200%? That may be true is some industries, but is far from the rule, unless you are comparing the retail price to just the production costs, and ignoring marketing, shipping, shelf space, salaries for everyone involved in retail, etc...
I work for an automotive aftermarket manufacturer. Yes, some specific items do get the 200% markup. But if I run a query on just the wheel sales to end customers last month, against the actual sale prices, I show an average of 37%, not 200%.
Remember, NO ONE pays retail unless they are completely clueless.
By the way, we go from aluminum blocks to a sale in one of our own warehouses, so we do include ALL costs.
> "you can easily be making a high five or low six figures straight out of college" is bullcrap and won't happen
Spoken like a true loser. I got out of MIT with a bachelor (wrapped up my MEng years later), and started at 73,000. I'm at six digits salary right now, and my declared income last year was double that from programming projects for manufacturers in the area. And I am not trying too hard - I enjoy California too much for that. Basically I'm a decent programmer, and hunt for projects with clear specifications, and limited scope.
Even back in the 90s, once MIT admitted you, they would come up with some way for you to afford the tuition. Loans, UROP, undergraduate research something or other), LAing, tutoring... working in the damn cafeteria if you can't be bothered to make an effort. I repaid my loans the second year after I graduated.
MIT teaches a lot of things, not necessarily all good, but no one can teach shit to those who can't learn. A good education does not guarantee you smooth sailing, but it sure helps, and is a great opportunity to improve yourself. Just an opportunity, and not necessarily a requirement. But, to the original poster: If you can get into MIT or a similar school, go for it. A 30k loan looks insane when you are 19. At 24, with a degree under your belt and a skill that you enjoy practicing, it's peanuts.
Having been born in the 60s, Guitar Hero was mostly a trip into memory lane for me. But I did buy Jonathan Coulton CDs because of Portal, and I would have never ended up as one of Chiasm's fans without Vampires: Bloodlines. I have to admit that I have been introduced to quite a few bands through video games. But this is only to be expected. Video Games have completely displaced TV for me, and as for radio, the stations to which I listen tend play songs from the 80s and 90s.
It were not for Oktober/Ozzfest and opening bands, where would I hear the new stuff:-)
I call bullshit. My gut instinct tells me that the potential energy of 25kg moved from floor to ceiling is not enough to power any kind of 40W bulb for 4 hours. Doing the simple math (powers of ten, and rounding in favour) tells me the energy is off by a factor of at least one hundred.
And I will not even go into the safety issues associated with having 25 kg of anything swinging down, attached on a 2m pole.
I still have my six cylinder, 1989 Supra, and I plan on driving it for as long as I can (I has more than 292,000 miles) My 2005 Volvo has 5 cylinders, 420hps (a few performance mods) and has gotten over 28 miles per gallon since I have bought it - that's gallons pumped vs miles driven, not some hallucination of the car's computer. I bet the _average_ 4 cylinder car loses to the Supra on longevity and to the Volvo on efficiency... and certainly loses to both on acceleration.
Arguing which operating system is better is like comparing cars. You will never reach an agreement. There are people who think Vista looks great, and can afford hardware to run it OK. There are people who would prefer a Diablo with a 120hp engine to my Volvo. Hell, I wish these people were less well represented among the women I meet.
I have a dual boot XP/Vista PA at home. I use the XP for C++, WinCE C# development, and the idea was to use Vista for gaming. I do not have a single game that did not end running better and prettier on XP, after I had done my homework, and gone through the configuration settings and.ini files. But I can see how someone with better things to do would prefer the out of the box games on Vista. I also expect Far Cry 2 to look better on Vista. Crysis did not, not after getting the settings right.
At work, I bought two copies of Vista, installed them on the assistant sysadmins' PCs and told them to try using them for everything. One guy gave up after two weeks, and is sticking to his Windows 2000. The other one keeps telling me Vista is fine, but every single freaking time I look at his PC, it's XP Pro he is running. I have not tried using Vista for work, as when I have to get involved, the shit has already hit the fan, and no one wants to wait for me to wonder where Microsoft has moved that particular functionality.
So I really do not see why people like me would want to upgrade. If you know what you are doing, you do not need UAC. Yes, whenever I install an Adobe product, I have to go clean up after it. Yes, the Aero interface is flashy. Yes, at some point, there will be hardware that runs better with Vista. Yes, Microsoft will refuse to let DirectX evolve on XP. But there is no rush... when I built my last system, I bought XP. When I build my next one, I may go with Vista. Or not.
Even assuming that he is a short-sighted moron, he can still be interesting. I mod people "interesting" if what they posted made me stop and think, OR if the emotions in their post made me realize how serious they are about the matter, OR, sometimes, just because the post made me go "Wow! People like this actually exist?!"
I upgrade my gaming PC every March. By then the Christmas videocards no longer command a premium. My monitor is still an old 1600x1200 Hitachi Superscan from the 90s. I run XP, although there is a Vista install on a separate System partition.
The PC which I use for programming has not been upgraded since 2003. It has a 1280x1024 Samsung SyncMaster 191t, and XP, and I do not think I will replace it before it fries. And even then, I will be repairing it for as long as I can find parts.
Back to the original question: The MAC is of absolutely no use for me. Mediocre for games, poor as a development environment, unsuited for anything out of the ordinary. My girlfriend has macs, and whenever I have to fix something there, I feel as if I have been asked to fence with both legs tied together. On the other hand, the last one has had exactly one problem in the three years she's had it, and it was a messed up QuickTime player for Safari (the browser) last February. To my shame, after two hours uninstalling and reinstalling, I gave up on fixing it, and installed Firefox instead.
So I would get the Dell, and install XP. But I would much rather build my own gaming machine anyway.
> Not sure yet who takes the crown, Bioshock or Mass Effect (have not beat the latter) > but I'd be more interested a new story as opposed to a sequel for Bioshock.
I played both Bioshock and Mass Effect, and think the Witcher is better than both of them. Of course, you may not end up thinking so, but if you're looking for a new story, you'll get one.
Man, my total power bill is below 15 bucks, and I have a 24 inch CRT monitor from the 90s. What on Earth are you running to be able to REDUCE your bill by a hundred dollars?
I, for one, will only upgrade to Vista for DX10. As soon as a game I want requires it. Thanks the powers that be, The Witcher is wonderful, and runs just fine on my XP. So fine actually, that Crysis will sit unopened at least until I finish the Witcher once. And guess what, Crysis runs on XP as well.
Innovation is not always a good thing. There is something to be said for keeping mechanics that work.
I loved Call of Duty I to obsession. I still play it between new games, with my house rules - hardest difficulty, restart level when killed. I was turned off by the 'revolutionary innovation' that let you wait for ten seconds to fully heal any wound and never bought any sequel after the demo that introduced it. And no, you cannot just 'not use it', the way you can avoid health packs is some other games. I completely ruined my immersion.
I guess now is the time to ask...
Is there a setting or mod that removes the regeneration from Call of Duty IV?
Having had very high expectations for Fable is not a prerequisite for hating it:-)
I did get excited at all about Fable. I did not bother buying it on the X-box, and I picked it up when it came out on the PC, in a time where there wasn't anything much to play. I had to push myself to finish the introduction, and lost interest after playing for ten minutes in the castle(?) that came afterwards.
The graphics/models were pathetic, the environment simplistic, the story failed to interest me, and the combat I do not even remember. The dialog options were retarded in the worst "good or stupid" tradition.
I have not been impressed by Peter Molyneux's games for a long, long time. I do not know what was so groundbreaking about a good/evil scale, given that bloody Baldur's Gate it did it earlier, and somewhat better. As far as I am concerned, when you are trying to play a Evil, but rational character, you should not feel either stupid, or a monster. And your decisions should have a definite effect on the game world, not just lead to a couple of different endings.
Fallout, Planescape Torment, Temple of Elemental Evil, The Witcher, etc... there are many games that let you see the consequences of your various, and by no mean simplistic or obvious, decisions. By the way, let me use this chance to plug 'The Witcher'. It's been a while since I have enjoyed an RPG so much. There's a lot of good about it, but I just want to point out how they handle the 'consequences' part.
You make a choice - you support a character against another, provide backup for one squad instead of another, let a criminal go in exchange of some information, provide testimony that leads to a lynching. Later, you meet the actors in the event, or come upon their latest handiwork. Then and there, without waiting for the end, your see what you have wrought, and you have a chance to say how you feel about your decision, and sometimes have a chance to do something about it.
Maybe I am ignorant of a game that has done that before, but it came a damn nice surprise to me. I hope more games do it.
Ah, and at the risk of being labeled off-topic... The Witcher is pretty good in other respects as well. The graphics are great, and while there are way too few models, the ones available are damn good. The combat feel simplistic (click enemy) at first, but after a while you realize how much you can actually do, and once you start interrupting your attacks and changing style and position on the fly, it starts looking awesome. The alchemy system is the best I've ever seen, the story keeps me playing way past midnight, and most of the characters are well worth remembering.
And the guy can get laid more than any character in any video game I've ever played... I still cannot decide whether I like that part of the game or not. I do know that I wish the cards you get for your conquests were higher resolution;-)
My hopes lie with the Witcher. But, to be honest, lately I have been too scared to go look for info on the game. I have it on pre-order, and I will start it with an open mind.
Stupid. I flew north for PAX, and I couldn't bother checking 'E for whatever' in my backyard, on a weekend when the winds kept me mostly indoor. I can simply not imagine why they would set themselves in direct opposition to something that it ten times as fun, and why they would force industry representatives and gamers to choose between the two.
Re:I'd only recommend the 360 version
on
BioShock Review
·
· Score: 1
I did get the good ending. I did not kill or let any of the girls die. I still felt bad about their parents, and about the big daddies during the game.
Re:Yes, its a great game *spoilers*
on
BioShock Review
·
· Score: 1
You can shoot the proximity mines. No need to run into them:-)
I am sure everyone has worked out a way to kill Big Daddies with little to no effort, even on the hardest difficulty.
For example, on the first level, you can make them chase you to the dentistry offices, where they will get hammered by turrets they cannot easily reach. Then you can hide in one of the maintenance passages, and hit them with short bursts of AP machine gun fire. Being the minimaxer that I am, once I got the camera, I came back to this level, and in less than twenty minutes, I had emptied the vending machines, researched every available enemy, and stocked on everything, including cash.
Compared to the average PC shooter, Bioshock is rather easy. So? There are strategy games on which I enjoy spending hours of getting things just right, like Dominions III. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/Illwinter/Dom3/1.htm but shooters are for running through, blasting things and feeling tough. Bioshock does that very nicely.
Re:I'd only recommend the 360 version
on
BioShock Review
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I have finished the game on my PC without a single crash of any kind. The only bug I experienced is that the game dis not restore the color settings when it exits, so I had to go into the NVidia control panel and fix them (or reboot) I did get rid of SecuROM and the unskippable crap when the game starts, but that's it.
I liked the game, but I was definitely underwhelmed by the graphics (16x12, all settings on maximum) The models look a bit too simple, and while some twitching bodies add a lot to the mood, sometimes the physics engine makes a foot or hand wave for much too long after the enemy has died.
I consider the money well spent... I think System Shock I had a better atmosphere, Far Cry better graphics, and Deus Ex a better story, but I am sure that some people will disagree. It's very subjective. I truly enjoyed the ending movie. I felt quite sad for the Big Daddies, the little sisters' parents, and Rapture itself. Hell, the more I think about it, the more I realize that I really liked the game.
Was it easy? Yes. Too easy? Maybe, but I am about to replay it without using any Adam unless it is required for to progress (I do not think it is, but I may be wrong)
The only things I really hated about the game is SecuROM, and after AVG raised Hell about it, it took less that 15mn to get rid of the damn piece of shit.
Re:You love it... You should buy it.
on
Protoss For a Day
·
· Score: 1
> you are NEVER going to be watching a battle from the soldier's-eye-view, > you'll be up in god mode looking down clicking frantically. Dawn of War > was exactly the same way, the engine could let you zoom in and enjoy the > fight but you'd be slaughtered if you did that.
Well, I never tried to zoom in while playing. First you finish the game, then you watch the recording. Dawn of War had mind blowing animations, and the right way to appreciate them was to watch the replay. I played that game until I heard Dominions III was out, and I was discovering new kill animations until the end. If you still have the game, do yourself a favor and watch a few recordings. I am sure you will see things that will surprise you. Hell the nerd in me typed 'delight', then got ashamed and deleted it from the last sentence:-)
As far as I am concerned, Sony's greatest screw up was the root kit they included on some of their CDs. I had to remove it from my parents' PC, and I decided that I will avoid buying anything with their brand. I own a PS2, and my stereo is a Sony, but I have not spend a dime on their products in a long, long time. Once Virtua Fighter stopped being an exclusive, I knew I was going to be able to stick to my "boycott".
Unfortunately, I completely agree. The auto-level 'feature' ruined a lot of Oblivion for me. The ridiculous grind for stats also bothered me. When I play games, I want my character to be as good as he can possibly be. When a game forces me to jump in place three hundred times in order to maximize the character potential, I start wondering why I play it. When the game also does not let me feel that my character is significantly more powerful as he grows, I stop playing it. With Oblivion, I got disgusted, slapped together some exploitive gear, and got to the ending, just for curiosity's sake.
I am also worried about the fact that Fallout III will be a console game, first and foremost. I am sure that I am in the minority in this, and I do not mean to offend those who feel differently, but of all the PC ports of console games, I only enjoyed GTA2. I was unimpressed by Halo, could not get into Fable, was disappointed by Oblivion, etc...
Now, I am not saying that there are no good console games - my friends and I have spend more time playing Tekken and VF than any other series. But there are games in which I expect complexity, a good customizable interface, and the GODDAMN ABILITY TO FAIL. I wish people would not dumb down games to appeal to more people. I wish people would not purchase licenses and then make a product that has little to do with its spirit. I wish I could still believe that the way I go through a game is somehow different than the way someone else would.
Unfortunately, I do not think I will get my way from major franchises and developers. But hey, being a gamer is still good, maybe better than ever. I no longer enjoy the mainstream games as much as I used to, but there is still good stuff being made - Stalker, Dominions, Galactic Civilizations... Maybe someone will come up with something that will feel like Fallout I. It will not bother me much if it is NOT called Fallout.
I use my XP box for two things - playing games and writing programs for Windows Mobile. I will not switch to Vista until I'm unable to play the games I want on XP. I assume that they are people who will be unable to switch to Vista simply because they don't have the hardware for it. It would be madness for game developers to release DX10 only games if it will reduce their customer base.
I hope Stalker, Crysis, Bioshock, etc... work well in DX9. I am pretty sure strategy games will not become DX10 exclusive anytime soon.
Slashdot Mirror
200%? That may be true is some industries, but is far from the rule, unless you
are comparing the retail price to just the production costs, and ignoring marketing,
shipping, shelf space, salaries for everyone involved in retail, etc...
I work for an automotive aftermarket manufacturer. Yes, some specific items do get
the 200% markup. But if I run a query on just the wheel sales to end customers last
month, against the actual sale prices, I show an average of 37%, not 200%.
Remember, NO ONE pays retail unless they are completely clueless.
By the way, we go from aluminum blocks to a sale in one of our own warehouses, so we
do include ALL costs.
> "you can easily be making a high five or low six figures straight out of college" is bullcrap and won't happen
Spoken like a true loser. I got out of MIT with a bachelor (wrapped up my MEng years later), and started at 73,000. I'm at six digits salary right now, and my declared income last year was double that from programming projects for manufacturers in the area. And I am not trying too hard - I enjoy California too much for that. Basically I'm a decent programmer, and hunt for projects with clear specifications, and limited scope.
Even back in the 90s, once MIT admitted you, they would come up with some way for you to afford the tuition. Loans, UROP, undergraduate research something or other), LAing, tutoring... working in the damn cafeteria if you can't be bothered to make an effort. I repaid my loans the second year after I graduated.
MIT teaches a lot of things, not necessarily all good, but no one can teach shit to those who can't learn. A good education does not guarantee you smooth sailing, but it sure helps, and is a great opportunity to improve yourself. Just an opportunity, and not necessarily a requirement. But, to the original poster: If you can get into MIT or a similar school, go for it. A 30k loan looks insane when you are 19. At 24, with a degree under your belt and a skill that you enjoy practicing, it's peanuts.
It's funny only if you are not in the same position, and have never considered going to New Zealand to raise sheep. I am and I have.
Having been born in the 60s, Guitar Hero was mostly a trip into memory lane for me. But I did buy Jonathan Coulton CDs because of Portal, and I would have never ended up as one of Chiasm's fans without Vampires: Bloodlines. I have to admit that I have been introduced to quite a few bands through video games. But this is only to be expected. Video Games have completely displaced TV for me, and as for radio, the stations to which I listen tend play songs from the 80s and 90s.
:-)
It were not for Oktober/Ozzfest and opening bands, where would I hear the new stuff
I call bullshit. My gut instinct tells me that the potential energy of 25kg moved from floor to ceiling is not enough to power any kind of 40W bulb for 4 hours. Doing the simple math (powers of ten, and rounding in favour) tells me the energy is off by a factor of at least one hundred.
And I will not even go into the safety issues associated with having 25 kg of anything swinging down, attached on a 2m pole.
I still have my six cylinder, 1989 Supra, and I plan on driving it for as long as I can (I has more than 292,000 miles) My 2005 Volvo has 5 cylinders, 420hps (a few performance mods) and has gotten over 28 miles per gallon since I have bought it - that's gallons pumped vs miles driven, not some hallucination of the car's computer. I bet the _average_ 4 cylinder car loses to the Supra on longevity and to the Volvo on efficiency... and certainly loses to both on acceleration.
Arguing which operating system is better is like comparing cars. You will never reach an agreement. There are people who think Vista looks great, and can afford hardware to run it OK. There are people who would prefer a Diablo with a 120hp engine to my Volvo. Hell, I wish these people were less well represented among the women I meet.
It is fantasy only until their lobbyists find a politician willing to make it into law.
I have a dual boot XP/Vista PA at home. I use the XP for C++, WinCE C# development, and the idea was to use Vista for gaming. I do not have a single game that did not end running better and prettier on XP, after I had done my homework, and gone through the configuration settings and .ini files. But I can see how someone with better things to do would prefer the out of the box games on Vista. I also expect Far Cry 2 to look better on Vista. Crysis did not, not after getting the settings right.
At work, I bought two copies of Vista, installed them on the assistant sysadmins' PCs and told them to try using them for everything. One guy gave up after two weeks, and is sticking to his Windows 2000. The other one keeps telling me Vista is fine, but every single freaking time I look at his PC, it's XP Pro he is running. I have not tried using Vista for work, as when I have to get involved, the shit has already hit the fan, and no one wants to wait for me to wonder where Microsoft has moved that particular functionality.
So I really do not see why people like me would want to upgrade. If you know what you are doing, you do not need UAC. Yes, whenever I install an Adobe product, I have to go clean up after it. Yes, the Aero interface is flashy. Yes, at some point, there will be hardware that runs better with Vista. Yes, Microsoft will refuse to let DirectX evolve on XP. But there is no rush... when I built my last system, I bought XP. When I build my next one, I may go with Vista. Or not.
Even assuming that he is a short-sighted moron, he can still be interesting. I mod people "interesting" if what they posted made me stop and think, OR if the emotions in their post made me realize how serious they are about the matter, OR, sometimes, just because the post made me go "Wow! People like this actually exist?!"
Interesting is not the same as insightful.
Depends on which PC we are talking about.
I upgrade my gaming PC every March. By then the Christmas videocards no longer command a premium. My monitor is still an old 1600x1200 Hitachi Superscan from the 90s. I run XP, although there is a Vista install on a separate System partition.
The PC which I use for programming has not been upgraded since 2003. It has a 1280x1024 Samsung SyncMaster 191t, and XP, and I do not think I will replace it before it fries. And even then, I will be repairing it for as long as I can find parts.
Back to the original question: The MAC is of absolutely no use for me. Mediocre for games, poor as a development environment, unsuited for anything out of the ordinary. My girlfriend has macs, and whenever I have to fix something there, I feel as if I have been asked to fence with both legs tied together. On the other hand, the last one has had exactly one problem in the three years she's had it, and it was a messed up QuickTime player for Safari (the browser) last February. To my shame, after two hours uninstalling and reinstalling, I gave up on fixing it, and installed Firefox instead.
So I would get the Dell, and install XP. But I would much rather build my own gaming machine anyway.
> Not sure yet who takes the crown, Bioshock or Mass Effect (have not beat the latter)
> but I'd be more interested a new story as opposed to a sequel for Bioshock.
I played both Bioshock and Mass Effect, and think the Witcher is better than both of them. Of
course, you may not end up thinking so, but if you're looking for a new story, you'll get one.
Man, my total power bill is below 15 bucks, and I have a 24 inch CRT monitor from the 90s. What on Earth are you running to be able to REDUCE your bill by a hundred dollars?
> Who would upgrade just for DX10 anyway?
I, for one, will only upgrade to Vista for DX10. As soon as a game I want requires it. Thanks the powers that be, The Witcher is wonderful, and runs just fine on my XP. So fine actually, that Crysis will sit unopened at least until I finish the Witcher once. And guess what, Crysis runs on XP as well.
Innovation is not always a good thing. There is something to be said for keeping mechanics that work.
I loved Call of Duty I to obsession. I still play it between new games, with my house rules - hardest difficulty, restart level when killed. I was turned off by the 'revolutionary innovation' that let you wait for ten seconds to fully heal any wound and never bought any sequel after the demo that introduced it. And no, you cannot just 'not use it', the way you can avoid health packs is some other games. I completely ruined my immersion.
I guess now is the time to ask...
Is there a setting or mod that removes the regeneration from Call of Duty IV?
I call bullshit. I have friends who have both cars, and I am 100% positive the Lanborghini Diablo engine simply cannot fit in a Smart car.
Having had very high expectations for Fable is not a prerequisite for hating it :-)
I did get excited at all about Fable. I did not bother buying it on the X-box, and I picked it up when it came out on the PC, in a time where there wasn't anything much to play. I had to push myself to finish the introduction, and lost interest after playing for ten minutes in the castle(?) that came afterwards.
The graphics/models were pathetic, the environment simplistic, the story failed to interest me, and the combat I do not even remember. The dialog options were retarded in the worst "good or stupid" tradition.
I have not been impressed by Peter Molyneux's games for a long, long time. I do not know what was so groundbreaking about a good/evil scale, given that bloody Baldur's Gate it did it earlier, and somewhat better. As far as I am concerned, when you are trying to play a Evil, but rational character, you should not feel either stupid, or a monster. And your decisions should have a definite effect on the game world, not just lead to a couple of different endings.
Fallout, Planescape Torment, Temple of Elemental Evil, The Witcher, etc... there are many games that let you see the consequences of your various, and by no mean simplistic or obvious, decisions. By the way, let me use this chance to plug 'The Witcher'. It's been a while since I have enjoyed an RPG so much. There's a lot of good about it, but I just want to point out how they handle the 'consequences' part.
You make a choice - you support a character against another, provide backup for one squad instead of another, let a criminal go in exchange of some information, provide testimony that leads to a lynching. Later, you meet the actors in the event, or come upon their latest handiwork. Then and there, without waiting for the end, your see what you have wrought, and you have a chance to say how you feel about your decision, and sometimes have a chance to do something about it.
Maybe I am ignorant of a game that has done that before, but it came a damn nice surprise to me. I hope more games do it.
Ah, and at the risk of being labeled off-topic... The Witcher is pretty good in other respects as well. The graphics are great, and while there are way too few models, the ones available are damn good. The combat feel simplistic (click enemy) at first, but after a while you realize how much you can actually do, and once you start interrupting your attacks and changing style and position on the fly, it starts looking awesome. The alchemy system is the best I've ever seen, the story keeps me playing way past midnight, and most of the characters are well worth remembering.
And the guy can get laid more than any character in any video game I've ever played... I still cannot decide whether I like that part of the game or not. I do know that I wish the cards you get for your conquests were higher resolution ;-)
Goes without saying, I'm a fan of the books.
Stupid. I flew north for PAX, and I couldn't bother checking
'E for whatever' in my backyard, on a weekend when the winds
kept me mostly indoor. I can simply not imagine why they
would set themselves in direct opposition to something that
it ten times as fun, and why they would force industry
representatives and gamers to choose between the two.
I did get the good ending. I did not kill or let any of the girls die. I still
felt bad about their parents, and about the big daddies during the game.
You can shoot the proximity mines. No need to run into them :-)
I am sure everyone has worked out a way to kill Big Daddies with little to no effort,
even on the hardest difficulty.
For example, on the first level, you can make them chase you to the dentistry offices,
where they will get hammered by turrets they cannot easily reach. Then you can hide in
one of the maintenance passages, and hit them with short bursts of AP machine gun fire.
Being the minimaxer that I am, once I got the camera, I came back to this level, and in
less than twenty minutes, I had emptied the vending machines, researched every available
enemy, and stocked on everything, including cash.
Compared to the average PC shooter, Bioshock is rather easy. So? There are strategy
games on which I enjoy spending hours of getting things just right, like Dominions III.
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/Illwinter/Dom3/1.htm
but shooters are for running through, blasting things and feeling tough. Bioshock does that very nicely.
I have finished the game on my PC without a single crash of any kind. The only bug I experienced is that the game dis not restore the color settings when it exits, so I had to go into the NVidia control panel and fix them (or reboot) I did get rid of SecuROM and the unskippable crap when the game starts, but that's it.
I liked the game, but I was definitely underwhelmed by the graphics (16x12, all settings on maximum) The models look a bit too simple, and while some twitching bodies add a lot to the mood, sometimes the physics engine makes a foot or hand wave for much too long after the enemy has died.
I consider the money well spent... I think System Shock I had a better atmosphere, Far Cry better graphics, and Deus Ex a better story, but I am sure that some people will disagree. It's very subjective. I truly enjoyed the ending movie. I felt quite sad for the Big Daddies, the little sisters' parents, and Rapture itself. Hell, the more I think about it, the more I realize that I really liked the game.
Was it easy? Yes. Too easy? Maybe, but I am about to replay it without using any Adam unless it is required for to progress (I do not think it is, but I may be wrong)
The only things I really hated about the game is SecuROM, and after AVG raised Hell about it, it took less that 15mn to get rid of the damn piece of shit.
> you are NEVER going to be watching a battle from the soldier's-eye-view,
:-)
> you'll be up in god mode looking down clicking frantically. Dawn of War
> was exactly the same way, the engine could let you zoom in and enjoy the
> fight but you'd be slaughtered if you did that.
Well, I never tried to zoom in while playing. First you finish the game,
then you watch the recording. Dawn of War had mind blowing animations, and
the right way to appreciate them was to watch the replay. I played that
game until I heard Dominions III was out, and I was discovering new kill
animations until the end. If you still have the game, do yourself a favor
and watch a few recordings. I am sure you will see things that will
surprise you. Hell the nerd in me typed 'delight', then got ashamed
and deleted it from the last sentence
As far as I am concerned, Sony's greatest screw up was the root kit they included on some of their CDs. I had to remove it from my parents' PC, and I decided that I will avoid buying anything with their brand. I own a PS2, and my stereo is a Sony, but I have not spend a dime on their products in a long, long time. Once Virtua Fighter stopped being an exclusive, I knew I was going to be able to stick to my "boycott".
Unfortunately, I completely agree. The auto-level 'feature' ruined a lot of Oblivion for me. The ridiculous grind for stats also bothered me. When I play games, I want my character to be as good as he can possibly be. When a game forces me to jump in place three hundred times in order to maximize the character potential, I start wondering why I play it. When the game also does not let me feel that my character is significantly more powerful as he grows, I stop playing it. With Oblivion, I got disgusted, slapped together some exploitive gear, and got to the ending, just for curiosity's sake.
I am also worried about the fact that Fallout III will be a console game, first and foremost. I am sure that I am in the minority in this, and I do not mean to offend those who feel differently, but of all the PC ports of console games, I only enjoyed GTA2. I was unimpressed by Halo, could not get into Fable, was disappointed by Oblivion, etc...
Now, I am not saying that there are no good console games - my friends and I have spend more time playing Tekken and VF than any other series. But there are games in which I expect complexity, a good customizable interface, and the GODDAMN ABILITY TO FAIL. I wish people would not dumb down games to appeal to more people. I wish people would not purchase licenses and then make a product that has little to do with its spirit. I wish I could still believe that the way I go through a game is somehow different than the way someone else would.
Unfortunately, I do not think I will get my way from major franchises and developers. But hey, being a gamer is still good, maybe better than ever. I no longer enjoy the mainstream games as much as I used to, but there is still good stuff being made - Stalker, Dominions, Galactic Civilizations... Maybe someone will come up with something that will feel like Fallout I. It will not bother me much if it is NOT called Fallout.
I use my XP box for two things - playing games and writing programs for Windows Mobile. I will not switch to Vista until I'm unable to play the games I want on XP. I assume that they are people who will be unable to switch to Vista simply because they don't have the hardware for it. It would be madness for game developers to release DX10 only games if it will reduce their customer base.
I hope Stalker, Crysis, Bioshock, etc... work well in DX9. I am pretty sure strategy games will not become DX10 exclusive anytime soon.