Putting my windows hat on here, and looking at the subject, "Is linux ready for the desktop?"...
When you have to write that many lines of configuration data in a text file to do something that windows does out of the box, linux is not ready for the desktop.
Yeah, we have it really good in western society, don't need to worry about where your next meal is coming from. It would be a disgrace to ignore the luxury of complete personal freedom that we enjoy (with the exception of new laws like the patriot act and DMCA).
I think the poster was just making suggestions to support his intial opinion, that you should spend more time with your family and perhaps less time with games and more time with other hobbies.
If you don't like boats or motorcycles, and you can't golf at night, how about 10 pin bowling? It's what people did before playstation became "acceptable" as an adult pastime. Or billiards. I don't know. Learn how to cook.
The rationale, and I'm not trying to make excuses for Crytek (I'm a working gamer myself, I used that quick save "feature"), is gameplay.
The developers thought it would be more enjoyable if the luxury of a quicksave wasn't present. This in turn places a higher "cost" in unskilled gameplay - play more carefully, play smarter, play better, and you will succeed.
The downside of this approach: It's not a lot of fun repeating levels and getting killed by the same guys over and over again.
The upside of this approach: You become much better at the game, the game is more challenging, and when you defeat the game at last, when you master it, the sense of accomplishment is much greater. Someone else has already mentioned that this can be taken to extremes - very true! Trying 30 times in a row is exhausting and not rewarding at all.
What it's about to a small and abstract degree is realism. In real life, failure has significant penalties. In a game, the designer has to decide if there will be a penalty for failure. Anyone can win a game if you can save the game once every meter you move. Some developers go this way, others don't. Look at flight simulators - they're all about realism! PC games are traditionally much more about "keeping it real" than console games, which are all eye candy and cute characters and not about realistic simulations at all.
I wonder if Microsoft is preventing this because it would open the floodgates on lower quality testing on Console games - up until now, the only real advantage that consoles have over PC's.
Although it is fortunate that the problem can be fixed on the server end.
I know serious bugs occur with PC games. As the code becomes more complex, so the risk of bugginess increases. PC games can be patched easily however.
Console games are beginning to come close to PC games in terms of complexity, with the next generation of consoles around the corner now, so what will happen when a serious bug is found in a console game, that can't be fixed on the server side?
This wouldn't really work for console games, because only a very slim minority of consoles are ever plugged into the internet.
A vast number of PCs, gaming PCs are internet connected so they have the capability of making micropayments.
Clearly this is a move to raise revenue from the "ailing" pc game industry - generally the quality and replayability of a PC game is much higher than a console (eg, half-life, BF1942, hack/angband, etc). Games like that sell once but are played for years after the initial sale, because the replayability is there, and there are mods and so on.
So the gaming industry is at the point where the automotive industry was at years ago... why on earth make a product that is so good that the buyer will use it and use it and use it and won't need to replace it ever? Better to make "disposable" product and keep the revenue flowing! Of course this doesn't appeal as much to the PC gamer - the console gamer can easily rent as many games as he or she likes and plough through them quickly. The PC gamer has to front the full cost of each game bought - making the PC gamer a frugal customer indeed! This is where EverQuest is a success story, because the developers spent as much time as they would for any game, but they keep reaping in the cash and they don't need to do any more work to keep the cash coming in.
Interesting, but if you ran that over Einsteins mathematics in some of his work, you'd get the impression he was a preschooler. Hardly the case!
The reason the PC columns scored lower is because PC enthusiasts tend to actually care about what's under the hood, so they will use more technically specific language to describe the components they prefer and which deliver the most cutting edge performance.
Mac users would generally not spend much time discussing the specifics of their equipment, apart from the simple "It isn't a PC. My Mac came from Apple, so it must be good. Mine is blueberry." Which reads very well but on a more human analysis, it shows the user doesn't really understand the inner workings of the device, and some may argue that the Mac is a better machine because of this, but that does not mean that the Mac user is any smarter. In the same vein I would suggest that a mechanic would make a better driver than an accountant, in general, because the mechanic would better understand the mechanism he/she is using, rather than suggesting that an author is a better driver because he can write more legible text.
That's an interesting point you make there. I never considered it would be awkward having full control of the camera, because I'm a PC gamer. In PC games, especially first person shooters where camera control *is* the game, mouselook is the most intuitive interface into a gaming environment. Usually on a PC, if you have a game that doesn't use the mouse correctly, it's a console port.
When you consider that consoles don't generally use the complete analog freedom of mouselook control, camera control would become so much less intuitive, which in turn inhibits the enjoyment of the game for the player. It's an unfortunate tradeoff for the "couch gamer" experience, that your usual couch doesn't have flatspace for a keyboard + mouse, and a game controller doesn't need a flat surface because it completely uses both hands of the player.
One thing to keep in mind with the "sickening 180 degree turns"... A *lot* of people comment on this phenomena, and what I've found is that the problem usually only occurs if you're watching the motion but not controlling it. When you have the mouse in your hand and you know you're going to spin around quickly, your brain doesn't get tricked because you'll be anticipating the turn. That's why people usually don't get sick from running or jumping up and down or looking left and right to cross the street.
I have met one or two people who still can't play FPS games for long durations, but that's a very small minority.
Ahh, but if you gave the user full control with the camera, much like in GTA 3, the game would have been so much better!
Of course, third person camera is really better for combat against multiple opponents, whereas first person camera is better for interacting with your environment. So third person is better suited to console games, which tend to be simpler, faster, with more twitch action than in a PC game.
Honestly? I really don't care what the high end cards do in terms of performance... it's what they cost!
The X600 and whatever nVidia brings into the middle market are what matters, because that's what everyone will be buying. And it's all about price/performance, not just performance.
The real reason nVidia has been dying so bad lately is because they have nothing to compete with the 9600XT. The 5700 Ultra is too expensive considering it performs on par with the 9600... so where will your money go?
But what Valve/ATI are doing is ensuring through what is essentially a payoff that ATI cards are optimised for HL/2 and nVidia (and any other card manufacturers) won't get any optimisations.
I won't say that buying an X800 was a mistake, but I think, and this isn't your fault, that benchmark manipulation and dodgey marketing has mislead you (and a lot of other punters) to believe the X800 is a lot more than it is. It's a great card! And it could stand on it's own merits. So it really is a shame that ATI has to bribe their way into better benchmarks.
I honestly believe that HL/2 will be a great game, and it's just a shame that ATI and Valve are muddying the water with all this backscratching and payoffs and benchmark manipulation.
I did, and a good reply. But let's look at this in terms of a real gamer.
Sound card: Okay, onboard sound is not as good as an Audigy or other high end soundcard. NIC: What's wrong with your onboard network? Or do you do routing on your system? I generally keep that on a different system to my gaming rig, I can keep it tucked out of the way as well, so I can switch off my gaming system when not in use. Also, having a server is easier for managing torrents, etc. So there's one potential free PCI. TV Tuner + TV Tuner, if that's what you like then fine, but spending the money on two decent TV tuners just got you the money to buy that expensive high end powerhungry card. So we're guessing you only have 5 PCI slots, that's fair enough, but your system is not optimised for gaming at all, rather for TV capture (5 HDDs!).
I'd have to say you really are positioned in a bit of a rare situation, people in general would rather waste a spare PCI slot on the GeForce than an IDE card for two extra HDD's. In the future, and that's what the GeForce really represents, things to come, you'd probably have at least 6-8 SATA connectors on your mainboard, no need to use an external IDE adaptor at all, and we're going to have to deal with GPU's and CPU's getting a lot bigger and hotter. Just look at intels clumsy new P4's! I understand the heat sinks on those double as a george foreman grill. So we can expect more and more GPU's taking two slots (some of ATI's prototypes have been in the same form factor).
5 HDD's? Wow. I guess between the server and my gaming rig I have 4 in use, and I'm not filling those up too quickly.
The best parts about this kind of bill is that it sets the industries and corporations against each other. Sony, Phillips, Apple and hundreds of other companies make a fat profit living off the playback of media - and so preventing them from making say, an iPod, would really hurt them. So they're going to lobby against this kind of bill.
Except of course that Sony is also a proponent of such a bill. We might not have an ally, but the enemy of our enemy...
The root of the problem is console and console conversion games. Not a troll, hear me out. As the article suggests, the key problems with camera angles in games are all control related - unpredictable controls, and camera angles that don't show you the most useful view at the time.
The consoles are getting better, but initially, there are two problems that caused developers to *have* to make bad decisions with regards to camera.
Firstly, resources. Console games haven't always been able to afford complete freedom with the camera, because of their poor resourcing. Developers have done great things in terms of optimisation, but they haven't been able to allow end users to fully control the camera (Sands of Time for instance) because they may go over a scene with too many polygons, and then get framerate problems. PC gamers tend to have to optimise the system themselves, choosing the right resolution and quality so this is not an issue (unless you don't know how to change your graphics settings).
Secondly, controls. With no decent analog control available for consoles until very recently, it just wouldn't make sense to allow the player to control the game. So the developers have had to "decide" algorithmically what the best angle is for the player to use. Oddly enough, that method sucks. Not a problem for PC gamers, they've always had mice, and therefore 100% control over the camera (until the recent glut of console ports from cheap publishers). Of course there are now mice for PS/2 and X-Box... but how can you use a mouse on the couch?
That's not the best way to look at the market. I look at the high end cards and I think, hey, that's where gaming will be for everyone with a budget system in 12 or so months, that's great.
I always buy at the budget end of the curve, having just bought a great 9600XT for $230AUD, which more than doubles the performance of my last card. I upgrade every 12-18 months depending on how rich I'm feeling, and how the market looks compared to the way my games are running.
So I'm looking at these benchmarks with great interest.
ATI paid Valve $5M to ensure that they had the better benchmarks, which is why you also see HL2 vouchers coming with your ATI graphics cards at the high end.
Of course, Valve have been absolutely shocking in terms of their professional conduct compared to iD.
DooM3 alpha leaks. iD: Oh wow, this is pretty sucky, we're going to look into it, see what we can find out, sack someone or something.
HL-2 code leaks. Valve: OMG we got haxored by terrorists patriot act save us DMCA! FBI help help help now we're not going to release our game until someone is in jail help mummy.
iD on graphics technology: A reasonable analysis of current market technologies, some degree of criticism towards the GF4-MX and the rendering paths of the GF-FX series.
Valve on graphics technology: Silence. ($5M later...) ATI is resoundingly the only card that can give you a decent gaming experience.
If you'll remember, ATI did pay Valve $5M to make sure that ATI cards came out on top of the benchmarks, which is also why you get a HL2 voucher with your high-end ATI card.
That is a really bizarre comment. Think about it for a minute.
Let's assume that you do more than just game on your PC - well fair enough, I check my email and use IM/IRC and do web browsing, anywhere up to 10% of the time! So maybe I don't feel like I need to upgrade my PC for the next generation of games, although I know I will, it's my pride and joy, and I enjoy gaming with decent hardware (I still buy on the budget curve nonetheless).
So, you have these power connectors and PCI slots in your system, and you are adamantly refusing to allow a graphics adapter to use them.
What in heck are you planning to do with these slots and plugs then, huh?
Don't worry about conflict of interest, despite the clear fact that the *same* rendering paths are used for all the new high end cards. Go have a look at GameTab once the game is released and you'll see a veritable plethora of benchmarks, and then you'll have a much better idea. Although seriously, I think if you can trust any games producer in the entire industry, that person will be Carmack. He was the first person to flame the heck out of nVidia for the GF4-MX cards, remember? He also said some really harsh words about the GF-FX range of cards and their unusual optimisations and quality problems (all fixed in the latest generation).
Also remember that the relationship between iD and nVidia is not nearly as blatant and paid-for as the Valve-ATI relationship ($5M I believe for better benchmarks on ATI cards).
Certainly, one set of benchmarks is never good enough to make a definite decision, although of all benchmarks we're going to see released, benchmarks from Carmack would have to be the most singly indicative that you will see.
Windows XP SP2 will include a reverse firewall that is enabled by default. Unfortunately it will be released, for compatibility reasons, after Duke Nukem Forever.
Principle Scientist for Verisign? The same company with the terrorists/geniuses (what's in a name?) who decided to hijack the DNS system and send it to a search portal that pays them money each time it gets used? Thanks a lot. I'll take advice from a great company like that.
Just wait for the upgradeable consoles to start hitting the market! They're already plugging keyboards and mice into consoles to try and make them play FPS games properly. AI assisted aim, sheesh. What are consoles, kindergarten toys?
Call me an enthusiast, but I don't wait for a new game to come out before I upgrade. I buy at the sweet spot, where you get powerful, cheap components at very reasonable prices.
All the games I'm currently playing play better than ever, and all the new games work just fine.
Furthermore, when you buy at the sweet spot, you get core components at a lower price than a new console anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if PS3/Xbox neXt cost $1,000 AUD when first released. That will get you a much nicer PC to play games with.
Rome:Total War (like any other Total War title) is a TBS with a pausable, variable time combat resolution system, much like Star Wars:Rebellion and Birth of the Federation. It's anything but a RTS in the way it plays.
Slashdot Mirror
Putting my windows hat on here, and looking at the subject, "Is linux ready for the desktop?"...
When you have to write that many lines of configuration data in a text file to do something that windows does out of the box, linux is not ready for the desktop.
I was wondering about that myself! I thought FF was a cutscene on a disk?
Yeah, we have it really good in western society, don't need to worry about where your next meal is coming from. It would be a disgrace to ignore the luxury of complete personal freedom that we enjoy (with the exception of new laws like the patriot act and DMCA).
I think the poster was just making suggestions to support his intial opinion, that you should spend more time with your family and perhaps less time with games and more time with other hobbies.
If you don't like boats or motorcycles, and you can't golf at night, how about 10 pin bowling? It's what people did before playstation became "acceptable" as an adult pastime. Or billiards. I don't know. Learn how to cook.
The rationale, and I'm not trying to make excuses for Crytek (I'm a working gamer myself, I used that quick save "feature"), is gameplay.
The developers thought it would be more enjoyable if the luxury of a quicksave wasn't present. This in turn places a higher "cost" in unskilled gameplay - play more carefully, play smarter, play better, and you will succeed.
The downside of this approach: It's not a lot of fun repeating levels and getting killed by the same guys over and over again.
The upside of this approach: You become much better at the game, the game is more challenging, and when you defeat the game at last, when you master it, the sense of accomplishment is much greater. Someone else has already mentioned that this can be taken to extremes - very true! Trying 30 times in a row is exhausting and not rewarding at all.
What it's about to a small and abstract degree is realism. In real life, failure has significant penalties. In a game, the designer has to decide if there will be a penalty for failure. Anyone can win a game if you can save the game once every meter you move. Some developers go this way, others don't. Look at flight simulators - they're all about realism! PC games are traditionally much more about "keeping it real" than console games, which are all eye candy and cute characters and not about realistic simulations at all.
I'm pretty sure it's patched on PC though.
I wonder if Microsoft is preventing this because it would open the floodgates on lower quality testing on Console games - up until now, the only real advantage that consoles have over PC's.
I thought console games didn't have any bugs?
Although it is fortunate that the problem can be fixed on the server end.
I know serious bugs occur with PC games. As the code becomes more complex, so the risk of bugginess increases. PC games can be patched easily however.
Console games are beginning to come close to PC games in terms of complexity, with the next generation of consoles around the corner now, so what will happen when a serious bug is found in a console game, that can't be fixed on the server side?
This wouldn't really work for console games, because only a very slim minority of consoles are ever plugged into the internet.
A vast number of PCs, gaming PCs are internet connected so they have the capability of making micropayments.
Clearly this is a move to raise revenue from the "ailing" pc game industry - generally the quality and replayability of a PC game is much higher than a console (eg, half-life, BF1942, hack/angband, etc). Games like that sell once but are played for years after the initial sale, because the replayability is there, and there are mods and so on.
So the gaming industry is at the point where the automotive industry was at years ago... why on earth make a product that is so good that the buyer will use it and use it and use it and won't need to replace it ever? Better to make "disposable" product and keep the revenue flowing! Of course this doesn't appeal as much to the PC gamer - the console gamer can easily rent as many games as he or she likes and plough through them quickly. The PC gamer has to front the full cost of each game bought - making the PC gamer a frugal customer indeed! This is where EverQuest is a success story, because the developers spent as much time as they would for any game, but they keep reaping in the cash and they don't need to do any more work to keep the cash coming in.
Interesting, but if you ran that over Einsteins mathematics in some of his work, you'd get the impression he was a preschooler. Hardly the case!
The reason the PC columns scored lower is because PC enthusiasts tend to actually care about what's under the hood, so they will use more technically specific language to describe the components they prefer and which deliver the most cutting edge performance.
Mac users would generally not spend much time discussing the specifics of their equipment, apart from the simple "It isn't a PC. My Mac came from Apple, so it must be good. Mine is blueberry." Which reads very well but on a more human analysis, it shows the user doesn't really understand the inner workings of the device, and some may argue that the Mac is a better machine because of this, but that does not mean that the Mac user is any smarter. In the same vein I would suggest that a mechanic would make a better driver than an accountant, in general, because the mechanic would better understand the mechanism he/she is using, rather than suggesting that an author is a better driver because he can write more legible text.
That's an interesting point you make there. I never considered it would be awkward having full control of the camera, because I'm a PC gamer. In PC games, especially first person shooters where camera control *is* the game, mouselook is the most intuitive interface into a gaming environment. Usually on a PC, if you have a game that doesn't use the mouse correctly, it's a console port.
When you consider that consoles don't generally use the complete analog freedom of mouselook control, camera control would become so much less intuitive, which in turn inhibits the enjoyment of the game for the player. It's an unfortunate tradeoff for the "couch gamer" experience, that your usual couch doesn't have flatspace for a keyboard + mouse, and a game controller doesn't need a flat surface because it completely uses both hands of the player.
One thing to keep in mind with the "sickening 180 degree turns"... A *lot* of people comment on this phenomena, and what I've found is that the problem usually only occurs if you're watching the motion but not controlling it. When you have the mouse in your hand and you know you're going to spin around quickly, your brain doesn't get tricked because you'll be anticipating the turn. That's why people usually don't get sick from running or jumping up and down or looking left and right to cross the street.
I have met one or two people who still can't play FPS games for long durations, but that's a very small minority.
Ahh, but if you gave the user full control with the camera, much like in GTA 3, the game would have been so much better!
Of course, third person camera is really better for combat against multiple opponents, whereas first person camera is better for interacting with your environment. So third person is better suited to console games, which tend to be simpler, faster, with more twitch action than in a PC game.
Honestly? I really don't care what the high end cards do in terms of performance... it's what they cost!
The X600 and whatever nVidia brings into the middle market are what matters, because that's what everyone will be buying. And it's all about price/performance, not just performance.
The real reason nVidia has been dying so bad lately is because they have nothing to compete with the 9600XT. The 5700 Ultra is too expensive considering it performs on par with the 9600... so where will your money go?
But what Valve/ATI are doing is ensuring through what is essentially a payoff that ATI cards are optimised for HL/2 and nVidia (and any other card manufacturers) won't get any optimisations.
I won't say that buying an X800 was a mistake, but I think, and this isn't your fault, that benchmark manipulation and dodgey marketing has mislead you (and a lot of other punters) to believe the X800 is a lot more than it is. It's a great card! And it could stand on it's own merits. So it really is a shame that ATI has to bribe their way into better benchmarks.
I honestly believe that HL/2 will be a great game, and it's just a shame that ATI and Valve are muddying the water with all this backscratching and payoffs and benchmark manipulation.
I did, and a good reply. But let's look at this in terms of a real gamer.
Sound card: Okay, onboard sound is not as good as an Audigy or other high end soundcard.
NIC: What's wrong with your onboard network? Or do you do routing on your system? I generally keep that on a different system to my gaming rig, I can keep it tucked out of the way as well, so I can switch off my gaming system when not in use. Also, having a server is easier for managing torrents, etc. So there's one potential free PCI.
TV Tuner + TV Tuner, if that's what you like then fine, but spending the money on two decent TV tuners just got you the money to buy that expensive high end powerhungry card. So we're guessing you only have 5 PCI slots, that's fair enough, but your system is not optimised for gaming at all, rather for TV capture (5 HDDs!).
I'd have to say you really are positioned in a bit of a rare situation, people in general would rather waste a spare PCI slot on the GeForce than an IDE card for two extra HDD's. In the future, and that's what the GeForce really represents, things to come, you'd probably have at least 6-8 SATA connectors on your mainboard, no need to use an external IDE adaptor at all, and we're going to have to deal with GPU's and CPU's getting a lot bigger and hotter. Just look at intels clumsy new P4's! I understand the heat sinks on those double as a george foreman grill. So we can expect more and more GPU's taking two slots (some of ATI's prototypes have been in the same form factor).
5 HDD's? Wow. I guess between the server and my gaming rig I have 4 in use, and I'm not filling those up too quickly.
The best parts about this kind of bill is that it sets the industries and corporations against each other. Sony, Phillips, Apple and hundreds of other companies make a fat profit living off the playback of media - and so preventing them from making say, an iPod, would really hurt them. So they're going to lobby against this kind of bill.
Except of course that Sony is also a proponent of such a bill. We might not have an ally, but the enemy of our enemy...
The root of the problem is console and console conversion games. Not a troll, hear me out. As the article suggests, the key problems with camera angles in games are all control related - unpredictable controls, and camera angles that don't show you the most useful view at the time.
The consoles are getting better, but initially, there are two problems that caused developers to *have* to make bad decisions with regards to camera.
Firstly, resources. Console games haven't always been able to afford complete freedom with the camera, because of their poor resourcing. Developers have done great things in terms of optimisation, but they haven't been able to allow end users to fully control the camera (Sands of Time for instance) because they may go over a scene with too many polygons, and then get framerate problems. PC gamers tend to have to optimise the system themselves, choosing the right resolution and quality so this is not an issue (unless you don't know how to change your graphics settings).
Secondly, controls. With no decent analog control available for consoles until very recently, it just wouldn't make sense to allow the player to control the game. So the developers have had to "decide" algorithmically what the best angle is for the player to use. Oddly enough, that method sucks. Not a problem for PC gamers, they've always had mice, and therefore 100% control over the camera (until the recent glut of console ports from cheap publishers). Of course there are now mice for PS/2 and X-Box... but how can you use a mouse on the couch?
Still, ever so slightly more useful than the current XP "firewall" that blocks "some" incoming traffic. Oh well.
That's not the best way to look at the market. I look at the high end cards and I think, hey, that's where gaming will be for everyone with a budget system in 12 or so months, that's great.
I always buy at the budget end of the curve, having just bought a great 9600XT for $230AUD, which more than doubles the performance of my last card. I upgrade every 12-18 months depending on how rich I'm feeling, and how the market looks compared to the way my games are running.
So I'm looking at these benchmarks with great interest.
ATI paid Valve $5M to ensure that they had the better benchmarks, which is why you also see HL2 vouchers coming with your ATI graphics cards at the high end.
Of course, Valve have been absolutely shocking in terms of their professional conduct compared to iD.
DooM3 alpha leaks. iD: Oh wow, this is pretty sucky, we're going to look into it, see what we can find out, sack someone or something.
HL-2 code leaks. Valve: OMG we got haxored by terrorists patriot act save us DMCA! FBI help help help now we're not going to release our game until someone is in jail help mummy.
iD on graphics technology: A reasonable analysis of current market technologies, some degree of criticism towards the GF4-MX and the rendering paths of the GF-FX series.
Valve on graphics technology: Silence. ($5M later...) ATI is resoundingly the only card that can give you a decent gaming experience.
If you'll remember, ATI did pay Valve $5M to make sure that ATI cards came out on top of the benchmarks, which is also why you get a HL2 voucher with your high-end ATI card.
There are no coincidences.
That is a really bizarre comment. Think about it for a minute.
Let's assume that you do more than just game on your PC - well fair enough, I check my email and use IM/IRC and do web browsing, anywhere up to 10% of the time! So maybe I don't feel like I need to upgrade my PC for the next generation of games, although I know I will, it's my pride and joy, and I enjoy gaming with decent hardware (I still buy on the budget curve nonetheless).
So, you have these power connectors and PCI slots in your system, and you are adamantly refusing to allow a graphics adapter to use them.
What in heck are you planning to do with these slots and plugs then, huh?
Don't worry about conflict of interest, despite the clear fact that the *same* rendering paths are used for all the new high end cards. Go have a look at GameTab once the game is released and you'll see a veritable plethora of benchmarks, and then you'll have a much better idea. Although seriously, I think if you can trust any games producer in the entire industry, that person will be Carmack. He was the first person to flame the heck out of nVidia for the GF4-MX cards, remember? He also said some really harsh words about the GF-FX range of cards and their unusual optimisations and quality problems (all fixed in the latest generation).
Also remember that the relationship between iD and nVidia is not nearly as blatant and paid-for as the Valve-ATI relationship ($5M I believe for better benchmarks on ATI cards).
Certainly, one set of benchmarks is never good enough to make a definite decision, although of all benchmarks we're going to see released, benchmarks from Carmack would have to be the most singly indicative that you will see.
Couple of relevant things:
Windows XP SP2 will include a reverse firewall that is enabled by default. Unfortunately it will be released, for compatibility reasons, after Duke Nukem Forever.
Principle Scientist for Verisign? The same company with the terrorists/geniuses (what's in a name?) who decided to hijack the DNS system and send it to a search portal that pays them money each time it gets used? Thanks a lot. I'll take advice from a great company like that.
Just wait for the upgradeable consoles to start hitting the market! They're already plugging keyboards and mice into consoles to try and make them play FPS games properly. AI assisted aim, sheesh. What are consoles, kindergarten toys?
Call me an enthusiast, but I don't wait for a new game to come out before I upgrade. I buy at the sweet spot, where you get powerful, cheap components at very reasonable prices.
All the games I'm currently playing play better than ever, and all the new games work just fine.
Furthermore, when you buy at the sweet spot, you get core components at a lower price than a new console anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if PS3/Xbox neXt cost $1,000 AUD when first released. That will get you a much nicer PC to play games with.
Rome:Total War (like any other Total War title) is a TBS with a pausable, variable time combat resolution system, much like Star Wars:Rebellion and Birth of the Federation. It's anything but a RTS in the way it plays.
Please check your facts.
Or have I just been trolled?