The proof is in how many different kinds of games are being made. That we have games which are massive franchises, that have been homogenized and distilled to appeal to the masses, yet we have games that are filling niche wants for gamers of certain types. We have games for people who are extremely hard core games, and games for those that are extremely casual. We have games targeting all skill levels, all types of play, and so on.
Whatever you likes, there is probably a game being made for you.
That list of games was a list of games which were to counter the point of things just being "movies" since all were most emphatically not. If you want a list of something else, then specify what you are interested in. The whole point was the AC, like so many of the other whiners, are complaining about a very specific type of game that is popular, but hardly the only thing. I was providing a list of games that are not what they are complaining about, and were released fairly recently as a counter example.
What has happened is that various things have brought down barriers, so now small groups of people, or even single people, can create and compete in the games marketplace. The upshot is we get things for more interests, not just the mainstream.
After all what is a gun? I mean it may seem intuitive but I mean really think about how you write a formal definition that includes everything you want to regulate but isn't overreaching and hits things you don't. It's not the easiest thing in the world.
So, maybe the law needs to be changed to deal with a new development. Would hardly be the first time. Sounds like that's what they are evaluating.
For this use I'd need one with realtime video capability since it would be non-line of sight operation. Hence more cost. Since it is mostly just me wanting to check on things, not worth it.
If there is an actual problem, I have professionals look at it.
In general things involving roof inspection are well suited to be done by drone. While there still are times you'd need to put a person on the roof, a drone with a high rez camera can get you the information you need in most cases. Safer, and also faster.
If they weren't so expensive I'd love to have one for my own use for that purpose. I live in a second story condo and access to the roof is a problem (you need a really big ladder). I'd love to be able to fly a drone up to check for debris occluding vents, damage to my A/C, etc.
You are a perfect example of what I'm talking about. No perspective on modern games, just bitching. You act like CoD is all there is. Let's see, off the top of my head for modern games that are deep and involved: Kerbal Space Program, Wasteland 2, Pillars of Eternity, Frozen Cortex, Sins of A Solar Empire Rebellion, Endless Space, Grey Goo, Transistor, Starpoint Gemini 2, Divinity Original Sin, and Age of Wonders 3.
That's not a list of all of them, just what I can think of easily. These are all titles that have come out in the last year or two, have real meat to the gameplay, little to no cinematics and are a hell of a lot of fun.
If you can't find games that are good, that's you being a stick in the mud and being too lazy to read anything but IGN, not because there aren't tons of releases.
There are a -LOT- of single player games these days. A lot fo multi player ones too, but that one exists doesn't get rid of the other. Whatever genre you like, you can find some of both.
Since you mention shooters, Wolfenstein the New Order is a single player only shooter acclaimed by critics and fans alike.
For whatever reason, humans (some of them at least) have this need to view the past with rose coloured glasses and then whine about everything modern. Happens with gaming just as anything else.
An objective look at gaming shows we are in an amazing golden age of gaming right now. Tons of games are being made. With that means tons of crap, of course, but plenty of good ones. What's more, basically everyone's needs are being met. Gaming isn't targeted at just one or two demographics, there is a massive variety out there. So we can have both something like Call of Duty, which is designed to appeal to a mass market, and something like Kerbal Space Program which has a much more limited audience. One does not choke out the other and everyone can find something they like.
My problem with games these days lack of time to play all the games I want. I have a big wishlist of games on Steam, and a collection of games I bought but haven't yet installed. However life intrudes and I have only so much time to spend gaming. I wish I could waste more time playing games but I can't.
Very different from my childhood where I would have to play and replay the same games over and over since I had very few.
This is just a cop out to pay people less. "Oh sorry we don't negotiate on salary, it is a gender equality thing, you'll just have to take the pay we offered you even though it is below what you should make." It's a CEO being a CEO and looking to line their own pockets. However she's just figured out how to couch it in equality rhetoric so as to mask the fact that it is just designed to screw over workers to enrich her.
Because if you start exaggerating and making shit up, it makes people listen to you less. The whole "boy who cried wolf" thing. If you keep saying doom is coming and it never comes, well then people are going to quit listening to you even if you are right one time.
Also it leads people to question your legit, non-exaggerated points. I mean after all, if the problem you are talking about really is so bad, why the need to make shit up? Is it really so bad if you have to exaggerate what you say? If you exaggerated this thing, how do we know you aren't exaggerating more?
The best thing is to keep it truthful. No, people won't always be interested in listening or in doing what you ask, but that's life. If you want to have any credibility long term and have hope of being listened to, you need to be truthful. Let people truthfully know the problems they will face and show them when they are facing them. Ya, it'll probably have to get to be a bigger problem before people fix it, that is how humans tend to operate.
Is he was pretty accurate on the "fucktard" thing?:D
Seriously though, this is part of the reason she's undefeatable. If her supporters don't even know who she's running against, how can that person have any hope?
She's an incumbent, which gives her a big advantage. Add to that the number of rabid "I'll never vote republican EVAR" folks in California, she's got enough that she'll never get voted out.
Only bright spot is she's currently the oldest serving senator. At some point probably reasonably soon, she'll have to leave because of age.
Each order of magnitude of network speed increase matters less than the one before it as more stuff is trivial, and there's less stuff that is still problematic. There are things out there for which gig is a noticeable improvement over 100mbit, but not many. As time goes on and things grow it'll matter a little more, but still not a huge amount.
Eventually we may find that something is "enough" for end users and further upgrades aren't needed, perhaps in the 10gibt range. That even when we are doing all kinds of things with it, it ends up being fast enough, and not having any real benefit to go higher.
Right now, 20mbits or so is "enough" for most users. If you get multiple users in a household, or like to download large games or something, more can be needed. However even for that, 100mbit ends up being "enough". Moving to something higher isn't real noticeable. Steaming works no better, webpages are already fast, all you get are a bit less time on large DLs but you didn't spend much time anyhow so no big deal.
It's fun for sure, and I'll probably go to gig when it comes to my area (I have 150mbps now) but only because I'm a geek who likes shiny toys. When I stepped up from 30mbps to 150mbps I noticed no difference at all except for Steam downloads, it is a luxury, not anything that really matters.
The actors had nothing to react to and nowhere to go. Basically the whole damn thing was shot on green screen, with a two camera setup. Lucas could just park his ass in his chair, look at the monitors, and do nothing. Makes it hard when you are not only having to imagine the entire set and everything you are supposed to be seeing and reacting to, but also are on a small stage and can't even more around much.
He had a lot of people he was answerable to. Sure he wrote the script for the first one (other screenwriters did the second and third) but it wasn't the Lucas show. The producers worked for the studio, not him, he had others who would question his decisions, make changes, etc. He was in charge only in so far as being the director, who does have a good deal of control, but still plenty of limits.
Not the case for the new three. It was an all-Lucas team. He was in charge, surrounded by yes men and did whatever the fuck he wanted. The result was really bad.
Overhead on the CPU and in terms of interconnect latency. Because USB is higher level, it incurs a decent amount of load on the CPU. No big deal for basic use, but you wouldn't want it for your main drive or the like. Also USB's latency isn't great, on the order of 100 microseconds or so. Fine for many uses, but high by SSD reckoning and not something you want time critical system components on. PCIe latency is so low you tend to measure it in cycles, not in time.
Also 20Gbit/sec doesn't cut it for some of the internal shit. Graphics and compute hang on 16x slots those are 16GByte/sec in the 3.0 spec (half that in 2.0) per direction (it is completely full duplex). That's 128gbits/sec. For all that it is still extremely performance limiting if you regularly have to use it to access system RAM.
Really interfaces usually are designed for purpose, and not everything is compatible. When you are trying to balance cost, speed, complexity of implementation, complexity of signaling, distance, etc, etc something has to give. There's reason to have PCIe for internal connections, USB for devices, and Ethernet for network, and not try to cram all that in to one bus that is not well suited to them.
These M.2 drivers are PCIe. It is a different slot form factor, but it is just PCIe.
USB would not be desirable for internal system use, too much overhead. It is well designed for the purpose it has but you wouldn't want it for everything.
There are reasons to want multiple transports, different ones are good at different things.
It went from "faster than matters" to "even faster than matters". All SATA drives are fast enough, you don't notice the difference between normal ones and ultra fast ones.. I have a Samsung XP941 (the "proprietary" drive that you can easily buy) and a regular 840 Pro in my desktop. You can benchmark the difference easily, but you don't notice it, at all, in day to day operation.
While AMD fans cry foul, it really is true that AMD drivers are worse on Windows than nVidia drivers. It isn't the massive gap like on Linux, but it is there. OpenGL stuff sees particular issues, with slower performance or even stuff outright failing to run on AMD cards, but other issues as well. My 7970M in my laptop has been headaches since I got the thing and only recently got up to a competent level.
Problems aside, they are just slow with updates for things like Crossfire. Multi-GPU support generally requires game specific profiles to work well, or even work at all. nVidia is quite fast at getting their SLI profiles out, but AMD hasn't had an update to Crossfire profiles since 2014.
AMD just doesn't focus on the software side of things like nVidia does. Their hardware development team seems to be top notch but their software development is lacking.
That's the only reason. A number of people, in particular geeks that are Windows haters in general, have decided Windows 8 is horrible, unusable, etc, etc and thus refuse to upgrade to it. So something like this is a Big Deal(tm) for them. Of course if any of them actually just quit complaining and used it they'd find it works great. The interface is a big uglier with the whole flat style (Window Blinds and ShadowFX fix that if you really care) and the start screen is less efficient than the start menu (Start 8 fixes that nicely) but it isn't a big deal. The OS itself is compatible with essentially everything (between home and work I've tested a lot of stuff on it) and it is fast and stable.
However this is a case of feels over reals so they complain, hence why you are hearing about this.
It is time to stop selling 7 now. Windows operates on a 10 year lifecycle, split in half. After the first 5 years it goes in to "extended support" meaning patches but no new features. So that's a good time to stop selling it. Also, you don't want to sell a laptop with an OS that will go completely out of support right away and require an upgrade. Again, a reason to stop selling it.
Hence new systems are going 8 only for support.
Also, despite the whining, it is a fine OS. It's only real issue is the start screen is inefficient to us. Not impossible, not insurmountable, just inefficient. You can use a system with it just fine. What's more, it is a real easy problem to fix. Buy Start 8, or get Classic Shell for free and you're done, a classic start menu that works nice.
It makes sense to only support and ship 8 (or rather 8.1) on systems these days.
I have and you are right, they made it a very good game, just stating that on release all those 9 and 10 scores were BS, based on what people wanted it to be, not what it was. As it stands now, solid 9.
Valve is one of those devs that can do no wrong in most people's eyes. They'll get high scores because of who they and, and because of what people want Halflife to be.
You want an example of shit like that happening? Look at Civilization 5. It wasn't a great Civ game. It wasn't BAD, but it was a step down from 4 in most ways. Realistic scores would have been 7/10 or so. However all the reviews were glowing. Why? Because reviewers WANTED it to be good. They love Civ, have loved it for a long time, and have an emotional investment in it being good. So they reviewed the game they wanted it to be, not what it was.
Unless HL3 was complete shit, it would get off the charts good reviews because people want it to be good so badly.
Yes DOTA 2 and CS:GO are very popular, but innovative they are not. CS:GO is just Counterstrike. New graphics and some tweaks, but same game it ever way. DOTA 2 is just another MOBA, one of very many, not the biggest out there (that's League of Legends) and it borrows heavily from other games. They are popular not because they are amazing new titles doing never before seen stuff, they are popular because it is the same shit people like, well executed and pushed on the most popular PC game store.
Not hating on that, but this idea that Valve is some sort of amazin' developer that only puts out revolutionary titles is a false one. Lately all they've "pumped out" are rehashes that are popular for doing what has been done before and people liked, not because they moved in a new direction.
Slashdot Mirror
The proof is in how many different kinds of games are being made. That we have games which are massive franchises, that have been homogenized and distilled to appeal to the masses, yet we have games that are filling niche wants for gamers of certain types. We have games for people who are extremely hard core games, and games for those that are extremely casual. We have games targeting all skill levels, all types of play, and so on.
Whatever you likes, there is probably a game being made for you.
That list of games was a list of games which were to counter the point of things just being "movies" since all were most emphatically not. If you want a list of something else, then specify what you are interested in. The whole point was the AC, like so many of the other whiners, are complaining about a very specific type of game that is popular, but hardly the only thing. I was providing a list of games that are not what they are complaining about, and were released fairly recently as a counter example.
What has happened is that various things have brought down barriers, so now small groups of people, or even single people, can create and compete in the games marketplace. The upshot is we get things for more interests, not just the mainstream.
The Chinese fab is a 65nm fab, which is for older stuff. All their 22nm fabs are in the US and Israel.
After all what is a gun? I mean it may seem intuitive but I mean really think about how you write a formal definition that includes everything you want to regulate but isn't overreaching and hits things you don't. It's not the easiest thing in the world.
So, maybe the law needs to be changed to deal with a new development. Would hardly be the first time. Sounds like that's what they are evaluating.
For this use I'd need one with realtime video capability since it would be non-line of sight operation. Hence more cost. Since it is mostly just me wanting to check on things, not worth it.
If there is an actual problem, I have professionals look at it.
In general things involving roof inspection are well suited to be done by drone. While there still are times you'd need to put a person on the roof, a drone with a high rez camera can get you the information you need in most cases. Safer, and also faster.
If they weren't so expensive I'd love to have one for my own use for that purpose. I live in a second story condo and access to the roof is a problem (you need a really big ladder). I'd love to be able to fly a drone up to check for debris occluding vents, damage to my A/C, etc.
You are a perfect example of what I'm talking about. No perspective on modern games, just bitching. You act like CoD is all there is. Let's see, off the top of my head for modern games that are deep and involved: Kerbal Space Program, Wasteland 2, Pillars of Eternity, Frozen Cortex, Sins of A Solar Empire Rebellion, Endless Space, Grey Goo, Transistor, Starpoint Gemini 2, Divinity Original Sin, and Age of Wonders 3.
That's not a list of all of them, just what I can think of easily. These are all titles that have come out in the last year or two, have real meat to the gameplay, little to no cinematics and are a hell of a lot of fun.
If you can't find games that are good, that's you being a stick in the mud and being too lazy to read anything but IGN, not because there aren't tons of releases.
There are a -LOT- of single player games these days. A lot fo multi player ones too, but that one exists doesn't get rid of the other. Whatever genre you like, you can find some of both.
Since you mention shooters, Wolfenstein the New Order is a single player only shooter acclaimed by critics and fans alike.
For whatever reason, humans (some of them at least) have this need to view the past with rose coloured glasses and then whine about everything modern. Happens with gaming just as anything else.
An objective look at gaming shows we are in an amazing golden age of gaming right now. Tons of games are being made. With that means tons of crap, of course, but plenty of good ones. What's more, basically everyone's needs are being met. Gaming isn't targeted at just one or two demographics, there is a massive variety out there. So we can have both something like Call of Duty, which is designed to appeal to a mass market, and something like Kerbal Space Program which has a much more limited audience. One does not choke out the other and everyone can find something they like.
My problem with games these days lack of time to play all the games I want. I have a big wishlist of games on Steam, and a collection of games I bought but haven't yet installed. However life intrudes and I have only so much time to spend gaming. I wish I could waste more time playing games but I can't.
Very different from my childhood where I would have to play and replay the same games over and over since I had very few.
This is just a cop out to pay people less. "Oh sorry we don't negotiate on salary, it is a gender equality thing, you'll just have to take the pay we offered you even though it is below what you should make." It's a CEO being a CEO and looking to line their own pockets. However she's just figured out how to couch it in equality rhetoric so as to mask the fact that it is just designed to screw over workers to enrich her.
Because if you start exaggerating and making shit up, it makes people listen to you less. The whole "boy who cried wolf" thing. If you keep saying doom is coming and it never comes, well then people are going to quit listening to you even if you are right one time.
Also it leads people to question your legit, non-exaggerated points. I mean after all, if the problem you are talking about really is so bad, why the need to make shit up? Is it really so bad if you have to exaggerate what you say? If you exaggerated this thing, how do we know you aren't exaggerating more?
The best thing is to keep it truthful. No, people won't always be interested in listening or in doing what you ask, but that's life. If you want to have any credibility long term and have hope of being listened to, you need to be truthful. Let people truthfully know the problems they will face and show them when they are facing them. Ya, it'll probably have to get to be a bigger problem before people fix it, that is how humans tend to operate.
Is he was pretty accurate on the "fucktard" thing? :D
Seriously though, this is part of the reason she's undefeatable. If her supporters don't even know who she's running against, how can that person have any hope?
She's an incumbent, which gives her a big advantage. Add to that the number of rabid "I'll never vote republican EVAR" folks in California, she's got enough that she'll never get voted out.
Only bright spot is she's currently the oldest serving senator. At some point probably reasonably soon, she'll have to leave because of age.
But like I said, crazy geek. What would I recommend to people? Probably 20mbps for individuals, 100mbps for families or power users.
Each order of magnitude of network speed increase matters less than the one before it as more stuff is trivial, and there's less stuff that is still problematic. There are things out there for which gig is a noticeable improvement over 100mbit, but not many. As time goes on and things grow it'll matter a little more, but still not a huge amount.
Eventually we may find that something is "enough" for end users and further upgrades aren't needed, perhaps in the 10gibt range. That even when we are doing all kinds of things with it, it ends up being fast enough, and not having any real benefit to go higher.
Right now, 20mbits or so is "enough" for most users. If you get multiple users in a household, or like to download large games or something, more can be needed. However even for that, 100mbit ends up being "enough". Moving to something higher isn't real noticeable. Steaming works no better, webpages are already fast, all you get are a bit less time on large DLs but you didn't spend much time anyhow so no big deal.
It's fun for sure, and I'll probably go to gig when it comes to my area (I have 150mbps now) but only because I'm a geek who likes shiny toys. When I stepped up from 30mbps to 150mbps I noticed no difference at all except for Steam downloads, it is a luxury, not anything that really matters.
The actors had nothing to react to and nowhere to go. Basically the whole damn thing was shot on green screen, with a two camera setup. Lucas could just park his ass in his chair, look at the monitors, and do nothing. Makes it hard when you are not only having to imagine the entire set and everything you are supposed to be seeing and reacting to, but also are on a small stage and can't even more around much.
He had a lot of people he was answerable to. Sure he wrote the script for the first one (other screenwriters did the second and third) but it wasn't the Lucas show. The producers worked for the studio, not him, he had others who would question his decisions, make changes, etc. He was in charge only in so far as being the director, who does have a good deal of control, but still plenty of limits.
Not the case for the new three. It was an all-Lucas team. He was in charge, surrounded by yes men and did whatever the fuck he wanted. The result was really bad.
Overhead on the CPU and in terms of interconnect latency. Because USB is higher level, it incurs a decent amount of load on the CPU. No big deal for basic use, but you wouldn't want it for your main drive or the like. Also USB's latency isn't great, on the order of 100 microseconds or so. Fine for many uses, but high by SSD reckoning and not something you want time critical system components on. PCIe latency is so low you tend to measure it in cycles, not in time.
Also 20Gbit/sec doesn't cut it for some of the internal shit. Graphics and compute hang on 16x slots those are 16GByte/sec in the 3.0 spec (half that in 2.0) per direction (it is completely full duplex). That's 128gbits/sec. For all that it is still extremely performance limiting if you regularly have to use it to access system RAM.
Really interfaces usually are designed for purpose, and not everything is compatible. When you are trying to balance cost, speed, complexity of implementation, complexity of signaling, distance, etc, etc something has to give. There's reason to have PCIe for internal connections, USB for devices, and Ethernet for network, and not try to cram all that in to one bus that is not well suited to them.
These M.2 drivers are PCIe. It is a different slot form factor, but it is just PCIe.
USB would not be desirable for internal system use, too much overhead. It is well designed for the purpose it has but you wouldn't want it for everything.
There are reasons to want multiple transports, different ones are good at different things.
It went from "faster than matters" to "even faster than matters". All SATA drives are fast enough, you don't notice the difference between normal ones and ultra fast ones.. I have a Samsung XP941 (the "proprietary" drive that you can easily buy) and a regular 840 Pro in my desktop. You can benchmark the difference easily, but you don't notice it, at all, in day to day operation.
While AMD fans cry foul, it really is true that AMD drivers are worse on Windows than nVidia drivers. It isn't the massive gap like on Linux, but it is there. OpenGL stuff sees particular issues, with slower performance or even stuff outright failing to run on AMD cards, but other issues as well. My 7970M in my laptop has been headaches since I got the thing and only recently got up to a competent level.
Problems aside, they are just slow with updates for things like Crossfire. Multi-GPU support generally requires game specific profiles to work well, or even work at all. nVidia is quite fast at getting their SLI profiles out, but AMD hasn't had an update to Crossfire profiles since 2014.
AMD just doesn't focus on the software side of things like nVidia does. Their hardware development team seems to be top notch but their software development is lacking.
That's the only reason. A number of people, in particular geeks that are Windows haters in general, have decided Windows 8 is horrible, unusable, etc, etc and thus refuse to upgrade to it. So something like this is a Big Deal(tm) for them. Of course if any of them actually just quit complaining and used it they'd find it works great. The interface is a big uglier with the whole flat style (Window Blinds and ShadowFX fix that if you really care) and the start screen is less efficient than the start menu (Start 8 fixes that nicely) but it isn't a big deal. The OS itself is compatible with essentially everything (between home and work I've tested a lot of stuff on it) and it is fast and stable.
However this is a case of feels over reals so they complain, hence why you are hearing about this.
It is time to stop selling 7 now. Windows operates on a 10 year lifecycle, split in half. After the first 5 years it goes in to "extended support" meaning patches but no new features. So that's a good time to stop selling it. Also, you don't want to sell a laptop with an OS that will go completely out of support right away and require an upgrade. Again, a reason to stop selling it.
Hence new systems are going 8 only for support.
Also, despite the whining, it is a fine OS. It's only real issue is the start screen is inefficient to us. Not impossible, not insurmountable, just inefficient. You can use a system with it just fine. What's more, it is a real easy problem to fix. Buy Start 8, or get Classic Shell for free and you're done, a classic start menu that works nice.
It makes sense to only support and ship 8 (or rather 8.1) on systems these days.
I have and you are right, they made it a very good game, just stating that on release all those 9 and 10 scores were BS, based on what people wanted it to be, not what it was. As it stands now, solid 9.
Valve is one of those devs that can do no wrong in most people's eyes. They'll get high scores because of who they and, and because of what people want Halflife to be.
You want an example of shit like that happening? Look at Civilization 5. It wasn't a great Civ game. It wasn't BAD, but it was a step down from 4 in most ways. Realistic scores would have been 7/10 or so. However all the reviews were glowing. Why? Because reviewers WANTED it to be good. They love Civ, have loved it for a long time, and have an emotional investment in it being good. So they reviewed the game they wanted it to be, not what it was.
Unless HL3 was complete shit, it would get off the charts good reviews because people want it to be good so badly.
Yes DOTA 2 and CS:GO are very popular, but innovative they are not. CS:GO is just Counterstrike. New graphics and some tweaks, but same game it ever way. DOTA 2 is just another MOBA, one of very many, not the biggest out there (that's League of Legends) and it borrows heavily from other games. They are popular not because they are amazing new titles doing never before seen stuff, they are popular because it is the same shit people like, well executed and pushed on the most popular PC game store.
Not hating on that, but this idea that Valve is some sort of amazin' developer that only puts out revolutionary titles is a false one. Lately all they've "pumped out" are rehashes that are popular for doing what has been done before and people liked, not because they moved in a new direction.