> Plus, you get the added bonus of knowing without a shadow of a doubt that they're never, ever going to kill off a character until they've run a few seasons down the pipe and determined viewer reaction.
That's not how Joss Whedon does it. He makes you *LIKE* the characters before he kills them off. Season 2 of Buffy, he turned the heroine's love into a monster who rivals Hannibal Lector in terms of genius brutality, killed off the one person who knew how to save him, and ended the season by having the heroine send her love to Hell for eternity (who had *just* returned to his former self).
You want me to list all the tragedies that occured in that show? Just as you were getting to like a character, or become comfortable with them, they have an aneurism, or get their eye poked out, or get shot in the chest and die. Buffy herself died twice.
He's done it in his other show, Angel, too - at least four main characters died in the five season run.
You don't kill off anyone important in the first season because the audience hasn't had time to get attached yet. If you can count on anything in the Whedonverse, it's that characters you care about are not immortal.
> What other purpose could it possibly have? Oh, I don't know - maybe training for the military?
It's not exactly true-to-life, but the Army has been using video games as training utilities for possibly 10 years. When they first introduced a Delta Force-type game to their soldiers, they found that the soldiers were voluntarily playing at all hours - voluntarily training.
It was a totally new concept for them. And you know what? It took off. I'd say that counts as another purpose.
This isn't the first time the public has received some of the military's modifications. Some of the modifications made to Operation: Flashpoint for use in the Army made it into O:F's expansion.
It won't be the last time, either. Full Spectrum Warrior is being used for training those commanding troops.
You're comming down really hard on something just based on a assumption.
Whoops, my bad - TLV is definately a Blizzard game, but I was thinking of MDK2 and not the original. Bioware also did (a PS2 version of MDK2?) MDK2:Armageddon and Shattered Steel - none of which did as well as their main franchises, but I'd say that since Baldur's Gate they've been routinely successful.
Game Machine: 1) Motherboard Drivers from CD 2) Updated mobo drivers from web once NIC is working 3) Critical / Security patches (winUpdate) 4) Mozilla / Firefox 5) Latest DirectX 6) Video drivers of choice 7) Latest usable FRAPS 8) Battlefield: Vietnam to test (/cough)
What comes next depends on why I reinstalled. A development machine is similar, except:
> Video games by the same developers tend to be hit and miss, mostly because the "core staff" varies so much -- see Bioware, Troika and Interplay (Fallout/2/BOS) for example.
Bad example. Bioware has churned out nothing but hits (The Lost Vikings, MDK, BG/2, NWN+2xpacks, KotOR), while Troika's games never had universal appeal (across the RPG spectrum; Arcanum, ToEE both have loyal followings despite unaccessable gameplay), and Interplay is a publisher; Black Isle is the dev house you meant, which made such brilliant games as FO and FO2, worked with Bioware for BG/2, and was forced out into the cold by Interplay.
Bioware is as to game devs as Ghibli is to animation houses. Also take a look at Blizzard, the late-but-great Looking Glass Studios, Square/Enix, Bethesda, and Rockstar - but keep in mind beauty is in the eye of the beholder. While I love the Final Fantasy series, The Elder Scrolls series, and the GTA franchise, they don't appeal to every gamer.
But then again, neither does Ghibli appeal to every moviegoer.
Ok, why in the hell was the parent modded Offtopic? It's directly replying to the post that said HK-47 - the character from Knights of the Old Republic who received "Original Game Character of the Year" - was very similar to Bender from Futurama.
I disagree. Bender from Futurama didn't actually kill people, he drank a lot, and was generally an irritant as opposed to deadly. HK-47 showed disdain for living creatures well past the point of only being deragatory, was actively used as an Assassin droid to kill hundreds of people, and doesn't drink.
Sure, they both have referred to humans as fleshy constructs less optimum than robots - but that's where the similarities end.
Moderators, please at least *attempt* to see if the post is relevant before jumping to that conclusion since it doesn't contain the words included in the topic's subject.
"...HK-47 (from Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic) took the award for [GDC] Original Game Character of the Year."
That'd be a CHARACTER in a Star Wars game. Can you think of another amnesiac droid serial killer, who calls humans meatbags? HK-47 add a huge amount of feeling to KotOR, with his disdain for living creatures and his sordid past. His translation of the Sand People alone was priceless.
> I've used cheats to level the playing field with games I'm not good at.
> Fact is, cheating becomes acceptable to me if it enables me to enjoy my game that I purchased.
> Seriously, try to understand that people may share other views than you.
First off, if there's no reasoning with you, we don't have to continue this conversation. If you're interested in discussing, please reply.
Your reason for cheating is that it makes the game more fun for you - but what about everyone else? How can you ask other people to understand your viewpoint when you state that theirs is irrelevant to you?
I'm troubled by this, because I spend time and effort to become better at games. I accomplish this by playing within the rules of the game. Why should we condone the actions of people who decide that they don't want to play by these rules?
> Would you play these games if they had Perma - Death?.. my guess is not.
Most certainly I would. You probably weren't addressing me specifically, but let's look at the MUD I played most with permadeath: Gemstone III.
In GS3, you had Deeds to your soul. If you died, you lost a Deed. At that point, you're a corpse laying on the ground. If you're resurrected, you're just out the Deed. If you decay (a corpse has a 20min timer or whatever), you lose another Deed and respawn at your home temple. If you die or decay without enough Deeds, you lose your character.
Deeds cost money based on your current level and how many Deeds you already had. The typical number to be running around with was 5 - that allows for a bit of leeway (a couple "free" deaths before you were in danger of losing your character).
My first character ever, Jorganthalas, was an Elven Ranger. He met his end to a couple of Hobgoblins at level 7. I wasn't careful, and couldn't get a rez (it was like 3am), so I lost him for good.
The potential loss of a character makes you become more attached to it. In GS3's case, there was enough of a buffer that perma-death never came as a complete surprise; you knew what was going on, and you were clearly warned it could happen.
Arguably, games as they are now are "so easy". Since you never die, there's no risk! As we move closer and closer towards a "No XP loss / No anything loss" death system, you basically remove the penalty for dying - so there's no reason _not to die_.
Why fight to live when you risk nothing in death? Why take pride in "not dying a lot" when you can take pride in _living_?
> So a legal system cannot following the real world courts and jails too closely.
Well, it depends on what we're looking for. Part of what the generic "griefer" looks for is suspense. With actual punishment, it increases the suspsense. It's true that you probably can't jail griefers "for life", but what's the odds that the society in a MMOG would _want_ to jail him/her/it for that long? It's much more likely they'd just execute the criminal (and, heck, depending on the type of society, there might be a death penalty for less serious crimes).
We could even treat jailed characters as "dead" (albeit temporarily), and allow the player to create an "offspring" character to play (without the asset transition). That's a little more harsh than the victim gets, but it's pretty fair retribution.
I imagine such a system could be extensively tinkered with until the right balance of risk, reward, and pending legal action is reached (it could even vary area to area).
> permanent death may sound like a great idea, until the griefers start coming after the newbies.
If that's the only barrier, why not implement a system to discourage griefers from coming after newbies? Seriously, why don't we have bullies _actually killing people_ in real life? Because they'd be carted off to Kiddy Prison.
One of the reasons people don't break laws is because of the punishments. If you don't want your players engaging in anti-social behavior, prevent those players from being a part of society. Have actual character jails, where offenders can be "helled" (to borrow a MUD term) for a period of time proportional to the severity of their crime.
Couple that with a character death system that "respawns" permanently dead characters as offspring (children, clones, whatever) that inherit the possessions of their parent-figure, and you've got a way to pass on the material goods from character instance to character instance.
You'd still lose all of the dead character's experience, but in a non-"level-oriented" system, you can make that a hell of a lot less painful (heck, you could even have the "children" start with a certain percentage of inherited skill).
Part of the populace's reluctance to engage in PvP is that, generally speaking, these games have immature PvP systems. I think the majority of the problem, however, is the totally anti-PvP crowd's desire to harp on any potential negative experience to their gameplay.
Warmonger: One who advocates or attempts to stir up war.
Pro-active: Acting in advance to deal with an expected difficulty; anticipatory.
They're not mutually exclusive, but in no way does being pro-active equate to warmongering. This isn't calling for a "President" to step down, this isn't blockading a nation's harbor; this is a _draft_, not even an upcoming action but a _concept for a plan_. Since, as far as I know, _no one owns space_, this is _not_ invading a country. Please refer to the definition of Warmonger, and come back later.
> The US is very much capable to defend themselves as it is today.
That would be your opinion, to which you are very much entitled. I, however, disagree with the concept that we should be content to sit on our laurels because some have the opinion that our military is just fine the way it is, and needs no modifications.
> Where is the threat that would suggest that an even bigger military force is needed?
Why do we need to be actively threatened before we can improve our military? If this inititive makes our military SMALLER by reducing the number of active troops required, would it then make you happy?
> The thing is that it looks like the US want to have a big offensive capability for some reason.
Again, this is _your interpretation_. I view it as drafting up a potential for improving our military. If we can use advanced technology to put the men and women of our military at less risk, I say it's worth investigating!
> Most countries is NOT in a decent relationship with the US.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where one or more countries declared war, imposed sanctions, or we were warned by the UN. Please, note each recognized country who is in a state of war with us and list them for me.
> Compare it with the kid at school...
Wake up. This does not boil down to a schoolyard analogy. We're not talking about toys or bullies. We're talking about _real life_ - the lives of _millions_ of Americans who our government is there to represent. It is the _duty_ of our military to protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
> Be sure that many countries hate the US with a passion but they are to afraid to take a stand.
Um, why on Earth would we want them to take a stand? I'm all for them airing out their grievances (and then dealing with it in a peaceful, civilized manner), but if guns in space keep our citizens safe from those who wish to do them harm, why is this a bad thing?
> It is sad to watch the US turn into a terror state hellbent on ruling the world.
Elaborate, pretentious, and intellectually vacuous. I've seen no indication that 1) the US is a terror state, nor 2) the US is hellbent on ruling the world. You might try mixing in some fact with your fictitious rhetoric.
> Lets hope the administration gets changed to something less warhappy and perhaps a it more interested in all US citizens than of enriching a few select people.
Whaaa...? Where the hell did you get the logic that warhappy == enriching a few select people?
Also, please note that while we [the US] is currently in a decent relationship (or at least non-warring) with the majority of the other countries, this does not preclude other countries from developing superior military technology and hurling stones/whatever at *us* from space. As our military is there _to protect us_, I'm glad they're looking forward instead of doing nothing. Pro-active != Warmongering.
Finally, note that a broke wacko in the desert who finds mustard gas can as thoroughly use it to kill US citizens as stones hurled from space. I'd greatly prefer to be on the receiving end of neither.
Of course, you're absolutely right. I expect the next gen of consoles to support commonly used HD resolutions, as well as whatever might be on the local horizon.
But since one of the arguments on "coding for consoles is easier" is that you have a fixed display resolution, the inclusion of said additional resolutions makes for additional effort (and detracts from "the simplicity").
I think it's fascinating that, over time, consoles are approaching pre-fab computers. Hopefully, us PC gamers will be able to take a page from their book and boot some sort of game-centric OS where technical issues will be minimized.
To catch you up, we've been talking about which group would be "easier" to develop for. 1337-ness has not entered the discussion.
We've decided that each system has strengths and weaknesses, and that game development is not as easy as picking a target platform and starting to code.
Personally, I own five computers, a PS2, a Xbox, a GCN, and a GBA:SP. I'm also learning DX9/OGL, so I can try some of this myself. I've currently been playing BG:DA2, Metroid Prime, and Kingdom Hearts. I had hoped to get back to BF1942, but FF:CC and Champions of Norrath are (will be) keeping me sufficiently distracted.
> Even with three consoles, three targets is an easier thing to deal with than, say, 5 video cards speeds X 5 cpu speeds = 25 "speed" configurations.
Except the three consoles have vastly dissimilar architecture. Coding for a PS2 != GCN != Xbox. And once you make an Xbox version, there's not much stopping a developer from jumping to the PC. Coding for different _types_ of hardware requirements (CPU speeds, graphic cards) is significantly different than coding for entirely different hardware.
> And even then, I've simplified the picture for PCs.
You paint a much bleaker picture than is actually the case. DX8 code is forward compatible with DX9, and DX has gotten significantly more cleaned up over the years. It's much easier to support _additional_ functionality now, including detecting the capabilities of the graphics card and offloading anything that it can do in hardware off from DX's software.
It's as easy as coding for a baseline - like picking a target console - and then adding additional effects as you see fit.
>...the limited resolution makes it easier to develop for, not harder.
We're looking at the same thing from different angles. The number of pixels you can display information on in 480i is _significantly_ lower than the number of available pixels in 1600x1200. PCs are able to present a much, much higher quality image - with the baseline of 480i, you have the additional headache of trying to present your image in an extremely limited environment.
Regardless, the number of pixels available is only part of the problem. The other part is the limited hardware - how many polys with different effects you can display, and how good they look. There's also multisampling (AA), which consoles have only barely scratched the surface of (Xbox supports 2xAA).
> Many PS2/XBox games have support for progressive scan (e.g. 480p/720p).
The PS2 & GCN support 480p, the Xbox supports 480p, 720p, and 1080i. There are very, very few games that support 1080i (3?), and a mere handful that supports 720p (10?). HDTV is not even remotely standard, and that is highly unlikely to change in the immediate future. I think that if the next round of consoles assumes HDTV will be standard, that they are in for a rude surprise.
>...[fewer controls is] simply another hardware restriction, which makes it easier to handle because there is less variety.
Except fewer controls means that it is more difficult to require certain tasks of the user. FPSes are a great example of a really rough transition onto consoles. With the Xbox and Halo, your traditionally button-pressing right thumb is stuck on the right thumbstick, halving the number of buttons available to you. The PS2 has four shoulder buttons, so it's _slightly_ better. Still, 4-6 non-movement buttons for a FPS?
And don't even start with RTSes.
More options does not equal more restrictions - it's the opposite. And since functionality is often duplicated amongst the multiple control types (mouse, keyboard, joystick), we're not talking about huge amounts of effort. Shoot = mouse_1, joy_1, Ctrl.
> Not sure I see the [Children's Books] analogy.
I'm saying that targeting a simpler audience doesn't necessarily make it easier for the targeter to tell a really great story. We have books for adults as well as kids because adults have different, more complex tastes. I'm not reading Green Eggs and Ham in my spare time.
Developing games for a console has its own problems, quirks, and issues. It's not as simple as "consoles have set hardware, therefore it's easier". That's just one tiny part of the whole picture.
> The beauty of consoles has always been that you know, as a developer, whether the game will work on everyone's system based on a single data point: whether it works in the exact same console you have sitting in your office.
Except, of course, that console developers get special Development Kit versions of the consoles, that are more powerful and capable of outputting higher resolutions.
I'm sure they have access to the "normal" consoles as well, but it's an important distinction to make.
I always thought the "consoles are better for developers because it's a single target" was specious reasoning. Not only do the majority of games come out for multiple platforms, but they have several built-in limitations that are impossible to get around without forcing the player to spend more money (Final Fantasy:Crystal Chronicles, for an example). Consoles have limited graphics capability (due to the extremely poor resolution of the standard television) and a very limited control set (even the Xbox's 4-axis 10 button controller pales in comparison to a mouse with a wheel, and a 102+ keyboard), as well as a nonexistant mod base.
That's like saying Children's Books are better for Authors because children have a lower common denominator.
I was under the impression that it was three movies after Nemo, but I could be wrong.
As for lasting films, IMDB's top 10 animated films includes Nemo, Toy Story/2, and Monsters INC (couldn't remember if Shrek was a Pixar film). Personal preference aside, it does appear as if people greatly enjoy Pixar's films. So it's possible that, whatever happens to them after Disney, their fans will follow them.
But being slightly cynical, I can't help but wonder if even a lower quality knockoff spun out through Disney's ad machine would generate a revenue on a similar scale.
Don't write 'em off yet. Pixar still has three movies it owes Disney. How long has it been since the last three Pixar films? How long do you think it would take Disney to setup a Pixar knock-off?
Slashdot Mirror
> Plus, you get the added bonus of knowing without a shadow of a doubt that they're never, ever going to kill off a character until they've run a few seasons down the pipe and determined viewer reaction.
That's not how Joss Whedon does it. He makes you *LIKE* the characters before he kills them off. Season 2 of Buffy, he turned the heroine's love into a monster who rivals Hannibal Lector in terms of genius brutality, killed off the one person who knew how to save him, and ended the season by having the heroine send her love to Hell for eternity (who had *just* returned to his former self).
You want me to list all the tragedies that occured in that show? Just as you were getting to like a character, or become comfortable with them, they have an aneurism, or get their eye poked out, or get shot in the chest and die. Buffy herself died twice.
He's done it in his other show, Angel, too - at least four main characters died in the five season run.
You don't kill off anyone important in the first season because the audience hasn't had time to get attached yet. If you can count on anything in the Whedonverse, it's that characters you care about are not immortal.
-lw
> What other purpose could it possibly have?
Oh, I don't know - maybe training for the military?
It's not exactly true-to-life, but the Army has been using video games as training utilities for possibly 10 years. When they first introduced a Delta Force-type game to their soldiers, they found that the soldiers were voluntarily playing at all hours - voluntarily training.
It was a totally new concept for them. And you know what? It took off. I'd say that counts as another purpose.
This isn't the first time the public has received some of the military's modifications. Some of the modifications made to Operation: Flashpoint for use in the Army made it into O:F's expansion.
It won't be the last time, either. Full Spectrum Warrior is being used for training those commanding troops.
You're comming down really hard on something just based on a assumption.
-lw
Whoops, my bad - TLV is definately a Blizzard game, but I was thinking of MDK2 and not the original. Bioware also did (a PS2 version of MDK2?) MDK2:Armageddon and Shattered Steel - none of which did as well as their main franchises, but I'd say that since Baldur's Gate they've been routinely successful.
-lw
Game Machine:
1) Motherboard Drivers from CD
2) Updated mobo drivers from web once NIC is working
3) Critical / Security patches (winUpdate)
4) Mozilla / Firefox
5) Latest DirectX
6) Video drivers of choice
7) Latest usable FRAPS
8) Battlefield: Vietnam to test (/cough)
What comes next depends on why I reinstalled. A development machine is similar, except:
7) Java/whatever SDK
8) Eclipse/IDE of choice
9) WinAmp
0) OpenOffice
-lw
> Video games by the same developers tend to be hit and miss, mostly because the "core staff" varies so much -- see Bioware, Troika and Interplay (Fallout/2/BOS) for example.
Bad example. Bioware has churned out nothing but hits (The Lost Vikings, MDK, BG/2, NWN+2xpacks, KotOR), while Troika's games never had universal appeal (across the RPG spectrum; Arcanum, ToEE both have loyal followings despite unaccessable gameplay), and Interplay is a publisher; Black Isle is the dev house you meant, which made such brilliant games as FO and FO2, worked with Bioware for BG/2, and was forced out into the cold by Interplay.
Bioware is as to game devs as Ghibli is to animation houses. Also take a look at Blizzard, the late-but-great Looking Glass Studios, Square/Enix, Bethesda, and Rockstar - but keep in mind beauty is in the eye of the beholder. While I love the Final Fantasy series, The Elder Scrolls series, and the GTA franchise, they don't appeal to every gamer.
But then again, neither does Ghibli appeal to every moviegoer.
-lw
Ok, why in the hell was the parent modded Offtopic? It's directly replying to the post that said HK-47 - the character from Knights of the Old Republic who received "Original Game Character of the Year" - was very similar to Bender from Futurama.
I disagree. Bender from Futurama didn't actually kill people, he drank a lot, and was generally an irritant as opposed to deadly. HK-47 showed disdain for living creatures well past the point of only being deragatory, was actively used as an Assassin droid to kill hundreds of people, and doesn't drink.
Sure, they both have referred to humans as fleshy constructs less optimum than robots - but that's where the similarities end.
Moderators, please at least *attempt* to see if the post is relevant before jumping to that conclusion since it doesn't contain the words included in the topic's subject.
And thank you for your time. Meatbag.
-lw
> yes, yes i can... his name is Bender .....skin tube
Bender was an amnesiac? And he *actually* killed folk? Bender was never really dangerous, unless you got him near a can opener.
Similar, sure - robots with attitude. But not the same.
-lw
RTFM.
"...HK-47 (from Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic) took the award for [GDC] Original Game Character of the Year."
That'd be a CHARACTER in a Star Wars game. Can you think of another amnesiac droid serial killer, who calls humans meatbags? HK-47 add a huge amount of feeling to KotOR, with his disdain for living creatures and his sordid past. His translation of the Sand People alone was priceless.
-lw
I've had pretty good luck with pure text (like IRC), but it doesn't have the visual tools of netmeeting and its like.
I've got to ask... 200 years experience? Even with 10 people, that's 20 years / person. How many players are in your group?
-lw
> I've used cheats to level the playing field with games I'm not good at.
> Fact is, cheating becomes acceptable to me if it enables me to enjoy my game that I purchased.
> Seriously, try to understand that people may share other views than you.
First off, if there's no reasoning with you, we don't have to continue this conversation. If you're interested in discussing, please reply.
Your reason for cheating is that it makes the game more fun for you - but what about everyone else? How can you ask other people to understand your viewpoint when you state that theirs is irrelevant to you?
I'm troubled by this, because I spend time and effort to become better at games. I accomplish this by playing within the rules of the game. Why should we condone the actions of people who decide that they don't want to play by these rules?
-lw
> Would you play these games if they had Perma - Death? .. my guess is not.
Most certainly I would. You probably weren't addressing me specifically, but let's look at the MUD I played most with permadeath: Gemstone III.
In GS3, you had Deeds to your soul. If you died, you lost a Deed. At that point, you're a corpse laying on the ground. If you're resurrected, you're just out the Deed. If you decay (a corpse has a 20min timer or whatever), you lose another Deed and respawn at your home temple. If you die or decay without enough Deeds, you lose your character.
Deeds cost money based on your current level and how many Deeds you already had. The typical number to be running around with was 5 - that allows for a bit of leeway (a couple "free" deaths before you were in danger of losing your character).
My first character ever, Jorganthalas, was an Elven Ranger. He met his end to a couple of Hobgoblins at level 7. I wasn't careful, and couldn't get a rez (it was like 3am), so I lost him for good.
The potential loss of a character makes you become more attached to it. In GS3's case, there was enough of a buffer that perma-death never came as a complete surprise; you knew what was going on, and you were clearly warned it could happen.
Arguably, games as they are now are "so easy". Since you never die, there's no risk! As we move closer and closer towards a "No XP loss / No anything loss" death system, you basically remove the penalty for dying - so there's no reason _not to die_.
Why fight to live when you risk nothing in death? Why take pride in "not dying a lot" when you can take pride in _living_?
-lw
> So a legal system cannot following the real world courts and jails too closely.
Well, it depends on what we're looking for. Part of what the generic "griefer" looks for is suspense. With actual punishment, it increases the suspsense. It's true that you probably can't jail griefers "for life", but what's the odds that the society in a MMOG would _want_ to jail him/her/it for that long? It's much more likely they'd just execute the criminal (and, heck, depending on the type of society, there might be a death penalty for less serious crimes).
We could even treat jailed characters as "dead" (albeit temporarily), and allow the player to create an "offspring" character to play (without the asset transition). That's a little more harsh than the victim gets, but it's pretty fair retribution.
I imagine such a system could be extensively tinkered with until the right balance of risk, reward, and pending legal action is reached (it could even vary area to area).
-lw
> permanent death may sound like a great idea, until the griefers start coming after the newbies.
If that's the only barrier, why not implement a system to discourage griefers from coming after newbies? Seriously, why don't we have bullies _actually killing people_ in real life? Because they'd be carted off to Kiddy Prison.
One of the reasons people don't break laws is because of the punishments. If you don't want your players engaging in anti-social behavior, prevent those players from being a part of society. Have actual character jails, where offenders can be "helled" (to borrow a MUD term) for a period of time proportional to the severity of their crime.
Couple that with a character death system that "respawns" permanently dead characters as offspring (children, clones, whatever) that inherit the possessions of their parent-figure, and you've got a way to pass on the material goods from character instance to character instance.
You'd still lose all of the dead character's experience, but in a non-"level-oriented" system, you can make that a hell of a lot less painful (heck, you could even have the "children" start with a certain percentage of inherited skill).
Part of the populace's reluctance to engage in PvP is that, generally speaking, these games have immature PvP systems. I think the majority of the problem, however, is the totally anti-PvP crowd's desire to harp on any potential negative experience to their gameplay.
-lw
/boggle
Warmonger: One who advocates or attempts to stir up war.
Pro-active: Acting in advance to deal with an expected difficulty; anticipatory.
They're not mutually exclusive, but in no way does being pro-active equate to warmongering. This isn't calling for a "President" to step down, this isn't blockading a nation's harbor; this is a _draft_, not even an upcoming action but a _concept for a plan_. Since, as far as I know, _no one owns space_, this is _not_ invading a country. Please refer to the definition of Warmonger, and come back later.
> The US is very much capable to defend themselves as it is today.
That would be your opinion, to which you are very much entitled. I, however, disagree with the concept that we should be content to sit on our laurels because some have the opinion that our military is just fine the way it is, and needs no modifications.
> Where is the threat that would suggest that an even bigger military force is needed?
Why do we need to be actively threatened before we can improve our military? If this inititive makes our military SMALLER by reducing the number of active troops required, would it then make you happy?
> The thing is that it looks like the US want to have a big offensive capability for some reason.
Again, this is _your interpretation_. I view it as drafting up a potential for improving our military. If we can use advanced technology to put the men and women of our military at less risk, I say it's worth investigating!
> Most countries is NOT in a decent relationship with the US.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where one or more countries declared war, imposed sanctions, or we were warned by the UN. Please, note each recognized country who is in a state of war with us and list them for me.
> Compare it with the kid at school...
Wake up. This does not boil down to a schoolyard analogy. We're not talking about toys or bullies. We're talking about _real life_ - the lives of _millions_ of Americans who our government is there to represent. It is the _duty_ of our military to protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
> Be sure that many countries hate the US with a passion but they are to afraid to take a stand.
Um, why on Earth would we want them to take a stand? I'm all for them airing out their grievances (and then dealing with it in a peaceful, civilized manner), but if guns in space keep our citizens safe from those who wish to do them harm, why is this a bad thing?
> It is sad to watch the US turn into a terror state hellbent on ruling the world.
Elaborate, pretentious, and intellectually vacuous. I've seen no indication that 1) the US is a terror state, nor 2) the US is hellbent on ruling the world. You might try mixing in some fact with your fictitious rhetoric.
-lw
> Lets hope the administration gets changed to something less warhappy and perhaps a it more interested in all US citizens than of enriching a few select people.
Whaaa...? Where the hell did you get the logic that warhappy == enriching a few select people?
Also, please note that while we [the US] is currently in a decent relationship (or at least non-warring) with the majority of the other countries, this does not preclude other countries from developing superior military technology and hurling stones/whatever at *us* from space. As our military is there _to protect us_, I'm glad they're looking forward instead of doing nothing. Pro-active != Warmongering.
Finally, note that a broke wacko in the desert who finds mustard gas can as thoroughly use it to kill US citizens as stones hurled from space. I'd greatly prefer to be on the receiving end of neither.
-lw
Firefly.
No sound in space. Fairly accurate physical model. Check out the DVDs, it's a great series that was cut down before its prime.
-lw
Of course, you're absolutely right. I expect the next gen of consoles to support commonly used HD resolutions, as well as whatever might be on the local horizon.
But since one of the arguments on "coding for consoles is easier" is that you have a fixed display resolution, the inclusion of said additional resolutions makes for additional effort (and detracts from "the simplicity").
I think it's fascinating that, over time, consoles are approaching pre-fab computers. Hopefully, us PC gamers will be able to take a page from their book and boot some sort of game-centric OS where technical issues will be minimized.
-lw
You totally missed the point of the discussion.
To catch you up, we've been talking about which group would be "easier" to develop for. 1337-ness has not entered the discussion.
We've decided that each system has strengths and weaknesses, and that game development is not as easy as picking a target platform and starting to code.
Personally, I own five computers, a PS2, a Xbox, a GCN, and a GBA:SP. I'm also learning DX9/OGL, so I can try some of this myself. I've currently been playing BG:DA2, Metroid Prime, and Kingdom Hearts. I had hoped to get back to BF1942, but FF:CC and Champions of Norrath are (will be) keeping me sufficiently distracted.
Thanks!
-lw
> Even with three consoles, three targets is an easier thing to deal with than, say, 5 video cards speeds X 5 cpu speeds = 25 "speed" configurations.
...the limited resolution makes it easier to develop for, not harder.
...[fewer controls is] simply another hardware restriction, which makes it easier to handle because there is less variety.
Except the three consoles have vastly dissimilar architecture. Coding for a PS2 != GCN != Xbox. And once you make an Xbox version, there's not much stopping a developer from jumping to the PC. Coding for different _types_ of hardware requirements (CPU speeds, graphic cards) is significantly different than coding for entirely different hardware.
> And even then, I've simplified the picture for PCs.
You paint a much bleaker picture than is actually the case. DX8 code is forward compatible with DX9, and DX has gotten significantly more cleaned up over the years. It's much easier to support _additional_ functionality now, including detecting the capabilities of the graphics card and offloading anything that it can do in hardware off from DX's software.
It's as easy as coding for a baseline - like picking a target console - and then adding additional effects as you see fit.
>
We're looking at the same thing from different angles. The number of pixels you can display information on in 480i is _significantly_ lower than the number of available pixels in 1600x1200. PCs are able to present a much, much higher quality image - with the baseline of 480i, you have the additional headache of trying to present your image in an extremely limited environment.
Regardless, the number of pixels available is only part of the problem. The other part is the limited hardware - how many polys with different effects you can display, and how good they look. There's also multisampling (AA), which consoles have only barely scratched the surface of (Xbox supports 2xAA).
> Many PS2/XBox games have support for progressive scan (e.g. 480p/720p).
The PS2 & GCN support 480p, the Xbox supports 480p, 720p, and 1080i. There are very, very few games that support 1080i (3?), and a mere handful that supports 720p (10?). HDTV is not even remotely standard, and that is highly unlikely to change in the immediate future. I think that if the next round of consoles assumes HDTV will be standard, that they are in for a rude surprise.
>
Except fewer controls means that it is more difficult to require certain tasks of the user. FPSes are a great example of a really rough transition onto consoles. With the Xbox and Halo, your traditionally button-pressing right thumb is stuck on the right thumbstick, halving the number of buttons available to you. The PS2 has four shoulder buttons, so it's _slightly_ better. Still, 4-6 non-movement buttons for a FPS?
And don't even start with RTSes.
More options does not equal more restrictions - it's the opposite. And since functionality is often duplicated amongst the multiple control types (mouse, keyboard, joystick), we're not talking about huge amounts of effort. Shoot = mouse_1, joy_1, Ctrl.
> Not sure I see the [Children's Books] analogy.
I'm saying that targeting a simpler audience doesn't necessarily make it easier for the targeter to tell a really great story. We have books for adults as well as kids because adults have different, more complex tastes. I'm not reading Green Eggs and Ham in my spare time.
Developing games for a console has its own problems, quirks, and issues. It's not as simple as "consoles have set hardware, therefore it's easier". That's just one tiny part of the whole picture.
-lw
> The beauty of consoles has always been that you know, as a developer, whether the game will work on everyone's system based on a single data point: whether it works in the exact same console you have sitting in your office.
Except, of course, that console developers get special Development Kit versions of the consoles, that are more powerful and capable of outputting higher resolutions.
I'm sure they have access to the "normal" consoles as well, but it's an important distinction to make.
I always thought the "consoles are better for developers because it's a single target" was specious reasoning. Not only do the majority of games come out for multiple platforms, but they have several built-in limitations that are impossible to get around without forcing the player to spend more money (Final Fantasy:Crystal Chronicles, for an example). Consoles have limited graphics capability (due to the extremely poor resolution of the standard television) and a very limited control set (even the Xbox's 4-axis 10 button controller pales in comparison to a mouse with a wheel, and a 102+ keyboard), as well as a nonexistant mod base.
That's like saying Children's Books are better for Authors because children have a lower common denominator.
-lw
I was under the impression that it was three movies after Nemo, but I could be wrong.
As for lasting films, IMDB's top 10 animated films includes Nemo, Toy Story/2, and Monsters INC (couldn't remember if Shrek was a Pixar film). Personal preference aside, it does appear as if people greatly enjoy Pixar's films. So it's possible that, whatever happens to them after Disney, their fans will follow them.
But being slightly cynical, I can't help but wonder if even a lower quality knockoff spun out through Disney's ad machine would generate a revenue on a similar scale.
-lw
...I had a thoughtful, well written post about why I disagreed on those who deal with Microsoft regretting it, but Windows crashed and I lost it.
-lw
Don't write 'em off yet. Pixar still has three movies it owes Disney. How long has it been since the last three Pixar films? How long do you think it would take Disney to setup a Pixar knock-off?
-lw
The moral of the story is, of course, to never trust Apple. (ha?)
-lw
> > "Does that percentage account for people who own the songs they are downloading in some other media format?"
> This is still not legal.
Owning a backup copy of your media is very much legal - as long as your are in the sole possession of both.
-lw