"I think the key word "unsolicited" commercial mail. So legitimate mail will be unaffected."
Slightly off topic, but I've had good luck filtering SPAM by deleting mails with the word 'unsolicited' in them. I've never gotten a message that said "This mail was not sent unsolicited" and have it be true.
"ust because it's FPS doesn't mean it's just a rehash, or not more enjoyable than any other FPS to date"
Name one FPS that can be described as innovative when compared to Quake 3.
"And just because you don't like FPS doesn't mean that it's a tired genre devoid of innovation, new ideas and progress."
I didn't say I don't like FPS's. (Actually I still drag out Q3 once in a while...) I was replying to the paradoxical comment the parent poster made.
Let's pretend that I did say that FPS's are a tired genre devoid of innovation: Prove that fictional quote wrong. Name an innovative FPS. Bet ya can't. At best, you get minor updates here, scenery changes there, and so on. The style doesn't change from "Run around, shoot people."
FPS's ARE devloid of innovation. New ideas and progress do show up once in a while, but it is tired and done to death. (there, NOW you can quote me instead of making things up) My only hope is that Doom 3 makes use of the pretty graphics, otherwise FPS's will fade away with Street Fighter and 'kart' racing.
Did you hit the submit button before making your point?
Is your point just really simplistic? "The reason 24 fps is valid is because motion blur reduces choppiness"?
Well I'll just assume that's what you meant: You do have a point, if you meant that. However, the relevance of what you might have meant isn't very devastating to my point. TV can run up to 60 fps, yet lots of TV shows run at only 24. Why is that? I can tell you why: it's more dramatic. 24fps makes a movie look more 'epic'. Whereas, comedy is more comedic at 60fps.
Is motion blur all that makes 24-fps video look good? Hardly. It makes a difference on the big silver screen as strobing can turn distracting, it doesn't make much of a difference on the TV screen. As a matter of fact, the length of a motion bluris, on average, about 1/4th of the distance an object traveled in 1/24th of a second. In other words, the blur only accounts for 1/96th of a second of movement. That, of course, depends on the effect you go for.
In any case, I'm not even sure that was the point you were making so I won't bother beating that one to death.
"It's extremely difficult to get your game published on a console, unless you publish independently..."
And it's easy for PC? You'd be lucky to break even! PC Games have a shelf life of roughly a month. Console games last for many months, if not years. Trust me, it's worth spending the extra $$$ to get your game published through a console. On PC, the only thing you have in your favor is the shareware effort. Unless, of course, you're affliated with a big publisher who will help you market your game.
"...I can always upgrade parts of a pc, I am most likely going to have to get a whole new console."
Let's put this into perspective:
Brand new Video Card: $300 - $500 Brand new Console: $300 tops.
Average video card: $200 Average game console: $150
Average life of a video card: 1-2 years Average life of a console: 3 - 5 years
Benefit of a new video card: Faster frame rate, higher resolution. Minor improvement in gaming experience. Benefit of a new game console: New hardware all around, new games, overall much better experience.
This isn't considering the inevitable RAM upgrade, or the hard drive upgrade, or the CD-ROM/DVD-ROM upgrade. Want to play your games on a 32 inch screen? Great for a console, bad for a PC. Etc etc etc.
"Competing Platforms: There is nothing quite like getting stuck with a dead console like a Sega Saturn. With a PC, you can be assured the platform won't die."
With a PC, you can be assured that your platform WILL die unless you buy all the latest and greatest. You get an inferior gaming experience otherwise.
"Controllers: A typical console controller costs $30. This by itself is not unreasonable. The problem occurs when you play multiplayer games that require 4 controllers. In the PC world, everyone typically plays on their own equipment. In the console world, the owner of the console usually ends up footing the $90 bill for 3 extra controllers."
For two people to play a game on a PC, they both need a game worthy machine, a reliable internet connection, two copies of the game, and they can't play at the same house without moving computers. That's cheaper than $90? O_o
"Accessories & Game cost: They are way to frickin expensive. A PC Ethernet card can be purchased for $15. Dreamcast broadband adapters retailed for $70. The X-box is a dvd player but in order to unlock that functionality you need to buy their remote for an extra $30. And let's not forget the ever present annoyance and cost of memory cards. Even console games seem to be more expensive than PC games. Best Buy advertises titles for $50 as if it were some kind of deal."
Okay, I'll give you that. On the flip side, though: The broadband connector's only necessary IF you want to play multiplayer over the net. Most people who play console games bring their friends over and.. well be social. *hint hint, nudge nudge*
Incompatibilities: This goes along with competing platforms and expensive accessories. With PC's, for practical purposes, all equipment is compatible and interoperable. With consoles, the opposite is true. A PS2 controller will not work with an xbox, hell, a PS1 controller probably won't work with a PS2. An Xbox broadband adpater won't work with a PS2. People complain about driver/soundcard/video problems in PCs, but on the other hand, my 12 year old joystick still works perfectly in my new pc. I've been using the same keyboard for 5 years. Same with a couple of my network adapters. This stuff will work with any PC.
Yep, you're right about incompatibilities. These incompatibilities are what make game-consoles WORK. You have the same consistent controller design. PC's, though, it's not the same, is it? Not only do you have to have the right drivers/OS etc for those to work, you also need for the GAME itself to work with it. That's not a plus, it's a minus. You have to configure a PC-Gamepad in order to work right. Sorry, that's not a win for PC's.
Despite all of your arguments, a console is FAR less expensive to run as a game machine that PC. And that's before you mod up your PC to make it the 'ultimate gaming machine'. Don't forget that the PC has to work in order for the game to work. You have to have the right OS in working order, the right drivers, the right patches and updates, etc etc etc.
You may not like consoles, but they are lightyears ahead of PCs for gaming.
"TV's are probably only about 60, computer monitors can be 85-100. This has a direct relationship to the framerate that the game can produce"
Too bad it doesn't have a direct relationship to how fun a game is. If movies can be enjoyed at 24 fps, then the difference between 60 fps and even 100fps is NULL.
The flip side of the higher refresh rates is that tearing occurs. Even with V-synch on, you get inconsistent frame-rates on a PC, which is a far bigger problem than how high you can go. If you're running at 60 fps, then you drop down to 30, then go back up to 60 again, you've got a distracting situation. This cannot be avoided on PC because of the nature of it. Thanks to multi-tasking, PC's alwayas have other stuff to do besides run the game.
At least with a console, you have dedicated and consistent hardware. Topping out at 60fps is far better than dipping around betweeen 30 and 100 depending on how enthusiastic the computer feels.
"Secondly, go take a look at Star Fox Adventures for the GameCube. Tell me how many PC games look as good. I might be willing to give you Doom 3, but A) it's not out yet, and B) it requires a damn expensive machine to look that good."
And the answer is: Not many. Flamebait or not, my Gamecube has shown me far more mind blowing scenes than my PC has as of late.
I don't think the resolution is a big deal. Higher resolution does not instantly equal better graphics, instead it lessens the need for anti-aliasing. (which vid cards still don't have quite right, yet. *Flame shields activated*)
Let me put it to you another way: DVD's at MOST run at 720 by 480, and that's with Pan-O-Scan. Yet, the FX you see in movies are far better than we see realtime on ANY system. They don't look better because they're running at 1600 by 1200 (they're not), they look better because they had more time to make the artwork just right. Until PC or Console can do in real time what we see on a DVD, higher resolution does not mean better graphics.
"The PC port of GTA3 uses the keyboard for driving?"
Yes it does, and it works surprisingly well. What I like most about it is that I can respond quicker than I could with an analog control stick like the PS2 has. There are times you need to suddenly step on the brakes and try to turn the car. I can hit a button much quicker than I can move the stick from one side to another, never mind accuracy.
However, the control in GTA3 is not perfect. The game changes control styles between driving a car and walking around outside. It sort of makes sense, the mouse with Q3 style controls makes it easier to run, jump, and shoot, but I find my hands hopping from mouse to keyboard way too often for my tastes.
There was definitely thought put into how GTA3 was made for PC. Not that surprising considering 1 and 2 were born on the PC.
"I'd prefer a keyboard, mouse and/or man sized joy stick to those little controller pads any day."
Gamepads are NOT mini Joysticks. They are an entirely different animal all together. Don't believe me? Imagine this:
In the game Super Mario Sunshine, Mario has a move where you suddenly move the stick in the opposite direction and hit the jump button in order to perform a high altitude flip-jump. You can't get quite the same reaction time out of a 'man-sized joystick' (man that's a terrible way to describe one of those) because it's just too big. You'd be lucky not to snap the thing!
On the other hand, an analog gamepad isn't wonderful for flight simulators because the stick gives you far more accuracy and control.
The point I'm making is that you cannot swap a joystick for a gamepad and automatically get a better experience. You only get a different experience.
Controllers that come with consoles are optimizd for the games that are made for that system. PC's favor flight simulators, consoles favor games like Mario.
I personally think that gaming on the PC is doomed. It's too risky for a variety of reasons.
1.) Despite the ridiculous number of people that have worthy PC's, successful games are measured in the hundreds of thousands. On a console system that measurement because millions. Why? Because consoles are cheap, they're reliable, and there's no hassle with getting the game started.
2.) There's too much work that has to go in to making and testing a PC game. There are no standards. You are forced into catering to lower denominators. Even then, silly little problems will pop up.
3.) There is no reliable controller scheme other than the keyboard and mouse. This is not a blessing. My keyboard has 101 keys. As if that's intuitive.
Face facts: there is some truth to this article. It isn't worth making a PC game if the console can do the job.
"I don't remember directors releasing movies under GPL, so why should anyone be able to tamper with their work?"
I do visual FX work. Sometimes DVDs come with raw footage that I could make use of to sharpen my skills. Copyright law shouldn't stand in the way of my educating myself.
I saw a thing on the History channel that covered the mechanical solar system device. In that same ep, they also had an ancient battery (as in a container with acids etc to store electricity) that was found in Iraq. If memory serves, it dated back to... I want to say 100 AD, but I warn you all my memory's very fuzzy on that #. Suffice it to say, it was several hundred years ago.
They believe the electricity was used to ease pain. Running light amounts of current through pained areas cause it to dissipate. They even talked of people walking into ponds containing eletric eels to ease their aches.
Okay, this isn't really on-topic. It's still interesting, though. There were lotsa cool technologies several hundred years ago that haven't survived to our century. It's amazing!
Just for giggles I've been using Outlook 2000's Rules Wizard to filter out as much spam as possible. I've had some interesting results:
- Delete anything that has more than 5 spaces in the subject: A good chunk of SPAM has a randomized identifier at the end, and they seperate it with a number of spaces. By looking for 5 spaces in the subject, I've diverted a bunch of SPAM.
- Delete anything that contains the phrases 'to unsubscribe', 'opt', or 'to remove': All the unsolicited mail I get claims to be solicited. (yeah right.) I set up a few filters to catch those messages and had good results, too bad Outlook 2000 skips HTML mail. *Grrrr*
- Delete anything that was sent to you and another address with hotmail in the name: This one surprised me a bit, but I've noticed that some SPAM may also be forwarded to people to other people as well systematically. At least in my case, a good deal of them have a hotmail address carbon copied.
- Delete anything that's not specifically sent directly to you: Sometimes messages sent to me show up as 'undisclosed recipents'. So I have a rule that says "If the 'to' field doesn't match my email address, send it to another folder for verification."
- I go by 'AnonV' in other places. So when places ask me for my first/last name, I go by 'AnonV, Coward'. (heh) I've found that if i filter 'AnonV' from the subject line, that catches a few unsolicited mails as well.
Your mileage may very, and I cannot possibly guarantee that you wouldn't get false hits, but I thought you all would be interested in knowing how I deal with SPAM. Something as simple as creating an intentional typo in a registration form can clue you in on where the source of the SPAM is.
Slashdot Mirror
And........?
If I have to make conclusions based on what you have{n't} said, then your idea is at my mercy. Clear?
"Wow, two Your Rights Online articles in a row. Our legal rights being threatened twice ine one hour. What kind of world are we living in?"
Sorry Mr. Spade, I don't think any +1 Funnys will be flung your way.
"I think the key word "unsolicited" commercial mail. So legitimate mail will be unaffected."
Slightly off topic, but I've had good luck filtering SPAM by deleting mails with the word 'unsolicited' in them. I've never gotten a message that said "This mail was not sent unsolicited" and have it be true.
"ust because it's FPS doesn't mean it's just a rehash, or not more enjoyable than any other FPS to date"
Name one FPS that can be described as innovative when compared to Quake 3.
"And just because you don't like FPS doesn't mean that it's a tired genre devoid of innovation, new ideas and progress."
I didn't say I don't like FPS's. (Actually I still drag out Q3 once in a while...) I was replying to the paradoxical comment the parent poster made.
Let's pretend that I did say that FPS's are a tired genre devoid of innovation: Prove that fictional quote wrong. Name an innovative FPS. Bet ya can't. At best, you get minor updates here, scenery changes there, and so on. The style doesn't change from "Run around, shoot people."
FPS's ARE devloid of innovation. New ideas and progress do show up once in a while, but it is tired and done to death. (there, NOW you can quote me instead of making things up) My only hope is that Doom 3 makes use of the pretty graphics, otherwise FPS's will fade away with Street Fighter and 'kart' racing.
And....?
"Movies have this thing called "motion blur"..."
Did you hit the submit button before making your point?
Is your point just really simplistic? "The reason 24 fps is valid is because motion blur reduces choppiness"?
Well I'll just assume that's what you meant: You do have a point, if you meant that. However, the relevance of what you might have meant isn't very devastating to my point. TV can run up to 60 fps, yet lots of TV shows run at only 24. Why is that? I can tell you why: it's more dramatic. 24fps makes a movie look more 'epic'. Whereas, comedy is more comedic at 60fps.
Is motion blur all that makes 24-fps video look good? Hardly. It makes a difference on the big silver screen as strobing can turn distracting, it doesn't make much of a difference on the TV screen. As a matter of fact, the length of a motion bluris, on average, about 1/4th of the distance an object traveled in 1/24th of a second. In other words, the blur only accounts for 1/96th of a second of movement. That, of course, depends on the effect you go for.
In any case, I'm not even sure that was the point you were making so I won't bother beating that one to death.
"It's extremely difficult to get your game published on a console, unless you publish independently..."
And it's easy for PC? You'd be lucky to break even! PC Games have a shelf life of roughly a month. Console games last for many months, if not years. Trust me, it's worth spending the extra $$$ to get your game published through a console. On PC, the only thing you have in your favor is the shareware effort. Unless, of course, you're affliated with a big publisher who will help you market your game.
"...I can always upgrade parts of a pc, I am most likely going to have to get a whole new console."
Let's put this into perspective:
Brand new Video Card: $300 - $500
Brand new Console: $300 tops.
Average video card: $200
Average game console: $150
Average life of a video card: 1-2 years
Average life of a console: 3 - 5 years
Benefit of a new video card: Faster frame rate, higher resolution. Minor improvement in gaming experience.
Benefit of a new game console: New hardware all around, new games, overall much better experience.
This isn't considering the inevitable RAM upgrade, or the hard drive upgrade, or the CD-ROM/DVD-ROM upgrade. Want to play your games on a 32 inch screen? Great for a console, bad for a PC. Etc etc etc.
I'm done beating this dead horse, heh.
With a PC, you can be assured that your platform WILL die unless you buy all the latest and greatest. You get an inferior gaming experience otherwise.
For two people to play a game on a PC, they both need a game worthy machine, a reliable internet connection, two copies of the game, and they can't play at the same house without moving computers. That's cheaper than $90? O_o
Okay, I'll give you that. On the flip side, though: The broadband connector's only necessary IF you want to play multiplayer over the net. Most people who play console games bring their friends over and.. well be social. *hint hint, nudge nudge*
Yep, you're right about incompatibilities. These incompatibilities are what make game-consoles WORK. You have the same consistent controller design. PC's, though, it's not the same, is it? Not only do you have to have the right drivers/OS etc for those to work, you also need for the GAME itself to work with it. That's not a plus, it's a minus. You have to configure a PC-Gamepad in order to work right. Sorry, that's not a win for PC's.
Despite all of your arguments, a console is FAR less expensive to run as a game machine that PC. And that's before you mod up your PC to make it the 'ultimate gaming machine'. Don't forget that the PC has to work in order for the game to work. You have to have the right OS in working order, the right drivers, the right patches and updates, etc etc etc.
You may not like consoles, but they are lightyears ahead of PCs for gaming.
"TV's are probably only about 60, computer monitors can be 85-100. This has a direct relationship to the framerate that the game can produce"
Too bad it doesn't have a direct relationship to how fun a game is. If movies can be enjoyed at 24 fps, then the difference between 60 fps and even 100fps is NULL.
The flip side of the higher refresh rates is that tearing occurs. Even with V-synch on, you get inconsistent frame-rates on a PC, which is a far bigger problem than how high you can go. If you're running at 60 fps, then you drop down to 30, then go back up to 60 again, you've got a distracting situation. This cannot be avoided on PC because of the nature of it. Thanks to multi-tasking, PC's alwayas have other stuff to do besides run the game.
At least with a console, you have dedicated and consistent hardware. Topping out at 60fps is far better than dipping around betweeen 30 and 100 depending on how enthusiastic the computer feels.
"Secondly, go take a look at Star Fox Adventures for the GameCube. Tell me how many PC games look as good. I might be willing to give you Doom 3, but A) it's not out yet, and B) it requires a damn expensive machine to look that good."
And the answer is: Not many. Flamebait or not, my Gamecube has shown me far more mind blowing scenes than my PC has as of late.
I don't think the resolution is a big deal. Higher resolution does not instantly equal better graphics, instead it lessens the need for anti-aliasing. (which vid cards still don't have quite right, yet. *Flame shields activated*)
Let me put it to you another way: DVD's at MOST run at 720 by 480, and that's with Pan-O-Scan. Yet, the FX you see in movies are far better than we see realtime on ANY system. They don't look better because they're running at 1600 by 1200 (they're not), they look better because they had more time to make the artwork just right. Until PC or Console can do in real time what we see on a DVD, higher resolution does not mean better graphics.
"The PC port of GTA3 uses the keyboard for driving?"
Yes it does, and it works surprisingly well. What I like most about it is that I can respond quicker than I could with an analog control stick like the PS2 has. There are times you need to suddenly step on the brakes and try to turn the car. I can hit a button much quicker than I can move the stick from one side to another, never mind accuracy.
However, the control in GTA3 is not perfect. The game changes control styles between driving a car and walking around outside. It sort of makes sense, the mouse with Q3 style controls makes it easier to run, jump, and shoot, but I find my hands hopping from mouse to keyboard way too often for my tastes.
There was definitely thought put into how GTA3 was made for PC. Not that surprising considering 1 and 2 were born on the PC.
"I'd prefer a keyboard, mouse and/or man sized joy stick to those little controller pads any day."
Gamepads are NOT mini Joysticks. They are an entirely different animal all together. Don't believe me? Imagine this:
In the game Super Mario Sunshine, Mario has a move where you suddenly move the stick in the opposite direction and hit the jump button in order to perform a high altitude flip-jump. You can't get quite the same reaction time out of a 'man-sized joystick' (man that's a terrible way to describe one of those) because it's just too big. You'd be lucky not to snap the thing!
On the other hand, an analog gamepad isn't wonderful for flight simulators because the stick gives you far more accuracy and control.
The point I'm making is that you cannot swap a joystick for a gamepad and automatically get a better experience. You only get a different experience.
Controllers that come with consoles are optimizd for the games that are made for that system. PC's favor flight simulators, consoles favor games like Mario.
I personally think that gaming on the PC is doomed. It's too risky for a variety of reasons.
1.) Despite the ridiculous number of people that have worthy PC's, successful games are measured in the hundreds of thousands. On a console system that measurement because millions. Why? Because consoles are cheap, they're reliable, and there's no hassle with getting the game started.
2.) There's too much work that has to go in to making and testing a PC game. There are no standards. You are forced into catering to lower denominators. Even then, silly little problems will pop up.
3.) There is no reliable controller scheme other than the keyboard and mouse. This is not a blessing. My keyboard has 101 keys. As if that's intuitive.
Face facts: there is some truth to this article. It isn't worth making a PC game if the console can do the job.
"As long as there are first-person shooters and need for high-resolution, sharp graphics, computers will reign."
As long as one style of game is rehashed, it'll live on forever?
Which *AA are you working for?
"Define it in the context of this discussion you dolt!"
hahaha you got burned!
"I don't remember directors releasing movies under GPL, so why should anyone be able to tamper with their work?"
I do visual FX work. Sometimes DVDs come with raw footage that I could make use of to sharpen my skills. Copyright law shouldn't stand in the way of my educating myself.
"New from Tampax: Aeroelastic Wings. Now you can go horseback riding with your legs beh..." Err, okay I grossed myself out.
That's not the post I was referring to. I got mixed up in my windows here. I love Opera, but I do get lost a little too easy.
Go boil my bottom? heh.
As usual, the point of my post was lost in a vain attempt to argue with me.
Information Revolution... who cares about that? Some study in the 80's said that TV causes IQ points to drop. TV's are obviously worthless.
"But it's the History Channel ferchrissakes. Let's just all agree to refer to the History Channel, the Discovery Channel and TLC as "science lite".
There may have been facts in there somewhere, but they are well obscured by the hyperbole and breathless presentation."
You mean like that post? heh.
To be fair, this battery thing was long before Iraq became what it is today.
Thank ya. :) Learn something new every day!
I saw a thing on the History channel that covered the mechanical solar system device. In that same ep, they also had an ancient battery (as in a container with acids etc to store electricity) that was found in Iraq. If memory serves, it dated back to... I want to say 100 AD, but I warn you all my memory's very fuzzy on that #. Suffice it to say, it was several hundred years ago.
They believe the electricity was used to ease pain. Running light amounts of current through pained areas cause it to dissipate. They even talked of people walking into ponds containing eletric eels to ease their aches.
Okay, this isn't really on-topic. It's still interesting, though. There were lotsa cool technologies several hundred years ago that haven't survived to our century. It's amazing!
Just for giggles I've been using Outlook 2000's Rules Wizard to filter out as much spam as possible. I've had some interesting results:
- Delete anything that has more than 5 spaces in the subject: A good chunk of SPAM has a randomized identifier at the end, and they seperate it with a number of spaces. By looking for 5 spaces in the subject, I've diverted a bunch of SPAM.
- Delete anything that contains the phrases 'to unsubscribe', 'opt', or 'to remove': All the unsolicited mail I get claims to be solicited. (yeah right.) I set up a few filters to catch those messages and had good results, too bad Outlook 2000 skips HTML mail. *Grrrr*
- Delete anything that was sent to you and another address with hotmail in the name: This one surprised me a bit, but I've noticed that some SPAM may also be forwarded to people to other people as well systematically. At least in my case, a good deal of them have a hotmail address carbon copied.
- Delete anything that's not specifically sent directly to you: Sometimes messages sent to me show up as 'undisclosed recipents'. So I have a rule that says "If the 'to' field doesn't match my email address, send it to another folder for verification."
- I go by 'AnonV' in other places. So when places ask me for my first/last name, I go by 'AnonV, Coward'. (heh) I've found that if i filter 'AnonV' from the subject line, that catches a few unsolicited mails as well.
Your mileage may very, and I cannot possibly guarantee that you wouldn't get false hits, but I thought you all would be interested in knowing how I deal with SPAM. Something as simple as creating an intentional typo in a registration form can clue you in on where the source of the SPAM is.
Andromeda is really up there alright. Up in the attic where I keep my collection of Space Rangers.