Isn't that in part because much of the scenery in recent 3D games is throwaway material? Take Bioshock: so much effort went into making Rapture breathtakingly beautiful, but you never visit a location more than once. Instead you pass through, never to return. No wonder then that the place doesn't inspire: you never get the chance to bond with it, to make it your own.
Now look at its spiritual predecessor, System Shock 2: it had an inventive level structure that slowly opened up as the game progressed. It promoted returning to earlier locations and made it easy by opening up ever more shortcuts. As a result, the Von Braun is a far more real place to me than Rapture - I have explored every nook and cranny, and I know how it all hangs together. I can navigate it with confidence. Places have meaning to me: "here I can go to heal" or "here I can go to do research".
To be honest, the linearity was something that disappointed me greatly about Bioshock - and I suspect, much for the same reason that you have such good memories of Dungeon Master.
I'm a citizen of the EU. Although Australia might challenge the geographical definition of "Europe" by a bit, I'd much rather see the EU extend its borders with countries that share a common culture (like Australia and Canada) then with countries that are nominally in or around Europe (like Turkey).
The movie industry comes to mind. If you visit the cinema you are first treated to a short clip in which the paying customers of the cinema are compared to pigs (at least, in this country - apparently the point is that you shouldn't make a mess, but they are less than subtle about it). Then you get a lot of annoying commercials, and the finally the product you paid to see.
DVD at home, you get the stupid piracy warnings before you get to see the movie.
Unbelievable - "better position to compete"? Are they so incredibly afraid of Sony, then, despite their enormous lead? Or are things not quite as rosy for the XBox as various sources would have us believe?
Since people apparently still do not get it, let me state again: cruft is Microsofts business model. The constant eruption of new technologies from Redmond keeps the Microsofties on their toes, requiring them to always be learning the latest and greatest brainfart yet considered. Why? Two reasons:
1. It takes time away from other activities. No time to learn about penguins, if you need to study the latest.NET 3.1.7 crypto/drawing/thingamabob API.
2. Having invested so much in studying all that Microsoft crap, going to another system is a very unattractive proposition: suddenly all that hard-won knowledge loses its value, and all that time wasted.
Without a constant barrage of new "technologies", API's, and other things to study, Microsoft would start losing brainshare very quickly.
Moreover, after Vista being on the market for a year or so, I still haven't seen a copy of it running _anywhere_. I am an IT professional, yet none of my customers, colleagues, or friends are running it. Noone wants it either - there is no buzz about this great new operating system. At work it hasn't even been mentioned (disclaimer: I do work in what is primarily a Linux shop, so this is maybe not such a surprise). And my main customer asked about it once and I advised to hold off for now (the ability to run separate from the internet, not to mention drivers for a shitload of obsolete equipment, are both critical to them). Turns out they are perfectly happy to not spend any money and not run the risk of upsetting their systems.
My system qualifies as fairly modern (XP, core 2 duo, 3GB, 7900GT), and I managed to get it to work reliably. How:
- You need to set compatibility mode for Windows 2000 on the executable (from the properties window).
- You need to ensure that it only uses one CPU core. One way to do this is to start the game and before doing anything use the task manager to set CPU affinity to one core only. Alternatively, I've made a small.exe that does this automatically.
I'm an amateur musician myself and I'm not denying the there is some creativity in playing music, but the real creativity is in composing. And that's undeniably a solo effort.
With DirectX, all new capability is packaged into one version and to support that version of DirectX is to support all of the capabilities of it. DirectX represents a complete feature set.
Yeah, and that is why we need cap bits. Because every feature of DirectX is always available everywhere. NOT!
[i]WHOOPS! Now thats embarassing. And it would cost a month because OpenGL is far from being as easy to use than DX.[/i]
Even more embarassing is that you have the facts completely wrong. I have programmed with both (serious, large applications) and on the whole I found OpenGL somewhat easier to use than DirectX. At best developers might need a bit of training, but that happens with each new DirectX version as well doesn't it?
[i]Also, when I talked about porTing games to the 360, it wasn't just because DX is on both PC and 360, its because they're made so its almost the same API. PS3, Wii, etc are totally different architectures, while a (simple) game can run with zero modification on both PC and 360. Thats why you see tons of PC + 360 games out there. PS3 and Wii have features that make em literally incompatible (wiimote anyone), architecture wise, so while you do see cross platform games, they definately take quite a bit more effort.[/i]
PC is not a single platform, it has a multitude of graphics cards that you might all want to support. By comparison, the 360 and PS3 use almost the same approach to graphics - both are top-end PC parts, after all. The Wii is the exception, being a lower-end PC part.
Both PS3 and Wii use OpenGL ES, I believe, and this subset of the current standard will be adopted in OpenGL 3.0 as well. This pretty means the same code is going to run across PS3, Wii, and PC.
[i]OpenGL gives almost as good results (not really as good, since videocard makers tend not to put as much efforts in their open gl implementation) as DX once the game is done.[/i]
In my experience, OpenGL code runs a lot faster than DirectX code. Of course I do mostly scientific rendering, which means I have a mix of far more geometry and far fewer textures than most games have. But simple 5-million polygon models that were stuttering on DirectX (12fps or so) move smoothly on OpenGL (30fps).
[i]Its literally a C/C++ vs C# type of deal, with virtually the same advantages and weaknesses as the languages (except speed)[/i]
One is a mature, fast, well-supported industry standard, and the other locks you in to a single vendor. You even get the obligatory open source shill (Mono, Wine) to do some half-assed work to make it appear a multi-platform product in both cases. Yes, it does look about the same doesn't it?
That's just utter crap. If person A decides to write some application, and gives it away freely on the condition that noone else tries to duplicate his work, there is no moral obligation whatsoever on ANYONE not associated with him or his work not to do so.
What you are asking for is a sort of "moral software patent". Real software patents are despicable, and your moral equivalent is just as bad.
Or maybe.. just maybe it's a case of lack of reading comprehension on your part. Did he say oil? Could you please point out where he even implied it? You're the exact kind of green religious zealot he was talking about.
Wow, what agression. Almost like I hit a nerve or something.
But since you ask, no he didn't say oil. He was probably thinking we could use one of the other plentiful, easily obtained, widely available energy sources. What's that? There aren't any? Damn...
Perhaps you can explain where the infinite amount of oil this attitude requires is going to come from? Or is this more a case of "it will last my lifetime, and the next generation be damned"?
Back when the Amiga ruled the earth, the scene was rife with graphic artists and musicians. Not all of them were equally good, but nonetheless there were some real quality people there. Linux has done next to nothing to attract these people, for some reason.
Personally I believe what the open source world needs is a bunch of good, simple tools. For the Amiga these were Soundtracker and DeluxePaint 2. For Linux we would need similar tools, and some extra's like a 3D modeller, and a distribution to bring it all together.
I have no idea if a distribution with such a focus currently exists, but I'm sure someone will enlighten me...
Of course, import tariffs on food, created by developed countries in order to protect their domestic agriculture don't help even a little bit.
So we get rid of the import tariffs. The much cheaper african (and asian) farmers flood the market. Local farmers, who are struggling financially under the current system, give up and seek office jobs. The capacity to produce food drops dramatically in the west, and we become dependent for our most vital needs on countries that are unstable and unpredictable.
Now a drought strikes africa. Suddenly there is not enough food to go around for the west _and_ africa. Will they share with us? Will we go to war over it?
Would you support a government that destroys local food production?
What exactly is it that you don't like about it: the sense of immersion, the resolution, the sense of depth, or something else entirely? I'm asking because I'm looking for a screen like this for a project at work, where the customer needs great depth perception but doesn't care as much about immersion.
Perhaps as an option, but the strength of game consoles is that you don't also need to invest in a new (and bloody expensive) screen, so it won't be standard.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that in part because much of the scenery in recent 3D games is throwaway material? Take Bioshock: so much effort went into making Rapture breathtakingly beautiful, but you never visit a location more than once. Instead you pass through, never to return. No wonder then that the place doesn't inspire: you never get the chance to bond with it, to make it your own.
Now look at its spiritual predecessor, System Shock 2: it had an inventive level structure that slowly opened up as the game progressed. It promoted returning to earlier locations and made it easy by opening up ever more shortcuts. As a result, the Von Braun is a far more real place to me than Rapture - I have explored every nook and cranny, and I know how it all hangs together. I can navigate it with confidence. Places have meaning to me: "here I can go to heal" or "here I can go to do research".
To be honest, the linearity was something that disappointed me greatly about Bioshock - and I suspect, much for the same reason that you have such good memories of Dungeon Master.
I'm a citizen of the EU. Although Australia might challenge the geographical definition of "Europe" by a bit, I'd much rather see the EU extend its borders with countries that share a common culture (like Australia and Canada) then with countries that are nominally in or around Europe (like Turkey).
...by monitoring "websites" where "subversives" discuss and criticize the "government". Not unlike this one, really...
The movie industry comes to mind. If you visit the cinema you are first treated to a short clip in which the paying customers of the cinema are compared to pigs (at least, in this country - apparently the point is that you shouldn't make a mess, but they are less than subtle about it). Then you get a lot of annoying commercials, and the finally the product you paid to see.
DVD at home, you get the stupid piracy warnings before you get to see the movie.
Unbelievable - "better position to compete"? Are they so incredibly afraid of Sony, then, despite their enormous lead? Or are things not quite as rosy for the XBox as various sources would have us believe?
Since people apparently still do not get it, let me state again: cruft is Microsofts business model. The constant eruption of new technologies from Redmond keeps the Microsofties on their toes, requiring them to always be learning the latest and greatest brainfart yet considered. Why? Two reasons:
.NET 3.1.7 crypto/drawing/thingamabob API.
1. It takes time away from other activities. No time to learn about penguins, if you need to study the latest
2. Having invested so much in studying all that Microsoft crap, going to another system is a very unattractive proposition: suddenly all that hard-won knowledge loses its value, and all that time wasted.
Without a constant barrage of new "technologies", API's, and other things to study, Microsoft would start losing brainshare very quickly.
Moreover, after Vista being on the market for a year or so, I still haven't seen a copy of it running _anywhere_. I am an IT professional, yet none of my customers, colleagues, or friends are running it. Noone wants it either - there is no buzz about this great new operating system. At work it hasn't even been mentioned (disclaimer: I do work in what is primarily a Linux shop, so this is maybe not such a surprise). And my main customer asked about it once and I advised to hold off for now (the ability to run separate from the internet, not to mention drivers for a shitload of obsolete equipment, are both critical to them). Turns out they are perfectly happy to not spend any money and not run the risk of upsetting their systems.
My system qualifies as fairly modern (XP, core 2 duo, 3GB, 7900GT), and I managed to get it to work reliably. How:
.exe that does this automatically.
- You need to set compatibility mode for Windows 2000 on the executable (from the properties window).
- You need to ensure that it only uses one CPU core. One way to do this is to start the game and before doing anything use the task manager to set CPU affinity to one core only. Alternatively, I've made a small
I'm an amateur musician myself and I'm not denying the there is some creativity in playing music, but the real creativity is in composing. And that's undeniably a solo effort.
[i]WHOOPS! Now thats embarassing. And it would cost a month because OpenGL is far from being as easy to use than DX.[/i]
Even more embarassing is that you have the facts completely wrong. I have programmed with both (serious, large applications) and on the whole I found OpenGL somewhat easier to use than DirectX. At best developers might need a bit of training, but that happens with each new DirectX version as well doesn't it?
[i]Also, when I talked about porTing games to the 360, it wasn't just because DX is on both PC and 360, its because they're made so its almost the same API. PS3, Wii, etc are totally different architectures, while a (simple) game can run with zero modification on both PC and 360. Thats why you see tons of PC + 360 games out there. PS3 and Wii have features that make em literally incompatible (wiimote anyone), architecture wise, so while you do see cross platform games, they definately take quite a bit more effort.[/i]
PC is not a single platform, it has a multitude of graphics cards that you might all want to support. By comparison, the 360 and PS3 use almost the same approach to graphics - both are top-end PC parts, after all. The Wii is the exception, being a lower-end PC part.
Both PS3 and Wii use OpenGL ES, I believe, and this subset of the current standard will be adopted in OpenGL 3.0 as well. This pretty means the same code is going to run across PS3, Wii, and PC.
[i]OpenGL gives almost as good results (not really as good, since videocard makers tend not to put as much efforts in their open gl implementation) as DX once the game is done.[/i]
In my experience, OpenGL code runs a lot faster than DirectX code. Of course I do mostly scientific rendering, which means I have a mix of far more geometry and far fewer textures than most games have. But simple 5-million polygon models that were stuttering on DirectX (12fps or so) move smoothly on OpenGL (30fps).
[i]Its literally a C/C++ vs C# type of deal, with virtually the same advantages and weaknesses as the languages (except speed)[/i]
One is a mature, fast, well-supported industry standard, and the other locks you in to a single vendor. You even get the obligatory open source shill (Mono, Wine) to do some half-assed work to make it appear a multi-platform product in both cases. Yes, it does look about the same doesn't it?
There are already too many "nice plan, shame nothing ever happens" type projects on sourceforge...
What you are asking for is a sort of "moral software patent". Real software patents are despicable, and your moral equivalent is just as bad.
I have a request: could you please post the footnotes too?
Ouch, that was cynical. The truth hurts...
Wow, what agression. Almost like I hit a nerve or something.
But since you ask, no he didn't say oil. He was probably thinking we could use one of the other plentiful, easily obtained, widely available energy sources. What's that? There aren't any? Damn...
Perhaps you can explain where the infinite amount of oil this attitude requires is going to come from? Or is this more a case of "it will last my lifetime, and the next generation be damned"?
Personally I believe what the open source world needs is a bunch of good, simple tools. For the Amiga these were Soundtracker and DeluxePaint 2. For Linux we would need similar tools, and some extra's like a 3D modeller, and a distribution to bring it all together.
I have no idea if a distribution with such a focus currently exists, but I'm sure someone will enlighten me...
Ok, so he doesn't do cigarettes or alcohol, but there appears to be little information about drugs or women. I wonder what we should make of that? ;-)
So we get rid of the import tariffs. The much cheaper african (and asian) farmers flood the market. Local farmers, who are struggling financially under the current system, give up and seek office jobs. The capacity to produce food drops dramatically in the west, and we become dependent for our most vital needs on countries that are unstable and unpredictable.
Now a drought strikes africa. Suddenly there is not enough food to go around for the west _and_ africa. Will they share with us? Will we go to war over it?
Would you support a government that destroys local food production?
i.e. your glorious 1600*1200 display turns into a 400*300 display?
Perhaps as an option, but the strength of game consoles is that you don't also need to invest in a new (and bloody expensive) screen, so it won't be standard.