Is there a single thread on this entire site that you won't try to hijack by trolling it? It seems you're obsessed with seeing your own name on the Internet.
But Lord of the rings DID overuse special effects, even when they weren't needed. For instance did we really need that many swirling panoramas of those towers? Did we need to see the black dragons flying around so close up? Did we need so many up-close shots of that burning eye? A more subtle director would have been able to achieve the same effects without shoving endless special effects in front of the camera.
I saw the Phantom Menace and didn't like it. Not because of what the plot was about, I haven't seen much of the original Star Wars and I'm not a fanboy.
It was just a really bad film.
Poor acting, poor script, poor pacing, no interesting characters or situations, no tension, no drama, nothing worth watching at all. It was like a filmed-version of some crappy anime. I'm sure that if the Star Wars name wasn't on the film no-one would have bothered seeing it, it would be another Final Fantasy.
The special effects were poor as well. Yes they were technically good, but it looked like a cartoon. 2001 A Space Odyssey had more realistic looking space scenes, and that was just models. All the computers in the world can't make up for subtlety and artistic ability.
But then Kubrick was a genius, and Lucas is a hack.
I don't know if that's high in America, but taking population differences into account, that works out to be 1.8 million in Britain, which isn't an awful lot.
Its changing, adapting and growing is just the means by which it is able to provide more information.
Do you think that a huge printed encyclopedia full of knowledge has no advantages because it can't be changed? In that case we may as well throw away ALL printed information in the world.
Who cares about resolution, other than geeks who fuss about framerates and things like that? TVs are generally bigger than computer monitors as well. Who wants to play games at the computer rather than in the living room anyway? Other than hardcore geeks I mean.
Plus if you already have a PC and use it for gaming, you don't need to spend an extra $300-$700 on an Xbox.
It'd probably cost more to upgrade a computer to play games than to get a console. Especially as every year the hardware requirements for the latest games go up. You can buy a console every few years, or get on the PC upgrade treadmill every 6 months...
A new GeForce 6800 video card will render graphics better than any console, as well.
And will cost more than most consoles. Again only an issue to hardcore geeks who want 700fps at 10000x40000 resolution. Most of us are interested in the game, not how fancy the light effect look in some grim, dark, derivative FPS.
It's possible to strip XP though, (I stop all unnecessary services and actually kill/restart explorer before/after loading a game, and can get XP down to 60 or so MB RAM this way, which leaves over 400 for the game for me) or use Linux, and with X have the game set as the window manager itself.
Well, that's easier and more user-friendly than just putting a CD in the console. In the time it takes to get Linux going you could probably COMPLETE most games.
I think it says it all that Quake IV wasn't even mentioned on Slashdot. Considering Zonk posts about twenty articles a day, and he wasn't interested in it, it's a sorry time for PC gaming.
Personally I don't see the appeal in having to worry about specs all the time. The argument that PCs are better because you can upgrade them to be more powerful than consoles is irrelevent because I play games for enjoyment not graphics and framerates.
The difference is, the average American film is better than the average Indian film. There was an Indian film on a couple of nights ago. It was shockingly awful, and five hours long. It had every Bollywood cliche in the book.
The BBC used to have programmes on in the afternoon to allow amateur directors/writers to showcase their talent. This film was of a similar sort of quality, i.e. awful.
I've seen Lagaan. Well, I've seen half of it. It was so long they put it on in two parts and I only saw the first. It was average, like a typical made-for-TV film. Not dreadful but don't expect me to buy the DVD. Bend it like Beckham was awful so I don't know why you brought that up.
Bollywood will never produce something like Apocalypse Now, or Goodfellas, or 2001, or Fight Club, or Lord of the Rings. They don't take themselves anywhere near seriously enough, and I don't think they have the writing/directing talent either. It seems they only do musicals, but even then they can't compete with Western musicals which are far more imaginative.
1. Microsoft aren't a monopoly. Ever heard of Macs, Linux or BeOS?
2. You can't force a company to do business somewhere.
Put the crack pipe down, this isn't the first furious rant you've made on this article. I can almost imagine the steam coming out of your ears as you type.
By definition a free market lets anyone do what they want. Regulation is not a free market.
How on earth does the Simpsons require sophistication from the viewer? Typical Simpsons script: Homer: Look at me, I'm fat and stupid and eat donuts. Lisa: I've just joined left-wing fad of the week. Homer: Doh! Celebrity guest: I'm a celebrity guest. I've absolutely nothing to do with the plot, but it's good for ratings.
And Family Guy? Just endless references to obscure TV programmes. I can't watch house, Hugh Laurie speaking American just freaks me out.
It's about going to Mars because of a desire to learn about new environments and new science and new technology.
You do that with probes, not with people. Human space exploration is literally a worthless idea. Anything a human can do on Mars, a robot can do a thousand times as efficiently.
Unlike the Americas, Mars isn't hospitable to humans so there's no reason to live there.
Slashdot Mirror
Without Microsoft we'd be paying £1000 for Macs just to send an e-mail, or fiddling with Linux command lines.
I have a question:
Is there a single thread on this entire site that you won't try to hijack by trolling it? It seems you're obsessed with seeing your own name on the Internet.
But Lord of the rings DID overuse special effects, even when they weren't needed. For instance did we really need that many swirling panoramas of those towers? Did we need to see the black dragons flying around so close up? Did we need so many up-close shots of that burning eye? A more subtle director would have been able to achieve the same effects without shoving endless special effects in front of the camera.
I saw the Phantom Menace and didn't like it. Not because of what the plot was about, I haven't seen much of the original Star Wars and I'm not a fanboy.
It was just a really bad film.
Poor acting, poor script, poor pacing, no interesting characters or situations, no tension, no drama, nothing worth watching at all. It was like a filmed-version of some crappy anime. I'm sure that if the Star Wars name wasn't on the film no-one would have bothered seeing it, it would be another Final Fantasy.
The special effects were poor as well. Yes they were technically good, but it looked like a cartoon. 2001 A Space Odyssey had more realistic looking space scenes, and that was just models. All the computers in the world can't make up for subtlety and artistic ability.
But then Kubrick was a genius, and Lucas is a hack.
I don't know if that's high in America, but taking population differences into account, that works out to be 1.8 million in Britain, which isn't an awful lot.
Top ten? It was at number one for several weeks!
We may as well just cancel civilisation, it's clearly a failed experiment.
And then people criticise him for never donating to charity...
No, the 'point', is that it provides information.
Its changing, adapting and growing is just the means by which it is able to provide more information.
Do you think that a huge printed encyclopedia full of knowledge has no advantages because it can't be changed? In that case we may as well throw away ALL printed information in the world.
I live unfortuanately close to Scotland and I can assure you that skirt-wearing Scots aren't all gay, they're mainly just normal transvestites.
Of course, selling computer games is screwing people out of their money...
Slashdot gets more and more idiotic every day.
Translation:
"I want to pirate everything, and hate it when anyone says I can't. Waaaaah."
Why should you need an expensive graphics card to play a 2D, turn-based strategy game?
TV really sucks for gaming, resolution wise.
Who cares about resolution, other than geeks who fuss about framerates and things like that? TVs are generally bigger than computer monitors as well. Who wants to play games at the computer rather than in the living room anyway? Other than hardcore geeks I mean.
Plus if you already have a PC and use it for gaming, you don't need to spend an extra $300-$700 on an Xbox.
It'd probably cost more to upgrade a computer to play games than to get a console. Especially as every year the hardware requirements for the latest games go up. You can buy a console every few years, or get on the PC upgrade treadmill every 6 months...
A new GeForce 6800 video card will render graphics better than any console, as well.
And will cost more than most consoles. Again only an issue to hardcore geeks who want 700fps at 10000x40000 resolution. Most of us are interested in the game, not how fancy the light effect look in some grim, dark, derivative FPS.
It's possible to strip XP though, (I stop all unnecessary services and actually kill/restart explorer before/after loading a game, and can get XP down to 60 or so MB RAM this way, which leaves over 400 for the game for me) or use Linux, and with X have the game set as the window manager itself.
Well, that's easier and more user-friendly than just putting a CD in the console. In the time it takes to get Linux going you could probably COMPLETE most games.
I think it says it all that Quake IV wasn't even mentioned on Slashdot. Considering Zonk posts about twenty articles a day, and he wasn't interested in it, it's a sorry time for PC gaming.
Personally I don't see the appeal in having to worry about specs all the time. The argument that PCs are better because you can upgrade them to be more powerful than consoles is irrelevent because I play games for enjoyment not graphics and framerates.
The difference is, the average American film is better than the average Indian film. There was an Indian film on a couple of nights ago. It was shockingly awful, and five hours long. It had every Bollywood cliche in the book.
The BBC used to have programmes on in the afternoon to allow amateur directors/writers to showcase their talent. This film was of a similar sort of quality, i.e. awful.
I've seen Lagaan. Well, I've seen half of it. It was so long they put it on in two parts and I only saw the first. It was average, like a typical made-for-TV film. Not dreadful but don't expect me to buy the DVD. Bend it like Beckham was awful so I don't know why you brought that up.
Bollywood will never produce something like Apocalypse Now, or Goodfellas, or 2001, or Fight Club, or Lord of the Rings. They don't take themselves anywhere near seriously enough, and I don't think they have the writing/directing talent either. It seems they only do musicals, but even then they can't compete with Western musicals which are far more imaginative.
Do Everquest players camp for years at a time?
1. Microsoft aren't a monopoly. Ever heard of Macs, Linux or BeOS?
2. You can't force a company to do business somewhere.
Put the crack pipe down, this isn't the first furious rant you've made on this article. I can almost imagine the steam coming out of your ears as you type.
By definition a free market lets anyone do what they want. Regulation is not a free market.
How on earth does the Simpsons require sophistication from the viewer? Typical Simpsons script:
Homer: Look at me, I'm fat and stupid and eat donuts.
Lisa: I've just joined left-wing fad of the week.
Homer: Doh!
Celebrity guest: I'm a celebrity guest. I've absolutely nothing to do with the plot, but it's good for ratings.
And Family Guy? Just endless references to obscure TV programmes. I can't watch house, Hugh Laurie speaking American just freaks me out.
It's about going to Mars because of a desire to learn about new environments and new science and new technology.
You do that with probes, not with people. Human space exploration is literally a worthless idea. Anything a human can do on Mars, a robot can do a thousand times as efficiently.
Unlike the Americas, Mars isn't hospitable to humans so there's no reason to live there.
But what about those who don't follow the marriage and/or monogomy line?
Then when they get an STD, they'll realise that the people preaching abstinence and monogamy were actually right.
When they invent a way to do the washing-up in zero gravity.
Then why, when any decent games are advertised, it says Xbox and PS2 at the bottom but never Gamecube?
I suppose then in a hundred years the trash like Harry Potter and Dan Brown will be forgotten. I hope.
Then why are all the best games not released on gamecube?
He said beat, not beat off.