Uhm. The article you're linking to is a spoof. You could have reflected that in your post instead of trying to sound serious. Trolls, trolls, trolls, and here's me with no mod points.
AMD CPU's have always offered more bang for the buck than Intel. (Since K7/Athlon anyway).
On the other hand, ATI have only just recently (with the badly screwed up introduction of the Gefore 5xxx series) outperformed nVidia in all three important areas: Quality, Power and Price/Value.
So while my next CPU is AMD, my next GPU is ATI (Sorry nVidia).
Having said that, if AMD is now outselling intel do I have to stop being an AMD fanboy now?
Higher quality games? Does this mean they'll stop writing for consoles?
Oh wait, this is XBox central here. So what they mean is that they're going to let iD software continue to make few and high quality games then whine until they port them to XBox, while they continue to write drivel for people to run at 640x480 teevee resolution.
I never said you weren't in a position to judge whether a particular monitor is useful for gaming. You disqualified yourself. I was just pointing out how amusing it is that you opted to go ahead and qualify monitors as suitable or unsuitable anyway.
It's just like an MSCE popping in and saying "Hi, I wouldn't know linux if it slapped me, but Redhat is a great distro and SUSE is no good at all." Now this guy might OWN a redhat support agreement but that simply does not qualify him as a great judge of linux distros.
There are a lot of people around who think because they own an example of a technology that they are somehow experts in the field, that their opinion somehow carries the weight of a guru. I'm afraid it doesn't. I've seen a LOT of lan parties. I've seen a LOT of TFT's being used for games. I can tell you that LCD does not come close to CRT for image quality.
I didn't say you weren't qualified from having an informed opinion. But you just told everyone on Slashdot that you weren't a gamer who likes FPS games (which certainly takes you away from cutting edge image quality, apologies to the strategy and RPG crowd). Then you went and told everyone on Slashdot that you think a particular monitor is suitable for gaming (presumably FPS gaming, that you admit you don't like). Then you told everyone on Slashdot that you find a particular, well documented image quality DEFECT improves the FPS gameplay for you. Doesn't that strike you as being a little odd?
To further the parent along, the high end CPU's like the Athlon64 and the P4EE are extremely under-used in most scenarios. There is enough processing power for todays OS's and apps. This is why intel and AMD can look at power reductive CPU's, because there's enough room to play around, nobody will really notice if it's a bit slower for the sake of making it quiet and conservative.
But games can't get enough GPU yet, so ATI and nVidia have to keep pushing, and the demand is there in the market to keep making faster and more powerful GPUs.
Possibly because Toms is in the big league of review sites, so he gets sent so many different monitors and cpu's and gpu's and cases and other fun toys that he's practically unbribeable.
It's a lot easier to be objective if both nVidia and ATI send you the latest and greatest cards. If you only got an nVidia card for free and ATI didn't send you one, you'd push out a great review for nVidia.
I'm not a "pro" gamer, and I don't really like FPS games
And
but the motion blur - if that is the correct term - actually makes games more enjoyable
Which is much like a person saying they're not a pharmacist and recommending drugs to take for various conditions. I suppose some people just like to talk. About anything. Even though they've just disqualified themselves from making informed or useful commentary.
"Every Extend" is the name of the game. It's a pretty average translation from Japanese to English You think that's bad?
There's this new game out there called "Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow". That's not the funny part. The developers *wanted* to call it that. In english.
A buddy of mine got an MX440 and he was playing Far Cry. With a good CPU behind it, at average resolution, the game ran surprisingly smoothly.
The image quality left a lot to be desired, however. I even get an okay image quality with my Ti4200.
Far Cry scales with excellence, however, and I'm looking forward to seeing it after my next upgrade. (I've had that Ti4200 for a couple of long years now).
I think Klingon Academy handled the aspects of controlling the starship better. You could quite easily let the crew handle just about everything, or you could give out specific orders if you felt that you needed them. You had similar options in Bridge Commander but it was a lot more cludgy.
The humble truth is that Halo got such great reviews for XBox because it's the closest thing the XBox had to looking like a PC game. On the PC, Halo looks just like all the rest.
Actually, no. The earlier and latter sections of the books deal with hobbits as a topical matter, and four of the 9 or 10 main characters are hobbits, however they hobbits are merely storytellers.
The real story deals with the journey of the Ring, the return of the heir to Isildur to Gondor and his actions redeeming the sins of Isildur (this is possibly intended to allow the readers to see that Aragorn has the right to return his line to the throne), and of course the destruction of Sauron, the last of the great servants of Melkor.
To say that Lord of the Rings was about hobbits is much like saying that Fight Club was a movie about Edward Norton.
Microsoft having a monopoly is *always* on topic here at Slashdot. From your number I would have thought you'd have noticed that by now.
I digress, however. Microsoft have a monopoly because the US judicial system and the EEC equivalent have determined this as a finding of law, by due judicial process. Therefore, to assert that Microsoft is not a monopoly implies that either
a) You don't recognise the US/european legal systems, thus making you some kind of anarchist or b) You work for Microsoft or SCO or c) You've been living in a cave since the late 70's and haven't noticed the prevalence of Windows on the desktop, the way MS determines the driver models used by OEMs, or the anticompetitive pricing they're using to pressure the industry, or the bundling of products to eliminate non-bundled competitors (see Netscape).
I never thought about it like that before, but you're right. There was a casual attitude around Star Wars that made the actors very relaxed, you could tell, at least in the first movie, that they were all enjoying themselves. If you look at the Holiday special, you can see that they were also enjoying themselves there, with the aid of some crack, but then that's what fame does to a series.
I beg to differ. Ewan McGregor, Christopher Lee, Samuel Jackson, Frank Oz and even Natalie Portman are all well established actors who have all delivered excellent performances.
Why then do the performances suck in the first two episodes? Because the script is bad and the direction is worse. The actors are fighting with blue screen (not MS) sets and Lucas really getting his hands in and asking for wooden dialog. He's choosing cuts with some of the worst performances. Why he does this is a complete mystery. If left to themselves, I am certain that the actors could turn that script into some real magic.
The only real problem with Kotor is that the combat wasn't nearly strategic enough, so the game comes out with the tried and true awesome D20 system (it's successful, it wouldn't be if it was bad), but then it dumbs it down like some feebleminded Final Fantasy wannabe.
All the elements are there, storyline, RPG system, stats, artwork, soundtrack, all the right elements, but they tied it together in a rather limited way. Hopefully Kotor 2 will exceed Kotor by not dumbing down the system as much as they did with the original.
Console gamers and their tiny intellects will be the death of us all I fear.
XWing: Alliance was great! Same engine, solid storyline, and the first time you get to see a super-star destroyer. Not to mention that it had much better graphics on the same trustworthy engine.
Instead of continuing with this great and under-used engine, they decided to make Starfighter. Now Starfighter really sucked.
I didn't add those because I never played them, but I have no reason the believe they wouldn't be good games, because I've heard good things about them.
I'd say about 40% of all the star wars games out there are really good? I say this as both a gamer and a star wars fanboy, so that's a pretty fair statement for someone who might otherwise be biased.
I'm not happy, they're not making X-Wing games anymore. KOTOR is all well and good but it's not the same genre. And don't get me started on all these console games! Ack!
Slashdot Mirror
Uhm. The article you're linking to is a spoof. You could have reflected that in your post instead of trying to sound serious. Trolls, trolls, trolls, and here's me with no mod points.
I don't know about that!
AMD CPU's have always offered more bang for the buck than Intel. (Since K7/Athlon anyway).
On the other hand, ATI have only just recently (with the badly screwed up introduction of the Gefore 5xxx series) outperformed nVidia in all three important areas: Quality, Power and Price/Value.
So while my next CPU is AMD, my next GPU is ATI (Sorry nVidia).
Having said that, if AMD is now outselling intel do I have to stop being an AMD fanboy now?
I'll agree with that. The quality of just about every open source game I've seen surpasses every game in the same scope.
There's even a couple of open source mmorpg's being developed.
What about Ubisoft?
Ubisoft are very well integrated into the PC gaming arena, having licenses for several pretty major titles and so on.
Although of course we stand on the brink of the death of PC gaming so they might not count for much longer.
Hmm... I don't know about that Windows 3.*
It was good for it's time, but it was an awful product compared to what we have today.
One upside was that it didn't have a web browser bundled with it, but then it was really just a shell for DOS anyway.
Back then, given the choice, I would have chosen a Mac. And I hate macs.
Higher quality games? Does this mean they'll stop writing for consoles?
Oh wait, this is XBox central here. So what they mean is that they're going to let iD software continue to make few and high quality games then whine until they port them to XBox, while they continue to write drivel for people to run at 640x480 teevee resolution.
I never said you weren't in a position to judge whether a particular monitor is useful for gaming. You disqualified yourself. I was just pointing out how amusing it is that you opted to go ahead and qualify monitors as suitable or unsuitable anyway.
It's just like an MSCE popping in and saying "Hi, I wouldn't know linux if it slapped me, but Redhat is a great distro and SUSE is no good at all." Now this guy might OWN a redhat support agreement but that simply does not qualify him as a great judge of linux distros.
There are a lot of people around who think because they own an example of a technology that they are somehow experts in the field, that their opinion somehow carries the weight of a guru. I'm afraid it doesn't. I've seen a LOT of lan parties. I've seen a LOT of TFT's being used for games. I can tell you that LCD does not come close to CRT for image quality.
I didn't say you weren't qualified from having an informed opinion. But you just told everyone on Slashdot that you weren't a gamer who likes FPS games (which certainly takes you away from cutting edge image quality, apologies to the strategy and RPG crowd). Then you went and told everyone on Slashdot that you think a particular monitor is suitable for gaming (presumably FPS gaming, that you admit you don't like). Then you told everyone on Slashdot that you find a particular, well documented image quality DEFECT improves the FPS gameplay for you. Doesn't that strike you as being a little odd?
To further the parent along, the high end CPU's like the Athlon64 and the P4EE are extremely under-used in most scenarios. There is enough processing power for todays OS's and apps. This is why intel and AMD can look at power reductive CPU's, because there's enough room to play around, nobody will really notice if it's a bit slower for the sake of making it quiet and conservative.
But games can't get enough GPU yet, so ATI and nVidia have to keep pushing, and the demand is there in the market to keep making faster and more powerful GPUs.
One of the many, many things you can enjoy doing if you buy the game.
Otherwise it's thoroughly disturbing, although setting elephants and dogs and cats and people on fire does have some twisted appeal.
Possibly because Toms is in the big league of review sites, so he gets sent so many different monitors and cpu's and gpu's and cases and other fun toys that he's practically unbribeable.
It's a lot easier to be objective if both nVidia and ATI send you the latest and greatest cards. If you only got an nVidia card for free and ATI didn't send you one, you'd push out a great review for nVidia.
I'm not a "pro" gamer, and I don't really like FPS games
And
but the motion blur - if that is the correct term - actually makes games more enjoyable
Which is much like a person saying they're not a pharmacist and recommending drugs to take for various conditions. I suppose some people just like to talk. About anything. Even though they've just disqualified themselves from making informed or useful commentary.
"Every Extend" is the name of the game. It's a pretty average translation from Japanese to English
You think that's bad?
There's this new game out there called "Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow". That's not the funny part. The developers *wanted* to call it that. In english.
Go figure. Or tell me what it's supposed to mean!
A buddy of mine got an MX440 and he was playing Far Cry. With a good CPU behind it, at average resolution, the game ran surprisingly smoothly.
The image quality left a lot to be desired, however. I even get an okay image quality with my Ti4200.
Far Cry scales with excellence, however, and I'm looking forward to seeing it after my next upgrade. (I've had that Ti4200 for a couple of long years now).
I think Klingon Academy handled the aspects of controlling the starship better. You could quite easily let the crew handle just about everything, or you could give out specific orders if you felt that you needed them. You had similar options in Bridge Commander but it was a lot more cludgy.
Mafia had both awesome graphics and excellent storyline, but it didn't make such a huge impact. Any ideas?
The humble truth is that Halo got such great reviews for XBox because it's the closest thing the XBox had to looking like a PC game. On the PC, Halo looks just like all the rest.
Actually, no. The earlier and latter sections of the books deal with hobbits as a topical matter, and four of the 9 or 10 main characters are hobbits, however they hobbits are merely storytellers.
The real story deals with the journey of the Ring, the return of the heir to Isildur to Gondor and his actions redeeming the sins of Isildur (this is possibly intended to allow the readers to see that Aragorn has the right to return his line to the throne), and of course the destruction of Sauron, the last of the great servants of Melkor.
To say that Lord of the Rings was about hobbits is much like saying that Fight Club was a movie about Edward Norton.
Microsoft having a monopoly is *always* on topic here at Slashdot. From your number I would have thought you'd have noticed that by now.
I digress, however. Microsoft have a monopoly because the US judicial system and the EEC equivalent have determined this as a finding of law, by due judicial process. Therefore, to assert that Microsoft is not a monopoly implies that either
a) You don't recognise the US/european legal systems, thus making you some kind of anarchist
or
b) You work for Microsoft or SCO
or
c) You've been living in a cave since the late 70's and haven't noticed the prevalence of Windows on the desktop, the way MS determines the driver models used by OEMs, or the anticompetitive pricing they're using to pressure the industry, or the bundling of products to eliminate non-bundled competitors (see Netscape).
I never thought about it like that before, but you're right. There was a casual attitude around Star Wars that made the actors very relaxed, you could tell, at least in the first movie, that they were all enjoying themselves. If you look at the Holiday special, you can see that they were also enjoying themselves there, with the aid of some crack, but then that's what fame does to a series.
I beg to differ. Ewan McGregor, Christopher Lee, Samuel Jackson, Frank Oz and even Natalie Portman are all well established actors who have all delivered excellent performances.
Why then do the performances suck in the first two episodes? Because the script is bad and the direction is worse. The actors are fighting with blue screen (not MS) sets and Lucas really getting his hands in and asking for wooden dialog. He's choosing cuts with some of the worst performances. Why he does this is a complete mystery. If left to themselves, I am certain that the actors could turn that script into some real magic.
The only real problem with Kotor is that the combat wasn't nearly strategic enough, so the game comes out with the tried and true awesome D20 system (it's successful, it wouldn't be if it was bad), but then it dumbs it down like some feebleminded Final Fantasy wannabe.
All the elements are there, storyline, RPG system, stats, artwork, soundtrack, all the right elements, but they tied it together in a rather limited way. Hopefully Kotor 2 will exceed Kotor by not dumbing down the system as much as they did with the original.
Console gamers and their tiny intellects will be the death of us all I fear.
XWing: Alliance was great! Same engine, solid storyline, and the first time you get to see a super-star destroyer. Not to mention that it had much better graphics on the same trustworthy engine.
Instead of continuing with this great and under-used engine, they decided to make Starfighter. Now Starfighter really sucked.
I didn't add those because I never played them, but I have no reason the believe they wouldn't be good games, because I've heard good things about them.
I'd say about 40% of all the star wars games out there are really good? I say this as both a gamer and a star wars fanboy, so that's a pretty fair statement for someone who might otherwise be biased.
I'm not happy, they're not making X-Wing games anymore. KOTOR is all well and good but it's not the same genre. And don't get me started on all these console games! Ack!
Huh, that's a very misinformed or inaccurate viewpoint. Let's look at history:
Labyrinth: Outstanding game for its time
Monkey Island series (1 through 4): Great games, all of them
Sam and Max Hit the Road: Awesome game
Force Commander: Utter pants
Rogue Squadron: Godawful kindergarten shooter
Obi Wan: Terrible! Stop!
Starfighter: Fricken useless childish replacement for the older X-Wing/Tie Fighter games