"The whole architecture was build upon the premise that the core is only accessable via the code morphing software, so the different crusoe chips hadnt even binary compatible cores."
It's also worth mentioning that Transmeta-specific code wouldn't go far if the marketplace didn't support it, at least not while trying to coexist in the x86 space.
" Video games and other interactive media will never surpass textual resources for quality."
Erm okay. I don't buy that as an absolute. Teaching requires interacting with the student. Textual resources offer some interesting abilities here. However, it's not a safe assumption that this is correct every single time. I've actually watched kids pick up and grasp ideas they couldn't get from a book from simple Apple II games. Why did it work? a.) It was made interesting to the kids and b.) the games presented the information in a way the kids could really quickly wrap their minds around. Text books are fine and dandy, but they're not a one-size-fits-all approach.
"Give me a book any day. You can have your flash, video games, and propreitary applications."
Give me all of the above. A mix of all three has led me to indepdent study. Right now, I'm an animator for a full-length animated movie. Books got me interested in the story making process. TV/Movies got me interested in how the visuals are captured. (Special FX, filming actors, etc.) Video games got me interested in interaction and UI design. So now I'm writing tools to make the process smoother.
"The REAL performers in games are the ones built by the Programmers and the game designers... not the actors."
Actually, the animators and mocap actors are making the performance. The voice talent brings the characters to life. Don't believe me? Play GTA3 then play either Vice City or San Andreas. Tommy Vercetti didn't have a voice in GTA3. When they gave him one in Vice City, it made the game more interesting. It was taken to an even greater extent in San Andreas. (let's not forget the sound tracks to all three games, here.)
"Hey, these police uniforms are just the right size. Bit tight in the crotch, though."
"Oh yeah, yeah! Mine too. Mine too..."
I don't know why you guys are being so hard nosed against the actors here. I know your not playing these games with the sound off. I can't believe this attitude that these guys should find a new line of work. Never mind that we all cried and boo-hoo'd when Futurama departed. For some reason, when they entertain us in games, it's suddenly different.
"Why would I pay over $1000 for this rig when I can pick up 2 Dell 1905s for $250 a piece?"
Depends on how tight space is for you. Two Dell monitors would require more desk space (i.e. where the stand goes) than this monitor. If that doesn't bother you, then I'm basically all out of reasons. Although, it is a little bit nicer to have the monitors that close and in perfect alignment. (i.e. no growing gap between the two over the weeks that go by...) But I'll be honest, having used dual CRTs of differing sizes for years, I can't say this would make me spend that much more.
In any event, it's not like the cost of these things never ever goes down.
Play GTA 3, then Vice City, then San Andreas. It takes a while to find the differences. Play SMB1, then 2, then 3, you find yourself playing an entirely different way. This is not an insult to the GTA games, no need to take it as such.
"Sound effects, on the other hand, are always assumed to be coming from within the environment (with the exception of a laugh track), and are thus audible to the character."
Really? Ever watch one of those suspenseful moments where a bomb or an ordinary watch makes beeping noises every time the seconds tick by? How about the foot steps or breathing that we can hear that the potential victim cannot? (Terminator 3 springs to mind. The TX is looking for Catherine Brewster, she's in the room breathing nervously, but the TX doesn't hear her despite her above-human senses.)
On a related note, most movies filmed 'in the dark' are often very well lit. Look at the Harrison Ford movie The Fugitive. Should we assume that the sewers in Chicago are really really well-lit? Um, no. What point is there to shooting in the dark?
I guess it's all academic, though, since no character has ever said "Man that weapon firing out in space sure sounds like a cat gettin its balls twisted."
"...scenes in Firefly and noticing that there was--correctly, for a change--no sound."
It's only 'correctly' if the characters in the story hear the sounds as well. We can nitpick sound in space to death, but nobody ever EVER complains about incidental music. They're the same thing.
"Did you never see Fight Club? Rent it and see the first ten minutes to see what a class action lawsuit means to corporations."
If I recall correctly, they decide between fixing the defect or dealing with the lawsuit by which is cheaper. Fair enough. That means it costs them money either way when they release a faulty product. Either they'll decide to deal with the lawsuit or make the product better. The result? Consumers either get better products or compensation. If lawyers inflate the claims, then the decision to make products better gets even easier to make.
This is defined as 'no good to the consumer'? Why does this sound more like "this is no good to the company that I like"?
"Well, from that perspective, the core of the Super Mario games has always been "jump on the heads of the bad guys and pick up coins"."
That would be simplifying it down too much. Look at it this way:
SMB1: Jump on heads, throw turtle shells, or fire flaming fire balls.
SMB2: Pick up items and throw them at bad guys. Jumping on heads does not kill them.
SMB3: Some you jump on and ride, some you jump on and kill, some you avoid altogether via the various suits you wear.
GTAIII: Take cars. Drive cars. Shoot/blow up people. Race.
GTAVC: Take cars. Drive cars. Shoot/blow up people. Race. Unfold a story.
GTASA: Take cars. Drive cars. Shoot/blow up people. Race. Unfold a richer story with a few added elements that break up some of the monotony.
"You'd have a better case if you were comparing GTA:VC to GTA3 -- but GTA:SA is so far down the road from GTA3 that your comparison doesn't really hold up at all, IMO."
I didn't say that SA wasn't a richer experience. I'm not poo-poo'ing any of the GTA games. I love'em. I even bought a PS2 JUST to play SA. What I'm saying is that Miyamoto has a point. His point was NOT that those games weren't fun.
On a side note:
"It's been 13 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment" -- Anybody know what this is about?
"Right, because having 4+ times the real estate, controllable planes, casino games, gang control, fence hopping, movement while crouching, stealth kills, train hijacking, parachuting, alpine bike racing, rural areas, vehicle hitching (tractor train, anyone?), body and car modification, bicycles, etc. has absolutely zero impact on gameplay..."
They're nice features, but the core of the game is still unchanged from GTAIII. Read the sentence immediately following the one you quoted.
Don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying San Andreas, but try to understand my point: Look at the first three Super Mario games, try to get an idea of Miyamoto's sequal philosophy, then reexamine what I said about San Andreas.
"This is something I've been saying for a while myself... It sounds real cool as a bullet point to say "over 140 hours of gameplay!!" or whatever, but do you really want to be locked into the same thing for that long?"
Ordinarily I'd say "Yes!!". But I've had San Andreas since late February. I'm still only about halfway through it. The reason? I'm a busy guy. I'm really itchin to buy Tempest X for the origional Playstation. That was fun. Throw the disc in, play for about 15 minutes, put it down. Maybe when my schedule lightens up I'll put more time into the longer games. But right now, I'm leaning towards what Miyamoto says.
Then again, maybe part of the problem with San Andreas is that it takes so fricken long to actually get going. I should drag out my N64 and get Blast Dozer going again.
" If you dont want to follow the story and engage yourself in the whole big expansive thing, you dont need to dedicate any time at all to that. You can get into a car and drive."
Erm. I hate to tell you this, but that's not all that exciting. You can drive around, but you're not really going anywhere. It's like being stuck on the same level of Pacman.
Anyway, that isn't Miyamoto's point. His point is that games are losing their innovation. It's less and less like picking up the controller and doing something new and fun, and more like picking up the controller and waggling it around until a story unfolds.
I half agree with him. San Andreas, for example, is really only better than Vice City because of the big long story. Contrast this to Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine. I realize that SMS wasn't a big whoop-de-do to a lot of you, but it would be very difficult to argue that you played SMS very differently from how you played M64. If that ain't floatin your boat, then look at Super Maro Bros., then 2, then 3.
He may be overreaching a bit, but he does have a point.
This is true, btw. However, some would argue that the Centrino has better battery life. That would probably be more appealing to Apple for their notebook line.
Good reasons here. I wanted to offer an alternative view. Why would Intel be a better choice? (Just like the parent post, this is simply speculation...)
1) Apple is very brand aware. To the masses, "Intel inside" carries more meaning than AMD. (Note: I'm not picking on AMD here. I'm just saying Intel has better branding.)
2) There's a decent possibility that Apple would want a custom chip for their machines. Intel's known for doing that. (i.e. the processors in the XBOX are technically x86, but they're custom built.)
3) If the deal's sweet enough, Intel might undercut AMD's offer.
"How odd, Microsoft uses apple dv kits for the xbox 360 and IBM power pc chips and now apple drops IBM for Intel, how freakin' strange is that?"
Question: Is Microsoft really that loyal to the X86, or is it just convenient for them given the market position it has? Apple going to Intel is strange, but I'm not getting why MS using Apple dev kits is.
Slashdot Mirror
"The whole architecture was build upon the premise that the core is only accessable via the code morphing software, so the different crusoe chips hadnt even binary compatible cores."
It's also worth mentioning that Transmeta-specific code wouldn't go far if the marketplace didn't support it, at least not while trying to coexist in the x86 space.
" Video games and other interactive media will never surpass textual resources for quality."
Erm okay. I don't buy that as an absolute. Teaching requires interacting with the student. Textual resources offer some interesting abilities here. However, it's not a safe assumption that this is correct every single time. I've actually watched kids pick up and grasp ideas they couldn't get from a book from simple Apple II games. Why did it work? a.) It was made interesting to the kids and b.) the games presented the information in a way the kids could really quickly wrap their minds around. Text books are fine and dandy, but they're not a one-size-fits-all approach.
"Give me a book any day. You can have your flash, video games, and propreitary applications."
Give me all of the above. A mix of all three has led me to indepdent study. Right now, I'm an animator for a full-length animated movie. Books got me interested in the story making process. TV/Movies got me interested in how the visuals are captured. (Special FX, filming actors, etc.) Video games got me interested in interaction and UI design. So now I'm writing tools to make the process smoother.
Nothing wrong with having multiple options.
"I don't know why you're being so hard nosed against the programmers, the artists and the game designers."
I don't know, either, since I never suggested anything ill about them.
Actually, the animators and mocap actors are making the performance. The voice talent brings the characters to life. Don't believe me? Play GTA3 then play either Vice City or San Andreas. Tommy Vercetti didn't have a voice in GTA3. When they gave him one in Vice City, it made the game more interesting. It was taken to an even greater extent in San Andreas. (let's not forget the sound tracks to all three games, here.)
I don't know why you guys are being so hard nosed against the actors here. I know your not playing these games with the sound off. I can't believe this attitude that these guys should find a new line of work. Never mind that we all cried and boo-hoo'd when Futurama departed. For some reason, when they entertain us in games, it's suddenly different.
"Dont make me PACIFY you."
Oh, shut the duck up.
"Why would I pay over $1000 for this rig when I can pick up 2 Dell 1905s for $250 a piece?"
Depends on how tight space is for you. Two Dell monitors would require more desk space (i.e. where the stand goes) than this monitor. If that doesn't bother you, then I'm basically all out of reasons. Although, it is a little bit nicer to have the monitors that close and in perfect alignment. (i.e. no growing gap between the two over the weeks that go by...) But I'll be honest, having used dual CRTs of differing sizes for years, I can't say this would make me spend that much more.
In any event, it's not like the cost of these things never ever goes down.
"And how is that not a gross oversimplification?"
Play GTA 3, then Vice City, then San Andreas. It takes a while to find the differences. Play SMB1, then 2, then 3, you find yourself playing an entirely different way. This is not an insult to the GTA games, no need to take it as such.
You do realize that you're defending a product designed to store data, only it sometimes forgets to store that data, right?
"Sound effects, on the other hand, are always assumed to be coming from within the environment (with the exception of a laugh track), and are thus audible to the character."
Really? Ever watch one of those suspenseful moments where a bomb or an ordinary watch makes beeping noises every time the seconds tick by? How about the foot steps or breathing that we can hear that the potential victim cannot? (Terminator 3 springs to mind. The TX is looking for Catherine Brewster, she's in the room breathing nervously, but the TX doesn't hear her despite her above-human senses.)
On a related note, most movies filmed 'in the dark' are often very well lit. Look at the Harrison Ford movie The Fugitive. Should we assume that the sewers in Chicago are really really well-lit? Um, no. What point is there to shooting in the dark?
I guess it's all academic, though, since no character has ever said "Man that weapon firing out in space sure sounds like a cat gettin its balls twisted."
"I call bullshit."
Whatever.
"...scenes in Firefly and noticing that there was--correctly, for a change--no sound."
It's only 'correctly' if the characters in the story hear the sounds as well. We can nitpick sound in space to death, but nobody ever EVER complains about incidental music. They're the same thing.
"Ask a piano player if a digital piano is a passable substitute. Yes it's pretty damn good... but still not the same..."
It beats the silence played by a decomposing musician.
"Did you never see Fight Club? Rent it and see the first ten minutes to see what a class action lawsuit means to corporations."
If I recall correctly, they decide between fixing the defect or dealing with the lawsuit by which is cheaper. Fair enough. That means it costs them money either way when they release a faulty product. Either they'll decide to deal with the lawsuit or make the product better. The result? Consumers either get better products or compensation. If lawyers inflate the claims, then the decision to make products better gets even easier to make.
This is defined as 'no good to the consumer'? Why does this sound more like "this is no good to the company that I like"?
"Maybe they were all getting the cold shoulder at Blizzard..."
Or the employees were tired sittin of the Frozen Throne just after lunch.
"Well, from that perspective, the core of the Super Mario games has always been "jump on the heads of the bad guys and pick up coins"."
That would be simplifying it down too much. Look at it this way:
SMB1: Jump on heads, throw turtle shells, or fire flaming fire balls.
SMB2: Pick up items and throw them at bad guys. Jumping on heads does not kill them.
SMB3: Some you jump on and ride, some you jump on and kill, some you avoid altogether via the various suits you wear.
GTAIII: Take cars. Drive cars. Shoot/blow up people. Race.
GTAVC: Take cars. Drive cars. Shoot/blow up people. Race. Unfold a story.
GTASA: Take cars. Drive cars. Shoot/blow up people. Race. Unfold a richer story with a few added elements that break up some of the monotony.
"You'd have a better case if you were comparing GTA:VC to GTA3 -- but GTA:SA is so far down the road from GTA3 that your comparison doesn't really hold up at all, IMO."
I didn't say that SA wasn't a richer experience. I'm not poo-poo'ing any of the GTA games. I love'em. I even bought a PS2 JUST to play SA. What I'm saying is that Miyamoto has a point. His point was NOT that those games weren't fun.
On a side note:
"It's been 13 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment" -- Anybody know what this is about?
"The "consumer" does not win in a class action lawsuit."
So... Palm isn't going to avoid another class suit by making sure this doesn't happen again?
"Right, because having 4+ times the real estate, controllable planes, casino games, gang control, fence hopping, movement while crouching, stealth kills, train hijacking, parachuting, alpine bike racing, rural areas, vehicle hitching (tractor train, anyone?), body and car modification, bicycles, etc. has absolutely zero impact on gameplay..."
They're nice features, but the core of the game is still unchanged from GTAIII. Read the sentence immediately following the one you quoted.
Don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying San Andreas, but try to understand my point: Look at the first three Super Mario games, try to get an idea of Miyamoto's sequal philosophy, then reexamine what I said about San Andreas.
"This is something I've been saying for a while myself... It sounds real cool as a bullet point to say "over 140 hours of gameplay!!" or whatever, but do you really want to be locked into the same thing for that long?"
Ordinarily I'd say "Yes!!". But I've had San Andreas since late February. I'm still only about halfway through it. The reason? I'm a busy guy. I'm really itchin to buy Tempest X for the origional Playstation. That was fun. Throw the disc in, play for about 15 minutes, put it down. Maybe when my schedule lightens up I'll put more time into the longer games. But right now, I'm leaning towards what Miyamoto says.
Then again, maybe part of the problem with San Andreas is that it takes so fricken long to actually get going. I should drag out my N64 and get Blast Dozer going again.
" If you dont want to follow the story and engage yourself in the whole big expansive thing, you dont need to dedicate any time at all to that. You can get into a car and drive."
Erm. I hate to tell you this, but that's not all that exciting. You can drive around, but you're not really going anywhere. It's like being stuck on the same level of Pacman.
Anyway, that isn't Miyamoto's point. His point is that games are losing their innovation. It's less and less like picking up the controller and doing something new and fun, and more like picking up the controller and waggling it around until a story unfolds.
I half agree with him. San Andreas, for example, is really only better than Vice City because of the big long story. Contrast this to Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine. I realize that SMS wasn't a big whoop-de-do to a lot of you, but it would be very difficult to argue that you played SMS very differently from how you played M64. If that ain't floatin your boat, then look at Super Maro Bros., then 2, then 3.
He may be overreaching a bit, but he does have a point.
"Or, as we say around here, "+5, Insightful"..."
:)
I don't have anything insightful to say. Just wanted to thank ya for the laugh.
"3) AMD has 64 bit laptop chips (I think)."
This is true, btw. However, some would argue that the Centrino has better battery life. That would probably be more appealing to Apple for their notebook line.
Good reasons here. I wanted to offer an alternative view. Why would Intel be a better choice? (Just like the parent post, this is simply speculation...)
1) Apple is very brand aware. To the masses, "Intel inside" carries more meaning than AMD. (Note: I'm not picking on AMD here. I'm just saying Intel has better branding.)
2) There's a decent possibility that Apple would want a custom chip for their machines. Intel's known for doing that. (i.e. the processors in the XBOX are technically x86, but they're custom built.)
3) If the deal's sweet enough, Intel might undercut AMD's offer.
In other news: Intel is rumored to be working on a new lines of processors code-named Anakin.
"How odd, Microsoft uses apple dv kits for the xbox 360 and IBM power pc chips and now apple drops IBM for Intel, how freakin' strange is that?"
Question: Is Microsoft really that loyal to the X86, or is it just convenient for them given the market position it has? Apple going to Intel is strange, but I'm not getting why MS using Apple dev kits is.
"But if you're going to do that, why not just get a used GBA SP and save $90?"
Because I'd like to play Nintendogs and I can't do that on an SP or a PSP?
To quote the immortal Rocky the Flying Squirrel:
"Again?"