Or they should sit down and think about what a bad idea it was to buy a piece of equipment that doesn't come with a guarantee that its RF signal's frequency will not be legally used by anyone for powerful signals.
Skeletal animation was neither introduced nor invented by Valve, AFAIK the consoles of the era required skeletal animation since they couldn't handle vertex interpolation properly. Games like Virtua Fighter and Mario 64 have segmented models where each segment corresponds to a bone. If you wanted to make a game for these consoles you had to use skeletal animation.
"Your top 3 players get drafted by the US Army to fight the war against China. They run a high risk of getting killed in action but if you buy Battlefield 3 NOW you can help them come back victorious!"
I think it'd work better in theory since in 2d Sonic it's deadly to go fast in an area you don't know, 3d would allow you to see enough of the area ahead of you without making it hard to see Sonic himself (since you don't need to zoom out). That way you could keep running fast even through unknown terrain without hitting the next enemy or bottomless pit.
I don't have high hopes for it. The DS game is awesome but the GC game is pretty weak and I don't think they put Treasure to work on the Wii one. IOW Bleach Wii will probably be as weak as Bleach GC.
As a PC Gamer I don't recognize most titles on a Wii.
I consider that an advantage since I'm sure as hell not paying however many hundred Euros on a system that has the same games as my PC.
There is in fact a market for a High End console if there is a market for "Gaming PCs" where a graphics card could cost half the price of the console itself.
Yes but that market is already covered by the high-end PCs and a game for these can be made so it works on slightly less powerful PCs, too (and after a year or two those high-end requirements are actually more mid-level so the potential userbase of the game keeps widening). A console game will not run on a different console without a separate version being released and at that point there's no reason to serve the high end console. A console can only play games specifically made for it while a PC can play anything released for the PC platform.
Take that away and I would rather go for a PS2 over a Wii - better and bigger game collection and cheaper price.
That goes for any next gen console, the point is that the old system becomes obsolete and after a year or two the game support is effectively zero. Of course you can keep using your PS2. I've done that when the Xbox 360 came out and I'll do that when the PS3 comes out. I don't expect the Wii to make me throw the PS2 into a corner, either (at least not immediately).
I am just not sold on Wii at all, and I don't see how it is a threat to XBox360 or PS3.
It's a threat because it competes for the same development budgets. Money spent on making Wii games isn't spent on making PS3 or Xbox 360 games. If the Wii ends up being more profitable than the other systems more money will be allocated to Wii development and less to the other consoles. So you may end up getting all the "hardcore" games on the Wii.
Unless you can enjoy all kinds of games with motion sensing...
I certainly can enjoy all kinds of games with my 102 button gamepad and 7 button plus scroll wheel senses-motion-against-the-desk-surface thingy. Usually very few buttons are necessary and the desk-motion-sensor does almost everything.
While motion sensing is cool, I am putting it second behind games with good gameplay AND good graphics.
The Wii is perfectly capable of good gameplay (otherwise Twilight Princess wouldn't rank in the Top 10 games ever made on sites like GameRankings), the tradeoff is really good motion sensing vs. good graphics. As a PC gamer, would you trade your keyboard and mouse controls (on the same games!) for a gamepad if it meant better graphics?
There's more difference between Wii and 360/PS3 games than the resolution. Running Unreal Tournament 2007 on 640x480 doesn't make it run on the same hardware as UT2003.
Would be hard to do since I'm on a different continent. And 'round here retailers have much bigger PC sections than console sections. Yes, even Gamestop.
Ken "nutjob" Kutaragi gets promoted? WTF is wrong with them? This guy is a walking PR desaster spewing comments like "we have created the most beautiful thing in the world" in response to the misaligned PSP button sensor issue or "people will want to get a second job to afford a PS3". Their situation is bad enough without rubbing it into people's faces with arrogant comments that show he doesn't even feel bad for screwing up like that.
The PC Gaming market already "enjoys" a rather massive "potential" market.
Not really, many PCs were bought with no understanding of the concept that there's more than MHz to a computer. Many use integrated graphics chips which means they won't run anything that was released in this century.
Yet PC sales are quickly falling to the wayside in favor of console gaming.
I'm not seeing that, the PC is still much more popular, partially because console games are just fucking expensive in comparison (1/3 to 1/2 more expensive) and drop in price slowly or even never.
In fact, most PC Games are either being ported to consoles or are ported from consoles. Which means that there is little advantage to being a PC Gamer unless you're into MMOGs.
The PC has more RTS and freeform RPGs (i.e. the R does not stand for Rail) than the consoles (generally all genres that use indirect control instead of making you control one entity directly are rare on consoles) and I think it's been a while since I've seen any econ sims (all those Tycoon games, for example), 4X or Elite-style games on a console, too. Decent shmups are practically dead on the console while the independent developers keep making those for the PC. Adventure games are rarely ported to the console and I don't think I remember any console exclusive adventure games.
Well, it prevents PC makers from putting onboard graphics into their systems while bumping up the MHz to claim their system is really powerful (while the user whines on the game developer's forum that the game won't run on his new PC).
Since Valve would own the spin-off, who would be suing them?
Other companies who offer games through Steam and would prefer if Steam was impartial towards the games offered on the service and Valve couldn't make Steam e.g. degrade the connection speeds for a rival game in order to promote their own games.
Slashdot Mirror
The Sidewinder is an air-to-air missile, to silence a source of interference they'd use a HARM.
Or they should sit down and think about what a bad idea it was to buy a piece of equipment that doesn't come with a guarantee that its RF signal's frequency will not be legally used by anyone for powerful signals.
Establish a chain of trust before downloading a Vista distro.
Well, at least without 7 chaos emeralds and 50 rings...
Or TA Spring, for that matter.
Skeletal animation was neither introduced nor invented by Valve, AFAIK the consoles of the era required skeletal animation since they couldn't handle vertex interpolation properly. Games like Virtua Fighter and Mario 64 have segmented models where each segment corresponds to a bone. If you wanted to make a game for these consoles you had to use skeletal animation.
Is that like Schrödinger's wallet?
3. Draft
"Your top 3 players get drafted by the US Army to fight the war against China. They run a high risk of getting killed in action but if you buy Battlefield 3 NOW you can help them come back victorious!"
I think it'd work better in theory since in 2d Sonic it's deadly to go fast in an area you don't know, 3d would allow you to see enough of the area ahead of you without making it hard to see Sonic himself (since you don't need to zoom out). That way you could keep running fast even through unknown terrain without hitting the next enemy or bottomless pit.
They are making 2d-esque games (Sonic Rush, for example) and those are still pretty good but I think he's talking about making a good 3d Sonic game.
I don't have high hopes for it. The DS game is awesome but the GC game is pretty weak and I don't think they put Treasure to work on the Wii one. IOW Bleach Wii will probably be as weak as Bleach GC.
Why don't you just stuff the normal PC version into that HTPC?
As a PC Gamer I don't recognize most titles on a Wii.
I consider that an advantage since I'm sure as hell not paying however many hundred Euros on a system that has the same games as my PC.
There is in fact a market for a High End console if there is a market for "Gaming PCs" where a graphics card could cost half the price of the console itself.
Yes but that market is already covered by the high-end PCs and a game for these can be made so it works on slightly less powerful PCs, too (and after a year or two those high-end requirements are actually more mid-level so the potential userbase of the game keeps widening). A console game will not run on a different console without a separate version being released and at that point there's no reason to serve the high end console. A console can only play games specifically made for it while a PC can play anything released for the PC platform.
Take that away and I would rather go for a PS2 over a Wii - better and bigger game collection and cheaper price.
That goes for any next gen console, the point is that the old system becomes obsolete and after a year or two the game support is effectively zero. Of course you can keep using your PS2. I've done that when the Xbox 360 came out and I'll do that when the PS3 comes out. I don't expect the Wii to make me throw the PS2 into a corner, either (at least not immediately).
I am just not sold on Wii at all, and I don't see how it is a threat to XBox360 or PS3.
It's a threat because it competes for the same development budgets. Money spent on making Wii games isn't spent on making PS3 or Xbox 360 games. If the Wii ends up being more profitable than the other systems more money will be allocated to Wii development and less to the other consoles. So you may end up getting all the "hardcore" games on the Wii.
Unless you can enjoy all kinds of games with motion sensing...
I certainly can enjoy all kinds of games with my 102 button gamepad and 7 button plus scroll wheel senses-motion-against-the-desk-surface thingy. Usually very few buttons are necessary and the desk-motion-sensor does almost everything.
While motion sensing is cool, I am putting it second behind games with good gameplay AND good graphics.
The Wii is perfectly capable of good gameplay (otherwise Twilight Princess wouldn't rank in the Top 10 games ever made on sites like GameRankings), the tradeoff is really good motion sensing vs. good graphics. As a PC gamer, would you trade your keyboard and mouse controls (on the same games!) for a gamepad if it meant better graphics?
Yes but even without the HD 360/PS3 games use more polygons, shaders, RAM and CPU load than the Wii can handle.
There's more difference between Wii and 360/PS3 games than the resolution. Running Unreal Tournament 2007 on 640x480 doesn't make it run on the same hardware as UT2003.
Maybe if you duck tape it to a horse?
Would be hard to do since I'm on a different continent. And 'round here retailers have much bigger PC sections than console sections. Yes, even Gamestop.
Zelda is a big selling franchise but if you try to tell me the CDi Zelda games are good because of that you're insane.
I don't think he was talking about the PS2 since that costs ~130$ normally.
Ken "nutjob" Kutaragi gets promoted? WTF is wrong with them? This guy is a walking PR desaster spewing comments like "we have created the most beautiful thing in the world" in response to the misaligned PSP button sensor issue or "people will want to get a second job to afford a PS3". Their situation is bad enough without rubbing it into people's faces with arrogant comments that show he doesn't even feel bad for screwing up like that.
So what is an independent developer of single-head multiplayer games to do?
Make and release the games normally, maybe adding an online/LAN option. Hey, it works in Japan.
The PC Gaming market already "enjoys" a rather massive "potential" market.
Not really, many PCs were bought with no understanding of the concept that there's more than MHz to a computer. Many use integrated graphics chips which means they won't run anything that was released in this century.
Yet PC sales are quickly falling to the wayside in favor of console gaming.
I'm not seeing that, the PC is still much more popular, partially because console games are just fucking expensive in comparison (1/3 to 1/2 more expensive) and drop in price slowly or even never.
In fact, most PC Games are either being ported to consoles or are ported from consoles. Which means that there is little advantage to being a PC Gamer unless you're into MMOGs.
The PC has more RTS and freeform RPGs (i.e. the R does not stand for Rail) than the consoles (generally all genres that use indirect control instead of making you control one entity directly are rare on consoles) and I think it's been a while since I've seen any econ sims (all those Tycoon games, for example), 4X or Elite-style games on a console, too. Decent shmups are practically dead on the console while the independent developers keep making those for the PC. Adventure games are rarely ported to the console and I don't think I remember any console exclusive adventure games.
Well, it prevents PC makers from putting onboard graphics into their systems while bumping up the MHz to claim their system is really powerful (while the user whines on the game developer's forum that the game won't run on his new PC).
Anything that doesn't use onboard graphics or hardware that's older than maybe 4 years probably counts as a gaming PC.
Since Valve would own the spin-off, who would be suing them?
Other companies who offer games through Steam and would prefer if Steam was impartial towards the games offered on the service and Valve couldn't make Steam e.g. degrade the connection speeds for a rival game in order to promote their own games.