That works for adding an e-mail address. But why doesn't it work that way when you select the option to add a Wii? If you do it that way you have to type in the long ass Wii console number and then you get a message warning you that the other person must also add you... and, as I already stated, they don't get a notification that you want to add them.
Anyway, my point is the whole system is very limited and no where near as or user friendly as Live.
I never owned a Lynx myself, but did have a friend that had one. I do remember the motion blur on games like Sonic, but never had a problem with it for most games. I did finish Sonic just fine though. The motion blur on the GB was pretty bad too though, but it didn't have any games that moved as fast as Sonic so I'm not sure that it didn't have as much motion blur as the GG.
GoW is awesome. If the game mechanics aren't for then, fine. Also, who cares if the game only has 4 v 4 online? There gmaes with more players out there, play those. In my experience, games with massive amounts of people usually amount to a unorgangized mess in online play. I used to play in clans in a couple of different PC online games (UT for example) and although you could find public games that were 16 v 16, serious clan matches were almost aways 5 v 5 or something similar. If you like massive amounts of people, cool, but smaller amounts in no way limits how fun a game is online.
Yeah, and have you actually used Sony's and Nintendo's offerings? They aren't even remotely as comprehensive as Live. Not even close. Hell, with Nintendo you are stuck typing in a long Wii console numbers just to add someone to your address book... and once you do that, instead of the other person getting a "friend request", they get nothing. Instead, they must also add you blindly. Once you have both blindly added each other then you each become "active" in the other person's address book. Yeah, great system. Also, Sony has NOT ruled out charging for their online service in the future.
Good post, but to be fair, the original Gameboy had a lot of ghosting too and it's hard to complain about a bit of washout when comparing it to a greyscale screen. I think the biggest issues were price, battery life, and the amount of software. The GameGear had a few really good games, but the Gameboy had a lot more games.
And what was wrong with the suggestions of simply using smaller scattered solar power plants or using them on rooftops? Why would using them in a desert even be necessary? Why wreck and ecosystem if it's totally unnecessary. I don't get what people like you are even complaining about.
All it takes is for your address to get out onto a single list once and the spam begins. Most people get spam because they use their e-mail address to register for web sites and such. I've got multiple e-mail addresses and use a couple of them when I register at web sites. Those that I use to register get tons of spam. I then have a couple that I only use for writing to friends and family and they get very little spam... though they may still get a couple per month.
Anyway, sure, you can be spam free... if you never use your e-mail address for anything. Most people don't use different e-mail addresses for personal e-mail and online transactions.
Actually, you do want those people. Some of them will send you more feedback than you even care to read. But you also want the casual gamer as well. I think you would want all types of Halo fans to be represented and I'm sure MS is aware of this.
Honestly, having played both platforms extensively, I really don't think FPS games are bad at all on consoles. The aiming and turns are usually slower paced than with a mouse, but they aren't bad at all. But since nearly everyone is using the same controls there is no disadvantage. It's not the same as an RTS where you may get bogged down with a bunch of extra menus that aren't necessary on a PC. It's just harder to aim. If anything, it could be argued that makes it a bit more realistic than the point and click inferace of PC FPS games.
Are you kidding? The Xbox systems easily have more good games than the Nintendo systems. Nintendo has pretty much been supporting their past couple of systems by themselves. Rare is a media darling like Nintendo themselves so their games tend to get overrated in general. I think that would have held true on any platform. But that's starting to change. PDZ recently made a top 10 list of the worst launch games ever over at Joystiq. Maybe you don't play games that often or are simply unfamiliar with console in general, but most of the Xbox fan base doesn't consider PDZ or Kameo a step up from anything.
...find it odd that Rare is more or less questioning the viability of downloadable content on XBox Live when they are owned by MS? They try to cover their asses a bit by saying the don't know if it's a good model for them, but in the end they are still questioning a business model that their parent company is promoting heavily.
Then buy them on the PC, I've got nothing against PC games. But the PC versions have have achievements, a global friend's list, ranking ladders, match making based on rank, ability to send invites, etc, etc... That's what sets Live apart. You are getting something for your $50 bucks a year
You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The charge has nothing to do with keeping the 360 from losing as much money as the Xbox. Live wasn't free on the first Xbox and there weren't even free Silver acounts for the first Xbox. The charge pays for lots of features that Live offers which Sony's service does not (see Saige's post). Also, Sony has already stated that they don't know if the service will remain free forever.
Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29, @03:49PM (#17039456) = pwned
Great post. Live has some very useful features. Just a couple of nights ago I was in the mood for some GoW co-op and was going to invite one of my friends to play, but then I noticed that their profile said they were "Watching a movie". So I didn't send the invite because I didn't want to disturb them. Little stuff like that makes the $50 yearly charge well worth it.
Yeah, we'll see how long that free service lasts. And, sure, it may be lag free now, but that's because there are hardly any systems actually being played... low supply, thousands on Ebay, and many being held back for Christmas gifts. BTW, lots of people love GoW, not every game needs to be a 40 man riot to be fun.
Then don't. My router is upstairs and I ran a network cable through the wall down to the entertainment center. Not an option for everyone, but is the best option IMO if you are fairly handy with household projects or know someone who is. Or you could spend like $40 on a wireless access point. No reason why you have have to buy the official adapter.
Slashdot Mirror
That works for adding an e-mail address. But why doesn't it work that way when you select the option to add a Wii? If you do it that way you have to type in the long ass Wii console number and then you get a message warning you that the other person must also add you... and, as I already stated, they don't get a notification that you want to add them.
Anyway, my point is the whole system is very limited and no where near as or user friendly as Live.
I never owned a Lynx myself, but did have a friend that had one. I do remember the motion blur on games like Sonic, but never had a problem with it for most games. I did finish Sonic just fine though. The motion blur on the GB was pretty bad too though, but it didn't have any games that moved as fast as Sonic so I'm not sure that it didn't have as much motion blur as the GG.
GoW is awesome. If the game mechanics aren't for then, fine. Also, who cares if the game only has 4 v 4 online? There gmaes with more players out there, play those. In my experience, games with massive amounts of people usually amount to a unorgangized mess in online play. I used to play in clans in a couple of different PC online games (UT for example) and although you could find public games that were 16 v 16, serious clan matches were almost aways 5 v 5 or something similar. If you like massive amounts of people, cool, but smaller amounts in no way limits how fun a game is online.
Yeah, and have you actually used Sony's and Nintendo's offerings? They aren't even remotely as comprehensive as Live. Not even close. Hell, with Nintendo you are stuck typing in a long Wii console numbers just to add someone to your address book... and once you do that, instead of the other person getting a "friend request", they get nothing. Instead, they must also add you blindly. Once you have both blindly added each other then you each become "active" in the other person's address book. Yeah, great system. Also, Sony has NOT ruled out charging for their online service in the future.
Good post, but to be fair, the original Gameboy had a lot of ghosting too and it's hard to complain about a bit of washout when comparing it to a greyscale screen. I think the biggest issues were price, battery life, and the amount of software. The GameGear had a few really good games, but the Gameboy had a lot more games.
And what was wrong with the suggestions of simply using smaller scattered solar power plants or using them on rooftops? Why would using them in a desert even be necessary? Why wreck and ecosystem if it's totally unnecessary. I don't get what people like you are even complaining about.
All it takes is for your address to get out onto a single list once and the spam begins. Most people get spam because they use their e-mail address to register for web sites and such. I've got multiple e-mail addresses and use a couple of them when I register at web sites. Those that I use to register get tons of spam. I then have a couple that I only use for writing to friends and family and they get very little spam... though they may still get a couple per month.
Anyway, sure, you can be spam free... if you never use your e-mail address for anything. Most people don't use different e-mail addresses for personal e-mail and online transactions.
You will actually see comments similar to that with some games. FF games for example.
Gotcha... I enjoy both. The split screen is nice when I have friends over, but having a whole screen to yourself is also nice.
Halo 2 has co-op just as Halo did. Only the PC version of Halo didn't have co-op.
Actually, you do want those people. Some of them will send you more feedback than you even care to read. But you also want the casual gamer as well. I think you would want all types of Halo fans to be represented and I'm sure MS is aware of this.
Jaffe has been a hero of mine in the gaming world ever since he helped create the Twisted Metal series.
Actually, the title of the CNET article says 'inevitable', it's not Slashdot FUD.
Honestly, having played both platforms extensively, I really don't think FPS games are bad at all on consoles. The aiming and turns are usually slower paced than with a mouse, but they aren't bad at all. But since nearly everyone is using the same controls there is no disadvantage. It's not the same as an RTS where you may get bogged down with a bunch of extra menus that aren't necessary on a PC. It's just harder to aim. If anything, it could be argued that makes it a bit more realistic than the point and click inferace of PC FPS games.
Are you kidding? The Xbox systems easily have more good games than the Nintendo systems. Nintendo has pretty much been supporting their past couple of systems by themselves. Rare is a media darling like Nintendo themselves so their games tend to get overrated in general. I think that would have held true on any platform. But that's starting to change. PDZ recently made a top 10 list of the worst launch games ever over at Joystiq. Maybe you don't play games that often or are simply unfamiliar with console in general, but most of the Xbox fan base doesn't consider PDZ or Kameo a step up from anything.
Perhaps because Windows has a much larger market share and is thus a much bigger target? Maybe?
...find it odd that Rare is more or less questioning the viability of downloadable content on XBox Live when they are owned by MS? They try to cover their asses a bit by saying the don't know if it's a good model for them, but in the end they are still questioning a business model that their parent company is promoting heavily.
Clueless troll.
Then buy them on the PC, I've got nothing against PC games. But the PC versions have have achievements, a global friend's list, ranking ladders, match making based on rank, ability to send invites, etc, etc... That's what sets Live apart. You are getting something for your $50 bucks a year
You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The charge has nothing to do with keeping the 360 from losing as much money as the Xbox. Live wasn't free on the first Xbox and there weren't even free Silver acounts for the first Xbox. The charge pays for lots of features that Live offers which Sony's service does not (see Saige's post). Also, Sony has already stated that they don't know if the service will remain free forever.
Did it occur to you that the fees paid by the Gold members might also be going to cover the costs of the features enjoyed by the Silver accounts too?
Cool. Didn't know that. I haven't changed any of my settings in a long time.
Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29, @03:49PM (#17039456) = pwned
Great post. Live has some very useful features. Just a couple of nights ago I was in the mood for some GoW co-op and was going to invite one of my friends to play, but then I noticed that their profile said they were "Watching a movie". So I didn't send the invite because I didn't want to disturb them. Little stuff like that makes the $50 yearly charge well worth it.
Yeah, we'll see how long that free service lasts. And, sure, it may be lag free now, but that's because there are hardly any systems actually being played... low supply, thousands on Ebay, and many being held back for Christmas gifts. BTW, lots of people love GoW, not every game needs to be a 40 man riot to be fun.
Then don't. My router is upstairs and I ran a network cable through the wall down to the entertainment center. Not an option for everyone, but is the best option IMO if you are fairly handy with household projects or know someone who is. Or you could spend like $40 on a wireless access point. No reason why you have have to buy the official adapter.