wouldn't play me anymore:(
So now I know not to try to play head-to-head games at home anymore, sticking to games where we both finish the session happy. I play competitively online on my PC instead, where I can trash and be trashed by anonymous people.
There are so many 'vocal regulars' that say the same thing over and over again. Sony BAD, they tuk ur linux. My PS3 is brilliant. I can play games on it AND plug in a USB Stick/Drive and watch my downloaded TV/Movies. Sony never took away something from me that I never would have used.
I tried for a while to get my Fiancee to paly WoW with me, but the other PC is in another room, so we actually had to skype eachother to talk, and if there was something she didn't understand with the UI, I had to get up and walk over to sort her out. I resolved to only play co-op games where she could be right beside me, under my watchful eye:P
This is where consoles with capability for more than one controller come in. They are one machine, plugged into one TV with 2-4 input devices. If I felt that the X-Box had better co-op titles, I'd sell up in a blink and get one. But, as many games are coming up across platforms now, there's little to distinguish between them. (I'd like to avoid bringing the Wii into this debate, as I've played one and don't like the controls)
I really like playing with people in the same room. It's more social when the person you are playing with it right there. It's also very nice to get some post hard boss physical contact, which is impossible when you are across or in another room.
So it's possible that I have the wrong system, perhaps the PS3, with it's removal of other OS also removed all the co-op splitscreen games. Perhaps it's evil Sony's plan that people never get to play and have fun together. Perhaps it's their intention that all games be confrontational, where all other players are your opponents.
Perhaps there just isn't a way to make another Borderlands. It could be there there is no working formula for split screen games, and I should instead play the Sims.
Perhaps my working parameters are far too narrow. 1) Must be full campaign co-op mode 2) Must be complicated enough to interest a pro-gamer, but simple enough for a casual.
Are these games just so unpopular that the designers don't consider it profitable making them? Why make a game that 2 people will share, when you can try to make one that each has to buy individually?
Is making PC co-op games more profitable, as you have to have one disk per machine (legally playing). Am I being naive thinking that games companies are trying to make games for the fun and enjoyment of consumers or just for profit?
Thanks for that link. This has just downgraded the game from "Buy new on release day" to "See if I can pick it up second hand" Possibly not even worth buying on the PS3 at all.
If it only has as much Co-op play as modern warfare, then it's not for me.
I have been waiting for this game a while now because it was described to me as "Similar to Borderlands". I loved this game because it had a very simple and enjoyable multiplayer mode. It was complicated enoug (a shooter with talents, mods and many weapons to chose from) but also simple enough to just get in and play. It isn't like Army of Two where you have to use cover all the time, distract and set up crossfires and have the coordination of a navy SEAL team just to progress through the first few levels.
There has been very little information as to how the multiplayer will work, I'm hoping that the character will be customisable enough in terms of skills that 2 people playing together can have different and complimenting abilities, and not just be clones of eachother. I hope that there isn't a number of missions that are solely designed for single player and make no sense when there's 2 or more. I hope that there's a useful passenger/gunner seat in the cars. All these things have been left out of the reviews I've seen, which is pretty poor reporting. Sure he says they didn't get a chance to try multiplayer, but he didn't seem bothered to even ask how it would work.
I'm somewhat disappointed with the PS3 lack of split-screen multiplayer games (Borderlands, Overlord & Hunted being the only decent ones I've found) that give quick enjoyment. Yes, there's many fighting and racing games, but that's no good when I'm a much better player than my fiancée.
Does anyone know of a preview report that goes into any depth on the multiplayability of Rage?
People with a dynamic IP address usually have it refresh at around midnight (unless you have it set so that your modem resets at a specific time). Until everyone's computers realise the new IP, it will interrupt downloads. Those on a static IP or who's IP doesn't refresh around midnight, will see increased speeds as contention decreases.
You need to be stationary for that to properly work. Sure you'd do a bit of damage, perhaps startle the driver, but you don't have the force of a car moving at 60mph+ helping you out. You really want to be standing on the side of the road and throwing the brick into the oncoming traffic.
And I'm totally not speaking from experience. No, not at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Scene:
Google turn up at the acutions, bidding in joke numbers as their bids.
MS, Apple & Oracle knowing that individually they won't be able to beat google team up against them.
Google stops bidding after pi, it's work there having been done
The Axis of Evil win the patents
Google now claim that the purchase of the patents for nearly 5 times their estimated value is purely for anti-competitive purposes which triggers the DOJ to investigate the deal and potentially invalidate all the patents, or force fair licencing or lead to a reform of the patent structure.
Result:
Google convinces it's competitors to spend 4.5 billion to reform the patent system to something a bit more sane.
Clearly a Giant Diamond
And Scientologists will rejoice!
What it shows me is that if the game is free, people will trust the review implicitly and get the game purely on the reviewers opinion. If the game costs money, people are more likely to wait and see the reaction from the gaming community before buying.
Again, nothing we didn't already know.
At pretty much every point in the game, death is meaningless. Death just slows you down. Look at ALL FPS games and point me to one that did anything more than port you back to a spawn point or your last save location. Taking away some of your cash is actually the harshest punishment I've ever seen in an FPS game.
It was awesome on the PS3. I'm still playing it with my financee. It's one of the few games that we both enjoy. It has entry level simplicity with some cool character refinements that go beyond any previous FPS. Yes it might be a little repetitive, but what FPS isn't?
Care to name for me an FPS that doesn't just throw you up against the same 5 mobs over and over?
The really good thing about borderlands (for me) was the splitscreen campaign. The teamwork wasn't forced (you press this button while I pull this lever) instead it was build upon the strengths of the characters (and your customisation). I played the soldier on my first time through, my GF played a sniper. She get's a little panicky when surrounded by guys meleeing her, so I let her stand back shooting while I waded into the baddies with shotgun. On our current playthrough I'm the siren while she's the soldier.
The missions are simple, and standard. There's collection, kill and talk missions. You can find these in any game now. Many people are fine with this. As Borderlands was supposed to be a casual shooter with a smigin of RPG you don't want the missions to be complicated, just enough to drive along the action and plot.
There's also a bunch of stuff there for us completionists, like getting your Maliwan Hellfire and 50 SMG skill + firefly mod and going about spraying baddies with fire.
The DLC was worth buying, the zombie island being my favourite, with Knoxx coming second.
I didn't try it on the sony network, preferring to keep it splitscreen only. I am eagerly awaiting the sequel. I hope they do as good a job on it as they did on the first, and if they come up with improvements, then I'll be even happier.
If it's still on Pandora, then it likely will.
This is going to be great for the tourist industry. Being able to advertise that all of London has free wifi will encourage people to visit. I was in Paris recently and trying to find a particular restaurant. I don't have a WAP phone (and if I had I'd be annoyed at the roaming charges) but I has my iPod Touch. I stalked about looking for an unsecured wifi to try load up google maps, and eventually found a McDonalds free hotspot. If what Virgin is planning to offer had been available I'd be able to open my maps anywhere and follow it right to my destination. Add to that Skype/Google voice, email, web searching etc. and it will boost London's attractiveness for tourists.
Master System and then Megadrive.
When I got my new iPhone, the first thing I did was scratch out 4 impressions onto the screen. Why 4? Well, that's the smart thing. I have markers for both portrait AND landscape orientation. There are so few true diehard touch typists these days.
Consensus is that gaming PCs can be easily moved from room to room. Perhaps some people are used to having laptops or small-form-factor desktop PCs designed for easy transport to and from a LAN party.
The occasions where we would play games together would be regular, but not prolonged, say one night a week. Moving the second gaming PC about like this would be inconvenient, especially if something would come up and we have to stop. A gaming 'session' might only be 20 minutes long. For this, a console, with game in the drive and ready to go in under 1 minute comes out to me as the only realistic choice.
But can you play anything homemade? Or if not for the PS3, then for which platform should indie co-op split-screen games be developed?
And, ideally, where PCs with capability for more than one controller come in. PCs since about 1999 have had USB ports that allow for four gamepads and more. And TVs made since about 2006 have had inputs to show PC video: VGA ports for VGA video and HDMI ports for DVI-D video. So why don't people make use of that?
As are home theater PCs. But consensus is that home theater PCs don't exist. Consensus is that PCs can't be moved from room to room. Yes, this means the consensus is self-contradictory: people are willing to move a PC for a LAN party but not move it next to a TV.
This is definitely something that I would quiesce to, If there are good Indie games on the PC, that would justify the investment in controllers and cabling to allow my primary PC to connect to my 37" HD TV. I'm not as tech savvy as the average /. reader (I'm a scientist/chemist by profession) so for me it has just been the convenience of having separate PC and Console set-up in my living room. I own all 3 Humble Bundles, but none of them has the multiplayer co-op I'm looking for. I do regular googles, and I look here for reviews, but I can't find any quality Indy campaign driven splitscreen co-op game for the PC.
But Slashdot consensus is that PC games are so much cheaper than PS3 games that it's just as cheap for a player to buy two copies of a $30 PC game that doesn't support split-screen as it is to buy one copy of a $60 PS3 game that does support split-screen.
The Slashdot consensus is that PC games should be free. Or at the very least, you should be able to crack your own version to allow install on more than one PC
Sounds like Super Mario Galaxy for Wii: player 1 controls Mario and player 2 shoots candy at the enemies to get them to stop.
I don't like the controls of the Wii, but that aside, I'd definitely enjoy adventure games like you describe.
The end result is that I know only a small handful of games that were/are enjoyable in splitscreen mode. Borderlands, Hunted & Overlord 2. These have all been on the PS3 and I enjoyed them immensely with my fiancee. I've supported these developers by buying the games fullprice, and I avoid PS3 titles that only support single player (I have a gaming rig, so why block use of the TV while leaving my PC idle?).
I understand from your article that you would like to see more PC multiplayer splitscreen games, but you can see the flaws with FPS/RTS games on one screen. That I would consider to be out of the scope of this conversation, as I'm only interested in co-op games. Co-op FPS works (as seen in Borderlands) and RTS might be too slow and boring for her, taking too long to get a single session going and completed.
I even tried Untold legends Dark Kingdom, a co-op shared screen (not split) but that didn't work where one player controlled the pace of movement, often leaving someone stuck on the edge somewhere.
I wouldn't have any issue with the platform, be it PS3 of PC, but there just doesn't seem to be games out there (or incoming) that really play well splitscreen. Where is the Final Fantasy or Elder Scrolls co-op game? Where is the team racing game? Where is the Diablo game?
I came from a generation of playing the SEGA with my brothers, Golden Axe, Streets of Rage, "lives and levels" of Kid Chamelon/Sonic/Strider. They liked games, but I was a natural nerd/geek and far better than them. So when Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat came along, the fun rapidly disappated as they got beaten a lot. Eventually I was left (post it's release) playing my PS1, and Tekken, alone as they wouldn't play me anymore :(
:P
So now I know not to try to play head-to-head games at home anymore, sticking to games where we both finish the session happy. I play competitively online on my PC instead, where I can trash and be trashed by anonymous people.
There are so many 'vocal regulars' that say the same thing over and over again. Sony BAD, they tuk ur linux. My PS3 is brilliant. I can play games on it AND plug in a USB Stick/Drive and watch my downloaded TV/Movies. Sony never took away something from me that I never would have used.
I tried for a while to get my Fiancee to paly WoW with me, but the other PC is in another room, so we actually had to skype eachother to talk, and if there was something she didn't understand with the UI, I had to get up and walk over to sort her out. I resolved to only play co-op games where she could be right beside me, under my watchful eye
This is where consoles with capability for more than one controller come in. They are one machine, plugged into one TV with 2-4 input devices. If I felt that the X-Box had better co-op titles, I'd sell up in a blink and get one. But, as many games are coming up across platforms now, there's little to distinguish between them. (I'd like to avoid bringing the Wii into this debate, as I've played one and don't like the controls)
I really like playing with people in the same room. It's more social when the person you are playing with it right there. It's also very nice to get some post hard boss physical contact, which is impossible when you are across or in another room.
So it's possible that I have the wrong system, perhaps the PS3, with it's removal of other OS also removed all the co-op splitscreen games. Perhaps it's evil Sony's plan that people never get to play and have fun together. Perhaps it's their intention that all games be confrontational, where all other players are your opponents.
Perhaps there just isn't a way to make another Borderlands. It could be there there is no working formula for split screen games, and I should instead play the Sims.
Perhaps my working parameters are far too narrow.
1) Must be full campaign co-op mode
2) Must be complicated enough to interest a pro-gamer, but simple enough for a casual.
Are these games just so unpopular that the designers don't consider it profitable making them? Why make a game that 2 people will share, when you can try to make one that each has to buy individually?
Is making PC co-op games more profitable, as you have to have one disk per machine (legally playing). Am I being naive thinking that games companies are trying to make games for the fun and enjoyment of consumers or just for profit?
Thanks for that link. This has just downgraded the game from "Buy new on release day" to "See if I can pick it up second hand" Possibly not even worth buying on the PS3 at all.
If it only has as much Co-op play as modern warfare, then it's not for me.
How is having multiple PCs going to allow me to sit on a couch with my friends and play my PS3 cooperatively?
I have been waiting for this game a while now because it was described to me as "Similar to Borderlands". I loved this game because it had a very simple and enjoyable multiplayer mode. It was complicated enoug (a shooter with talents, mods and many weapons to chose from) but also simple enough to just get in and play. It isn't like Army of Two where you have to use cover all the time, distract and set up crossfires and have the coordination of a navy SEAL team just to progress through the first few levels.
There has been very little information as to how the multiplayer will work, I'm hoping that the character will be customisable enough in terms of skills that 2 people playing together can have different and complimenting abilities, and not just be clones of eachother. I hope that there isn't a number of missions that are solely designed for single player and make no sense when there's 2 or more. I hope that there's a useful passenger/gunner seat in the cars. All these things have been left out of the reviews I've seen, which is pretty poor reporting. Sure he says they didn't get a chance to try multiplayer, but he didn't seem bothered to even ask how it would work.
I'm somewhat disappointed with the PS3 lack of split-screen multiplayer games (Borderlands, Overlord & Hunted being the only decent ones I've found) that give quick enjoyment. Yes, there's many fighting and racing games, but that's no good when I'm a much better player than my fiancée.
Does anyone know of a preview report that goes into any depth on the multiplayability of Rage?
People with a dynamic IP address usually have it refresh at around midnight (unless you have it set so that your modem resets at a specific time). Until everyone's computers realise the new IP, it will interrupt downloads. Those on a static IP or who's IP doesn't refresh around midnight, will see increased speeds as contention decreases.
A crumpet is a scone/muffin type thing
You are thinking of a strumpet, which is a woman of lose morals.
Fucking Hackers, I hope they go to prison.
It's a TRAP!
How do I watch a movie in the dark then?
You need to be stationary for that to properly work. Sure you'd do a bit of damage, perhaps startle the driver, but you don't have the force of a car moving at 60mph+ helping you out. You really want to be standing on the side of the road and throwing the brick into the oncoming traffic.
And I'm totally not speaking from experience. No, not at all.
These cellphone studies are like cancer, they never go away, just keep resurfacing time and again
And she's a HOTTIE! Nerdy women are so sexy.
We use a FULL STOP. Cus when I tell that sentence to end it motherfucking does. Bitches.
I come here for the comments too, I swear.