Now that Peter has officially declared that Black & White was a really shitty game (that I never played), I'm interested in just one thing : how can he be sure that he's not foisting another steaming pile on us all ? Is he going to ask forgiveness for all the hype he made around his buggy code ? I agree with the posts above on Populous. THAT was a revolutionary game, visionary and innovative. But it's also the best game he made. Too bad that was back in 1989.
Also reminds me of a Murphy's Law : each person rises in competence until reaching the point where they become incompetent, then they stay there.
It has been statistically proven somewhere that MS needs 4 iterations to get something just about right. Every version after that just adds bloat and useless "features" that end up destroying the initial usefulness.
We'll be an interstellar species when a man crosses the termination shock boundary. For the moment, we can just label ourselves as interstellar junk makers.
Yeah, and lets forbid once and for all any standard that cannot be totally own3d by a 13-year-old in less than an hour, or that cannot support all our popunder/virus installing/zombie making applets. Spreading viruses and botnets is a REQUIREMENT for the future - no room for lamers.
The problem with optimising is twofold: - the driver takes the decisions about how the application should be shown, not the user, and - a benchmark is not a generic application, but one intended to test something following a generic scenario, in order to judge the capability of the component IN THAT SCENARIO. Any benchmark optimization is cheating on the results, because the driver is not playing by the rules, therefor the results are not representative of the performance being measured. It is not a question of good or not, it's just a question of that old, quaint notion called integrity. A benchmark should be able to test the generic path if it so wishes, and the optimized path if it so wishes, but with the user knowing what is being tested.
Given that judge Robert E Payne has decided that Rambus is guilty of non-disclosure, it follows that Rambus IP is non-existant and therefor cannot be infringed upon.
I believe the Whyte judgement is in great risk of being overturned in an appeal, based on this decision.
As for Rambus hatred, if you really are new here, then you should know that any playground bully is a normal target for loathing. Rambus most definitely qualifies, since they tried to hijack DDR with baseless accusations and after the fact. Rambus also forged a deal with Intel to shove RDRAM down everyone's throat (the "technology of the future"). The thing that irked us geeks to no end was the fact that RDRAM was a possible contender to DDR only in its most expensive variant, detail that was thoroughly hushed by Intel and Rambus alike.
Unfortunately, benchmark numbers were published in too many reviews to allow people to ignore the fact that RDRAM was a lame duck. When the realization finally dawned on the industry, Rambus made a big mistake and accused Intel of not knowing how to make motherboards. That was a big no-no, and Intel promptly pulled out the rug from under the deal. After two years of touting RDRAM as the way to go, Intel switched all its boards to DDR faster than you could blink.
Add to that the irritating behavior that Rambus executives displayed all over the world, being smug and superior, and attacking anybody who wouldn't kowtow immediately with outrageous license fees, and you get a strong following of geeks who simply cannot stand the board's behavior.
Add to that the fact that Rambus demonstrated how to become a (moderately) successful IP litigation industry, example which SCO promptly followed, and you get the perfect item for focalising hatred from any truth-loving geek.
Oh yeah ? Why submit a patent for the NOT operator then ? Why submit a patent for the FAT system ? Why put a copyright on the term Msgbox ?
MS could start helping the patent industry immediately by controlling themselves and not submitting useless patents covered by prior art in the first place.
MS for a better world ? I'll believe it when I see it.
In all honesty, given that His Billness's OS is on at least 90% of personal computers in the world, it follows that 90% of whatever happens can be traced back to him, either by intent or by chance.
Sorry, the public has no issue with other-dimension goonies. It does not, however, like badly-done rip-offs from 20 other movies.
Doom had no role model to follow in its time. Its message is consistent. I do believe that a proper scenario, respecting the main premises of the game, would have a chance at success.
The main elements I count would be:
- demons from Hell (Hell yes, Mr righteous !) - teleporter portal mistake (no virus) - single (or small group of) Space Marine(s) trying to survive (SWAT team out of the picture) - not on Earth nor on the Moon (to avoid governmental oversight in a clearly illegal project)
I would accept the "single" marine being replaced by a small squad - even though that would break from the game. But it would be more realistic to see the group being whittled down a man at a time than to see a single guy mow through dozens of demons. But that is the limit of the concessions I am prepared to accept in a Doom movie.
- Tomb Raider had Angelina, and that is enough to reinforce credibility to the max
- Mortal Kombat had lots of fighting and no story, and that's basically what the game was about, so good points there too
Whereas Doom - The Movie is NOT going to have: - demons - dying souls - upside-down crosses - tortured victims nailed to a cross - pentagrams - portal to Hell - anything interesting
Might as well put in a bunch of furry rabbits carrying egg baskets for all I care. If we're supposed to see a bunch of enraged human mutants, then I say Dawn of the Dead is all we need.
You don't want them to mess up a Half-Life movie now do you ?
Let them muck around with Doom 3. Viewers will just sit in front of a black screen for 90 minutes anyway (apart from the occasional large explosion lighting up - nothing much).
If there ever is a Half-Life movie, I hope it is based on a solid scenario, with heaps of CGI budget for well-done effects, and with actors actually worth something.
Right, I've gotta lay off smoking the carpet, I'm actually starting to wish for the impossible.
But of course I will forgive SCO. Darth Vader style that is - with the sound of crunching windpipe and bulging eyes, I will gladly see all SCO managers on their knees, one hand on their crushed throats and the other begging for air before dropping dead on the floor, to be ejected into the void where they belong. That is when SCO will be forgiven.
You are sooo right. A better visual experience, a better AI engine, a better, more immersive world, realistic physics, believable facial/body expressions, and a thoroughly intriguing story do not make a miracle of innovation.
Don't fight it, keep your money. You're definitely the one who is right. Excuse me while I go on playing this crappy game.
Considering the scope of the technology, and the amount of innovation necessary, and the number of projected customers, Valve could have easily avoided burdening themselves with another connection requirement.
And there is no reason to be tender when you pay good money for the right to play a game, only to find out that you still have to ask permission when you want to start it.
So just because you can afford something means that you have it ? I could afford an ADSL connection years before I got it. Why ? Because there wasn't any phone company to give it to me. That has nothing to do with the amount of time and money I am willing to put into getting good PC components.
Slashdot Mirror
For all you people who do not have time to read books, here's a condensed version of The Lord of The Rings :
Frodo got a magic ring from his uncle and traveled to Mordor to destroy it. It wasn't always easy, but he made it.
Now let's try a condensed version of a random Star Trek TOS episode :
Something bad happens or is going to happen and the Enterprise swoops in and saves the day. And Kirk gets the girl.
I think that the second try is much more representative, but still, I'd much rather read the book and see the episode.
Now that Peter has officially declared that Black & White was a really shitty game (that I never played), I'm interested in just one thing : how can he be sure that he's not foisting another steaming pile on us all ? Is he going to ask forgiveness for all the hype he made around his buggy code ?
I agree with the posts above on Populous. THAT was a revolutionary game, visionary and innovative. But it's also the best game he made. Too bad that was back in 1989.
Also reminds me of a Murphy's Law : each person rises in competence until reaching the point where they become incompetent, then they stay there.
Well, looks like Peter hit the mark in 1990.
It has been statistically proven somewhere that MS needs 4 iterations to get something just about right.
Every version after that just adds bloat and useless "features" that end up destroying the initial usefulness.
I'm sure the hostesses and pilots on the 9/11 planes are quite relieved to hear that.
We'll be an interstellar species when a man crosses the termination shock boundary. For the moment, we can just label ourselves as interstellar junk makers.
Yeah, and lets forbid once and for all any standard that cannot be totally own3d by a 13-year-old in less than an hour, or that cannot support all our popunder/virus installing/zombie making applets.
Spreading viruses and botnets is a REQUIREMENT for the future - no room for lamers.
The problem with optimising is twofold :
- the driver takes the decisions about how the application should be shown, not the user, and
- a benchmark is not a generic application, but one intended to test something following a generic scenario, in order to judge the capability of the component IN THAT SCENARIO.
Any benchmark optimization is cheating on the results, because the driver is not playing by the rules, therefor the results are not representative of the performance being measured.
It is not a question of good or not, it's just a question of that old, quaint notion called integrity.
A benchmark should be able to test the generic path if it so wishes, and the optimized path if it so wishes, but with the user knowing what is being tested.
Hasn't that issue just been solved by the 71.84 version that is public since a few days (weeks) ?
Lol, you're right. It requires a certain expertise. Sorry, it appears I've asked for too much ;-)
Given that judge Robert E Payne has decided that Rambus is guilty of non-disclosure, it follows that Rambus IP is non-existant and therefor cannot be infringed upon.
I believe the Whyte judgement is in great risk of being overturned in an appeal, based on this decision.
As for Rambus hatred, if you really are new here, then you should know that any playground bully is a normal target for loathing. Rambus most definitely qualifies, since they tried to hijack DDR with baseless accusations and after the fact. Rambus also forged a deal with Intel to shove RDRAM down everyone's throat (the "technology of the future"). The thing that irked us geeks to no end was the fact that RDRAM was a possible contender to DDR only in its most expensive variant, detail that was thoroughly hushed by Intel and Rambus alike.
Unfortunately, benchmark numbers were published in too many reviews to allow people to ignore the fact that RDRAM was a lame duck. When the realization finally dawned on the industry, Rambus made a big mistake and accused Intel of not knowing how to make motherboards. That was a big no-no, and Intel promptly pulled out the rug from under the deal. After two years of touting RDRAM as the way to go, Intel switched all its boards to DDR faster than you could blink.
Add to that the irritating behavior that Rambus executives displayed all over the world, being smug and superior, and attacking anybody who wouldn't kowtow immediately with outrageous license fees, and you get a strong following of geeks who simply cannot stand the board's behavior.
Add to that the fact that Rambus demonstrated how to become a (moderately) successful IP litigation industry, example which SCO promptly followed, and you get the perfect item for focalising hatred from any truth-loving geek.
Have I been clear enough ?
Please choke on a pretzel and die.
"reform from quantity to quality"
Oh yeah ? Why submit a patent for the NOT operator then ?
Why submit a patent for the FAT system ?
Why put a copyright on the term Msgbox ?
MS could start helping the patent industry immediately by controlling themselves and not submitting useless patents covered by prior art in the first place.
MS for a better world ? I'll believe it when I see it.
Wrong. I hate RAMBUS with a passion.
In all honesty, given that His Billness's OS is on at least 90% of personal computers in the world, it follows that 90% of whatever happens can be traced back to him, either by intent or by chance.
I trust I shouldn't have to explain this again
You trust ? On Slashdot ? You must be new around these parts.
Sorry, the public has no issue with other-dimension goonies. It does not, however, like badly-done rip-offs from 20 other movies.
:
Doom had no role model to follow in its time. Its message is consistent. I do believe that a proper scenario, respecting the main premises of the game, would have a chance at success.
The main elements I count would be
- demons from Hell (Hell yes, Mr righteous !)
- teleporter portal mistake (no virus)
- single (or small group of) Space Marine(s) trying to survive (SWAT team out of the picture)
- not on Earth nor on the Moon (to avoid governmental oversight in a clearly illegal project)
I would accept the "single" marine being replaced by a small squad - even though that would break from the game. But it would be more realistic to see the group being whittled down a man at a time than to see a single guy mow through dozens of demons.
But that is the limit of the concessions I am prepared to accept in a Doom movie.
So this version is off my To View list.
Sorry, Event Horizon takes place around Jupiter - in space.
Not under water.
Hang on there :
:
- Tomb Raider had Angelina, and that is enough to reinforce credibility to the max
- Mortal Kombat had lots of fighting and no story, and that's basically what the game was about, so good points there too
Whereas Doom - The Movie is NOT going to have
- demons
- dying souls
- upside-down crosses
- tortured victims nailed to a cross
- pentagrams
- portal to Hell
- anything interesting
Might as well put in a bunch of furry rabbits carrying egg baskets for all I care. If we're supposed to see a bunch of enraged human mutants, then I say Dawn of the Dead is all we need.
Woah there !
You don't want them to mess up a Half-Life movie now do you ?
Let them muck around with Doom 3. Viewers will just sit in front of a black screen for 90 minutes anyway (apart from the occasional large explosion lighting up - nothing much).
If there ever is a Half-Life movie, I hope it is based on a solid scenario, with heaps of CGI budget for well-done effects, and with actors actually worth something.
Right, I've gotta lay off smoking the carpet, I'm actually starting to wish for the impossible.
Give SCO a break ? As in , forgive them ?
But of course I will forgive SCO. Darth Vader style that is - with the sound of crunching windpipe and bulging eyes, I will gladly see all SCO managers on their knees, one hand on their crushed throats and the other begging for air before dropping dead on the floor, to be ejected into the void where they belong. That is when SCO will be forgiven.
"the elves took their 3 rings with them across the water"
yep, but only once the One was destroyed. They needed the Three to resist Sauron in the meantime.
You are sooo right.
A better visual experience, a better AI engine, a better, more immersive world, realistic physics, believable facial/body expressions, and a thoroughly intriguing story do not make a miracle of innovation.
Don't fight it, keep your money. You're definitely the one who is right.
Excuse me while I go on playing this crappy game.
Considering the scope of the technology, and the amount of innovation necessary, and the number of projected customers, Valve could have easily avoided burdening themselves with another connection requirement.
And there is no reason to be tender when you pay good money for the right to play a game, only to find out that you still have to ask permission when you want to start it.
So just because you can afford something means that you have it ?
I could afford an ADSL connection years before I got it. Why ? Because there wasn't any phone company to give it to me.
That has nothing to do with the amount of time and money I am willing to put into getting good PC components.
Your view of the world is ridiculous.
Not true. If your box has an active network connection, then you HAVE to have an active Internet connection to start the game again (but not to play).