Overly Critical Guy, I want to suggest to you that you go back and read each post you have made on this thread. You are starting to sound like a broken record. I really don't know what the sufficient amount of evidence is for you in regards to this water-vapour crap you keep spouting, but from the many replies you have received there exists copious linkage and information that sort of annihilates your Geocraft statistics page. Please, do not take this as an attack. Just go back and read what you wrote, and read the responses again. Taking them in order as I just have, I think you may agree, while it is hard to offer absolutely completely bulletproof evidence of something so complex, the observed differences are weighing very heavily against you.
I don't think so. Microsoft has their stamp all over the hardware this time. Microsoft owns their variant of PowerPC and graphics card as much as Sony owns theirs. Looking at the initial hardware costs is deceiving. If you remember, the Playstation 2 sold for a huge loss in the beginning too. It was only later that they optimized production to the point that they were making profit off the system itself.
Why do you say that? It seems pretty clear to me that IBM owns the PowerPC (in conjunction with Apple and Motorola although I am unsure as to the state of that alliance at the moment). MS did not develop, design, or have anything whatsoever to do with that chip. On the other hand, Sony designed the Cell with IBM in partnership. That will make a difference down the line.
Also as an aside I don't think Sony ever lost money on a PS2.
It cemented their place as a solid second in the video game market -- a market already quite a bit bigger than the film industry. It got them so recognized as a powerhouse that they have a real chance to gun for first in the next round.
Well, to be fair, 'solid second' might be a little generous. They are a little ahead of Nintendo in shipped units, and several dozen million behind the PS2. IIRC the number of PS2s in the world is over 100 million; contrast with something like 30 mil Xboxen and 28 mil Gamecubes. So yes, they are 2nd, but they paid a pretty hefty price for it (Xbox division lost oodles of money). Nintendo did not lose money and they are just a hair behind.
Hmm, these sound like the words of a PS or Xbox fanboy.
Who really cares if it's "cartoon racing"? Does the fact that it looks like a cartoon make it any less fun? Since when does a game have to look real to be enjoyable?
And that sounds like the kneejerk reaction of a Nintendo fanboy, frankly. Of course the style of the game impacts how you perceive it. Myself, I will take Wipeout over Mario Kart. Both are loads of fun but I enjoy the futuristic aesthetic to the cartoony one. Its, you know, an opinion.
"saying their son jumped to his death while reenacting a scene from the game..."
It is tragic what happened to the parents, but obviously this game did not cause the boy's death. As we know there are no scenes in the game (to speak of), it is all open-ended. But they don't know how to explain themselves, ergo we are presented with slightly nonsensical statements like this. That sentence was written by a lawyer, I'd bet.
Ah, this old chesnut. In this case, choice is a bad thing. The user has to know that there is a 'classic skin' checkbox. And believe me, most of them will not know that. They won't even think to look for it.
This is basically the 'themes' argument. The tinker crowd loves choice, and screams when they can't customize their GUI to the exact specifications they want. This is a fine position to take if you are a tinkerer. For usability purposes, i.e. mass-market business and home use, the ability to rearrange parts of the GUI is bad. Very bad. Say you inherited a workstation, or had to work at another computer in the office, and Word has had its toolbar arranged to suit the pecadillos of the original user. You can't find a damn thing. It slows you down. And you probably end up turning all that crap off (if you can find the Prefs) and going to the default toolbar layout so you can just use the app. Which is how it should have been in the first place. (and then maybe you spend time customizing the GUI, and the next person comes along...)
Picking desktop pictures and so forth is fine and dandy, but screwing with expected behaviours and arrangements in oft-used apps like the Office suite just leads to frustration and support nightmares.
An interesting thing to note is that the XBox came in just as MMOGs are starting hit their stride. The XBox 360 will be the first system introduced with this effect stronly in play. This should be a good litmus on how MMOGs effect "buy once, play once" games and their systems. I'm not suggesting doom or gloom for either but it will be something to note.
That is an excellent point, one I should have mentioned myself. MMOGs are taking off like crazy, WoW in the lead, and you know the most successful subscription-based game in history has got to get MS's attention, especially with their zeal for moving to 'services' where you 'pay more' through 'the nose'.
Here's how I see it - MS will try to push a big MMOG out, or heavily support a big partner like SquEnix, and they will try to nickel-and-dime people to death with it. Also they will have a BIG challenge in trying to match the complexity of WoW's interface with the xbox controller. I am a big believer in thumbstick controllers, I feel they are superior for every kind of game but two, where they fall down miserably: FPS and RTS. (WoW is a little of both). So that will be tricky. And as we know, Live adoption has been pretty anemic; I forget the percentage but it was a single digit number.
I have a sneaking suspicion that XBox 360 is heading for the same road of ruin in East Asia. Has anyone out there heard anything about how they are handling release events??
Haven't heard anything. Which is probably not a good sign.
I bought an Xbox about a year and half after its launch, and it was a delight to have over ten excellent games to sit down and play the first day I brought it home
Dude - you are hardcore... I don't know anyone with ten copies of Halo...
The one thing would point out, just to play xbox advocate for a second, is that the Live service might make a difference if MS manages to get a real A-list hit massive console game rolling, ala FF X. But as we know, Live is adopted by only a tiny minority of Xbox owners... and the nickel-and-diming approach may not wash with them. Thanks for the reply.
However, when I play a racing game I want to feel like I'm driving a car, not watching one on TV. I think aiming for realism is important, not aiming for TV "realism". Surely there are ways to better simulate high speeds at low framerates than bluring the image.
There are ways of doing it on a computer screen, although I suspect what you mean is that many games tend to over-do the motion blur effect, or not apply it properly - and to that I would definitely agree. On a television screen, its much tougher, as you are locked at 30fps interlaced no matter how good your console is. It would be nice for games like Gotham to have options to tweak/disable the effect. I do think the X360 would be capable of simulating that glossy motorsports kind of look if they really aimed for it.
Perhaps there is a psychological factor at play here. I've read studies about perception in film and video that claim the preference for the 'filmed' look has more to do with association with the 'silver screen' and Hollywood (and thus is perceived as more expensive/attractive) than video which is arguably closer to what your eyes actually see, than film...
They're where they always are, on Nintendo's consoles. Too bad they're all "kiddie" games.
You know, that really is too bad, because for once I'd like to play a well-crafted, simple, addictive game that doesn't feature neurotic plumbers, walking mushrooms, giant monkeys, turtles with wings, pink princesses, rainbows and clouds with fucking faces on them.
Alright, I take back what I said about the monkeys.
Anyone else notice a distinct 'meh' rising from the unwashed gaming masses?
Sure, all the hype is in place, and the X360 looks like a great platform... maybe I am just not paying attention, or have become jaded. But all my gaming friends are totally ambivalent on the X360. Some want to pick it up, most are going to wait and see what the PS3 is like, and in general there seems to be a collective shrug about the thing. Is it lack of Halo 3, or some really huge A-list title? Shouldn't be... the PS2 launched with basically SSX and Ridge Racer...
I dunno. There is some kind of elusive piece missing from the X360 launch to get me excited. I saw the posters for the pre-sale and thought Hey, I guess that IS out soon, huh.... I guess I'm just an old coot now. I play almost nothing but Warcraft these days, maybe that is it.:)
I've driven pretty fast. I once drove a Dodge Viper around a race track and got some pretty wicked speed, hitting about 150mph on the back straight. What didn't I see? Motion blur.
Uh, well, yeah. Your eyes are not cameras.
The use of motion blur is to simulate filmed entertainment. We know what high-framerate 3d looks like when simulating fast speeds; it looks like that odd shutter effect at the beginning of saving Private Ryan. It can be an interesting effect but it does not look natural. For most people, the filmed 'blur' is closer to the actual experience than razor-sharp frames across the board. This is the reason they use motion blur in 3D animation.
And no, this isn't a photoshopped image either. It's straight from OSX 10.3.9.
What more do you want? Should the window flash orange and red every five seconds? Should it speak the name of the focussed window? What would make you happy?
A bit of consistency would be make me happy.
I'd be the first one to say that Mac OS X is not as internally consistent as the old OS 9 was... but if we are speaking in relative terms, i.e. compared to Red Hat or Windows, it is not even remotely in the same league. Its not even the same fucking sport. You do not want to get into a pissing contest about interface consistency with the Mac people. Everything else - everything - is much more inconsistent. (Ok, maybe you could make a case for BeOS, when it came out.)
Which is too bad - because they could have both. It is not an either/or proposition. Linux could be installed on those laptops as well as OS X, and many of the Unix opensource tools work fine in both. So it was a stupid decision.
I don't run any blogs that are super popular, but my Agile Advice [agileadvice.com] blog has a good niche following with about 300 hits/day after six months of development
(Score:4, Informative)
Of course you realize that by observing this, on slashdot, you have proven your statement (temporarily?) false...
I wonder if people who complain about the price of Macs apply this same logic to other aspects of their lives? When grocery shopping, do they try to find the greatest amount of calories/protein they can get for their dollar? Do they eat nothing but beans and horsemeat? Do they buy the longest CDs/DVDs, regardless of content?
Yeah, you know, i think some people do just that, as bizarre as it may seem. I know a guy who just this past weekend absolutely stuffed his gut with shrimp at a wedding reception - and he hates shrimp. When I pointed this out, his response: "Yeah.. but do you know how much this stuff costs?!"
Until now we weren't sure that the Xbox 360 was going to support many games at all. Certainly not what model it was going to use. Now we learn that they will be making the emulators long after its release, and most likely ANY NEW XBOX game will come with a 360 emulator. This is a big plus for gamers.We should be happy to see the MODEL being used. I've seen too many 'that sucks' and complaints and it really surprises me... well... I guess its important to know the audience on this site.
The truth is it's also a blow to Sony; because recent rumblings have been they won't be 100% backwards compatible, and they already said they won't offer an XBox-Live style service [gamesradar.com].So how do you support more games after the release? Some type of system updater? In any case it won't be as familiar to people as Live is. Being able to jump on live and just download the emulator for your game is pretty easy for the end user. If any of you have seen the latest PS3 screen shot [flickr.com], well its pretty confusing layout (lets hope Sony changes it).
If you think this is some kind of great thing from MS, and a blow to Sony, I think you need to put the kool aid down... The fact that there are two X360 systems, possibly three if they are crazy enough to ship some sorta HD-DVD version, with a LIST of backwards compatible games you must cross-reference by title and system version? Big, big mistake IMHO.
Besides, Live is not the be-all-end-all that many say it is. I like Live a lot, there's nothing like it out there, but its a TINY percentage of Xbox users who are on there, and not considered a great success financially. MS will be putting the screws to Live fans as the 360 rolls out (note MS's grander Services mandate?) and I want no part of that.
Sony has their fair share of mistakes, I'm not really defending them. But MS fucked up on this one. (Besides, as far as non-100% compatibility goes, it can't be a blow to Sony and a boon for MS at the same time...)
but I don't see how anyone can play single-player Q2 and single-player Q3 and say they are the same game. Q3 single-player is simulated Q2 multi-player. Nothing in Q3 is the same as the single player mode in Q2.
What what what the fuck are you on about? Quake 3 HAD NO MULTIPLAYER. Quake 3 ARENA. None. So obviously you are as blinkered as you are touchy. QED, I win.
I meant to say single-player. NO SINGLE PLAYER, to be more accurate.
Well, going from SMB1 to SMB3 meant no relearning of any skills either but I would hardly call them the same game. This isn't an easily measured attribute so opinions are going to differ on whether it's truly a different gaming experience or not - (a reason why I think the poster who said "utter trash" and you saying "You are easy to please." are not helpful comments to add to the discussion. On that note, I never stated whether I liked the changes to speed and movement in Q3 so you don't even know if I was pleased to make such a rude and insulting comment.) but I don't see how anyone can play single-player Q2 and single-player Q3 and say they are the same game. Q3 single-player is simulated Q2 multi-player. Nothing in Q3 is the same as the single player mode in Q2. That is my opinion. I am curious what you think in Q3 mimics the single player aspect of Q2. Also, it would be appreciated if you could lose the holier-than-thou and insulting attitude.
Well, guess what junior, its only gonna get worse from here. I was actually not feeling feisty at all about our earlier conversation so prepare to feel insulted.
First off - this is how you responded to my earlier thread: Perhaps you've got your timeline confused and lost interest before Quake II - because you've got your facts wrong.
Which was fucking rude, but ok. I responded, asked what the hell you meant, no answer.
I respond to you on this thread, and you get all uppity, and yet have not answered the question yet. I said you were "easy to please", if that causes you great offense then I'll amend my statement to "easy to offend."
but I don't see how anyone can play single-player Q2 and single-player Q3 and say they are the same game. Q3 single-player is simulated Q2 multi-player. Nothing in Q3 is the same as the single player mode in Q2.
What what what the fuck are you on about? Quake 3 HAD NO MULTIPLAYER. Quake 3 ARENA. None. So obviously you are as blinkered as you are touchy. QED, I win.
In all honestly, dude, I was genuinely curious. I wasn't trying to fight with you until you flew off the' handle. Get. A. Grip.
Slashdot Mirror
Overly Critical Guy, I want to suggest to you that you go back and read each post you have made on this thread. You are starting to sound like a broken record. I really don't know what the sufficient amount of evidence is for you in regards to this water-vapour crap you keep spouting, but from the many replies you have received there exists copious linkage and information that sort of annihilates your Geocraft statistics page. Please, do not take this as an attack. Just go back and read what you wrote, and read the responses again. Taking them in order as I just have, I think you may agree, while it is hard to offer absolutely completely bulletproof evidence of something so complex, the observed differences are weighing very heavily against you.
whenever I see
a post like this
with very short lines,
it reminds me of bad
poetry
or perhaps,
the halting speech patterns
of William
Shatner
or Donald
Rumsfeld
Why do you say that? It seems pretty clear to me that IBM owns the PowerPC (in conjunction with Apple and Motorola although I am unsure as to the state of that alliance at the moment). MS did not develop, design, or have anything whatsoever to do with that chip. On the other hand, Sony designed the Cell with IBM in partnership. That will make a difference down the line.
Also as an aside I don't think Sony ever lost money on a PS2.
Well, to be fair, 'solid second' might be a little generous. They are a little ahead of Nintendo in shipped units, and several dozen million behind the PS2. IIRC the number of PS2s in the world is over 100 million; contrast with something like 30 mil Xboxen and 28 mil Gamecubes. So yes, they are 2nd, but they paid a pretty hefty price for it (Xbox division lost oodles of money). Nintendo did not lose money and they are just a hair behind.
And that sounds like the kneejerk reaction of a Nintendo fanboy, frankly. Of course the style of the game impacts how you perceive it. Myself, I will take Wipeout over Mario Kart. Both are loads of fun but I enjoy the futuristic aesthetic to the cartoony one. Its, you know, an opinion.
It is tragic what happened to the parents, but obviously this game did not cause the boy's death. As we know there are no scenes in the game (to speak of), it is all open-ended. But they don't know how to explain themselves, ergo we are presented with slightly nonsensical statements like this. That sentence was written by a lawyer, I'd bet.
Ah, this old chesnut. In this case, choice is a bad thing. The user has to know that there is a 'classic skin' checkbox. And believe me, most of them will not know that. They won't even think to look for it.
This is basically the 'themes' argument. The tinker crowd loves choice, and screams when they can't customize their GUI to the exact specifications they want. This is a fine position to take if you are a tinkerer. For usability purposes, i.e. mass-market business and home use, the ability to rearrange parts of the GUI is bad. Very bad. Say you inherited a workstation, or had to work at another computer in the office, and Word has had its toolbar arranged to suit the pecadillos of the original user. You can't find a damn thing. It slows you down. And you probably end up turning all that crap off (if you can find the Prefs) and going to the default toolbar layout so you can just use the app. Which is how it should have been in the first place. (and then maybe you spend time customizing the GUI, and the next person comes along...)
Picking desktop pictures and so forth is fine and dandy, but screwing with expected behaviours and arrangements in oft-used apps like the Office suite just leads to frustration and support nightmares.
That is an excellent point, one I should have mentioned myself. MMOGs are taking off like crazy, WoW in the lead, and you know the most successful subscription-based game in history has got to get MS's attention, especially with their zeal for moving to 'services' where you 'pay more' through 'the nose'.
Here's how I see it - MS will try to push a big MMOG out, or heavily support a big partner like SquEnix, and they will try to nickel-and-dime people to death with it. Also they will have a BIG challenge in trying to match the complexity of WoW's interface with the xbox controller. I am a big believer in thumbstick controllers, I feel they are superior for every kind of game but two, where they fall down miserably: FPS and RTS. (WoW is a little of both). So that will be tricky. And as we know, Live adoption has been pretty anemic; I forget the percentage but it was a single digit number.
I have a sneaking suspicion that XBox 360 is heading for the same road of ruin in East Asia. Has anyone out there heard anything about how they are handling release events??
Haven't heard anything. Which is probably not a good sign.
Dude - you are hardcore... I don't know anyone with ten copies of Halo...
i kid, i kid.
The one thing would point out, just to play xbox advocate for a second, is that the Live service might make a difference if MS manages to get a real A-list hit massive console game rolling, ala FF X. But as we know, Live is adopted by only a tiny minority of Xbox owners... and the nickel-and-diming approach may not wash with them. Thanks for the reply.
There are ways of doing it on a computer screen, although I suspect what you mean is that many games tend to over-do the motion blur effect, or not apply it properly - and to that I would definitely agree. On a television screen, its much tougher, as you are locked at 30fps interlaced no matter how good your console is. It would be nice for games like Gotham to have options to tweak/disable the effect. I do think the X360 would be capable of simulating that glossy motorsports kind of look if they really aimed for it.
Perhaps there is a psychological factor at play here. I've read studies about perception in film and video that claim the preference for the 'filmed' look has more to do with association with the 'silver screen' and Hollywood (and thus is perceived as more expensive/attractive) than video which is arguably closer to what your eyes actually see, than film...
You know, that really is too bad, because for once I'd like to play a well-crafted, simple, addictive game that doesn't feature neurotic plumbers, walking mushrooms, giant monkeys, turtles with wings, pink princesses, rainbows and clouds with fucking faces on them.
Alright, I take back what I said about the monkeys.
Sure, all the hype is in place, and the X360 looks like a great platform... maybe I am just not paying attention, or have become jaded. But all my gaming friends are totally ambivalent on the X360. Some want to pick it up, most are going to wait and see what the PS3 is like, and in general there seems to be a collective shrug about the thing. Is it lack of Halo 3, or some really huge A-list title? Shouldn't be... the PS2 launched with basically SSX and Ridge Racer...
I dunno. There is some kind of elusive piece missing from the X360 launch to get me excited. I saw the posters for the pre-sale and thought Hey, I guess that IS out soon, huh.... I guess I'm just an old coot now. I play almost nothing but Warcraft these days, maybe that is it. :)
Uh, well, yeah. Your eyes are not cameras.
The use of motion blur is to simulate filmed entertainment. We know what high-framerate 3d looks like when simulating fast speeds; it looks like that odd shutter effect at the beginning of saving Private Ryan. It can be an interesting effect but it does not look natural. For most people, the filmed 'blur' is closer to the actual experience than razor-sharp frames across the board. This is the reason they use motion blur in 3D animation.
You are right. Having the choice to use either OS X or Red Hat - because they are not mutually exclusive, and can co-exist - that is freedom.
What more do you want? Should the window flash orange and red every five seconds? Should it speak the name of the focussed window? What would make you happy?
A bit of consistency would be make me happy.
I'd be the first one to say that Mac OS X is not as internally consistent as the old OS 9 was... but if we are speaking in relative terms, i.e. compared to Red Hat or Windows, it is not even remotely in the same league. Its not even the same fucking sport. You do not want to get into a pissing contest about interface consistency with the Mac people. Everything else - everything - is much more inconsistent. (Ok, maybe you could make a case for BeOS, when it came out.)
Which is too bad - because they could have both. It is not an either/or proposition. Linux could be installed on those laptops as well as OS X, and many of the Unix opensource tools work fine in both. So it was a stupid decision.
(Score:4, Informative)
Of course you realize that by observing this, on slashdot, you have proven your statement (temporarily?) false...
Nice!... for some reason, when I clicked that link, my dog went crazy howling at the sound. (Clearly, my dog should be in casting.)
Yeah, you know, i think some people do just that, as bizarre as it may seem. I know a guy who just this past weekend absolutely stuffed his gut with shrimp at a wedding reception - and he hates shrimp. When I pointed this out, his response: "Yeah.. but do you know how much this stuff costs?!"
Strange but true...
He better watch it, wouldn't want to be murdered by fundamentalist crazies from Salt Lake City.
The truth is it's also a blow to Sony; because recent rumblings have been they won't be 100% backwards compatible, and they already said they won't offer an XBox-Live style service [gamesradar.com].So how do you support more games after the release? Some type of system updater? In any case it won't be as familiar to people as Live is. Being able to jump on live and just download the emulator for your game is pretty easy for the end user. If any of you have seen the latest PS3 screen shot [flickr.com], well its pretty confusing layout (lets hope Sony changes it).
If you think this is some kind of great thing from MS, and a blow to Sony, I think you need to put the kool aid down... The fact that there are two X360 systems, possibly three if they are crazy enough to ship some sorta HD-DVD version, with a LIST of backwards compatible games you must cross-reference by title and system version? Big, big mistake IMHO.
Besides, Live is not the be-all-end-all that many say it is. I like Live a lot, there's nothing like it out there, but its a TINY percentage of Xbox users who are on there, and not considered a great success financially. MS will be putting the screws to Live fans as the 360 rolls out (note MS's grander Services mandate?) and I want no part of that.
Sony has their fair share of mistakes, I'm not really defending them. But MS fucked up on this one. (Besides, as far as non-100% compatibility goes, it can't be a blow to Sony and a boon for MS at the same time...)
but I don't see how anyone can play single-player Q2 and single-player Q3 and say they are the same game. Q3 single-player is simulated Q2 multi-player. Nothing in Q3 is the same as the single player mode in Q2.
What what what the fuck are you on about? Quake 3 HAD NO MULTIPLAYER. Quake 3 ARENA. None. So obviously you are as blinkered as you are touchy. QED, I win.
I meant to say single-player. NO SINGLE PLAYER, to be more accurate.
Well, guess what junior, its only gonna get worse from here. I was actually not feeling feisty at all about our earlier conversation so prepare to feel insulted.
First off - this is how you responded to my earlier thread:
Perhaps you've got your timeline confused and lost interest before Quake II - because you've got your facts wrong.
Which was fucking rude, but ok. I responded, asked what the hell you meant, no answer.
I respond to you on this thread, and you get all uppity, and yet have not answered the question yet. I said you were "easy to please", if that causes you great offense then I'll amend my statement to "easy to offend."
but I don't see how anyone can play single-player Q2 and single-player Q3 and say they are the same game. Q3 single-player is simulated Q2 multi-player. Nothing in Q3 is the same as the single player mode in Q2.
What what what the fuck are you on about? Quake 3 HAD NO MULTIPLAYER. Quake 3 ARENA. None. So obviously you are as blinkered as you are touchy. QED, I win.
In all honestly, dude, I was genuinely curious. I wasn't trying to fight with you until you flew off the' handle. Get. A. Grip.
Can I add one to your list?
I would donate one (1) human testicle for a renewed version of Syndicate Wars. With multiplayer.