Valve specifically tailors their games to the low end of the hardware market, similar to Blizzard. The HL2 engine is DX9, not 10, and runs great on a huge range of hardware... including and most specifically store-bought PCs with stock videocards and processors.
If I recall correctly, there are only two games on the market designed for the PhysX PPU (both of which have GRAW in their title). Not to mention that the Half-Life 2 engine specifically uses the Havok SDK as opposed to the PhysX SDK.
There might be a mac gaming market (I sincerely doubt it) to promote, but don't generalize about the established PC market if you don't know what you're talking about.
I camped out overnight with a friend to grab a Wii (one for each of us) back in Feb., but I didn't open it right away. Instead we played with his. At first, I was incredibly impressed by Wii Sports. But after a few days (during which I also played Zelda, Rayman, and Monkey Ball), the novelty wore off fast. So I sold the unopened Wii to a friend of mine, and haven't regretted it since... particularly since my friend hasn't touched his in a long time.
On the other hand, I've had my 360 since last April, and I play it 4-5 times a week with regularity. And the funny thing is, it's not even like I have a lot of games. My roommates and I have just picked a game to play, and then continued to play it for a few months until the next big title comes out (GRAW, GoW, GHII, etc.). And as much as Nintendo might want to marginalize it, much of that comes from the fact that the 360 offers 1) a fantastic online service that allows us to play (co-op and competitively) online with our friends who are attending college all over the country, and 2) the HD resolution which allows us to play split screen without having to stare at grainy, tiny objects.
I mean, yes, the 360 has been out a long time now relative to the Wii, so it has some headway in the 'great-games' department, but I would argue that the real key to its longevity and replayability comes from the choices Microsoft made that Nintendo has otherwise decided to brush aside. What's also key here I think is the fact that Microsoft isn't ignoring any consumers like Nintendo seems to be doing: Live Arcade does provide a lot of fun, otherwise creative games that match up well with the market Nintendo wants (although admittedly with a more classic control scheme).
Of course, my friends and I belong to a different market than the demographics Nintendo is trying to target with the Wii, so much of this is likely irrelevant. But it is the reason why we won't likely be buying a Wii anytime soon.
I have to say, I didn't mind Microsoft's software at all. It was pretty easy to use, and it seemed far better than the TV Guide software that my out of state friends who have Comcast use. So I'm hoping this switch is an actual improvement, because I was actually quite happy with my current software.
Even if you don't agree that a mouse offers you better precision than a stick (have you tried navigating your OS with an analog stick?), or that a keyboard offers you more functionality than the limited amount of face buttons on a controller, there is still a legitimate reason why a mouse provides a better experience.
A mouse, or trackball, can control the speed of your view movement. An analog stick, on the other hand, only applies variable acceleration. Your accuracy is unquestionably better with a mouse.
That said, yes, some games do work better with a controller in my opinion. Gears of War specifically I think works fantastic with the 360 controller, and I can't imagine playing it with anything else. But the game was designed around that from the beginning (and I find third-person shooters work much better on consoles than first person shooters anyway). If you look at FPS games ported to consoles however, such as Call of Duty (specifically after you turn off auto-aim), the difference in degree-of-control is pretty apparent.
And good lord, I'd hate to imagine playing something like Unreal on a controller.
Had openoffice done this first, I expect that most of these replies would be radically different.
Yes, it takes maybe a week of general use to get down how it works, but after you do, it's a vastly improved interface. It's fast, easier to find things (and certainly more logical), and the help button is pretty efficient at finding you what you can't find yourself.
Personally, I'm surprised that so many slashdot users (of all people) seem like they'd have so much of a hard time learning an improved UI- although I'm not surprised by the comments themselves. Now, yes, in a workplace environment it might not be the best choice, since office drones would have to relearn some things. But the basics are still there, and let's remember people, if it's too much trouble, then don't upgrade the software.
As someone who's been using it for awhile now (beta) however, I can say it's the biggest improvement to Office I've seen in any of the versions, and for once, well worth the upgrade.
I don't want to seem like I actually read the source article, and maybe I have the wrong definition of explanation, but it seems like "the culprit may be global warming."
I don't disagree that there are benefits to the system- as far as animal crossing goes. But it seems like you're assuming that it's the only solution. Honestly, I would prefer a way to simply forbid players in your town who are not on your friendlist from disrupting your town.
My point is simply that Nintendo has proven to be overly-cautious in terms of actually allowing wide online play. At this point, what they've done has been more akin to direct connection with another person, rather than full global server support.
That point's just highlighted by Metroid Hunters. The game does allow you to have conversations with other players. So there's no need to yell defensively about hardware limitations. If you're playing with someone on your friend list, you can voice chat or text to them. If you're playing with someone not on your friends list, you're unable to do either. It's obvious why Nintendo does this. But I personally think it's unnecessary and hardly a representation of full online capability.
Sure it might be free, but that doesn't describe the extent of the online capability.
If it's anything like Animal Crossing DS, well, then I'd rather pay for the service like I do for Xbox live. I don't really only want to play smash brothers against friends I know and have a code for... I want to go to a game-browser list that Nintendo runs and find a game to join. Voip, stat tracking, etc. would be nice too. Even if it means I have to pay for them.
Metroid Hunters improves it somewhat, but it doesn't let you text or voice chat to people who aren't on your friend-code list (a la Animal Crossing).
Obviously Nintendo might not make the service that limited, but given their track record so far, I'm more apprehensive then not. Yes, Xbox Live costs a pretty penny, but for the most part the service it offers is worth the money, in terms of both features and stability.
Why do so many people apparently think he's actually being serious in the last paragraph?
This is Orscon Scott Card, people. That last statement is fully dipped in his usual dry sarcasm.
You have to realize though (and I know the WoW lovers are going to explode here, but it's true), WoW isn't really innovative at all.
For an MMORPG, WoW's pretty much the same basic stuff that's been around since [before] Everquest. It's not really new or innovative in any way.
It's polished certainly (what Blizzard game isn't), but truth be told, Blizzard pulled one of EA's biggest tricks out of the hat with WoW. That is, they applied an already hugely popular franchise (Warcraft) to a routine genre. And heck, even a lot of the main features of the game, such as spells and items, are heavily borrowed from Blizzard's previous games themselves (War III and Diablo II specifically).
That's not to say it's a bad game. It most certainly isn't, as the sales prove. But the only thing Blizzard is doing that differently from EA (and companies like that) is that they're taking time and care to actually polish their titles. But new and innovative? Not really.
Depending on your mode of play, yeah, they were perpetual (you could chose to play in a mode where characters were stored locally- which meant they could be played offline, but also easily hacked to max level/items/etc.- or on Blizzard's servers, the latter of which meant you could only play the game online, and, consequently, was generally preferred).
-Continued Bug Patching (yes, that should be taken care of beforehand, but when you recognize the size of an MMO world...)
-Customer/Tech Support + GMs
-Bandwith (Most FPS devs don't host the servers you play on;p)
-Continued Updates (new quests/items/etc.)
And yes, Profit. The majority of MMOs start launch in a serious hole as far as money goes. They don't generally break even/make a profit until over a year after they're actually released. They're a different beast than other genres entirely.
Not exactly true: Project Entropia and even Anarchy Online to a limited extent have tried to go the way of the free-per-month route, but yes, Guild Wars has certainly been the most successful.
I think the Guild Wars model is fantastic personally (although I think it has to be recognized that it's not being applied to a standard MMOG- Guild Wars is much more like Diablo II/PSO when it comes to the actual formating/instancing of the gameplay), but I'm not sure it'll really be used all that much.
I mean, when you look at a game like WoW (one of the highest-price-per-month games out there, and of course, one of the most successful), where Blizzard literally has players distribute game patches themselves, regardless of the monthly fee compenstation, I just don't see any big MMO developers jumping ship anytime soon.
NBC owns SciFi, so they've been playing the miniseries/episodes (as well as are planning to play all of season 1 I believe) to market the show for the channel.
Is this a joke?
It's obvious you haven't even seen the new Battlestar Galactica, judging by your post. Or Farscape even, which is one of the most brilliant character driven shows I've ever seen.
Then again, I guess that's to be expected from someone who thinks Andromeda was "killed" by SciFi. Hate to break it to you bud, but that Hercules in Space show was dead long before SciFi had anything to do with it.
Nintendo may be trying to capture that casual, kid market, but it's not working. The times have changed. Nintendo's current demographic is not the younger kids or family audience anymore. It's the remenants of their old audiences- those of us who grew up on the NES and SNES.
The fact is, kids these days don't care about "new, innovative" ways to play games. They want cooler, better graphics. They want to be like all the other cool guys and kill whores in GTA, or practice an extended vocabulary playing Halo 2 on Xbox Live.
It's ironic, but the only people keeping Nintendo alive right now are the old-school gamers, not the casual, new kids who Nintendo claims just want "pick up and play" stuff. Gaming changed in the last few years... it became cool. And, like all other cool things, regardless of how young you are, it's always cooler to like the "grown-up" things.
Assuming Lucas can cut back on the melodrama and other crap that's plagued the new movies, this could turn out to be pretty cool. I'd love to see self-contained episodes that show the stories of average, ordinary "Star Wars citizens" caught up in a galaxy suddenly distressed by revolutionary warfare and political change.
What if we could see the empire's dominion actually forming (something it seems like the new trilogy is barely talking about)? The civil wars that would erupt on planets as communities clashed over whether to fall in line with the Empire or rebel? I mean, just imagine being able to view the transition from a Jedi-ordered galaxy to one where the Jedi "religion is all but extinct," with the exception of the whispers and stories and rumors that would just be starting to spread of one Darth Vader.
The idea excites me. With good stories and direction, it could really become one of the better creations of the Star Wars Universe.
So, basically: Please, Lucas... stay as uninvolved in the project as possible.
Exactly.
Just because a laser can kill someone, does it mean a bullet can't?
Lasers might prove to be more effective in the future, but all that will mean is cheaper "old-school" guns and ammunition.
Afterall, didn't Slashdot just run a story the other day about NASA using 20-30 year old computers for similar reasons?
Slashdot Mirror
Valve specifically tailors their games to the low end of the hardware market, similar to Blizzard. The HL2 engine is DX9, not 10, and runs great on a huge range of hardware... including and most specifically store-bought PCs with stock videocards and processors.
If I recall correctly, there are only two games on the market designed for the PhysX PPU (both of which have GRAW in their title). Not to mention that the Half-Life 2 engine specifically uses the Havok SDK as opposed to the PhysX SDK.
There might be a mac gaming market (I sincerely doubt it) to promote, but don't generalize about the established PC market if you don't know what you're talking about.
I camped out overnight with a friend to grab a Wii (one for each of us) back in Feb., but I didn't open it right away. Instead we played with his. At first, I was incredibly impressed by Wii Sports. But after a few days (during which I also played Zelda, Rayman, and Monkey Ball), the novelty wore off fast. So I sold the unopened Wii to a friend of mine, and haven't regretted it since... particularly since my friend hasn't touched his in a long time.
On the other hand, I've had my 360 since last April, and I play it 4-5 times a week with regularity. And the funny thing is, it's not even like I have a lot of games. My roommates and I have just picked a game to play, and then continued to play it for a few months until the next big title comes out (GRAW, GoW, GHII, etc.). And as much as Nintendo might want to marginalize it, much of that comes from the fact that the 360 offers 1) a fantastic online service that allows us to play (co-op and competitively) online with our friends who are attending college all over the country, and 2) the HD resolution which allows us to play split screen without having to stare at grainy, tiny objects.
I mean, yes, the 360 has been out a long time now relative to the Wii, so it has some headway in the 'great-games' department, but I would argue that the real key to its longevity and replayability comes from the choices Microsoft made that Nintendo has otherwise decided to brush aside. What's also key here I think is the fact that Microsoft isn't ignoring any consumers like Nintendo seems to be doing: Live Arcade does provide a lot of fun, otherwise creative games that match up well with the market Nintendo wants (although admittedly with a more classic control scheme).
Of course, my friends and I belong to a different market than the demographics Nintendo is trying to target with the Wii, so much of this is likely irrelevant. But it is the reason why we won't likely be buying a Wii anytime soon.
But you know, down with M$!!! rah rah rah...
Even if you don't agree that a mouse offers you better precision than a stick (have you tried navigating your OS with an analog stick?), or that a keyboard offers you more functionality than the limited amount of face buttons on a controller, there is still a legitimate reason why a mouse provides a better experience.
A mouse, or trackball, can control the speed of your view movement. An analog stick, on the other hand, only applies variable acceleration. Your accuracy is unquestionably better with a mouse.
That said, yes, some games do work better with a controller in my opinion. Gears of War specifically I think works fantastic with the 360 controller, and I can't imagine playing it with anything else. But the game was designed around that from the beginning (and I find third-person shooters work much better on consoles than first person shooters anyway). If you look at FPS games ported to consoles however, such as Call of Duty (specifically after you turn off auto-aim), the difference in degree-of-control is pretty apparent.
And good lord, I'd hate to imagine playing something like Unreal on a controller.
Yes, it takes maybe a week of general use to get down how it works, but after you do, it's a vastly improved interface. It's fast, easier to find things (and certainly more logical), and the help button is pretty efficient at finding you what you can't find yourself.
Personally, I'm surprised that so many slashdot users (of all people) seem like they'd have so much of a hard time learning an improved UI- although I'm not surprised by the comments themselves. Now, yes, in a workplace environment it might not be the best choice, since office drones would have to relearn some things. But the basics are still there, and let's remember people, if it's too much trouble, then don't upgrade the software.
As someone who's been using it for awhile now (beta) however, I can say it's the biggest improvement to Office I've seen in any of the versions, and for once, well worth the upgrade.
Oh, wait, this is slashdot...
Uhh... hooray, BSG is back?
Now where have I heard that before?
Where are my frontpage Desperate Housewives posts? Now that's info my RSS feed could stand to recieve.
I don't want to seem like I actually read the source article, and maybe I have the wrong definition of explanation, but it seems like "the culprit may be global warming."
My point is simply that Nintendo has proven to be overly-cautious in terms of actually allowing wide online play. At this point, what they've done has been more akin to direct connection with another person, rather than full global server support.
That point's just highlighted by Metroid Hunters. The game does allow you to have conversations with other players. So there's no need to yell defensively about hardware limitations. If you're playing with someone on your friend list, you can voice chat or text to them. If you're playing with someone not on your friends list, you're unable to do either. It's obvious why Nintendo does this. But I personally think it's unnecessary and hardly a representation of full online capability.
Sure it might be free, but that doesn't describe the extent of the online capability. If it's anything like Animal Crossing DS, well, then I'd rather pay for the service like I do for Xbox live. I don't really only want to play smash brothers against friends I know and have a code for... I want to go to a game-browser list that Nintendo runs and find a game to join. Voip, stat tracking, etc. would be nice too. Even if it means I have to pay for them. Metroid Hunters improves it somewhat, but it doesn't let you text or voice chat to people who aren't on your friend-code list (a la Animal Crossing). Obviously Nintendo might not make the service that limited, but given their track record so far, I'm more apprehensive then not. Yes, Xbox Live costs a pretty penny, but for the most part the service it offers is worth the money, in terms of both features and stability.
Call me a traditionalist, but I'm not sure linking it on Slashdot was the best way to restore the site from internet death.
For better or worse, EA is likely the actual holder of that title.
Why do so many people apparently think he's actually being serious in the last paragraph? This is Orscon Scott Card, people. That last statement is fully dipped in his usual dry sarcasm.
For an MMORPG, WoW's pretty much the same basic stuff that's been around since [before] Everquest. It's not really new or innovative in any way.
It's polished certainly (what Blizzard game isn't), but truth be told, Blizzard pulled one of EA's biggest tricks out of the hat with WoW. That is, they applied an already hugely popular franchise (Warcraft) to a routine genre. And heck, even a lot of the main features of the game, such as spells and items, are heavily borrowed from Blizzard's previous games themselves (War III and Diablo II specifically).
That's not to say it's a bad game. It most certainly isn't, as the sales prove. But the only thing Blizzard is doing that differently from EA (and companies like that) is that they're taking time and care to actually polish their titles. But new and innovative? Not really.
Depending on your mode of play, yeah, they were perpetual (you could chose to play in a mode where characters were stored locally- which meant they could be played offline, but also easily hacked to max level/items/etc.- or on Blizzard's servers, the latter of which meant you could only play the game online, and, consequently, was generally preferred).
-Continued Bug Patching (yes, that should be taken care of beforehand, but when you recognize the size of an MMO world...)
-Customer/Tech Support + GMs
-Bandwith (Most FPS devs don't host the servers you play on ;p)
-Continued Updates (new quests/items/etc.)
And yes, Profit. The majority of MMOs start launch in a serious hole as far as money goes. They don't generally break even/make a profit until over a year after they're actually released. They're a different beast than other genres entirely.
Not exactly true: Project Entropia and even Anarchy Online to a limited extent have tried to go the way of the free-per-month route, but yes, Guild Wars has certainly been the most successful.
I think the Guild Wars model is fantastic personally (although I think it has to be recognized that it's not being applied to a standard MMOG- Guild Wars is much more like Diablo II/PSO when it comes to the actual formating/instancing of the gameplay), but I'm not sure it'll really be used all that much. I mean, when you look at a game like WoW (one of the highest-price-per-month games out there, and of course, one of the most successful), where Blizzard literally has players distribute game patches themselves, regardless of the monthly fee compenstation, I just don't see any big MMO developers jumping ship anytime soon.
NBC owns SciFi, so they've been playing the miniseries/episodes (as well as are planning to play all of season 1 I believe) to market the show for the channel.
Is this a joke? It's obvious you haven't even seen the new Battlestar Galactica, judging by your post. Or Farscape even, which is one of the most brilliant character driven shows I've ever seen. Then again, I guess that's to be expected from someone who thinks Andromeda was "killed" by SciFi. Hate to break it to you bud, but that Hercules in Space show was dead long before SciFi had anything to do with it.
Except... not.
Nintendo may be trying to capture that casual, kid market, but it's not working. The times have changed. Nintendo's current demographic is not the younger kids or family audience anymore. It's the remenants of their old audiences- those of us who grew up on the NES and SNES.
The fact is, kids these days don't care about "new, innovative" ways to play games. They want cooler, better graphics. They want to be like all the other cool guys and kill whores in GTA, or practice an extended vocabulary playing Halo 2 on Xbox Live.
It's ironic, but the only people keeping Nintendo alive right now are the old-school gamers, not the casual, new kids who Nintendo claims just want "pick up and play" stuff. Gaming changed in the last few years... it became cool. And, like all other cool things, regardless of how young you are, it's always cooler to like the "grown-up" things.
Fullscreen Version (640x480)
This doesn't sound like too bad of an idea.
Assuming Lucas can cut back on the melodrama and other crap that's plagued the new movies, this could turn out to be pretty cool. I'd love to see self-contained episodes that show the stories of average, ordinary "Star Wars citizens" caught up in a galaxy suddenly distressed by revolutionary warfare and political change.
What if we could see the empire's dominion actually forming (something it seems like the new trilogy is barely talking about)? The civil wars that would erupt on planets as communities clashed over whether to fall in line with the Empire or rebel? I mean, just imagine being able to view the transition from a Jedi-ordered galaxy to one where the Jedi "religion is all but extinct," with the exception of the whispers and stories and rumors that would just be starting to spread of one Darth Vader.
The idea excites me. With good stories and direction, it could really become one of the better creations of the Star Wars Universe.
So, basically: Please, Lucas... stay as uninvolved in the project as possible.
Exactly. Just because a laser can kill someone, does it mean a bullet can't? Lasers might prove to be more effective in the future, but all that will mean is cheaper "old-school" guns and ammunition. Afterall, didn't Slashdot just run a story the other day about NASA using 20-30 year old computers for similar reasons?