During the intro level, I get around 45 fps average in Linux, and 60 fps in Windows. My guess would be just that nvidia's Linux geforce driver hasn't had as much time put into it as their Windows one.
But I did notice it started up faster, and was smoother/faster in the menus in Linux than in Windows. And the whole computer wasn't slow for 30 seconds after I exited out of the game in Linux.
By the way, this story is a dupe, it was posted in the Games section yesterday (by a different submitter) so if you want more info check that out too.
WinXP Pro / Slackware 10 800x600 Medium Quality AthlonXP 2800+ 512mb ddr400 Geforce FX 5700 Ultra
During the intro level, I get around 45 fps average in Linux, and 60 fps in Windows. My guess would be just that nvidia's Linux geforce driver hasn't had as much time put into it as their Windows one.
WinXP Pro / Slackware 10 800x600 Medium Quality AthlonXP 2800+ 512mb ddr400 Geforce FX 5700 Ultra
I wore a shirt to AVP last night that said on the front "GO PREDATORS" and on the back "ALIENS SUCK".. A lot of odd looks, especially at the gas station after.
By the way, it was MUCH better than Alien 3 or Resurrection. PREDATORS ROCK!
Actually, Metal Gear Solid 2 did the "blinding" effect you describe. When you went inside into the dark after being outside for awhile, there was a white haze over the screen for a bit.
In Morrowind (2002), Crassius Curio, in one instance, demands you give him a kiss for him to give you what you need, and another instance, demands you remove all your clothing (and you actually have to go into your inventory and remove everything you're wearing).
While what you say is true, I think a better explanation of what 6.022 x 10^23 is would be to compare it to a dozen or a gross. 12 of anything is a dozen, 144 of anything is a gross, and 6.022 x 10^23 of anything is a mole--doesn't necessarily have to be in chemistry.
...console games usually last much less in terms of playability than a PC game...
Unfounded assertions like this may sound good to your average PC-loving, console-hating enthusiast, but to make a good counter-example, I'm pretty sure people will be playing Super Mario Brothers 3 much longer than Commander Keen.
you buy a lot more games than you would on a PC to get the same "fix".
Or could it be that consoles have a much higher percentage of good games than the PC does, and therefore you're inclined to buy more? (flight sim: some historical time period anyone?)
You buy a PC, a monitor. Costs a little more than a console...
Don't get me wrong, I love my PC and my four consoles, but if I had more financial responsibilities, I definitely would have gone solely they way of the console (a mainstream video card alone costs about the same as a console today.)
Maybe a good price comparison against a console would be with a PC that has the same core clock speed and amount of ram as the console (733mhz pentium III with 64mb of ram anyone?), and a monitor with the same max resolution as your TV (if you can even still find one of those), but then that PC wouldn't even be able to play the same games that said console does.
Also, the article was referring to the slump in console hardware sales. And I don't know when people started buying new couches and big-screen televisions to go with their [much less expensive] video game systems.
Hmm.. I was SURE the first time I read the Gamespot story that it said 200X. Gamespot may have edited it to say 2XXX, or, more likely, I misread and posted a correction based on that, effectively making a fool of myself. Oh well.
Actually, the slide read "Wind Waker 2: 200X", see? More like the next 6 years (but don't fret over a 990-year error.)
However, IGN.com's previous interview with a Nintendo insider pretty much confirmed that another Zelda game would be on Gamecube (although that could be the multi-player Four Swords coming out, but it sounded more like a reference to a Wind Waker sequel.) Personally, I'd say by 2006, so the Gamecube can go out with a bang.
As far as developers jumping ship on the Gamecube, I personally don't mind if another one like LucasArts has nothing on the agenda, since movie-licensed games that sell only on their Hollywood counterparts' names are rarely worth playing.
The Gamecube's (as with most Nintendo systems) best games are the first- and second-party ones (i.e. Zelda: Wind Waker, Metroid Prime). Those alone are worth owning a $99 system, regardless of the target age group (and trust me, even Wind Waker has some humor kids wouldn't understand.)
This article doesn't really touch on the fact that there are VERY hard games out there today. Take Frequency for the PS2: how many games have YOU lost 6 months' worth of contact lenses to because you can't blink without losing? (by the way, if you've played frequency, and want some manly scores to compare yours to: here's mine (the ALEX column.)
I could cite MANY games, but I'll just stick with Frequency, as most people that pick it up won't even beat one of the 27 songs. Brian's article, however, was right about one thing: some games are little more than an interactive movie (read: the ENTIRE Final Fantasy series), with you moving along a linear path with pre-rendered backgrounds and then watching a half-hour cutscene only to run back across the same path for another 10 seconds...
Slashdot Mirror
One thing I noticed that I like about the Linux client is that it doesn't require the CD to be inserted to play.
I already have my computer set up to use from my bed, with wireless mouse/keyboard etc, now there's one less CD I have to get up to put in!
During the intro level, I get around 45 fps average in Linux, and 60 fps in Windows. My guess would be just that nvidia's Linux geforce driver hasn't had as much time put into it as their Windows one.
But I did notice it started up faster, and was smoother/faster in the menus in Linux than in Windows. And the whole computer wasn't slow for 30 seconds after I exited out of the game in Linux.
By the way, this story is a dupe, it was posted in the Games section yesterday (by a different submitter) so if you want more info check that out too.
WinXP Pro / Slackware 10
800x600 Medium Quality
AthlonXP 2800+
512mb ddr400
Geforce FX 5700 Ultra
During the intro level, I get around 45 fps average in Linux, and 60 fps in Windows. My guess would be just that nvidia's Linux geforce driver hasn't had as much time put into it as their Windows one.
WinXP Pro / Slackware 10
800x600 Medium Quality
AthlonXP 2800+
512mb ddr400
Geforce FX 5700 Ultra
No.
I would attribute GTA: San Andreas's recent delay for "extra quality testing" to this smaller PS2's release, if it's true.
By the way, it was MUCH better than Alien 3 or Resurrection. PREDATORS ROCK!
Actually, Metal Gear Solid 2 did the "blinding" effect you describe. When you went inside into the dark after being outside for awhile, there was a white haze over the screen for a bit.
In Morrowind (2002), Crassius Curio, in one instance, demands you give him a kiss for him to give you what you need, and another instance, demands you remove all your clothing (and you actually have to go into your inventory and remove everything you're wearing).
While what you say is true, I think a better explanation of what 6.022 x 10^23 is would be to compare it to a dozen or a gross. 12 of anything is a dozen, 144 of anything is a gross, and 6.022 x 10^23 of anything is a mole--doesn't necessarily have to be in chemistry.
If the sales increased by 216 percent, wouldn't that have been tripled?
Goddamnit. Forgot to end my italics, too lazy to re-post: supposed to end after "historical time period" and after "a little more than a console..."
Unfounded assertions like this may sound good to your average PC-loving, console-hating enthusiast, but to make a good counter-example, I'm pretty sure people will be playing Super Mario Brothers 3 much longer than Commander Keen.
you buy a lot more games than you would on a PC to get the same "fix".
Or could it be that consoles have a much higher percentage of good games than the PC does, and therefore you're inclined to buy more? (flight sim: some historical time period anyone?)
You buy a PC, a monitor. Costs a little more than a console...
Don't get me wrong, I love my PC and my four consoles, but if I had more financial responsibilities, I definitely would have gone solely they way of the console (a mainstream video card alone costs about the same as a console today.)
Maybe a good price comparison against a console would be with a PC that has the same core clock speed and amount of ram as the console (733mhz pentium III with 64mb of ram anyone?), and a monitor with the same max resolution as your TV (if you can even still find one of those), but then that PC wouldn't even be able to play the same games that said console does.
Also, the article was referring to the slump in console hardware sales. And I don't know when people started buying new couches and big-screen televisions to go with their [much less expensive] video game systems.
Hmm.. I was SURE the first time I read the Gamespot story that it said 200X. Gamespot may have edited it to say 2XXX, or, more likely, I misread and posted a correction based on that, effectively making a fool of myself. Oh well.
Actually, the slide read "Wind Waker 2: 200X", see? More like the next 6 years (but don't fret over a 990-year error.) However, IGN.com's previous interview with a Nintendo insider pretty much confirmed that another Zelda game would be on Gamecube (although that could be the multi-player Four Swords coming out, but it sounded more like a reference to a Wind Waker sequel.) Personally, I'd say by 2006, so the Gamecube can go out with a bang. As far as developers jumping ship on the Gamecube, I personally don't mind if another one like LucasArts has nothing on the agenda, since movie-licensed games that sell only on their Hollywood counterparts' names are rarely worth playing. The Gamecube's (as with most Nintendo systems) best games are the first- and second-party ones (i.e. Zelda: Wind Waker, Metroid Prime). Those alone are worth owning a $99 system, regardless of the target age group (and trust me, even Wind Waker has some humor kids wouldn't understand.)
This article doesn't really touch on the fact that there are VERY hard games out there today. Take Frequency for the PS2: how many games have YOU lost 6 months' worth of contact lenses to because you can't blink without losing? (by the way, if you've played frequency, and want some manly scores to compare yours to: here's mine (the ALEX column.) I could cite MANY games, but I'll just stick with Frequency, as most people that pick it up won't even beat one of the 27 songs. Brian's article, however, was right about one thing: some games are little more than an interactive movie (read: the ENTIRE Final Fantasy series), with you moving along a linear path with pre-rendered backgrounds and then watching a half-hour cutscene only to run back across the same path for another 10 seconds...
Every time I refresh there's about 2 more posts... so many vultures out there just waiting..
I got the first post! Too bad it's completely irrelevant.