When did I ever say that? It's entirely possible to have multiple displays in the same room. Ever heard of a LAN party? Ever heard of attaching multiple displays to a single device?
As soon as anyone mentions additional screens and LAN parties it means they completely miss the point. Split-screen gaming requires only one additional thing over single-player gaming - an extra controller. It's small, fits in a drawer and requires close to zero time to setup.
Split screen always seemed like and awful thing to me - trying to cram all this different action onto a reduced-resolution portion of the screen. It's the same reason the Picture-in-Picture feature of TV sets is hardly used by anyone. There are probably better ways to have social gaming without dividing a single screen up.
You value screen size and resolution over fun with friends? Oh right, this Slashdot.
They were obsoleted by a more convenient technology. Internet based multiplayer was not possible or practical at the time but today it is. In this era of immediate gratification it's too much effort to organize a bunch of friends and wait until you can all haul your gear over and set it all up. In may be more fun but the incremental amount of fun must not be worth it for most gamers.
No-one hauled any gear over for split-screen co-op. Young people still go round each other's houses and would often end up playing split-screen co-op because the option was available.
It can be likened to a government and it's people. If the government gives its people bread and circuses, the masses may not care whether they have a say in the government which rules over them. But the day may come when the party ends, and then the people will be powerless. It's important to exercise freedom before it is too late to acquire it.
You may think this sounds grandiose and silly, but I think much truth lies in these ideas, and much naiveté and ignorance in dismissing them. Time will tell.
I don't know what country you live in but I get bread, circuses AND a say in what the government does. You are making a strawman argument here.
When it comes to software I look for something that does what I want. I am not going to use open source software just for the sake of using open source software when a superior proprietary soloution is available. Doing it the other way round is counter productive.
no offense intended--but I think to say that to say that open-source software doesn't matter is incredibly short-sighted and naive. History and the present have shown otherwise. It saddens me whenever I hear people downplay its significance and blindly gulp down their proprietary punch. Sustainable, future-oriented, and freedom-oriented computing lies with free software. We need to support its development with, if nothing else, our "feet", lest it slip into obscurity due to the ignorance of the masses.
The proprietary software does what people want. They (quite rightly) don't care about the license.
Norm. Most games pre-00 were based more on story than graphics, unless the graphics were the selling point. I'd say that the hayday of stories being the driving point died out in oh 2001, 2002 or so, even after that there have been a few gems but they're few and far between. Because graphics became the cheaper(as adoption becomes greater), and easier way to drive sales. 8-9 years have seen explosive differences in the quality of graphics.
That's an incredible claim to make and one not reflected in reality at all. Unless you only looked at and played two games a year a game with a good story has always been the exception rather than the norm.
they dont need to. the pressure can make the console operators give more freedoms to their users with their hardware and software.
hell, even the pioneering 'home computers' of mid 80s have expansion cartridges and whatnot. you could attach mem to amigas. some of them could even have coprocessors attached.
with the current state of chip industry, it doesnt take any effort to make consoles upgradeable at least in a few respects, like cpu power, or, gpu power, or mem, and allow users more freedom.
and that would make additional revenue for console operators too. instead of hauling out entire platforms in every 3-4 years, they can speedily sell more cpus, gpus, mem units to the owners, both making more profits and also making them happy. also cutting design costs.
You don't really seem to understand the point of game consoles.
better for all of us. what you are playing in consoles, have come to this point with the development of gaming tech, which was spearheaded always by pc. now, consoles are keeping it back. because console companies are increasingly lax in putting out new consoles.
All of who? If consoles disappeared tomorrow it doesn't mean that all those former console gamers will buy a gaming PC. There is nothing lax about not putting a new console out, it's just the market forces at work.
its consoles. they are too locked in, and their companies do not put out new generations often. that is why the console market is dragging ALL gaming behind. developers are having to accommodate consoles that are a few years behind in technology.
not to mention the horrible, flat-out fascist attitude of the console producers towards any kind of free development, improvement, or modding on their devices.
really, it would be better if they are totally dropped.
Better for who? There is a reason why consoles are so much more popular for gaming than PCs - ease of use.
I have said it before and I'll say again: a keyboard and mouse is far superior to a simplistic gamepad in most types of games (platforming aside). I cannot even bother to pick up a game pad for an FPS as it is to sad an experience. This will never change.
A gamepad is fine for FPS games. I can switch between playing Halo Reach and Black Ops without any issues at all.
There are things that have value, including video games. But MMOs -- WoW, FF, Everquest, City of Heroes, ect. ect. -- these games (and their predecessors such as Diablo -- once an addiction of my own) don't do anything but turn the brain off. They get us to zone out. It's no different than reality TV, it's an utter waste of time. At least, when I play chess, I'm bettering myself.
This is nonsense. Top-end raiding in these MMOs requires a high degree of teamwork, co-operation and strategy.
It's just what happens when you grow up - Lego and Scalectrix just aren't as interesting any more either.
Years ago I had more spare time and was able to do things like get all the cheats on Goldeneye for the N64. These days I wouldn't have the time or the patience to do something like that. I hold no illusions about the past though as the games I play these days are far and away better than the games I used to play.
The Japanese have done fine without using western developers for decades and in fact most of the bigger successes still come from Japan. Nintendo alone proves that.
The only area where Japan may be weak is catering to the Xbox crowd which is also the ex-PC crowded and insecure teenager crowd. I don't want to see Japan knocking boring shit like Halo year after year. If they feel they're not doing as well it will because they're getting less imaginative and lowering standards just like western developers.
You sound like an insecure teenager yourself actually. If Japan knocked out more games like Halo many people - including myself - would be rather happy because they like the games.
I wonder how someone who has been blind all their life would actually go about describing colours and objects in this instance. When you talk to someone who is partially colour-blind you end up pointing at things asking what colour they see.
Your last sentence listed two problems: visible on other peoples friend list, and can't use a nickname.
Guess what- this article is about how you can now NOT be visible on other people's friends list if you so choose.
In other words- half your CURRENT complaint is gone. The thing you mentioned was gone long ago.
The fact it was even there is a big problem - so again, half my complaint is not gone.
Constructive critique is always useful - and blizzard has a decent track record of listening to it, moreso than most software companies in fact, being eternally pissed over a bad decision which they REVERSED in answer to the community's reaction kind of removes any motivation for them to give a damn what the community wants doesn't it?
Why are so desperate to praise Blizzard all the time? The decision shouldn't have been made in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
So does shared-single-screen gaming. So, what's the advantage to split-screen?
What do you mean? Not all games work without split-screen so split-screen functionality allows people to play those games on the same screen.
When did I ever say that? It's entirely possible to have multiple displays in the same room. Ever heard of a LAN party? Ever heard of attaching multiple displays to a single device?
As soon as anyone mentions additional screens and LAN parties it means they completely miss the point. Split-screen gaming requires only one additional thing over single-player gaming - an extra controller. It's small, fits in a drawer and requires close to zero time to setup.
Split screen always seemed like and awful thing to me - trying to cram all this different action onto a reduced-resolution portion of the screen. It's the same reason the Picture-in-Picture feature of TV sets is hardly used by anyone. There are probably better ways to have social gaming without dividing a single screen up.
You value screen size and resolution over fun with friends? Oh right, this Slashdot.
LAN parties are the exception. Very few people actually go to them and even less do it regularly.
They were obsoleted by a more convenient technology. Internet based multiplayer was not possible or practical at the time but today it is. In this era of immediate gratification it's too much effort to organize a bunch of friends and wait until you can all haul your gear over and set it all up. In may be more fun but the incremental amount of fun must not be worth it for most gamers.
No-one hauled any gear over for split-screen co-op. Young people still go round each other's houses and would often end up playing split-screen co-op because the option was available.
Your words are so generic they are meaningless.
My words are simply the truth.
It can be likened to a government and it's people. If the government gives its people bread and circuses, the masses may not care whether they have a say in the government which rules over them. But the day may come when the party ends, and then the people will be powerless. It's important to exercise freedom before it is too late to acquire it.
You may think this sounds grandiose and silly, but I think much truth lies in these ideas, and much naiveté and ignorance in dismissing them. Time will tell.
I don't know what country you live in but I get bread, circuses AND a say in what the government does. You are making a strawman argument here.
When it comes to software I look for something that does what I want. I am not going to use open source software just for the sake of using open source software when a superior proprietary soloution is available. Doing it the other way round is counter productive.
no offense intended--but I think to say that to say that open-source software doesn't matter is incredibly short-sighted and naive. History and the present have shown otherwise. It saddens me whenever I hear people downplay its significance and blindly gulp down their proprietary punch. Sustainable, future-oriented, and freedom-oriented computing lies with free software. We need to support its development with, if nothing else, our "feet", lest it slip into obscurity due to the ignorance of the masses.
The proprietary software does what people want. They (quite rightly) don't care about the license.
What have they to say about this?
Norm. Most games pre-00 were based more on story than graphics, unless the graphics were the selling point. I'd say that the hayday of stories being the driving point died out in oh 2001, 2002 or so, even after that there have been a few gems but they're few and far between. Because graphics became the cheaper(as adoption becomes greater), and easier way to drive sales. 8-9 years have seen explosive differences in the quality of graphics.
That's an incredible claim to make and one not reflected in reality at all. Unless you only looked at and played two games a year a game with a good story has always been the exception rather than the norm.
they dont need to. the pressure can make the console operators give more freedoms to their users with their hardware and software.
hell, even the pioneering 'home computers' of mid 80s have expansion cartridges and whatnot. you could attach mem to amigas. some of them could even have coprocessors attached.
with the current state of chip industry, it doesnt take any effort to make consoles upgradeable at least in a few respects, like cpu power, or, gpu power, or mem, and allow users more freedom.
and that would make additional revenue for console operators too. instead of hauling out entire platforms in every 3-4 years, they can speedily sell more cpus, gpus, mem units to the owners, both making more profits and also making them happy. also cutting design costs.
You don't really seem to understand the point of game consoles.
better for all of us. what you are playing in consoles, have come to this point with the development of gaming tech, which was spearheaded always by pc. now, consoles are keeping it back. because console companies are increasingly lax in putting out new consoles.
All of who? If consoles disappeared tomorrow it doesn't mean that all those former console gamers will buy a gaming PC. There is nothing lax about not putting a new console out, it's just the market forces at work.
its consoles. they are too locked in, and their companies do not put out new generations often. that is why the console market is dragging ALL gaming behind. developers are having to accommodate consoles that are a few years behind in technology.
not to mention the horrible, flat-out fascist attitude of the console producers towards any kind of free development, improvement, or modding on their devices.
really, it would be better if they are totally dropped.
Better for who? There is a reason why consoles are so much more popular for gaming than PCs - ease of use.
I have said it before and I'll say again: a keyboard and mouse is far superior to a simplistic gamepad in most types of games (platforming aside). I cannot even bother to pick up a game pad for an FPS as it is to sad an experience. This will never change.
A gamepad is fine for FPS games. I can switch between playing Halo Reach and Black Ops without any issues at all.
It all depends on what you are used to.
There are things that have value, including video games. But MMOs -- WoW, FF, Everquest, City of Heroes, ect. ect. -- these games (and their predecessors such as Diablo -- once an addiction of my own) don't do anything but turn the brain off. They get us to zone out. It's no different than reality TV, it's an utter waste of time. At least, when I play chess, I'm bettering myself.
This is nonsense. Top-end raiding in these MMOs requires a high degree of teamwork, co-operation and strategy.
Funny. I can think of several games that were released based on the amount of story, the game was built around.
Like what? And where they the exception or the norm?
Developers have always used graphics as a selling point for games and the stories were mostly non-existant back in the old days.
It's just what happens when you grow up - Lego and Scalectrix just aren't as interesting any more either.
Years ago I had more spare time and was able to do things like get all the cheats on Goldeneye for the N64. These days I wouldn't have the time or the patience to do something like that. I hold no illusions about the past though as the games I play these days are far and away better than the games I used to play.
False dichotomy. Are you an insecure teenager by any chance...?
The Japanese have done fine without using western developers for decades and in fact most of the bigger successes still come from Japan. Nintendo alone proves that.
The only area where Japan may be weak is catering to the Xbox crowd which is also the ex-PC crowded and insecure teenager crowd. I don't want to see Japan knocking boring shit like Halo year after year. If they feel they're not doing as well it will because they're getting less imaginative and lowering standards just like western developers.
You sound like an insecure teenager yourself actually. If Japan knocked out more games like Halo many people - including myself - would be rather happy because they like the games.
Could be any more like Chandler from friends?
I wonder how someone who has been blind all their life would actually go about describing colours and objects in this instance. When you talk to someone who is partially colour-blind you end up pointing at things asking what colour they see.
And they look at you as if you are an idiot...
You made a claim and he asked for a source or citation. There is nothing lazy about that.
Your last sentence listed two problems: visible on other peoples friend list, and can't use a nickname. Guess what- this article is about how you can now NOT be visible on other people's friends list if you so choose. In other words- half your CURRENT complaint is gone. The thing you mentioned was gone long ago.
The fact it was even there is a big problem - so again, half my complaint is not gone.
Constructive critique is always useful - and blizzard has a decent track record of listening to it, moreso than most software companies in fact, being eternally pissed over a bad decision which they REVERSED in answer to the community's reaction kind of removes any motivation for them to give a damn what the community wants doesn't it?
Why are so desperate to praise Blizzard all the time? The decision shouldn't have been made in the first place.
And now half your complaint is gone - the other half is sure to follow. Seriously dude. Chill the fuck out.
Why are you so defensive and excited about this? It is you who needs to chill out.
Half my complaint is not gone at all because Blizzard were still stupid to even consider using Real ID for the forums in the first place.
Does this sort of thing really need to have the law getting involved? It's only a small irritant.
Is it a bit of deflection from the real issues that are going on at the moment?