Without having read absolutely every comment about this article (although a large portion of them), I must say I'm shocked at how self-serving 75% of the replies are. Comments such as, "we need more xyz, teach them this!" are incredibly manipulative, and remind me of the treatment of sport or musical prodigies. Doesn't it bother anyone that a large number of replies seem bent on co-opting this kid's life for their own ends?
Personally, I'm in the "give 'em a broad education" camp, for most of the reasons which have already been stated. The only way to discover what one truly loves is to be exposed to a wide variety of things.
Playing online multiplayer using utilities like Battlefield Communicator or Roger Wilco to do voice chat is surprisingly cool, and, for me, at least, reproduces 95% of the appeal of playing games with other people in the same room. (talking junk, teamplay communication, etc.) Try it out, if you haven't already...
So, even if the two were the same price, it's likely the console would outperform the PC and deliver the better pure gaming experience.
You say this as if "gaming experience" is some measurable quantity that's burnt into each game at the factory. Gameplay is not necessarily dependent on technology.
The client is probably not trusted, but the on-screen motions of the players are predicted (and, most likely, the amount of data needed to represent a player's position/action is probably reduced to an EXTREMELY small amount of information). It's possible to do that amount of action over a small-bandwidth link, as long as your link is relatively stable.
Metroid doesn't refute anything, because you didn't learn Samus Aran's gender until the very end (or entered the cheat code). They deliberately hid it, which proves either of two reprehensible facts: 1) they knew that her gender would negatively impact sales, so they didn't reveal it at first or 2) it was a mere afterthought, not worthy of our attention.
It's not possible, then, that it was "deliberately" done just to turn our stereotypes on our collective ears? I mean, everyone went through the game thinking that Samus was a guy, and then, once the game was over, one of your basic assumptions regarding the character (one which, I might add, had absolutely nothing to do with the gameplay) was proven to be completely false.
Sheesh. I thought it was pretty clever, myself, and certainly not an afterthought, since you could play through the entire game again with your helmet off. I think you're reading malicious intent where there was none at all...
That's one benchmark, based on a couple of operations in a single application. Benchmarks like that tend to present a skewed view of the reality of the situation. In real-world, Joe Six-Pack usage, the G4 is competitive but a similarly-priced PC system will be faster. As the other respondent said, I could easily rig other benchmarks to show just about anything I wanted.
And, by your own admission, "most people who use macs are doing graphic/design work"...so, if they want to use a G4-based Mac, fine. But that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the G4 is "twice as fast" in general case, real world computing.
Well, regardless, that still leaves the FASA titles (Mech*), the Digital Anvil titles (owned by MS, I believe), as well as Bungie titles (now owned by MS). Still a pretty robust lineup.
And, what exactly does this have to do with the X-Box, anyway? As long as Microsoft signs up strong companies to release titles and/or publishes them, they'll be fine as far as content goes. Who cares if they develop them themselves?
Huh? Age of Empires (published by MS) not good enough for ya?
Also, the Microsoft sports games, while not the best in their categories, were respectable and were at an attractive price point. Now that they own Access, they own the PC golf genre as well. Asheron's Call has done respectably, and with Mechwarrior 4, Mechcommander 2, Crimson Skies, and some of the Digital Anvil titles coming out in the future, Microsoft's gaming future looks pretty bright indeed.
Interesting point. Then, by that definition, consoles are dying as well. Innovation is pretty rare on consoles, and they tend not to stray too far from what's successful unless they have a 'star' designer. Witness the onslaught of YAJRPGs (yet another Japanese RPG), fighting games, and driving/kart games.
Unfortunately, I disagree with your point that "if it's well done then people will play it." Flashy graphics and licenses sell boxes -- Joe Six-Pack doesn't read the gaming mags, and probably doesn't read online stuff either, so he doesn't know about a lot of lesser-known games, and Little Johnny Six-Pack is probably only interested in the latest iteration of Pokemon or other big-name franchise.
Re:Obviously those idiots at cnet arnt real gamers
on
Vanishing Game Genres
·
· Score: 1
1) The adventure games are dead becuase kings quest, space quest, and the like SUCKED I mean has anyone actully played them, I used to on my old tandy, and Im sorry to say but a crappy sentance based interface and a story line in which you die every few seconds made these games playable to only a few die hard freaks.
Part of the short attention span generation, eh? Normally, you play these games, and try to do intelligent things so you can avoid dying "every few seconds." The joy is in the exploration of the world they've created. And text-based interfaces worked well in this case, because they allowed you to try many, many other things than the "four icons and a question mark" you seem to get with modern adventure games. Granted, there had to be a tremendous amount of writing behind such a game, but again, since the joy of these games is in exploration, it made it worthwhile.
2) What makes a combat flight sim? REALISM! What kills a combat flight sim? REALISM!!! What we did is we created games so real they became to hard for the average use to play and have fun with. Face it were obviouly not all qualified to fly the moden jet fighter, so why try when its not really fun. Anyway these REALISM games replaced all the actually fun games, for example Pacific Strike, this game was awsome, it wasnt too hard but challenging...but more important it was FUN!!!
I agree somewhat. But then, the whole idea behind a simulation is realism.
3) RTS games now this is an intresting one, What I think killed this genre what CRITICS, every game that came out was over critisized, resulting in low sales and thus underdevelopment of the genre. Take Force Commander for example, look for reviews and you'll find 100 bad ones for every good one. If you ask me I like the game, but these people just see all these bad reviews and get scared to say anything else good about the game. Todays rts's are reasonably fun, however predictable ai, but have fairly good graphics. SO as I said I think critics killed this genre.
Critics killed a genre...whatever. Force Commander got poor reviews for many reasons, most of which were enunciated in the reviews I've read: poor interface, poor graphics, poor gameplay balance. When Joe Gamer is looking for a new game to play, he usually doesn't want to buy Generic RTS No. 43, because he's already played Generic RTS games... there needs to be the promise of something new.
4) Space combat games are far from dead, Just the best one I can recall was tie fighter, It just had better features than its sucessor x v t. Then you can take a look at the Home World series, this is actully a spaced based rts. The usings actully pull strafing runs, and the graphics are prettry cool too...Anyway i dont care what cnet says this genre is still out there and if another decent game is made it will have high sales.
Homeworld is an RTS, which happens to be 3D and based in space. What they were talking about in the article are traditional "fighter in space" games like Wing Commander, the X-Wing series, and the Freespace series. Freespace 2, the latest game in that series, sold extremely poorly despite excellent reviews. I haven't seen the numbers on Tachyon or Allegiance, but I don't think they are burning up the charts, either. Finally, remember, there are no future Wing Commander games planned. Sounds like a potentially dying genre to me.
5) War games have siply become the other genres, so yeah I guess cnet actully got this one right.
What? I think the point of the article was that while wargames have incorporated some elements from other genres, they will continue to survive because Internet sales can support a niche genre (with diehard fans).
Judging by your comments, I'm not sure if we read the same article, to be honest. To be honest, I think the article raised some pretty good points, and I think it's a little bold to claim that "Obviously those idiots at cnet arnt real gamers".
That's not what he was talking about. With a mouse, you can move that thing...well, about as much as you have cord, if necessary, in a fraction of a second, in order to execute that 164.5 degree turn and 17.4 degree pitch that you want (followed, of course, by the soft click of the left mouse button, sending yet another opponent flying).
The analog sticks on consoles indeed provide gradated input -- good for driving games, especially. But there is a limit as to how far you can move the sticks -- and the sensitivity cannot be set to a satisfactory level to achieve the same degree of control you get with a mouse.
Out of curiosity, have you played a PC FPS with the keyboard and the mouse? Most people who try it quickly realize there's just no other way to play a FPS...
True, there are a lot of controls on a dual shock, but you can't access them all at once without some major hand dexterity. In particular, using both the analog and the digital movement controls at once is a joke. (never mind keeping your fingers in position near the buttons!)
Those controllers are good for some games, but I couldn't imagine playing a FPS with them.
Re:It also works in Windows Me and 98
on
Multi-Head Gaming
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, I had tried something like that previously with my TNT and an unaccelerated card. Presumably it doesn't try to resolve the case where part of the view is on one monitor, and part on the other.
Is it accelerated if the game is wholly on one monitor or the other? (it may be that you have to start it up on that monitor)
The real benefit of multi-head for games, IMHO, would be "rear view mirrors" or additional map displays -- not simply stretching the image across multiple monitors as in the article...
If I remember correctly, Sega actually licensed a Genesis emulator (KGen, was it?) that somebody had written, so they could package it into a product they were selling. That, IMHO, was pretty neat of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Mainly because Nuon sucked. I mean, seriously. There were almost no redeeming qualities to it when considered as a games machine.
One of the MS developer beat Halo on the hardest level using only pistol whip.
:)
Of all the stuff you mentioned, this is probably the most impressive.
I hate to be pedantic, but you should heed your own advice.
And I think of games that were developed even before [the first half of the 90's]. Games that were true classics like:
I'm also puzzled as to why you cite the Triple Play series as being great, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms...
a song for something called "Denton's" came on
:) )
That would be Denham's Dentifrice, if I remember correctly...
(ashamed to remember something that obscure, and related to advertising no less
Without having read absolutely every comment about this article (although a large portion of them), I must say I'm shocked at how self-serving 75% of the replies are. Comments such as, "we need more xyz, teach them this!" are incredibly manipulative, and remind me of the treatment of sport or musical prodigies. Doesn't it bother anyone that a large number of replies seem bent on co-opting this kid's life for their own ends?
Personally, I'm in the "give 'em a broad education" camp, for most of the reasons which have already been stated. The only way to discover what one truly loves is to be exposed to a wide variety of things.
Playing online multiplayer using utilities like Battlefield Communicator or Roger Wilco to do voice chat is surprisingly cool, and, for me, at least, reproduces 95% of the appeal of playing games with other people in the same room. (talking junk, teamplay communication, etc.) Try it out, if you haven't already...
So, even if the two were the same price, it's likely the console would outperform the PC and deliver the better pure gaming experience.
You say this as if "gaming experience" is some measurable quantity that's burnt into each game at the factory. Gameplay is not necessarily dependent on technology.
They gave me some crappy handburgers.
Don't tell me they've started putting those in the hamburgers...chicken heads were bad enough!
The client is probably not trusted, but the on-screen motions of the players are predicted (and, most likely, the amount of data needed to represent a player's position/action is probably reduced to an EXTREMELY small amount of information). It's possible to do that amount of action over a small-bandwidth link, as long as your link is relatively stable.
Metroid doesn't refute anything, because you didn't learn Samus Aran's gender until the very end (or entered the cheat code). They deliberately hid it, which proves either of two reprehensible facts: 1) they knew that her gender would negatively impact sales, so they didn't reveal it at first or 2) it was a mere afterthought, not worthy of our attention.
It's not possible, then, that it was "deliberately" done just to turn our stereotypes on our collective ears? I mean, everyone went through the game thinking that Samus was a guy, and then, once the game was over, one of your basic assumptions regarding the character (one which, I might add, had absolutely nothing to do with the gameplay) was proven to be completely false.
Sheesh. I thought it was pretty clever, myself, and certainly not an afterthought, since you could play through the entire game again with your helmet off. I think you're reading malicious intent where there was none at all...
The end-of-stage voice was "I'm bad!", I think...might have been "we're bad!", I don't remember...
You are right, it did sound terrible, though.
That's one benchmark, based on a couple of operations in a single application. Benchmarks like that tend to present a skewed view of the reality of the situation. In real-world, Joe Six-Pack usage, the G4 is competitive but a similarly-priced PC system will be faster. As the other respondent said, I could easily rig other benchmarks to show just about anything I wanted.
And, by your own admission, "most people who use macs are doing graphic/design work"...so, if they want to use a G4-based Mac, fine. But that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the G4 is "twice as fast" in general case, real world computing.
Well, regardless, that still leaves the FASA titles (Mech*), the Digital Anvil titles (owned by MS, I believe), as well as Bungie titles (now owned by MS). Still a pretty robust lineup.
And, what exactly does this have to do with the X-Box, anyway? As long as Microsoft signs up strong companies to release titles and/or publishes them, they'll be fine as far as content goes. Who cares if they develop them themselves?
Huh? Age of Empires (published by MS) not good enough for ya?
Also, the Microsoft sports games, while not the best in their categories, were respectable and were at an attractive price point. Now that they own Access, they own the PC golf genre as well. Asheron's Call has done respectably, and with Mechwarrior 4, Mechcommander 2, Crimson Skies, and some of the Digital Anvil titles coming out in the future, Microsoft's gaming future looks pretty bright indeed.
Then all we would need to crack DVDs would be a some form of stenography tool.
Or steganography?
Then again, once a name gains popular momentum, it's hard to switch. Witness what happened with the X-Box.
(read: Heavy Gear or something similar)
I believe you're thinking of Heavy Barrel, not Heavy Gear. (Heavy Gear was a series of computer games from Activision.)
Interesting point. Then, by that definition, consoles are dying as well. Innovation is pretty rare on consoles, and they tend not to stray too far from what's successful unless they have a 'star' designer. Witness the onslaught of YAJRPGs (yet another Japanese RPG), fighting games, and driving/kart games.
Unfortunately, I disagree with your point that "if it's well done then people will play it." Flashy graphics and licenses sell boxes -- Joe Six-Pack doesn't read the gaming mags, and probably doesn't read online stuff either, so he doesn't know about a lot of lesser-known games, and Little Johnny Six-Pack is probably only interested in the latest iteration of Pokemon or other big-name franchise.
1) The adventure games are dead becuase kings quest, space quest, and the like SUCKED I mean has anyone actully played them, I used to on my old tandy, and Im sorry to say but a crappy sentance based interface and a story line in which you die every few seconds made these games playable to only a few die hard freaks.
... there needs to be the promise of something new.
Part of the short attention span generation, eh? Normally, you play these games, and try to do intelligent things so you can avoid dying "every few seconds." The joy is in the exploration of the world they've created. And text-based interfaces worked well in this case, because they allowed you to try many, many other things than the "four icons and a question mark" you seem to get with modern adventure games. Granted, there had to be a tremendous amount of writing behind such a game, but again, since the joy of these games is in exploration, it made it worthwhile.
2) What makes a combat flight sim? REALISM! What kills a combat flight sim? REALISM!!! What we did is we created games so real they became to hard for the average use to play and have fun with. Face it were obviouly not all qualified to fly the moden jet fighter, so why try when its not really fun. Anyway these REALISM games replaced all the actually fun games, for example Pacific Strike, this game was awsome, it wasnt too hard but challenging...but more important it was FUN!!!
I agree somewhat. But then, the whole idea behind a simulation is realism.
3) RTS games now this is an intresting one, What I think killed this genre what CRITICS, every game that came out was over critisized, resulting in low sales and thus underdevelopment of the genre. Take Force Commander for example, look for reviews and you'll find 100 bad ones for every good one. If you ask me I like the game, but these people just see all these bad reviews and get scared to say anything else good about the game. Todays rts's are reasonably fun, however predictable ai, but have fairly good graphics. SO as I said I think critics killed this genre.
Critics killed a genre...whatever. Force Commander got poor reviews for many reasons, most of which were enunciated in the reviews I've read: poor interface, poor graphics, poor gameplay balance. When Joe Gamer is looking for a new game to play, he usually doesn't want to buy Generic RTS No. 43, because he's already played Generic RTS games
4) Space combat games are far from dead, Just the best one I can recall was tie fighter, It just had better features than its sucessor x v t. Then you can take a look at the Home World series, this is actully a spaced based rts. The usings actully pull strafing runs, and the graphics are prettry cool too...Anyway i dont care what cnet says this genre is still out there and if another decent game is made it will have high sales.
Homeworld is an RTS, which happens to be 3D and based in space. What they were talking about in the article are traditional "fighter in space" games like Wing Commander, the X-Wing series, and the Freespace series. Freespace 2, the latest game in that series, sold extremely poorly despite excellent reviews. I haven't seen the numbers on Tachyon or Allegiance, but I don't think they are burning up the charts, either. Finally, remember, there are no future Wing Commander games planned. Sounds like a potentially dying genre to me.
5) War games have siply become the other genres, so yeah I guess cnet actully got this one right.
What? I think the point of the article was that while wargames have incorporated some elements from other genres, they will continue to survive because Internet sales can support a niche genre (with diehard fans).
Judging by your comments, I'm not sure if we read the same article, to be honest. To be honest, I think the article raised some pretty good points, and I think it's a little bold to claim that "Obviously those idiots at cnet arnt real gamers".
That's not what he was talking about. With a mouse, you can move that thing...well, about as much as you have cord, if necessary, in a fraction of a second, in order to execute that 164.5 degree turn and 17.4 degree pitch that you want (followed, of course, by the soft click of the left mouse button, sending yet another opponent flying).
The analog sticks on consoles indeed provide gradated input -- good for driving games, especially. But there is a limit as to how far you can move the sticks -- and the sensitivity cannot be set to a satisfactory level to achieve the same degree of control you get with a mouse.
Out of curiosity, have you played a PC FPS with the keyboard and the mouse? Most people who try it quickly realize there's just no other way to play a FPS...
True, there are a lot of controls on a dual shock, but you can't access them all at once without some major hand dexterity. In particular, using both the analog and the digital movement controls at once is a joke. (never mind keeping your fingers in position near the buttons!)
Those controllers are good for some games, but I couldn't imagine playing a FPS with them.
Yeah, I had tried something like that previously with my TNT and an unaccelerated card. Presumably it doesn't try to resolve the case where part of the view is on one monitor, and part on the other.
Is it accelerated if the game is wholly on one monitor or the other? (it may be that you have to start it up on that monitor)
The real benefit of multi-head for games, IMHO, would be "rear view mirrors" or additional map displays -- not simply stretching the image across multiple monitors as in the article...
If I remember correctly, Sega actually licensed a Genesis emulator (KGen, was it?) that somebody had written, so they could package it into a product they were selling. That, IMHO, was pretty neat of them.
The movie, incidentally, was called Let Him Have It, and was quite good IMHO.
I believe the restriction was only on OpenGL -- AFAIK, you can have Direct3D acceleration using multiple video cards.
I've seen demos, for example, of the Matrox Dual-Head cards running D3D games in accelerated mode, and I don't think that's any different than this.