The thing that bothers me about gamepads and I think the same is true for any PC gamer, is that they've had an adverse effect on PC gaming. It's always the PC version that gets the shaft, since developers will optimize their game around the lower denominator, which is the console.
If they make a game for both platforms, but give both the care they need for their inputs, I don't care either way, but that's rarely the case.
And just for reference:
I've been gaming on consoles since the seventies and PCs since the eighties. I can game either way, I just don't like how slow and dumb the AI are in most console FPS.
I first played FPSs on a keyboard, then a Gravis gamepad, then later a mouse and keyboard. When gamepads became popular, many of the throw backs from the keyboard age were brought back, like aiming assist. Now we have really lame things like bullet-time and some sort of time stasis.
I still own my copy of GoldenEye and I still have a N64. I played Halo to death with my friends, mainly because it was the first co-op game that I can recall. I later bought this game for the PC and it was unbelievably easy with a mouse and keyboard.
Call of Duty is a game I'll only play on a PC. Just like any of Valve's FPSs. I might try it on a Wii though, because Medal of Honor 2 was fun with a Wiimote.
I see where you're going with the corked baseball bat and it's a poor analogy. All baseball bats are fundamentally the same design, where as mice and gamepads are not.
You can not win any FPS if you're not aware of your surroundings. Why on earth would assume that it's any different on a PC? Do you really think that PC gamers aren't skilled at a genre that originated on PCs and to this day is is still played best on them?
A skilled gamer -- regardless of the platform -- doesn't need to "pray" about weather or not they'll hit and live. Your comment makes me think that you're not that good at FPSs...:]
You also have to consider that the design of the map really determines the type of skills needed to win.
We get it, that many console gamers like to play casually. Just stop insisting that a gampad is on par with a mouse for PC derived games, like RTSs and FPSs, because it's not.
I've played plenty of RTSs on consoles going back to the 16-bit days and they do not work even remotely on the same level as a PC RTS. They are dumbed down, simplified, GIMPED, because a gamepad is not a dedicated pointing device.
Most PC to console games are stripped of features. Too many compromises are made just to get it work on a gamepad. This is a simple truth which is obvious to those that still game on PCs and also game on consoles.
If you like games that are made accessible for casual gaming, so gaming from a couch, or even a bed, than of course RTSs on a console will work for you. They work at that level. When you take that same RTS and put it on a PC, it's a dumbed-down joke.
As noted by the other response to your post, the Wii shares many similarities to its predecessor, which make it easier and cheaper to develop for, especially for the studios that put their time in on the Cube. And just to clear something up, there's nothing last-gen about a Wii's performance or the tech it uses, which is 6 years more advanced.
A publisher doesn't need to sell nearly as many units on a Wii as it does on the PS3 or 360 in order to see a return on their investment. This this is do to the lower development cost and simpler hardware configuration. **Namco stated that it needs to sell 500,000 PS3 games to make a profit as an example. Compare this to 165,000, which is what I've read is needed for the Wii.
** http://www.gamespot.com/news/6162509.html
So just because a game sells more units on a 360 as an example, that doesn't mean it has made a profit for its publisher/developer. With the Wii's HUGE user base for its relatively short life on the market along with its "significantly" lower development cost, publishers/developers have a better chance of seeing a profit on a Wii game than the PS3 or 360.
OMG!! I'm using this 12 year old kid term, because you used HARDCORN -- now I must rant. First off, let me present you with a link that disproves your myth that kids that like to aim with their thumb and deem blood as mature, buy more games. The supposed hardcore gamer is a joke. I've been gaming since the age of pong. There's nothing hardcore about most console gamers, since they're used to games that have generally been dumbed down do to the limiting nature of a gamepad. Compared to the games I played in the eighties and ninteies, games now days are a walk in the park. Sure, they look way better, but they're way less sophisticated... I loved the complexity that is SYSTEM SHOCK, I hated the simpleton that is BioShock.
Anway, here's the link, read fact number "4."
http://www.theesa.com/facts/top_10_facts.php The average age of the most frequent game buyer is 38 years old. In 2007, 92 percent of computer game buyers and 80 percent of console game buyers were over the age of 18.
Also notice that the average gamer is age 33, not the teenage kid publishers have been marketing to for the past 8 years, so guys hat are in their twenties now.;):p
Kids won't have access to a flash cart -- unless they have parents like my friends. Guys my age buy our games and on that note, buy your DS games you pirate!:p
Because of the higher development cost, publishers/developers need to sell way more units on the 360 and PS3, than they do on the Wii, in order to see a profit.
From what I've read, it takes about 165,000 units for a dev to make a profit on a Wii game, where as it takes 500,000 on the PS3/360 before they sees a return.
Games on the Wii and DS cost significantly less to develop. They have a larger user base than the PS3 and 360, so publishers make back their investment faster. And it's a sad truth, but shovelware, which is quite abundant on the WIi right now -- because of its huge popularity -- generally earns more money for the publisher than higher budget games. The Wii is basically on track to replace the PS2 -- the current shovelware king -- in this area.
I have a R4DS, but I still buy DS games -- I use it for SCummVM/Hombrew. Here in the states -- the biggest game market -- flash carts owners are a minority. Most households won't know where buy one, know how to use one, let alone be able to find "pirated" games for it.
The Wii and DS are decimating the 360 and PS3. Developers are jumping ship to the Wii,since overall sells for the PS3 and 360 aren't good enough. MS's 360 isn't even doing as well as its original Xbox, which had sold more units in the same period of time.
I would much rather see both of them go away, though. SVG and JavaScript, please.
No thank you!
Spend some time using ActionScript 3 via Flash CS3 or Flex and you'll see why JS + SVG is such a limited-slow-solution with inconsistent support across browsers and platforms. I guess if you like the limitations and headache that JS + SVG causes, than by all means support it.
I personally will stick with JS + Flash Player for my rich-web-development.
Flash Player is not all about vector BTW. You should look into it before assuming SVG is even a competent replacement.
I don't know if this speaks for your, but I find it ironic that people who are usually for SVG and against Flash Player, are against Adobe, one of the primary supporters/developers of SVG early on.
Besides on my Nokia phone, RealPlayer has never provided me with a pleasant experience. It was always impossible to find their deliberately hidden free player, which was an abomination upon itself. This has never been the case for any of my Apple products.
The older I get, the more I view maintaining my XP PCs to keep them running smoothly as a chore -- although it's not as bad as in the past. When I compare this to the fact my Macs just work, I really don't like working on my PCs anymore. I've been using PCs since the eighties and have always pieced my systems together after researching which consumer or workstation parts were best at the time, but now that Apple has switched to X86, I'm not planning on upgrading or buying another clone -- unless I get an itch for old time sake.
Apple's products are great. They're designed to be intuitive, quite easy to use, and when it comes down to it they really don't limit my choices. This probably sound strange since an iPod as an example officially requires iTunes, but if that app were crap and limited me on how I could import my music, which format I wanted to rip it to, made playlists difficult to manage, I would not use it, but fortunately this is not the case. I tried the Sony's abomination Sonic Stage back in 2002 and that was the most unpleasant experience I've ever had when it comes to music -- even more so than RealPlayer. I can thank Sony for pushing me to Apple, the way better choice.
Last I checked, there's no generic MP3 player, let alone any of the higher end wannabes that can handle as many formats as an iPod, let alone match Apple's true understanding of software and hardware integration while keeping things feature rich and intuitive. I can copy a CD's native AIFF format directly to an iPod -- the.cda extension Window's shows is fake. Managing my music and getting my playlists onto my iPod is absolute cake. Apple has not put any cumbersome restrictions on me when it comes to my music, and as mentioned iTunes is a great app -- especially on a Mac.
So to ramble further, Apple has nothing in common with RealPlayer. Apple makes great products that do what they promise and generally much much more -- Apple always puts in that extra effort to make their products better, I've rarely seen this with any other company, most will cut corners long before they reach Apple's quality. When it comes down to it, users will flock to the choice that works best and Apple for me has always hit the mark.
I was really starting to think the rest of the world was blind, especially the arrogant premature HD adopters that believe their new set can never do anything wrong, when in fact it looks like crap for the most part.
Digital TV has jacked everything up. I was on Cox as they migrated to the age of vomit and notice that on shows I could once see the whites of eyes, I was now left with black pits. Now I'm on Dish, which is at least more consistent on their quality, but it's still as step down from what I was used to in the past.
Yep, a mouse type controller isn't good for a FPS. Go figure... I'm being "sarcastic." I take it you're of the thumb-twiddling era, where as you think FPS games are best played by aiming with one's thumb on a cumbersome game controller that was designed for 3D platformers.
Red Steel sucked as a game. It looks far worse than many GameCube games and its AI is quite stupid. UbiSoft should be shot for making something this horrid in this day an age. Its controls alhough not refined, were clearly better than any thumb-aiming solution. UbiSoft implemented some odd features, like expecting you to move your arm out to zoom-in, but beyond that its controls offered speed and precision, something that is a farce with an anologue thumb-stick on any gamepad.
The Wii's controller is one of the best options for a FPS game, or any other game that requires a pointer, only second to a mouse. But unlike the mouse, it offers a more comfortable way to play a FPS, so it's better overall in this respect, and of course there's the whole 3D positioning thing...
I would rather play GTA on a Wii, since I could actually bash the guy naturally with a swinging motion, instead of just mashing down my thumb like a dweeb. But I'll gladly pick up a PS3 when tbey release a full blown GT for it and of course a steering wheel setup.
MS broke traddtion by bringing all of the problems that many of us have dealt with on our PCs to the console arena. They brought buggy games that required patches.
MS and Sony have not broken any tradition, they're only doing more of the same. PCs are already graphically better than either the X360 with its X1600 varient and the PS3 with it 7900 varient. PCs have moved into SLI and now are on the virge of dedictated PPUs. Consoles have always somewhat caught up to PCs graphically, just to fall way behind.
You can not bring PC gaming to the console world, when your "controls" are still based on a platformer design. A controll pad is by far one of the worst ways to play a FPS, RTS, or anything similar, games that are popular on the PC. If and when Sony or MS ship their consoles with a keyboard and "real" mouse, not some emulation thing, only then will they have gone the PC route. But since they did not, they've told all of their developers to continue making games for the controllor pad, so once agian they've locked themselves into the same old console way of playing games. Aming with ones thumb is a cumbersome and gimped way of playing the games I enjoy on my PCs.
Ironically, Nintendo with its Wii has moved consoles one step closer to PCs and has found a happy medium for its controlls that has the best of both worlds, but of course has also entered an area PCs haven't ventured into for gaming. The Wii-mote works just like a mouse if needed, so FPS games and RTS games are now playable on a console.
Nintendo is the only one that broke traddition and it's already paying off. Finally I can play a FPS on a console that doesn't need to be dumbed down to accommodate the inadequate analogue-thumb-stick.
From your own spew;
"why doesn't the iPod use standard headphone jacks?".
You claim to own an iPod, but yet you make a statement that is complete rubbish. To answer your question, the iPod "does" use a standard headphone jack. So are you lying about owning one?
People like you scare me. You're willing to wade in shit, just because it's not Apple. Being blind is one thing, recognizing a good product is another. Fortunately the iPod is the rare exception that quality beat out cheap mediocricy, something MS is trying to force back upon the market. MS's player is deserving of a quick death, nothing more, nothing less. The iPod already has good competion from other players, which are also a much better alternative to the Zune.
BTW, that cheap-bloated-FM tuner fits the Zune nicely.
Good speakers and hedphones definitely make a difference, that's why I can tell when music has been compressed, because I use better than crap headphones, or crap speakers. The extreme minority, that's bullshit. Maybe you hang out with deaf-tone peeps, but I don't. A well encoded MP3 will always contain artifacts and with the artist I listen to and my "better" audio equipment, I can easily hear the metalic oscillation of a compressed format, and I also know my songs well enough, that I can tell when nuances have been chopped off. Since I'm not hurting for storage space, I always use either Apple-lossless, or simply copy the CD's navtive "AIFF" format directly to my HD, or my iPod. Not only does my music retain its original integriy, it's DRM free; Imagine that... And if I did loose my CD(s), I still have it on my HD and I can be rest assured my music won't disappear if I stop paying a bill.
Renting something that's very affordable, when it's something I'll be listening to for years to come, if not my entire life, would be extremely asinine and a huge waste of money! A house is one thing, I don't rent, but unlike a CD which I sometimes get for free, or only a few bucks, a house in my neigborhood starts at about $700k these days. So for most peeps, renting is the only way to get into one, but they really should look into buying. A suit is something that might only be worn "once," so renting is a good idea. If I had to wear a suit everday, I would buy one, since it would save me money in the long run. But for something like music, which is affordable, renting is foolish.
Why would you even compare renting a house and a suit to something as cheap as music? I'm not the one that's in a stupid postion, that would be you.
If renting music is good idea in your book, then it's nothing more than a "fad," so waisting $15 a month on something that can easilly be obtained from countless sourcess for generally less and even free, is the fool's route. Music for peeps like me is a part of my life and buying is by far a smarter investment. And with services like iTunes, I can browse through unfamiliar artist, sample them, then go out and buy the CD when I find something I like. Certain types of music help me to maintain focus and to get things done. I work as an artist, so I can tell that the music easilly effects the mood of my work, so I'm not going to listen to random tracks all day, where as I know many others peeps prefer this method, and that's why internet radio is a good thing.
Switching subscribtions if the price gets jacked, is just another reason not to use them in the first place. Companies like MTV and MS are all about owning the software/music on your computer/player. They would rather have everyone rent than own. That's something I'm completely against and will never conform to, not when buying is more affordable and is the only way I can get the quality I want.
$200 a month on CDs? My wife loves CDs, but she's always used record clubs. Generally she'll spend a buck or two on one and get the others for free. We've been using this method for well over a decade now. I just got Tori Amos Beekeeper for free. Paying for any compressed music is something I'll never do willingly. $15 a month to rent music is absolutely lame in my book and I hope it's practice that quickly becomes obsolete and dies a painful death.
It's kind of sad that peeps would willingly allow other companies to own their assets.
I personally uses iTunes, but not to buy music, but to listen too and find new artists. No other app has yet to come close to being as intuitive as its interface for browsing music, with as many unintrusive features, not even WM11.
It still doesn't. But you do bring up a good point. The X360 version's of Far Cry is just taking adavantage of newer shaders that were "not" available when FCI was being developed for the PC. If you recall, FC was originally developed during the 9Xxx generation. FCI was released when the X8xx was still the best ATI had to offer for PCs. So it's kind of obvious that games being developed for newer GPUs, "should" look better and PCs already have access to newer and more powerful GPUs than the X360, if you catch my drift?
Take a look at Oblivion. It's a good comparsion, because the PC version is using all of the latest and greatest shaders, as is the X360. It's also a good comparision, because they're not using a the latest and greatest PCs;
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6147028/p-2.html
The article states that the the X360 looks sligthly better than a mid-range PC, which it should, since its GPU is a generation ahead of a 6600, which is a few years old now. Currently a X1600 is a mid-level card, it only costs $40 more than the 6600 used in these examples. Dual-core CPUs also have come down quite a bit, so it's safe to say that a current mid-range systems have more than enough juice to turn up the detail to match the best of what X360 can currently offer. But their are plenty of titles on the X360 that don't do it justice and even an older PC can match its level of detail, and in most cases surpass it.
Ask yourself this, what's faster; a X1600 SE, or a full fledged X1900? Of course the latter fo the two and of course that card costs just as much as a X360. The point I'm making, is you get what you pay for and a X360 is using lower-priced components to keep it in a certain price range. MS probably doesn't want to loose 4-billion this time around; http://theinquirer.net/?article=26497
Honestly, don't fall for the hype. MS isn't going to include components that would substantially bring their loss up on each console sold. The X360 will pick up speed as developers get used to it and it does have the advanatage of being a dedicated meidia-center, err, I mean game console, which uses a more effiecent way of handling memory, but it's not more powerfull than a uber PC. I was being nice when I mentioned a much more powerful 7900 GTX SLI setup, a quad-SLI system absolutely destroys the x360 by many-many fold. But of course that comes at a huge price.
The PS3 has some potentional from what I've seen, but its GPU is basically a single 7800. For $3 to $4k I can buy a nice 7900 GTX SLI setup. The PS3's matrix CPU has good potential, but do to its complexity, and using the PS2 as reference, it will take years for developers to figure out all of its ins-and-outs, and by that time, PCs will have moved way beyond todays performance, which is already beyond these next-gen consoles.
The X360 does not hold up to an uber PC at all. Its watered down x1600 and weak PPC variant, which is complicated to develop for, do not have the juice to compete with even older PCs. The games I've played that are on both the X360 and PC, look noticeably better on the PC. The X360's no slouch, but things like texture quality are generally dumbed down in comparison and it suffers from performance issues, where as the same games on a good PC do not; Even at higher resolutions. I have no doubt that the X360 will improve quite a bit as developers get used to it and really lay on the eye-candy thick, but it's not exactly a power house by any means and falls short of good PC, even one that has a few years under its belt. It definately had a price advantage at first, but that's quickly slipping.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing that bothers me about gamepads and I think the same is true for any PC gamer, is that they've had an adverse effect on PC gaming. It's always the PC version that gets the shaft, since developers will optimize their game around the lower denominator, which is the console.
If they make a game for both platforms, but give both the care they need for their inputs, I don't care either way, but that's rarely the case.
And just for reference:
I've been gaming on consoles since the seventies and PCs since the eighties. I can game either way, I just don't like how slow and dumb the AI are in most console FPS.
I first played FPSs on a keyboard, then a Gravis gamepad, then later a mouse and keyboard. When gamepads became popular, many of the throw backs from the keyboard age were brought back, like aiming assist. Now we have really lame things like bullet-time and some sort of time stasis.
I still own my copy of GoldenEye and I still have a N64. I played Halo to death with my friends, mainly because it was the first co-op game that I can recall. I later bought this game for the PC and it was unbelievably easy with a mouse and keyboard.
Call of Duty is a game I'll only play on a PC. Just like any of Valve's FPSs. I might try it on a Wii though, because Medal of Honor 2 was fun with a Wiimote.
I see where you're going with the corked baseball bat and it's a poor analogy. All baseball bats are fundamentally the same design, where as mice and gamepads are not.
:]
You can not win any FPS if you're not aware of your surroundings. Why on earth would assume that it's any different on a PC? Do you really think that PC gamers aren't skilled at a genre that originated on PCs and to this day is is still played best on them?
A skilled gamer -- regardless of the platform -- doesn't need to "pray" about weather or not they'll hit and live. Your comment makes me think that you're not that good at FPSs...
You also have to consider that the design of the map really determines the type of skills needed to win.
We get it, that many console gamers like to play casually. Just stop insisting that a gampad is on par with a mouse for PC derived games, like RTSs and FPSs, because it's not.
I've played plenty of RTSs on consoles going back to the 16-bit days and they do not work even remotely on the same level as a PC RTS. They are dumbed down, simplified, GIMPED, because a gamepad is not a dedicated pointing device.
Most PC to console games are stripped of features. Too many compromises are made just to get it work on a gamepad. This is a simple truth which is obvious to those that still game on PCs and also game on consoles.
If you like games that are made accessible for casual gaming, so gaming from a couch, or even a bed, than of course RTSs on a console will work for you. They work at that level. When you take that same RTS and put it on a PC, it's a dumbed-down joke.
BRAIN CANCER!
Google it my friend, It's not hard. Here's a quick search. Would you care to back up why being lazy is acceptable... ;)
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Wii+%2B+development+cost&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
;) :p
:p
Read this article about how the Wii costs about half the price of the other toys to develop for, it's fun:
http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/cost-of-development-greatly-favors-wii-say-publishers/69714/
There's nothing marginal about 50%+ less for Wii dev cost.
And $2000 for a SDK is not an arm an a leg. Here's another link to save you the aggravation of searching:
http://www.warioworld.com/apply/wii.html
As noted by the other response to your post, the Wii shares many similarities to its predecessor, which make it easier and cheaper to develop for, especially for the studios that put their time in on the Cube. And just to clear something up, there's nothing last-gen about a Wii's performance or the tech it uses, which is 6 years more advanced.
A publisher doesn't need to sell nearly as many units on a Wii as it does on the PS3 or 360 in order to see a return on their investment. This this is do to the lower development cost and simpler hardware configuration. **Namco stated that it needs to sell 500,000 PS3 games to make a profit as an example. Compare this to 165,000, which is what I've read is needed for the Wii.
** http://www.gamespot.com/news/6162509.html
So just because a game sells more units on a 360 as an example, that doesn't mean it has made a profit for its publisher/developer. With the Wii's HUGE user base for its relatively short life on the market along with its "significantly" lower development cost, publishers/developers have a better chance of seeing a profit on a Wii game than the PS3 or 360.
OMG!! I'm using this 12 year old kid term, because you used HARDCORN -- now I must rant. First off, let me present you with a link that disproves your myth that kids that like to aim with their thumb and deem blood as mature, buy more games. The supposed hardcore gamer is a joke. I've been gaming since the age of pong. There's nothing hardcore about most console gamers, since they're used to games that have generally been dumbed down do to the limiting nature of a gamepad. Compared to the games I played in the eighties and ninteies, games now days are a walk in the park. Sure, they look way better, but they're way less sophisticated... I loved the complexity that is SYSTEM SHOCK, I hated the simpleton that is BioShock.
Anway, here's the link, read fact number "4."
http://www.theesa.com/facts/top_10_facts.php
The average age of the most frequent game buyer is 38 years old. In 2007, 92 percent of computer game buyers and 80 percent of console game buyers were over the age of 18.
Also notice that the average gamer is age 33, not the teenage kid publishers have been marketing to for the past 8 years, so guys hat are in their twenties now.
Kids won't have access to a flash cart -- unless they have parents like my friends. Guys my age buy our games and on that note, buy your DS games you pirate!
<]=)
Because of the higher development cost, publishers/developers need to sell way more units on the 360 and PS3, than they do on the Wii, in order to see a profit.
From what I've read, it takes about 165,000 units for a dev to make a profit on a Wii game, where as it takes 500,000 on the PS3/360 before they sees a return.
<]=)
So...
Games on the Wii and DS cost significantly less to develop. They have a larger user base than the PS3 and 360, so publishers make back their investment faster. And it's a sad truth, but shovelware, which is quite abundant on the WIi right now -- because of its huge popularity -- generally earns more money for the publisher than higher budget games. The Wii is basically on track to replace the PS2 -- the current shovelware king -- in this area.
I have a R4DS, but I still buy DS games -- I use it for SCummVM/Hombrew. Here in the states -- the biggest game market -- flash carts owners are a minority. Most households won't know where buy one, know how to use one, let alone be able to find "pirated" games for it.
The Wii and DS are decimating the 360 and PS3. Developers are jumping ship to the Wii,since overall sells for the PS3 and 360 aren't good enough. MS's 360 isn't even doing as well as its original Xbox, which had sold more units in the same period of time.
<]=)
That's the sound a cowhale makes.
<]=)
I would much rather see both of them go away, though. SVG and JavaScript, please.
No thank you!
Spend some time using ActionScript 3 via Flash CS3 or Flex and you'll see why JS + SVG is such a limited-slow-solution with inconsistent support across browsers and platforms. I guess if you like the limitations and headache that JS + SVG causes, than by all means support it.
I personally will stick with JS + Flash Player for my rich-web-development.
Flash Player is not all about vector BTW. You should look into it before assuming SVG is even a competent replacement.
I don't know if this speaks for your, but I find it ironic that people who are usually for SVG and against Flash Player, are against Adobe, one of the primary supporters/developers of SVG early on.
<]=)
Besides on my Nokia phone, RealPlayer has never provided me with a pleasant experience. It was always impossible to find their deliberately hidden free player, which was an abomination upon itself. This has never been the case for any of my Apple products.
.cda extension Window's shows is fake. Managing my music and getting my playlists onto my iPod is absolute cake. Apple has not put any cumbersome restrictions on me when it comes to my music, and as mentioned iTunes is a great app -- especially on a Mac.
The older I get, the more I view maintaining my XP PCs to keep them running smoothly as a chore -- although it's not as bad as in the past. When I compare this to the fact my Macs just work, I really don't like working on my PCs anymore. I've been using PCs since the eighties and have always pieced my systems together after researching which consumer or workstation parts were best at the time, but now that Apple has switched to X86, I'm not planning on upgrading or buying another clone -- unless I get an itch for old time sake.
Apple's products are great. They're designed to be intuitive, quite easy to use, and when it comes down to it they really don't limit my choices. This probably sound strange since an iPod as an example officially requires iTunes, but if that app were crap and limited me on how I could import my music, which format I wanted to rip it to, made playlists difficult to manage, I would not use it, but fortunately this is not the case. I tried the Sony's abomination Sonic Stage back in 2002 and that was the most unpleasant experience I've ever had when it comes to music -- even more so than RealPlayer. I can thank Sony for pushing me to Apple, the way better choice.
Last I checked, there's no generic MP3 player, let alone any of the higher end wannabes that can handle as many formats as an iPod, let alone match Apple's true understanding of software and hardware integration while keeping things feature rich and intuitive. I can copy a CD's native AIFF format directly to an iPod -- the
So to ramble further, Apple has nothing in common with RealPlayer. Apple makes great products that do what they promise and generally much much more -- Apple always puts in that extra effort to make their products better, I've rarely seen this with any other company, most will cut corners long before they reach Apple's quality. When it comes down to it, users will flock to the choice that works best and Apple for me has always hit the mark.
Your post gave me a hearty chuckle. Thanks!
I was really starting to think the rest of the world was blind, especially the arrogant premature HD adopters that believe their new set can never do anything wrong, when in fact it looks like crap for the most part.
Digital TV has jacked everything up. I was on Cox as they migrated to the age of vomit and notice that on shows I could once see the whites of eyes, I was now left with black pits. Now I'm on Dish, which is at least more consistent on their quality, but it's still as step down from what I was used to in the past.
http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Flex:Open_Sou rce
http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Apollo
These are still new, but Macrobe is making sure these are all cross platform.
With Flex you can create Flash content. You just need to know how to do Action Script.
Hypocrite!!!
Yep, a mouse type controller isn't good for a FPS. Go figure... I'm being "sarcastic." I take it you're of the thumb-twiddling era, where as you think FPS games are best played by aiming with one's thumb on a cumbersome game controller that was designed for 3D platformers.
Red Steel sucked as a game. It looks far worse than many GameCube games and its AI is quite stupid. UbiSoft should be shot for making something this horrid in this day an age. Its controls alhough not refined, were clearly better than any thumb-aiming solution. UbiSoft implemented some odd features, like expecting you to move your arm out to zoom-in, but beyond that its controls offered speed and precision, something that is a farce with an anologue thumb-stick on any gamepad.
The Wii's controller is one of the best options for a FPS game, or any other game that requires a pointer, only second to a mouse. But unlike the mouse, it offers a more comfortable way to play a FPS, so it's better overall in this respect, and of course there's the whole 3D positioning thing...
I would rather play GTA on a Wii, since I could actually bash the guy naturally with a swinging motion, instead of just mashing down my thumb like a dweeb. But I'll gladly pick up a PS3 when tbey release a full blown GT for it and of course a steering wheel setup.
<]=)
MS broke traddtion by bringing all of the problems that many of us have dealt with on our PCs to the console arena. They brought buggy games that required patches.
MS and Sony have not broken any tradition, they're only doing more of the same. PCs are already graphically better than either the X360 with its X1600 varient and the PS3 with it 7900 varient. PCs have moved into SLI and now are on the virge of dedictated PPUs. Consoles have always somewhat caught up to PCs graphically, just to fall way behind.
You can not bring PC gaming to the console world, when your "controls" are still based on a platformer design. A controll pad is by far one of the worst ways to play a FPS, RTS, or anything similar, games that are popular on the PC. If and when Sony or MS ship their consoles with a keyboard and "real" mouse, not some emulation thing, only then will they have gone the PC route. But since they did not, they've told all of their developers to continue making games for the controllor pad, so once agian they've locked themselves into the same old console way of playing games. Aming with ones thumb is a cumbersome and gimped way of playing the games I enjoy on my PCs.
Ironically, Nintendo with its Wii has moved consoles one step closer to PCs and has found a happy medium for its controlls that has the best of both worlds, but of course has also entered an area PCs haven't ventured into for gaming. The Wii-mote works just like a mouse if needed, so FPS games and RTS games are now playable on a console.
Nintendo is the only one that broke traddition and it's already paying off. Finally I can play a FPS on a console that doesn't need to be dumbed down to accommodate the inadequate analogue-thumb-stick.
From your own spew; "why doesn't the iPod use standard headphone jacks?".
You claim to own an iPod, but yet you make a statement that is complete rubbish. To answer your question, the iPod "does" use a standard headphone jack. So are you lying about owning one?
People like you scare me. You're willing to wade in shit, just because it's not Apple. Being blind is one thing, recognizing a good product is another. Fortunately the iPod is the rare exception that quality beat out cheap mediocricy, something MS is trying to force back upon the market. MS's player is deserving of a quick death, nothing more, nothing less. The iPod already has good competion from other players, which are also a much better alternative to the Zune.
BTW, that cheap-bloated-FM tuner fits the Zune nicely.
The Zune comes in brown...
Without AC's post, it was easy to misconstrue your post.
<]=)
Good speakers and hedphones definitely make a difference, that's why I can tell when music has been compressed, because I use better than crap headphones, or crap speakers. The extreme minority, that's bullshit. Maybe you hang out with deaf-tone peeps, but I don't. A well encoded MP3 will always contain artifacts and with the artist I listen to and my "better" audio equipment, I can easily hear the metalic oscillation of a compressed format, and I also know my songs well enough, that I can tell when nuances have been chopped off. Since I'm not hurting for storage space, I always use either Apple-lossless, or simply copy the CD's navtive "AIFF" format directly to my HD, or my iPod. Not only does my music retain its original integriy, it's DRM free; Imagine that... And if I did loose my CD(s), I still have it on my HD and I can be rest assured my music won't disappear if I stop paying a bill.
Renting something that's very affordable, when it's something I'll be listening to for years to come, if not my entire life, would be extremely asinine and a huge waste of money! A house is one thing, I don't rent, but unlike a CD which I sometimes get for free, or only a few bucks, a house in my neigborhood starts at about $700k these days. So for most peeps, renting is the only way to get into one, but they really should look into buying. A suit is something that might only be worn "once," so renting is a good idea. If I had to wear a suit everday, I would buy one, since it would save me money in the long run. But for something like music, which is affordable, renting is foolish.
Why would you even compare renting a house and a suit to something as cheap as music? I'm not the one that's in a stupid postion, that would be you.
If renting music is good idea in your book, then it's nothing more than a "fad," so waisting $15 a month on something that can easilly be obtained from countless sourcess for generally less and even free, is the fool's route. Music for peeps like me is a part of my life and buying is by far a smarter investment. And with services like iTunes, I can browse through unfamiliar artist, sample them, then go out and buy the CD when I find something I like. Certain types of music help me to maintain focus and to get things done. I work as an artist, so I can tell that the music easilly effects the mood of my work, so I'm not going to listen to random tracks all day, where as I know many others peeps prefer this method, and that's why internet radio is a good thing.
Switching subscribtions if the price gets jacked, is just another reason not to use them in the first place. Companies like MTV and MS are all about owning the software/music on your computer/player. They would rather have everyone rent than own. That's something I'm completely against and will never conform to, not when buying is more affordable and is the only way I can get the quality I want.
<]=)
I recall them using the same voice in Mario Teaches Typing, which came out just prior to the N64.g
:)
http://www.mobygames.com/game/mario-teaches-typin
But yeah, the voice kind of bugs.
<]=)
$200 a month on CDs? My wife loves CDs, but she's always used record clubs. Generally she'll spend a buck or two on one and get the others for free. We've been using this method for well over a decade now. I just got Tori Amos Beekeeper for free. Paying for any compressed music is something I'll never do willingly. $15 a month to rent music is absolutely lame in my book and I hope it's practice that quickly becomes obsolete and dies a painful death.
It's kind of sad that peeps would willingly allow other companies to own their assets.
I personally uses iTunes, but not to buy music, but to listen too and find new artists. No other app has yet to come close to being as intuitive as its interface for browsing music, with as many unintrusive features, not even WM11.
<]=)
It still doesn't. But you do bring up a good point. The X360 version's of Far Cry is just taking adavantage of newer shaders that were "not" available when FCI was being developed for the PC. If you recall, FC was originally developed during the 9Xxx generation. FCI was released when the X8xx was still the best ATI had to offer for PCs. So it's kind of obvious that games being developed for newer GPUs, "should" look better and PCs already have access to newer and more powerful GPUs than the X360, if you catch my drift?
Take a look at Oblivion. It's a good comparsion, because the PC version is using all of the latest and greatest shaders, as is the X360. It's also a good comparision, because they're not using a the latest and greatest PCs; http://www.gamespot.com/features/6147028/p-2.html
The article states that the the X360 looks sligthly better than a mid-range PC, which it should, since its GPU is a generation ahead of a 6600, which is a few years old now. Currently a X1600 is a mid-level card, it only costs $40 more than the 6600 used in these examples. Dual-core CPUs also have come down quite a bit, so it's safe to say that a current mid-range systems have more than enough juice to turn up the detail to match the best of what X360 can currently offer. But their are plenty of titles on the X360 that don't do it justice and even an older PC can match its level of detail, and in most cases surpass it.
Ask yourself this, what's faster; a X1600 SE, or a full fledged X1900? Of course the latter fo the two and of course that card costs just as much as a X360. The point I'm making, is you get what you pay for and a X360 is using lower-priced components to keep it in a certain price range. MS probably doesn't want to loose 4-billion this time around; http://theinquirer.net/?article=26497
Honestly, don't fall for the hype. MS isn't going to include components that would substantially bring their loss up on each console sold. The X360 will pick up speed as developers get used to it and it does have the advanatage of being a dedicated meidia-center, err, I mean game console, which uses a more effiecent way of handling memory, but it's not more powerfull than a uber PC. I was being nice when I mentioned a much more powerful 7900 GTX SLI setup, a quad-SLI system absolutely destroys the x360 by many-many fold. But of course that comes at a huge price.
<]=)
That's just "hype."
The PS3 has some potentional from what I've seen, but its GPU is basically a single 7800. For $3 to $4k I can buy a nice 7900 GTX SLI setup. The PS3's matrix CPU has good potential, but do to its complexity, and using the PS2 as reference, it will take years for developers to figure out all of its ins-and-outs, and by that time, PCs will have moved way beyond todays performance, which is already beyond these next-gen consoles.
The X360 does not hold up to an uber PC at all. Its watered down x1600 and weak PPC variant, which is complicated to develop for, do not have the juice to compete with even older PCs. The games I've played that are on both the X360 and PC, look noticeably better on the PC. The X360's no slouch, but things like texture quality are generally dumbed down in comparison and it suffers from performance issues, where as the same games on a good PC do not; Even at higher resolutions. I have no doubt that the X360 will improve quite a bit as developers get used to it and really lay on the eye-candy thick, but it's not exactly a power house by any means and falls short of good PC, even one that has a few years under its belt. It definately had a price advantage at first, but that's quickly slipping.
<]=)
Hypocrite. That pretty much sums up your post.
<]=)