Check Metacritic, or indeed any decent list of reviews. All the consoles have just as much quality to quantity as each other (Infact the PS2 actually comes in slightly worse off than the X-Box and Gamecube)
All the consoles have top games on them it just depends on what you want to play.
I wish people would realise that instead of waving there dicks around whenever the PS gets a new RPG. Some of us really just dont care about final fantasy.
When searching for Quake2 servers to play on youd get one of three things.
a) Id totally decimate the other players barely anyone would be on any more than a frag by the time id hit the 100 frag limit.
b) Id get totally decimated by the other players. Id spawn, explode, spawn, explode...
c) Id be in the top 3 or 4 players. We would duke it out and the 10 or so other players would be frag fodder in between our fights.
Option c is typically what id look for but it still wouldnt remove the problem of one of those 3 or 4 good players simply running away from anyone with an iota of skill and killing all the new or terrible players to rack of frags.
There was no way of working out a skill level for particular players so it was a hit or miss process and on more than one occaision I went in to about 5 different servers and just got bored of trying to get a good gaming experience out of it.
The live service doesnt actually restrict your ability to have any of those options happen to you (Im sure some experienced player would love to slap you around for a bit.) it just expands on it so you can have more and far superior options.
(This is ignoring the fact that a lot of the servers were up and down like a yoyo.)
You see you have games. These are things that you play and interact with. You install them on a computer or put a disk in a device I like to call a 'games console'.
You also have movies. These are also things that you play but you just watch them instead of interacting, unless you feel the need to scream at your TV. Thats up to you. Typically youll need a drive that plays DVD's or a 'DVD player' to watch them.
At first glance they may appear similar, they are both on disks and all. However, on closer examination over a period of time you will notice that they are infact two completely different forms of media.
Therefore, after much experimenting, it turns out that someone making a comment about the status of games has quite literally no bearing on that same person making decisions about movies.
There are games where the cinematic has immersed the player and made playing the game essential, there are games where everything has suffered just to get you a 30 second poorly animated piece of crap.
Cinematics are just like every other part of a game. If its in and it improves gameplay its good, if it doesnt its bad. Really it is no different to graphics, sound or any other tool in games.
That said I have to support this article more than the previous one. This article recognises they are not always a good thing but doesnt mind them being there. The previous article seemed to argue that they are never a good thing and need to be removed. This is daft, and you could make exactly the same argument about removing every other component of a game. Sure they might not be essential to gamplay but youd be playing pacman and pong till the end of time.
but then the first article writer seems to be under the impression that all games should be entirely non-linear. Now ignoring the fact that there are genres that pretty much completely destroy any idea of a non-linear world, this is cutting off a huge avenue of gaming for no other reason than he thinks its better that way.* Its true non linear gaming is often great and we could probably do with more of it, but the fact remains that some of the best gaming experiences I have had are in games that are very linear. Half Life2 which is also mentioned in many other posts is a great example. It was as linear as you can get right down to wooden barriers that can only be smashed if the game wants you to go through them, this didnt take away from the fact it was a brilliant gaming experience.
It also proves the point of cinematics. Wood doors being a baracade accept in certain situations can be argued to be a very bad idea and if you go by the first persons article it would be banned from being in any game at all afterall how is that any different to a cinematic guiding you past that particular door. Yet the one game people have argued repeatedly for how cinematics are a bad thing utilises it in order to move the player where it wants them to go.
Non-linear gaming isnt necesarily a bad thing, tools utilised in it are not a bad thing (including cinematics), poor use of both of those is a bad thing. Simple.
*I.e. the article was trash. Seriously, it was just some guy whining about a specific type of game that _he_ liked and how all other games whether other people liked them or not are in someway wrong. He may have been more diplomatic about the way he said it but thats basically the bottom line.
There is an easier way to ruin the whole thing, a good old fashioned machine gun. Fire a spray of three bullets and unless they happen to all be in exactly the same line one will get through. Have an army of Storm Troopers firing bullets and your Jedi will be riddled with holes. Even if the Jedi were capable of blocking them with some super fast lightsaber action theyd melt in the beam so no deadly deflections.
Man the Emporer would kick himself if someone mentioned that idea to him. Guess the're so newfangeled they forgot about a good ol Uzi.
Nahh if you want a twitch fest you play Quake1 the speed of Quake1 puts 2 and 3 to shame. In fact they grew progressively slower. (Though certainly not to the extent of a lot of FPS's these days.)
That said I get the point about it not being everyones thing to have ultrafast FPS action. The problem is that most FPS's are the slow variety while Quake is still the only real example of a super fast frag fest.
Even Painkiller and Serious Sam are no real comparison to the Quake series because they only really upped the monsters and thrived on open environments. One of the key features of Quake and Quake 2 was that you were zipping down corridors and all sorts with additional strafe, rocket and double jumping. You get non of that in any other game (Some have tried but its hardly fluid and you tend to just blow yourself up.)
Oddly I think Tribes came closest you could build up serious speed across the landscapes and it introduced a new way of moving just like the various jumping styles of Quake. Problem was that since the original its drastically gone downhill.
Ultra fast FPS's are few and far between itd certainly be nice to at least have a few more lines of them available inbetween the World War recreations and strategy or stealth FPS's.
Your using the fact it says "it wouldn't be fair to say Doom was the first first-person shooter" followed by "To be fair, it was another id game, Wolfenstein 3D, that in 1992 introduced gamers to the concept of the first-person shooter." as evidence that the grandparent was wrong...
Saying Doom wasnt the first and then immediately refering to Wolfenstein with language like 'introduced' is pretty damn heavily implying that the article writer believes Wolfenstein was the first FPS, rather than just the first popular FPS.
The PS3 isnt a computer. You dont have it on and leave it there sitting doing stuff while you go to the shops and such. You switch it on you play it you switch it off. Even if it was linked to one of those projects most of its processing time will be used in running games.
The Cells massive network processing capabilities have been vastly over hyped by the companies behind it in all areas (What a shock...) but ill stick to the gaming market. It would be insanely difficult and counter productive to create a game that utilises it. Most people dont have the connection to other Cells to utilize. Even if they did the game would still have to run perfectly on a normal PS3 anyway, because otherwise only a tiny proportion of people would be capable of running it. I.e. Id put good money on the cells networked processing never being used for the PS3.
'Xbox360 sucks because it can't do that.' No it doesnt. Even if the PS3 was utilised like you claim that doesnt mean anything because these projects are already running on CPU's that dont have that capability. On your average desktop computer the project your hooked up to sends a small chunk to be worked on, your processor does it in its spare cycles and sends it back. There is no reason why the X-Box360 couldnt do the same through live. If it ever happened, which is highly doubtful, and it was popular, even more doubtful, MS could easily follow suit. Theyd also have a far greater range of things to work on because it can run on all the current day projects, and doesnt require its CPU to link in to new and functioning CPU network, that probably wont exist until in to the next generation of consoles.
'Microsoft found this out the hard way in the Timeline case, where they had two choices - cough up to Timeline, or have Timeline sue their customers, and their customers sue Microsoft'
Youve just backed up my point. Timeline can sue the MS customers because the MS customers are liable. Whether the customers can sue MS afterwards or not is another case entirely. Fact is they are breaking the law by using the software and that means they can be punished for it.
'No - the VENDOR is responsible, as well as for any associated costs. I'd say everyone bill Microsoft for the time spent patching this and testing it.'
The vendor is responsible for solving the problems it has, and if they want to keep selling the product they have to show that they are dealing with the issue, but that doesnt take away the fact that you are responsible for dealing with your particular piece of now illegal software.
'Like all other hidden defects, the VENDOR is liable for all the associated costs. So, unless they pointed out beforehand the specific infringement, they are liable.'
That isnt removing your liability. Its simply allowing you to place it back in to the vendors hands. The fact that you _have_ to place it in to the vendors hands or sort it out in some other way is proof that you are currently in breach of the law and therefore you are liable for it. If you werent liable, you could continue using the software illegal or not. That clearly isnt the case.
Whether you can use the vendor as a means of sorting out whats wrong is irrelevant if you dont sort it out youll still get the software confiscated and potentially get sued by the original patent holder if you are caught using it.
In other words you are legally obligated to return, patch or dispose of the software. I believe that is the definition of being liable.
Wikipedia provides a more accurate description of the enhancements. They are mainly, more vibration and more analogue buttons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_Shock
The article doesnt actually mention any improvement that the dual shock 2 provided over the dual shock 1 and implies that all the improvements the dual shock 1 had over the original pad were invented for the dual shock 2. (Accept the analogue sticks.)
Youd think the writer could have spent maybe 10 seconds checking the facts for the already rather poorly written and sparse list. (Coming from me thats a heck of a criticism.)
The C64 joysticks that came with the one we owned were totally white, analogue I think and so loose that the stick didnt feel attached when you held it. If you let it go it would flop around like it was drunk. I remeber trying to play those games where you had to do rapid side to side movements by picking it up by its base and shaking it.
I.e. worst joystick ever.
Bring back clunky microswitch joysticks. Best one I ever used (on the mighty spectrum) clicked like anything but I never once missed a move in fighting games. Come to think of it I dont see why they never made a hybrid. analogue thingy me doodahs to control simulators and the like, microswitches for the games where thats counter intuitive (The amount of times ive had controllers that consider diagonally down to be just plain down.)
Well bravo on the moron remark, it truly represents your intellectual superiority.
His example was fine. You went through the trouble of finding and pasting the paragraphs saying that the legal cases were shot down, while not actually realising that that isnt the point.
The legal cases were valid even if they were eventually thrown out and this is whats important. The company was fully capable of suing the customers for _exactly_ the same crime you claimed they couldnt in your long post. Had Ford lost the case every person that was sued would have lost it as well.
Oh look Microsoft _has_ lost the case that means that every person has also lost it as well. They are all required by law to ensure that they are not in breach of that patent.
As the AC who you decided was a moron pointed out. If you buy stolen goods, even if you new nothing about the fact it was stolen. The goods will still be taken away from you.
Meanwhile your main post is deeply flawed. 'I call BS on that. I don't take any legal liability unless enter into a contract stating that I accept such potential liabiity BEFORE the sale.'
This isnt about any contract youve signed or the EULA, taking the stolen example again. Whether you sign a contract saying you take liability for the theft or not is irrelevant itll still be confiscated. No company, infact no one can just write up a contract that says you will or wont be liable if the product you have is breaking the law, because, well, its breaking the law...
Itd be like complaining about going to jail for killing someone because they hadnt gotten you to sign a contract saying you couldnt, before you commited the crime.
Seeing as your entire post and point is based around this your entire post is also a load of trash. The nice and capitalised part of the EULA isnt a contract for you to argue over, its a warning of the fact that if such a thing happens _you_ are liable according to the law.
Nor is this a case of MS changing the contract after you've got the software. It was always illegal for you to run software that breaks the patent laws. MS dont choose whether the people using illegal software are liable or not.
The fact is if anything that you own becomes illegal then you are responsible for disposing of it or updating it so that it is not illegal anymore. You cant just say you werent informed about it when you bought it, you cant blame it on the company. (Well you can but it wont make your software any less illegal.) You cant sign away the illegal nature of what you're using. You have to sort it out yourself.
Now if you decide the way to sort it out is to return it to MS, and ask for a full refund because you can no longer use it with the patch in place... Well thats a whole different kettle of fish.
"Hypothesis A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption. The antecedent of a conditional statement."
This typically can not be tested by further investigation (Though yes this article is a bit of an exception.) It isnt an assumption as such there are mathematical theories behind it, and it is not being taken as true for the purpose of argument because it is the argument.
Meanwhile the first definition of a theory.
"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
Statements and principles to explain a phenomena pretty much fits the bill. The word especially means that it doesnt necessarily need to have been repeatedly tested.
In real life examples the hypothesis is usually an introductory set of statements in a particular piece of work that set out what facts you believe to be true so that the test you are about to perform can be compared against them in order to determine a conclusion. (At least this is how it worked in A-Levels) As opposed to a theory that is not so much setting out facts to be tested but extrapolating information from your workings, whether from tests, or in the case of string theory the maths.
As I said though its largely semantic. The two words overlap each other somewhat in use and definition. Whether it be a hypothesis or a theory it will always remain that way until some degree of factual evidence can be brought to light. (Though of course purists will recognise that nothing is factual in science things just get to be highly probable.)
"1. This verdict is absolutely crap. COPYING child porn is not the same as CREATING NEW child porn. No children are harmed by such an act."
I whole heartedly agree.
"2. Submitter -- Why is he a *scumbag* pedophile? People generally don't choose what and who they're attracted to. It is not illegal to be attracted to children. It is only illegal to act on it. Provided that he doesn't, he can still be a good man in my book."
Errr he did act on it by getting the pictures in the first place. If there wasnt the demand then there wouldnt be the production, if there wasnt the production there wouldnt be as many children being horrendously abused.
"3. Laws against pedophiles (not against pedophiliac acts -- pedophiles) are counter-productive."
I actually agree to a point.
"For example, it is illegal to create computer-generated child pornography. Why!?"
because it is a problem. A psychological sickness they should be getting help to stop it, not generating pictures to feed it.
"Provided that it gives people who are into such things a release, and no children are harmed, I have no problem with it."
Problem is there is increasing evidence to suggest that indulging in activities such as this reinforces ideas in the brain. (Its recently been used in psychology as cognitive therapy.) The more you view the more acceptable it becomes, I want to make it clear that this is not the same as video game violence and the like. Video game violence merely makes more video game violence acceptable. This art is portraying a real life attraction not a blatently obvious false reality.
Real world examples can be seen in the porn industry today as adult porn has become increasinly accepted it has also begun to grow increasingly brutal. It's unfortunatley being largely ignored. Which is a problem with both that industry and paedophiles.
Recent survey place 60% of men as having fantasies about children at one time or another. (I will try find a link to the actual survey.) This is a conservative estimate as many taking the servey, though anonymous, wouldnt be comfortable about ticking that box under any circumstances. This is a problem with society and needs some serious addressing instead of picking out the few people that cross the line and hammering them with every law and loop hole that can be found.
By doing that you remain entirely closed off from the issue and this has shown in the past and today to have terrible consequences. (Close off sex ed you get more underage pregnancy, close off drug info you get more addicts.) Instead of being allowed to talk about it as a disturbing complex the people who have these thoughts simply bury them scared to hell both of themselves and the consequences of anyone ever finding out. (Ignoring the scum who actually act on them.)
I dont maintain that people shouldnt be ashamed of thoughts towards children but at the same time youd have to be an idiot to not realise this isnt entirely unnatural or even that persons fault. It shouldnt be such a taboo, such a disgusting idea that people that need help wont ever feel they should go get it for fear of the consequences.
I stress again, I am talking about _before_ crossing the line, not after. You cross the line and get these images or worse, make them, you deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law. (Though no further, as this case appears to be attempting.)
In theory it is easier than it sounds just like the article says.
For instance take a simple pool simulator with 4 or 5 balls. You hit the cue ball in to the triangle of pool balls. Collision detection isnt utilized until after the balls have been moved so you simply give each ball and SPE to work out where its moved to and you are processing them all at once. Not to hard. The process can be used for testing actual collisions as well so that can be done for each ball on each SPE as well.
Thing is there are some hefty inefficiencies here. It certainly isnt using the threading to its maximum potential. Optimization is a little more complicated. For instance, you have all the balls new positions now do you a) use an SPE to start on the graphics side of things (which as any good programmer knows should be entirely disconnected from the system.) at the same time as the balls are being checked for collisions. or b) Wait and waste processing time as the remaining SPE's complete there task.
b) is nice and linear you setup one list of jobs nock em down setup the next but at the cost of efficiency.
a) is different, given that most balls in an average game of pool arnt going to be bouncing off each other all over the place its probably more efficient in the long run. However, for those balls that have collided youve then got to utilise threads to calculate their effects and redraw them. Makes things more complicated. (Remember if your using this method that the graphics will be trying to move on to the next process after placing the geometry at the same time as youve just discovered some balls require repositioning and fresh geometry to be drawn up.)
It gets more complicated when you think that that is just one test and one transition. From collision detection to drawing the graphics. In reality youd have collision detection include a routine to find out if the balls have passed through each other and you would need to ensure the paths of the balls were accurate with runge kutta or some such.* Youd also have to co-ordinate drawing the geometry with this new step and with the more advanced graphical things that need to happen after youve got the basic shapes and positions down.
When you also consider that this is one of the simplest physics examples you could have running you can see how in practice threaded programming can fast get out of control. Im certain there are much higher levels of parrellel processing that would increase efficiency and complexity even further.
So in response to the article. I think they are correct in saying that it isnt as hard as it has been made out to be, but then ive heard people claim the PS3 will be no more powerful than a PS2 on launch so thats not hard. On the other hand I think the article downplays the serious complexity that multi threaded processing will ultimately require to get the full power out of it.
I also think the PC comparison is daft. An 8 threaded brand new CPU without cache is nothing like a 2 threaded traditional AMD/Intel CPU. An AMD or Intel could do the inefficient method of processing and not lose much ability because its already a really powerful chip. If the Cell didnt utilise any threaded processing it would be much worse than most desktop computers. It has much more potential to go horribly wrong.
This isnt an 'end of the day thing.' This is a 'whole new day of really complicated designs and ideas' thing, but then, thats not necasarily a bad thing at all.
Oh and please note I wasnt the greatest of games programmers even when I was programming games, so take this with a pinch of salt or even better throw in some corrections.
*In case your wondering if, when detecting collisions you basically test whether a ball is inside another ball. If it is they must have collided with each other and you back them up do some jiggery pokery with their forces and send them on there way. If they are moving too fast then the time period youve taken to get their new positions might be sufficiently large to allo
No offense but I think this is deceptive about how informative it is.
They didnt choose OpenGL as opposed to Direct3D They chose it as opposed to a proprietry API. Thats quite different.
There are plenty of arguments for Direct3D being just as capable as OpenGL a good quantity of people believe its better. This, however, is largely irrelevant to Sony, who are in direct opposition to the people who make Direct3D.
So instead of choosing OpenGL as a wise development move its far more likely they chose it because the only other easy development API would have ment being in MS's pocket. Direct3D really was never an option.
Still always nice to have a Direct3D vs OpenGL show down.
Id probably go for the DS because you can get a flash cart to run the code easy enough and I believe the software to do it is on usenet and the like.
Not only that but the GBA homebrew scene is already thriving and will be easier to start with than either DS or PSP games.
The PSP in contrast is harder to develop for as it is PS2 technology fairly notorious for its difficulties unless your experienced with it. Also last I checked it requires a PS2 dev kit. Im not even sure if you can get a hold of one of them without having some business or University connections. (We had a lab full of them at Uni, though I dont think thats usual even if you had access to such an institution.)
As the other threads have pointed out there are alternative platforms as well.
Thing is you dont know if theyve blown their head start. In fact no one does.
The 360 does not have the powering momentum that MS wanted it to have, but that doesnt change the fact that this may have a huge nock on effect.
Nintendo I can see benefit quite a bit off of this because they tend to fill demand faster than the others. This time seems no different, their hardware is cheaper to produce so they can gear up fast. Still they are coming in to it with MS already having a presence so its anyones guess as to who will have the bigger chunk before Sony come in.
Sony are the ones that MS are really after and its there that slow start or not it will have the most impact. While people are complaining about MS not filling demand the PS3 is being hurried for release and they arent managing to hurry it up fast enough. There is now pretty much no chance it will come out until Christmas season and this isnt a tactical choice. They literally have no choice but to wait that long before they have a chance of fulfilling the demands they will have on them. I.e. Sony are almost certainly going to have as much trouble getting their units to everyone that MS have. (Perhaps not quite as long lasting.) Only difference is that the 360 will, by that time, be in full swing, fully loaded with a set of games and available to all for a much cheaper price.
This is speculation though perhaps Sony will put in the money and up production so that they pull it off. Perhaps the 360 will go in to decline and vanish as so many others have. Heck perhaps Nintendo will smash Microsoft and be so entrenched it takes majority share when the PS3 comes out.
No one knows but MS while failing the battle to do as well as they wanted may not have failed the war.
Do Microsoft have to bankrupt themselves before people will stop all this utter nonsense about shortages.
Shortages dont make money, they never have, they never will.
There is every bit of evidence that shortages are a fact of production. There is no evidence that shortages are done on purpose, other than people on forums going 'The're evil they must be doing it on purpose.'
Please feel free to correct me with some quantity of hard evidence to prove me wrong. Otherwise quit it with these idiotic conspiracy theories.
So the dozens of indie movie directors who produce some fine work on budgets that cant hit even a single million. Not one of them was considered... because?*
While the director Boll who has produced a never ending stream of diarrhea, and Blood Rayne, the film they mention as giving him a much bigger budget hasnt broken this trend, is making the film... Why?
Dont give me that 'hes been demonized' bullshit. Ive seen his films they are among the worst ive ever witnessed. Battlefield Earth is made to look average along side them. The critics may be too hard on him but the critics gave Predator a bad rating. The public still went, its still considered a classic action film. The same is not happening and hasnt happened with any of Boll's drivel.
Dont give me that 'He needs to be given a chance' bullshit. Hes already been given several and there are no signs that things are changing. My friends and I all gave him chances we have watched film after film by him. I even gave bloodrayne a chance knowing the slating it had already been given. This man is a walking cinematic disaster.
He had a crappy tax law to exploit before but even thats gone. There are no redeeming features for this director and the morons that have chosen him for their future projects need to come up with some better arguments than 'Well this time it might be different.' if they want there films to make it to more than a handful of cinema's.
*I am aware that there is a lot of crap in the indie film area but there are a few that really need the opportunities that Boll has taken and screwed up time and time again.
I dont remember having homosexual feelings for Arnie...
Anyhow whether your comment is true or not doesnt really change things.
If the men are eye candy for the women, then she should complain about them as much as the female characters.
If the men are acting as macho models for other men then she should complain about them as being just as made for male players as the female characters.
Doesnt matter which sex the characters end up being made for if they were supposed to be built for both sexes. I.e. if you have issues with a woman in skimpy non functional clothing, you should have issues with the males in skimpy non functional clothing. (Or in Voldo's case, a gimp suit.)
'Are they wearing thongs like Ivy?' Um yeah Voldo does.
Ivy's a dominatrix character. Shes taller than the other women, has a whip, her moves are suggestive, her costume is made to match that. Go to the right sites *ahem* and youll find there are real women wearing similar without any 'jiggle' or 'wedgie' issues. If your asking for a functional costume then everyone in the game would be in nightmare/seigfried like armour.
The outfits in Soul Calibur are fine they fit each character perfectly and if your particularly annoyed you can change to the alternative. (Ivy is in formal wear or some such I cant see that offending even the biggest prudes.) I mean im not on forums complaining that Voldo is an insult to my masculinity and men in general, and his alternatives just make his thongs bigger...
You said you didnt mind all the large breasted stuff so I really cant see any issues here.
Now ignoring the fact that the argument for creationism and ID was apparently 'Well Evolution is wrong.' which isnt actually any evidence at all.
Basically ID was based on irreducible design. Religeon decided to stop there and leave it at the fact that there is no way of having such complex creations happen through mutation. This is common for religeon because unlike science religeon is interested in finding anything that supports God and nothing else. Real science works the other way round and attempts to find all the evidence they can to disprove theories. If they cant the theory is more likely to be true.
It took a real scientist a couple of days of looking at the specimen involved in irreducible design before he found that 40% of it could be missing and it would still work fine. The evidence against evolution was a sham.
I dont advocate people giving up on disproving evolution I encourage it as with every area of science but unless you have evidence enough to counter it and not just break it down with absolute rubbish then creationism must be seen as a total fiction.
This is a serious problem. It shows both a break down in our education system and indoctrination of a dangerous religeous system.
'Evolution has a massive amount of evidence to back it and explains, lets say, 99% of how life works. The remaining 1% is yet to be discovered. Creationism and Intelligent Design explains precisely... nothing' Richard Dawkins a scientist with his head actually screwed on right.
Slashdot Mirror
Check Metacritic, or indeed any decent list of reviews. All the consoles have just as much quality to quantity as each other (Infact the PS2 actually comes in slightly worse off than the X-Box and Gamecube)
All the consoles have top games on them it just depends on what you want to play.
I wish people would realise that instead of waving there dicks around whenever the PS gets a new RPG. Some of us really just dont care about final fantasy.
Pretty much.
When searching for Quake2 servers to play on youd get one of three things.
a) Id totally decimate the other players barely anyone would be on any more than a frag by the time id hit the 100 frag limit.
b) Id get totally decimated by the other players. Id spawn, explode, spawn, explode...
c) Id be in the top 3 or 4 players. We would duke it out and the 10 or so other players would be frag fodder in between our fights.
Option c is typically what id look for but it still wouldnt remove the problem of one of those 3 or 4 good players simply running away from anyone with an iota of skill and killing all the new or terrible players to rack of frags.
There was no way of working out a skill level for particular players so it was a hit or miss process and on more than one occaision I went in to about 5 different servers and just got bored of trying to get a good gaming experience out of it.
The live service doesnt actually restrict your ability to have any of those options happen to you (Im sure some experienced player would love to slap you around for a bit.) it just expands on it so you can have more and far superior options.
(This is ignoring the fact that a lot of the servers were up and down like a yoyo.)
You see you have games. These are things that you play and interact with. You install them on a computer or put a disk in a device I like to call a 'games console'.
You also have movies. These are also things that you play but you just watch them instead of interacting, unless you feel the need to scream at your TV. Thats up to you. Typically youll need a drive that plays DVD's or a 'DVD player' to watch them.
At first glance they may appear similar, they are both on disks and all. However, on closer examination over a period of time you will notice that they are infact two completely different forms of media.
Therefore, after much experimenting, it turns out that someone making a comment about the status of games has quite literally no bearing on that same person making decisions about movies.
There are games where the cinematic has immersed the player and made playing the game essential, there are games where everything has suffered just to get you a 30 second poorly animated piece of crap.
Cinematics are just like every other part of a game. If its in and it improves gameplay its good, if it doesnt its bad. Really it is no different to graphics, sound or any other tool in games.
That said I have to support this article more than the previous one. This article recognises they are not always a good thing but doesnt mind them being there. The previous article seemed to argue that they are never a good thing and need to be removed. This is daft, and you could make exactly the same argument about removing every other component of a game. Sure they might not be essential to gamplay but youd be playing pacman and pong till the end of time.
but then the first article writer seems to be under the impression that all games should be entirely non-linear. Now ignoring the fact that there are genres that pretty much completely destroy any idea of a non-linear world, this is cutting off a huge avenue of gaming for no other reason than he thinks its better that way.* Its true non linear gaming is often great and we could probably do with more of it, but the fact remains that some of the best gaming experiences I have had are in games that are very linear. Half Life2 which is also mentioned in many other posts is a great example. It was as linear as you can get right down to wooden barriers that can only be smashed if the game wants you to go through them, this didnt take away from the fact it was a brilliant gaming experience.
It also proves the point of cinematics. Wood doors being a baracade accept in certain situations can be argued to be a very bad idea and if you go by the first persons article it would be banned from being in any game at all afterall how is that any different to a cinematic guiding you past that particular door. Yet the one game people have argued repeatedly for how cinematics are a bad thing utilises it in order to move the player where it wants them to go.
Non-linear gaming isnt necesarily a bad thing, tools utilised in it are not a bad thing (including cinematics), poor use of both of those is a bad thing. Simple.
*I.e. the article was trash. Seriously, it was just some guy whining about a specific type of game that _he_ liked and how all other games whether other people liked them or not are in someway wrong. He may have been more diplomatic about the way he said it but thats basically the bottom line.
You seem to have looked in to it a bit too much.
There is an easier way to ruin the whole thing, a good old fashioned machine gun.
Fire a spray of three bullets and unless they happen to all be in exactly the same line one will get through. Have an army of Storm Troopers firing bullets and your Jedi will be riddled with holes. Even if the Jedi were capable of blocking them with some super fast lightsaber action theyd melt in the beam so no deadly deflections.
Man the Emporer would kick himself if someone mentioned that idea to him. Guess the're so newfangeled they forgot about a good ol Uzi.
Nahh if you want a twitch fest you play Quake1 the speed of Quake1 puts 2 and 3 to shame. In fact they grew progressively slower. (Though certainly not to the extent of a lot of FPS's these days.)
That said I get the point about it not being everyones thing to have ultrafast FPS action. The problem is that most FPS's are the slow variety while Quake is still the only real example of a super fast frag fest.
Even Painkiller and Serious Sam are no real comparison to the Quake series because they only really upped the monsters and thrived on open environments. One of the key features of Quake and Quake 2 was that you were zipping down corridors and all sorts with additional strafe, rocket and double jumping. You get non of that in any other game (Some have tried but its hardly fluid and you tend to just blow yourself up.)
Oddly I think Tribes came closest you could build up serious speed across the landscapes and it introduced a new way of moving just like the various jumping styles of Quake. Problem was that since the original its drastically gone downhill.
Ultra fast FPS's are few and far between itd certainly be nice to at least have a few more lines of them available inbetween the World War recreations and strategy or stealth FPS's.
Your using the fact it says "it wouldn't be fair to say Doom was the first first-person shooter" followed by "To be fair, it was another id game, Wolfenstein 3D, that in 1992 introduced gamers to the concept of the first-person shooter." as evidence that the grandparent was wrong...
Saying Doom wasnt the first and then immediately refering to Wolfenstein with language like 'introduced' is pretty damn heavily implying that the article writer believes Wolfenstein was the first FPS, rather than just the first popular FPS.
It wasnt, the grandparents comments are valid.
The PS3 isnt a computer. You dont have it on and leave it there sitting doing stuff while you go to the shops and such. You switch it on you play it you switch it off. Even if it was linked to one of those projects most of its processing time will be used in running games.
The Cells massive network processing capabilities have been vastly over hyped by the companies behind it in all areas (What a shock...) but ill stick to the gaming market. It would be insanely difficult and counter productive to create a game that utilises it. Most people dont have the connection to other Cells to utilize. Even if they did the game would still have to run perfectly on a normal PS3 anyway, because otherwise only a tiny proportion of people would be capable of running it. I.e. Id put good money on the cells networked processing never being used for the PS3.
'Xbox360 sucks because it can't do that.'
No it doesnt. Even if the PS3 was utilised like you claim that doesnt mean anything because these projects are already running on CPU's that dont have that capability. On your average desktop computer the project your hooked up to sends a small chunk to be worked on, your processor does it in its spare cycles and sends it back. There is no reason why the X-Box360 couldnt do the same through live. If it ever happened, which is highly doubtful, and it was popular, even more doubtful, MS could easily follow suit. Theyd also have a far greater range of things to work on because it can run on all the current day projects, and doesnt require its CPU to link in to new and functioning CPU network, that probably wont exist until in to the next generation of consoles.
errr because its a Sony related article about what Sony have said?
'Microsoft found this out the hard way in the Timeline case, where they had two choices - cough up to Timeline, or have Timeline sue their customers, and their customers sue Microsoft'
Youve just backed up my point. Timeline can sue the MS customers because the MS customers are liable. Whether the customers can sue MS afterwards or not is another case entirely. Fact is they are breaking the law by using the software and that means they can be punished for it.
'No - the VENDOR is responsible, as well as for any associated costs. I'd say everyone bill Microsoft for the time spent patching this and testing it.'
The vendor is responsible for solving the problems it has, and if they want to keep selling the product they have to show that they are dealing with the issue, but that doesnt take away the fact that you are responsible for dealing with your particular piece of now illegal software.
'Like all other hidden defects, the VENDOR is liable for all the associated costs. So, unless they pointed out beforehand the specific infringement, they are liable.'
That isnt removing your liability. Its simply allowing you to place it back in to the vendors hands. The fact that you _have_ to place it in to the vendors hands or sort it out in some other way is proof that you are currently in breach of the law and therefore you are liable for it. If you werent liable, you could continue using the software illegal or not. That clearly isnt the case.
Whether you can use the vendor as a means of sorting out whats wrong is irrelevant if you dont sort it out youll still get the software confiscated and potentially get sued by the original patent holder if you are caught using it.
In other words you are legally obligated to return, patch or dispose of the software. I believe that is the definition of being liable.
Having a dual shock 1 controller myself I agree.
Wikipedia provides a more accurate description of the enhancements. They are mainly, more vibration and more analogue buttons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_Shock
The article doesnt actually mention any improvement that the dual shock 2 provided over the dual shock 1 and implies that all the improvements the dual shock 1 had over the original pad were invented for the dual shock 2. (Accept the analogue sticks.)
Youd think the writer could have spent maybe 10 seconds checking the facts for the already rather poorly written and sparse list. (Coming from me thats a heck of a criticism.)
The C64 joysticks that came with the one we owned were totally white, analogue I think and so loose that the stick didnt feel attached when you held it. If you let it go it would flop around like it was drunk.
I remeber trying to play those games where you had to do rapid side to side movements by picking it up by its base and shaking it.
I.e. worst joystick ever.
Bring back clunky microswitch joysticks. Best one I ever used (on the mighty spectrum) clicked like anything but I never once missed a move in fighting games. Come to think of it I dont see why they never made a hybrid. analogue thingy me doodahs to control simulators and the like, microswitches for the games where thats counter intuitive (The amount of times ive had controllers that consider diagonally down to be just plain down.)
Well bravo on the moron remark, it truly represents your intellectual superiority.
His example was fine. You went through the trouble of finding and pasting the paragraphs saying that the legal cases were shot down, while not actually realising that that isnt the point.
The legal cases were valid even if they were eventually thrown out and this is whats important. The company was fully capable of suing the customers for _exactly_ the same crime you claimed they couldnt in your long post. Had Ford lost the case every person that was sued would have lost it as well.
Oh look Microsoft _has_ lost the case that means that every person has also lost it as well. They are all required by law to ensure that they are not in breach of that patent.
As the AC who you decided was a moron pointed out. If you buy stolen goods, even if you new nothing about the fact it was stolen. The goods will still be taken away from you.
Meanwhile your main post is deeply flawed.
'I call BS on that. I don't take any legal liability unless enter into a contract stating that I accept such potential liabiity BEFORE the sale.'
This isnt about any contract youve signed or the EULA, taking the stolen example again. Whether you sign a contract saying you take liability for the theft or not is irrelevant itll still be confiscated. No company, infact no one can just write up a contract that says you will or wont be liable if the product you have is breaking the law, because, well, its breaking the law...
Itd be like complaining about going to jail for killing someone because they hadnt gotten you to sign a contract saying you couldnt, before you commited the crime.
Seeing as your entire post and point is based around this your entire post is also a load of trash. The nice and capitalised part of the EULA isnt a contract for you to argue over, its a warning of the fact that if such a thing happens _you_ are liable according to the law.
Nor is this a case of MS changing the contract after you've got the software. It was always illegal for you to run software that breaks the patent laws. MS dont choose whether the people using illegal software are liable or not.
The fact is if anything that you own becomes illegal then you are responsible for disposing of it or updating it so that it is not illegal anymore. You cant just say you werent informed about it when you bought it, you cant blame it on the company. (Well you can but it wont make your software any less illegal.) You cant sign away the illegal nature of what you're using.
You have to sort it out yourself.
Now if you decide the way to sort it out is to return it to MS, and ask for a full refund because you can no longer use it with the patch in place... Well thats a whole different kettle of fish.
Well to get all semantic on you.
"Hypothesis
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
The antecedent of a conditional statement."
This typically can not be tested by further investigation (Though yes this article is a bit of an exception.) It isnt an assumption as such there are mathematical theories behind it, and it is not being taken as true for the purpose of argument because it is the argument.
Meanwhile the first definition of a theory.
"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
Statements and principles to explain a phenomena pretty much fits the bill. The word especially means that it doesnt necessarily need to have been repeatedly tested.
In real life examples the hypothesis is usually an introductory set of statements in a particular piece of work that set out what facts you believe to be true so that the test you are about to perform can be compared against them in order to determine a conclusion. (At least this is how it worked in A-Levels)
As opposed to a theory that is not so much setting out facts to be tested but extrapolating information from your workings, whether from tests, or in the case of string theory the maths.
As I said though its largely semantic. The two words overlap each other somewhat in use and definition. Whether it be a hypothesis or a theory it will always remain that way until some degree of factual evidence can be brought to light. (Though of course purists will recognise that nothing is factual in science things just get to be highly probable.)
"1. This verdict is absolutely crap. COPYING child porn is not the same as CREATING NEW child porn. No children are harmed by such an act."
I whole heartedly agree.
"2. Submitter -- Why is he a *scumbag* pedophile? People generally don't choose what and who they're attracted to. It is not illegal to be attracted to children. It is only illegal to act on it. Provided that he doesn't, he can still be a good man in my book."
Errr he did act on it by getting the pictures in the first place. If there wasnt the demand then there wouldnt be the production, if there wasnt the production there wouldnt be as many children being horrendously abused.
"3. Laws against pedophiles (not against pedophiliac acts -- pedophiles) are counter-productive."
I actually agree to a point.
"For example, it is illegal to create computer-generated child pornography. Why!?"
because it is a problem. A psychological sickness they should be getting help to stop it, not generating pictures to feed it.
"Provided that it gives people who are into such things a release, and no children are harmed, I have no problem with it."
Problem is there is increasing evidence to suggest that indulging in activities such as this reinforces ideas in the brain. (Its recently been used in psychology as cognitive therapy.)
The more you view the more acceptable it becomes, I want to make it clear that this is not the same as video game violence and the like. Video game violence merely makes more video game violence acceptable. This art is portraying a real life attraction not a blatently obvious false reality.
Real world examples can be seen in the porn industry today as adult porn has become increasinly accepted it has also begun to grow increasingly brutal. It's unfortunatley being largely ignored. Which is a problem with both that industry and paedophiles.
Recent survey place 60% of men as having fantasies about children at one time or another. (I will try find a link to the actual survey.) This is a conservative estimate as many taking the servey, though anonymous, wouldnt be comfortable about ticking that box under any circumstances. This is a problem with society and needs some serious addressing instead of picking out the few people that cross the line and hammering them with every law and loop hole that can be found.
By doing that you remain entirely closed off from the issue and this has shown in the past and today to have terrible consequences. (Close off sex ed you get more underage pregnancy, close off drug info you get more addicts.) Instead of being allowed to talk about it as a disturbing complex the people who have these thoughts simply bury them scared to hell both of themselves and the consequences of anyone ever finding out. (Ignoring the scum who actually act on them.)
I dont maintain that people shouldnt be ashamed of thoughts towards children but at the same time youd have to be an idiot to not realise this isnt entirely unnatural or even that persons fault. It shouldnt be such a taboo, such a disgusting idea that people that need help wont ever feel they should go get it for fear of the consequences.
I stress again, I am talking about _before_ crossing the line, not after. You cross the line and get these images or worse, make them, you deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law. (Though no further, as this case appears to be attempting.)
In theory it is easier than it sounds just like the article says.
For instance take a simple pool simulator with 4 or 5 balls. You hit the cue ball in to the triangle of pool balls. Collision detection isnt utilized until after the balls have been moved so you simply give each ball and SPE to work out where its moved to and you are processing them all at once. Not to hard.
The process can be used for testing actual collisions as well so that can be done for each ball on each SPE as well.
Thing is there are some hefty inefficiencies here. It certainly isnt using the threading to its maximum potential. Optimization is a little more complicated. For instance, you have all the balls new positions now do you a) use an SPE to start on the graphics side of things (which as any good programmer knows should be entirely disconnected from the system.) at the same time as the balls are being checked for collisions. or b) Wait and waste processing time as the remaining SPE's complete there task.
b) is nice and linear you setup one list of jobs nock em down setup the next but at the cost of efficiency.
a) is different, given that most balls in an average game of pool arnt going to be bouncing off each other all over the place its probably more efficient in the long run. However, for those balls that have collided youve then got to utilise threads to calculate their effects and redraw them. Makes things more complicated. (Remember if your using this method that the graphics will be trying to move on to the next process after placing the geometry at the same time as youve just discovered some balls require repositioning and fresh geometry to be drawn up.)
It gets more complicated when you think that that is just one test and one transition. From collision detection to drawing the graphics. In reality youd have collision detection include a routine to find out if the balls have passed through each other and you would need to ensure the paths of the balls were accurate with runge kutta or some such.* Youd also have to co-ordinate drawing the geometry with this new step and with the more advanced graphical things that need to happen after youve got the basic shapes and positions down.
When you also consider that this is one of the simplest physics examples you could have running you can see how in practice threaded programming can fast get out of control. Im certain there are much higher levels of parrellel processing that would increase efficiency and complexity even further.
So in response to the article. I think they are correct in saying that it isnt as hard as it has been made out to be, but then ive heard people claim the PS3 will be no more powerful than a PS2 on launch so thats not hard.
On the other hand I think the article downplays the serious complexity that multi threaded processing will ultimately require to get the full power out of it.
I also think the PC comparison is daft. An 8 threaded brand new CPU without cache is nothing like a 2 threaded traditional AMD/Intel CPU. An AMD or Intel could do the inefficient method of processing and not lose much ability because its already a really powerful chip. If the Cell didnt utilise any threaded processing it would be much worse than most desktop computers. It has much more potential to go horribly wrong.
This isnt an 'end of the day thing.' This is a 'whole new day of really complicated designs and ideas' thing, but then, thats not necasarily a bad thing at all.
Oh and please note I wasnt the greatest of games programmers even when I was programming games, so take this with a pinch of salt or even better throw in some corrections.
*In case your wondering if, when detecting collisions you basically test whether a ball is inside another ball. If it is they must have collided with each other and you back them up do some jiggery pokery with their forces and send them on there way. If they are moving too fast then the time period youve taken to get their new positions might be sufficiently large to allo
No offense but I think this is deceptive about how informative it is.
They didnt choose OpenGL as opposed to Direct3D They chose it as opposed to a proprietry API. Thats quite different.
There are plenty of arguments for Direct3D being just as capable as OpenGL a good quantity of people believe its better. This, however, is largely irrelevant to Sony, who are in direct opposition to the people who make Direct3D.
So instead of choosing OpenGL as a wise development move its far more likely they chose it because the only other easy development API would have ment being in MS's pocket. Direct3D really was never an option.
Still always nice to have a Direct3D vs OpenGL show down.
Id probably go for the DS because you can get a flash cart to run the code easy enough and I believe the software to do it is on usenet and the like.
Not only that but the GBA homebrew scene is already thriving and will be easier to start with than either DS or PSP games.
The PSP in contrast is harder to develop for as it is PS2 technology fairly notorious for its difficulties unless your experienced with it. Also last I checked it requires a PS2 dev kit. Im not even sure if you can get a hold of one of them without having some business or University connections. (We had a lab full of them at Uni, though I dont think thats usual even if you had access to such an institution.)
As the other threads have pointed out there are alternative platforms as well.
Irrelevant. If String Theory can not be adequately tested it will remain just that. A theory.
Religeon is considered, against all reason and logic, absolute fact.
Thing is you dont know if theyve blown their head start. In fact no one does.
The 360 does not have the powering momentum that MS wanted it to have, but that doesnt change the fact that this may have a huge nock on effect.
Nintendo I can see benefit quite a bit off of this because they tend to fill demand faster than the others. This time seems no different, their hardware is cheaper to produce so they can gear up fast. Still they are coming in to it with MS already having a presence so its anyones guess as to who will have the bigger chunk before Sony come in.
Sony are the ones that MS are really after and its there that slow start or not it will have the most impact. While people are complaining about MS not filling demand the PS3 is being hurried for release and they arent managing to hurry it up fast enough. There is now pretty much no chance it will come out until Christmas season and this isnt a tactical choice. They literally have no choice but to wait that long before they have a chance of fulfilling the demands they will have on them. I.e. Sony are almost certainly going to have as much trouble getting their units to everyone that MS have. (Perhaps not quite as long lasting.) Only difference is that the 360 will, by that time, be in full swing, fully loaded with a set of games and available to all for a much cheaper price.
This is speculation though perhaps Sony will put in the money and up production so that they pull it off. Perhaps the 360 will go in to decline and vanish as so many others have. Heck perhaps Nintendo will smash Microsoft and be so entrenched it takes majority share when the PS3 comes out.
No one knows but MS while failing the battle to do as well as they wanted may not have failed the war.
Do Microsoft have to bankrupt themselves before people will stop all this utter nonsense about shortages.
Shortages dont make money, they never have, they never will.
There is every bit of evidence that shortages are a fact of production. There is no evidence that shortages are done on purpose, other than people on forums going 'The're evil they must be doing it on purpose.'
Please feel free to correct me with some quantity of hard evidence to prove me wrong. Otherwise quit it with these idiotic conspiracy theories.
So the dozens of indie movie directors who produce some fine work on budgets that cant hit even a single million. Not one of them was considered... because?*
While the director Boll who has produced a never ending stream of diarrhea, and Blood Rayne, the film they mention as giving him a much bigger budget hasnt broken this trend, is making the film... Why?
Dont give me that 'hes been demonized' bullshit. Ive seen his films they are among the worst ive ever witnessed. Battlefield Earth is made to look average along side them. The critics may be too hard on him but the critics gave Predator a bad rating. The public still went, its still considered a classic action film. The same is not happening and hasnt happened with any of Boll's drivel.
Dont give me that 'He needs to be given a chance' bullshit. Hes already been given several and there are no signs that things are changing. My friends and I all gave him chances we have watched film after film by him. I even gave bloodrayne a chance knowing the slating it had already been given. This man is a walking cinematic disaster.
He had a crappy tax law to exploit before but even thats gone. There are no redeeming features for this director and the morons that have chosen him for their future projects need to come up with some better arguments than 'Well this time it might be different.' if they want there films to make it to more than a handful of cinema's.
*I am aware that there is a lot of crap in the indie film area but there are a few that really need the opportunities that Boll has taken and screwed up time and time again.
I dont remember having homosexual feelings for Arnie...
Anyhow whether your comment is true or not doesnt really change things.
If the men are eye candy for the women, then she should complain about them as much as the female characters.
If the men are acting as macho models for other men then she should complain about them as being just as made for male players as the female characters.
Doesnt matter which sex the characters end up being made for if they were supposed to be built for both sexes. I.e. if you have issues with a woman in skimpy non functional clothing, you should have issues with the males in skimpy non functional clothing. (Or in Voldo's case, a gimp suit.)
'Are they wearing thongs like Ivy?'
Um yeah Voldo does.
Ivy's a dominatrix character. Shes taller than the other women, has a whip, her moves are suggestive, her costume is made to match that. Go to the right sites *ahem* and youll find there are real women wearing similar without any 'jiggle' or 'wedgie' issues.
If your asking for a functional costume then everyone in the game would be in nightmare/seigfried like armour.
The outfits in Soul Calibur are fine they fit each character perfectly and if your particularly annoyed you can change to the alternative. (Ivy is in formal wear or some such I cant see that offending even the biggest prudes.) I mean im not on forums complaining that Voldo is an insult to my masculinity and men in general, and his alternatives just make his thongs bigger...
You said you didnt mind all the large breasted stuff so I really cant see any issues here.
Now ignoring the fact that the argument for creationism and ID was apparently 'Well Evolution is wrong.' which isnt actually any evidence at all.
Basically ID was based on irreducible design. Religeon decided to stop there and leave it at the fact that there is no way of having such complex creations happen through mutation. This is common for religeon because unlike science religeon is interested in finding anything that supports God and nothing else. Real science works the other way round and attempts to find all the evidence they can to disprove theories. If they cant the theory is more likely to be true.
It took a real scientist a couple of days of looking at the specimen involved in irreducible design before he found that 40% of it could be missing and it would still work fine. The evidence against evolution was a sham.
I dont advocate people giving up on disproving evolution I encourage it as with every area of science but unless you have evidence enough to counter it and not just break it down with absolute rubbish then creationism must be seen as a total fiction.
This is a serious problem. It shows both a break down in our education system and indoctrination of a dangerous religeous system.
'Evolution has a massive amount of evidence to back it and explains, lets say, 99% of how life works. The remaining 1% is yet to be discovered. Creationism and Intelligent Design explains precisely... nothing'
Richard Dawkins a scientist with his head actually screwed on right.