I really can't fathom why more use wasn't made of "Geo-Mod". Why hasn't another developer either purchased or duplicated it? I still play Red Faction multiplayer occasionally, and the ability to blow a strategic hole in the wall or hiding place in the ground here and there is pretty fantastic-- and makes it so no two multiplayer games are ever alike.
Yeah I am surprised by that as well. It was an interesting game. My biggest problem with it was: one got the impression that so much work went into "GeoMod" that the rest of the game suffered. Without GeoMod, Red Faction was the dullest cookie-cutter of an FPS I've ever seen. And the GeoMod had its limitations (at the time, completely understandable) that could hamper gameplay (small delay as geometry reorganized itself if a big weapon hit was annoying).
But I do remember... standing on the other side of one of the multiplayer boards, on top of my base, and firing several dozen missiles at the front of my opponents base - and watching the entire edifice crumble. It was magnificent. That part, anyway.
1. The speed and movement in Q2 vs. Q3 were quite different, in my opinion.
2. Q3 was a tournament style game where you fought for frag counts. Q2 had a level with a beginning and an end, with various easily disposed of enemies along the way. There were no persistent enemies that would respawn. This represents a completely different game style.
So what you are saying, if I have this right, is that the tiny tweaking in player handling represents a completely different game style? You sure are easy to please.
Also, you are being a little disingenuous with your 2nd point. Quake 3 ARENA was not designed with any single player campaign, as it became obvious after Quake 2 that this part of the game was what most people are interested in, long-term. Quake 2 and Quake 3 were practically identical gameplay in multiplayer. Slight changes to inertia and graphics requirements notwithstanding. It just wasn't a leap above; it offered nothing new but enhanced eyecandy. At least Unreal Tournament, in its later incarnations, could boast vehicles and such.. and even then you wouldn't convince me that it was a fundamentally different game. Its still an FPS shooter with rocketjumping and powerups and so on. As another poster pointed out, coming from Q2 to Q3 meant practically no relearning of any skills.
My 'twitch' comment referred to the observation that Nintendo games tend to be, for lack of a much better term, 'game-y'. From Super Mario Bros. on up, these are games that often rely on reflexes heavily, with a fairly simple sophistication to them. Certainly there are departures in the library available, but I actually applaud big N for this approach - they keep it simple and fun. Zonk had made the basis of his two-review the concept that games can evolve and stay principally fun, even with updated graphics and such. While I would disagree with the two he named, I do not disagree with the concept. Katamari Damacy is a good example.
Even on the medium setting, the combine soldiers in HL2:LC seemed pretty damn smart, at least on the cliffs. Flanking manuvers, well placed 'nades, shooting the bridge in front of you down... Then again there was the old school pop-up shooting gallery in the church.:P
Yes, actually I had the opportunity to see Lost Coast just this past weekend and it does look impressive. My buddy - who actually owned the game - seemed to be of the opinion that it was really a 'top layer' of AI, but that they tended to take the same flanking positions etc. most times... for what its worth. Maybe its just baby steps.
Perhaps you've got your timeline confused and lost interest before Quake II - because you've got your facts wrong.
If we were talking about facts... which we weren't. You can't understand that I just have a difference of opinion on this? What was so 'completely different' between the two?
I lost pretty much all interest in FPS games somewhere around Quake 3/Unreal Tournament. It became apparent even then that these games should not have a sequel number after them, but a version. We have seen Quake, versions 1-4 now for instance. Its the same game.
I looked with hope at Halo 2 (first one was, sorry to say, dead boring, apart from the neat little plot twist with the Flood), hoping that the famous sequel would be a sequel.. but no, its another version, and unfinished at that. I loved that game, but they are all That Game now, and I have played a hellof a lot of Unreal and Quake. So much that I feel like I never need to play it again, until the genre decides to stretch a bit and offer something beyond Grr! Skullz! and Hot Babe with Howitzer!
I do see Zonk's point - of course there is a place for 'the twitch', and Nintendo does quite well in that area.
But I will wait until FPS games truly do something new. Apart from easy questions like, why can't I blow a hole through a wall? (Red Faction came close to this.) Where is the weather? Why is the AI so mind numbingly stupid?.... there are harder questions, like, is this a good idea to have a single point of view for the entire game no matter what? A counter-example of this would be something like Metal Gear Solid, which could switch between views depending on circumstance... Valve looked like they were onto something with HalfLife 2, but that sort of turned out like a really neat tech demo, with the physics... seems obvious to me that they are selling an 'engine' now, with a game as an afterthought. Kind of like id.
Ever tried to change the star rating for a song? It's far too sensitive... Ever tried to switch off your iPod by holding play down- but slide your finger ever so slightly, so the iPod thinks it's a scroll and completely ignores the button press?
We're sorry - the fingers you have used to manipulate your iPod are too fat. If you would like to request a special dialing wand, please mash the clickwheel with your palm now
You can easily claim that Joe Sixpack doesn't have the broadband connection or the PC to play Worlds of Warcraft, but WoW is still chugging along and will make a ton of money.
Your point is well-taken, but FYI, WoW can be played over a 56k modem - you don't need broadband (or a particularly fast PC either).
And yes of course some games 'could' run at 120 FPS, its kind of a nonsensical statement.
While we are on the topic however, I'd like to address a bugbear of mine - game magazines that crow constantly about the vaunted 60 FPS. I find this to be a little disingenuous.
Televisions run at 30 frames per second, interlaced. That's the only speed available (for NTSC; 25 FPS for PAL, not sure about SECAM).
Are these game reviews just being coy, in using 'little f' fps to talk about fields per second, which are really half-frames? Or do they just not know?
No it was actually a Stephenson quote (Zodiac I believe); I'm a chemistry idiot so I really should fix it to not look so stupid.:) How would you write it? Trying to say 'that christmas smell' like you get from new plastic.
Still - that's three times the clock speed and several ARM revisions better than the Apple Newton. Plus the DS has a secondary processor that might be usable.
Several ARM revisions, yes; 3x clock speed, don't think so. IIRC the Newton ran somewhere around 160Mhz. Which I remember being very impressive at the time.:)
This certainly makes the DS more interesting to me (not that I'd use it as a PDA or anything). But if you can jot notes into the thing, and have it OCR'd for you, it would make it a lot handier than it is right now. Can anyone comment intelligently on how the DS CPU would handle such a thing?
When they are clean and functional and do what I want them to do instead of what someone else wants them to do, then I will be very interested in how they look.
Well, no. For me, I am cost conscious. When talking about the MS tax, we must not forget that Mac hardware just is out of the league to comparable PC products.
I would have agreed with this statement, had you not used the word comparable. Comparable Mac and PC hardware lands within 5-7% of cost on both sides, every time I price it. Assuming you add the same stuff like gigabit ethernet, firewire, etc to the PC.
There are bargain-basement PCs with crap like shared video, cacheless procs and such that don't exist on the Apple side. This is what makes them seem cheaper on the whole. If you actually have comparable parts in both, they come out awfully close.
Just because Treos/Blackberrys aren't packaged and marketed towards Apple's coffeeshop demographic doesn't mean there's any problem with the marketing. Nobody would accuse Apple of having poor marketing even with their complete inability to sell business systems of any sort.
Actually, that doesn't fly. You don't need marketing for business products that is anywhere near the same scale or scope of consumer marketing, esp. targeting the coveted 18-29 demographic. Sure, there's ads for Xerox copiers and shit like that in trade mags but it is a far cry from $1-200 million campaigns that splatter dozens of cities with dancer silhouettes. So unless Palm wants the Treo to stay in the realm of the aforementioned geeky sysadmin/business types, it needs better marketing.
If you have any clue about HTPC or home media devices in general, then you would know that Microsoft ALREADY HAS a device that IS positioned as a home media hub, with video and music capabilities and there are already downloadable content for this device.
HTPCs are practically an endangered species right now. Know why? Too expensive, too clumsy, and general all-around suckage. A MythTV box, Slingbox, or any number of other options blow the doors off an HTPC. So, take your own advice and:
Get a clue, genius.
And then go look at the Apple page again, 'cause you didn't the first time, and I suspect you have no idea what I'm talking about.
I see the Xbox 360 being positioned as a home media hub, with video and music capabilities, and probably downloadable content, wrapped in a slick interface and controlled by wireless remote.
Then I see Apple releasing a new iMac, being positioned as a home media hub, with video and music capabilities, and definitely downloadable content, wrapped in a slick interface and controlled by wireless remote.
But its probably all in my head. Thanks for the stunning insight, genius.
Anybody else see that demo page of the FrontRow remote/application in action and think it was a direct shot across the box of the Xbox 360? 'Cause I sure did.
Once all of these features are incorporated into one device with larger than 100GB of storage, I will buy one. For now, I will suffer as being not part of the iPod masses.
So you are 'suffering' along with the laptop masses?
I understand what you are saying, however you make some base assumptions in your post that I am not comfortable making myself.
Now if our fictional person X (and more importantly the multitudes of persons X) is downloading music and not listening to the radio or watching MTV (or VH1 or whomever), they are collectively hurting ratings for stations and networks. This costs these individuals ad revenue. Now without having ad revenue they can then effectively go under and cut a source of the income from the RIAA.
This is probably true. It may not be. I have yet to see a non-RIAA-funded study that actually conclusively proved this. But even if it is true, here's the thing: the record companies failed business model is not my problem. I don't care if they can't make as much money as they used to. Nor should any of you care. If you think that means the death of music, then all I can say is I disagree - music will always be made. It may not be a huge industry anymore, and that is the simple truth of it. Adapt or die. I'm not a free market darwinistic type at all, but honestly, I see this spouted continuously from the labels when I deal with them on a daily basis: "We don't know how to make as much money selling downloads as we used to." Boo fucking hoo. Figure it out. Invent something worthwhile, or find a better method. Its not anyone's problem but their own - until they start suing people..
If the theft of intellectual property was not considered a crime, the counterfeiters and large piracy individuals (I am talking about the people that get content A, B, C and more to us.) would not be charged with crimes where the penalties are tantamount to actual theft.
But the penalties are not tantamount to theft; the penalties go way, way beyond theft. Look at the damages they are asking per track, then look at what actual theft asks for damages for, say, a stolen physical CD from a store. or heck, a truck full of CDs. It's not even close. And it is not honest to call copyright infringement 'theft', I'm sorry, you're totally wrong there. No matter how strongly you feel about it, the definitions are crystal clear.
So to re-hash, the courts and legal system seem to be against you when it comes to this idea of the actual quality of property that IP has. You can steal an idea, just there is no money in sending a person to prison for it. In the end I do not really care if you accept this argument as truth. What I do hope is you at least understand that sharing music in the P2P manner is ILLEGAL.
NO. Not in my country (Canada). Is it any less 'wrong' or 'right' in Canada, to download music, than it is in the US? No, its exactly the same thing. But our courts have ruled differently. So would your feeling about the 'theft' of IP change if the law changed in the US suddenly?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah I am surprised by that as well. It was an interesting game. My biggest problem with it was: one got the impression that so much work went into "GeoMod" that the rest of the game suffered. Without GeoMod, Red Faction was the dullest cookie-cutter of an FPS I've ever seen. And the GeoMod had its limitations (at the time, completely understandable) that could hamper gameplay (small delay as geometry reorganized itself if a big weapon hit was annoying).
But I do remember... standing on the other side of one of the multiplayer boards, on top of my base, and firing several dozen missiles at the front of my opponents base - and watching the entire edifice crumble. It was magnificent. That part, anyway.
So what you are saying, if I have this right, is that the tiny tweaking in player handling represents a completely different game style? You sure are easy to please.
Also, you are being a little disingenuous with your 2nd point. Quake 3 ARENA was not designed with any single player campaign, as it became obvious after Quake 2 that this part of the game was what most people are interested in, long-term. Quake 2 and Quake 3 were practically identical gameplay in multiplayer. Slight changes to inertia and graphics requirements notwithstanding. It just wasn't a leap above; it offered nothing new but enhanced eyecandy. At least Unreal Tournament, in its later incarnations, could boast vehicles and such.. and even then you wouldn't convince me that it was a fundamentally different game. Its still an FPS shooter with rocketjumping and powerups and so on. As another poster pointed out, coming from Q2 to Q3 meant practically no relearning of any skills.
My 'twitch' comment referred to the observation that Nintendo games tend to be, for lack of a much better term, 'game-y'. From Super Mario Bros. on up, these are games that often rely on reflexes heavily, with a fairly simple sophistication to them. Certainly there are departures in the library available, but I actually applaud big N for this approach - they keep it simple and fun. Zonk had made the basis of his two-review the concept that games can evolve and stay principally fun, even with updated graphics and such. While I would disagree with the two he named, I do not disagree with the concept. Katamari Damacy is a good example.
Yes, actually I had the opportunity to see Lost Coast just this past weekend and it does look impressive. My buddy - who actually owned the game - seemed to be of the opinion that it was really a 'top layer' of AI, but that they tended to take the same flanking positions etc. most times... for what its worth. Maybe its just baby steps.
If we were talking about facts... which we weren't. You can't understand that I just have a difference of opinion on this? What was so 'completely different' between the two?
I looked with hope at Halo 2 (first one was, sorry to say, dead boring, apart from the neat little plot twist with the Flood), hoping that the famous sequel would be a sequel.. but no, its another version, and unfinished at that. I loved that game, but they are all That Game now, and I have played a hellof a lot of Unreal and Quake. So much that I feel like I never need to play it again, until the genre decides to stretch a bit and offer something beyond Grr! Skullz! and Hot Babe with Howitzer!
I do see Zonk's point - of course there is a place for 'the twitch', and Nintendo does quite well in that area.
But I will wait until FPS games truly do something new. Apart from easy questions like, why can't I blow a hole through a wall? (Red Faction came close to this.) Where is the weather? Why is the AI so mind numbingly stupid?.... there are harder questions, like, is this a good idea to have a single point of view for the entire game no matter what? A counter-example of this would be something like Metal Gear Solid, which could switch between views depending on circumstance... Valve looked like they were onto something with HalfLife 2, but that sort of turned out like a really neat tech demo, with the physics... seems obvious to me that they are selling an 'engine' now, with a game as an afterthought. Kind of like id.
Just FYI, I think you may have started something... check out this Inquirer story.
We're sorry - the fingers you have used to manipulate your iPod are too fat. If you would like to request a special dialing wand, please mash the clickwheel with your palm now
Your point is well-taken, but FYI, WoW can be played over a 56k modem - you don't need broadband (or a particularly fast PC either).
No, anything else is personal.
+5 Sacrilicious
While we are on the topic however, I'd like to address a bugbear of mine - game magazines that crow constantly about the vaunted 60 FPS. I find this to be a little disingenuous.
Televisions run at 30 frames per second, interlaced. That's the only speed available (for NTSC; 25 FPS for PAL, not sure about SECAM).
Are these game reviews just being coy, in using 'little f' fps to talk about fields per second, which are really half-frames? Or do they just not know?
Worst. Game. Evar. (Sorry, it had to be said. Now, I'm off to WTFPWNBBQ those N00BS at NASDAQ. Zerg foreign currency FTW!)
No it was actually a Stephenson quote (Zodiac I believe); I'm a chemistry idiot so I really should fix it to not look so stupid. :) How would you write it? Trying to say 'that christmas smell' like you get from new plastic.
Thanks for the info - very helpful.
Several ARM revisions, yes; 3x clock speed, don't think so. IIRC the Newton ran somewhere around 160Mhz. Which I remember being very impressive at the time. :)
This certainly makes the DS more interesting to me (not that I'd use it as a PDA or anything). But if you can jot notes into the thing, and have it OCR'd for you, it would make it a lot handier than it is right now. Can anyone comment intelligently on how the DS CPU would handle such a thing?
Why don't you just use the Quicktime player?
I would have agreed with this statement, had you not used the word comparable. Comparable Mac and PC hardware lands within 5-7% of cost on both sides, every time I price it. Assuming you add the same stuff like gigabit ethernet, firewire, etc to the PC.
There are bargain-basement PCs with crap like shared video, cacheless procs and such that don't exist on the Apple side. This is what makes them seem cheaper on the whole. If you actually have comparable parts in both, they come out awfully close.
Actually, that doesn't fly. You don't need marketing for business products that is anywhere near the same scale or scope of consumer marketing, esp. targeting the coveted 18-29 demographic. Sure, there's ads for Xerox copiers and shit like that in trade mags but it is a far cry from $1-200 million campaigns that splatter dozens of cities with dancer silhouettes. So unless Palm wants the Treo to stay in the realm of the aforementioned geeky sysadmin/business types, it needs better marketing.
HTPCs are practically an endangered species right now. Know why? Too expensive, too clumsy, and general all-around suckage. A MythTV box, Slingbox, or any number of other options blow the doors off an HTPC. So, take your own advice and:
Get a clue, genius.
And then go look at the Apple page again, 'cause you didn't the first time, and I suspect you have no idea what I'm talking about.
Yeah, you are probably right.
I see the Xbox 360 being positioned as a home media hub, with video and music capabilities, and probably downloadable content, wrapped in a slick interface and controlled by wireless remote.
Then I see Apple releasing a new iMac, being positioned as a home media hub, with video and music capabilities, and definitely downloadable content, wrapped in a slick interface and controlled by wireless remote.
But its probably all in my head. Thanks for the stunning insight, genius.
Go have a look.
So you are 'suffering' along with the laptop masses?
Now if our fictional person X (and more importantly the multitudes of persons X) is downloading music and not listening to the radio or watching MTV (or VH1 or whomever), they are collectively hurting ratings for stations and networks. This costs these individuals ad revenue. Now without having ad revenue they can then effectively go under and cut a source of the income from the RIAA.
This is probably true. It may not be. I have yet to see a non-RIAA-funded study that actually conclusively proved this. But even if it is true, here's the thing: the record companies failed business model is not my problem. I don't care if they can't make as much money as they used to. Nor should any of you care. If you think that means the death of music, then all I can say is I disagree - music will always be made. It may not be a huge industry anymore, and that is the simple truth of it. Adapt or die. I'm not a free market darwinistic type at all, but honestly, I see this spouted continuously from the labels when I deal with them on a daily basis: "We don't know how to make as much money selling downloads as we used to." Boo fucking hoo. Figure it out. Invent something worthwhile, or find a better method. Its not anyone's problem but their own - until they start suing people..
If the theft of intellectual property was not considered a crime, the counterfeiters and large piracy individuals (I am talking about the people that get content A, B, C and more to us.) would not be charged with crimes where the penalties are tantamount to actual theft.
But the penalties are not tantamount to theft; the penalties go way, way beyond theft. Look at the damages they are asking per track, then look at what actual theft asks for damages for, say, a stolen physical CD from a store. or heck, a truck full of CDs. It's not even close. And it is not honest to call copyright infringement 'theft', I'm sorry, you're totally wrong there. No matter how strongly you feel about it, the definitions are crystal clear.
So to re-hash, the courts and legal system seem to be against you when it comes to this idea of the actual quality of property that IP has. You can steal an idea, just there is no money in sending a person to prison for it. In the end I do not really care if you accept this argument as truth. What I do hope is you at least understand that sharing music in the P2P manner is ILLEGAL.
NO. Not in my country (Canada). Is it any less 'wrong' or 'right' in Canada, to download music, than it is in the US? No, its exactly the same thing. But our courts have ruled differently. So would your feeling about the 'theft' of IP change if the law changed in the US suddenly?