That really depends on your definition of interpret. A browser takes a HTML page and renders it into a different information format, which in my book is interpreting it. It's even analogous to language interpretation since different browsers interpret the HTML slightly differently.
Executing is a level above interpreting. You can interpret programming instructions or any form of instructions (written/verbal language) from one format to another without actually having to execute them.
We're just talking about browser based games - that does not automatically imply online multiplayer. And like I said - latency is really not an issue with browser games, it is a connection issue which you'd have no matter what method you are using to play your games.
Can you imagine HTML+CSS+SVG running as a local C++ program? Beauty and power in one sleek package. If anyone knows more about things like this, let me know. I'm sure I'm not the first to speculate in this direction.
HTML is interpreted and that's going to slow things down compared to having a compiled local application. You're going to basically need the equivalent resources of a webserver and web browser running on your machine. Besides, your browser is probably already written in C++! So why would you need a separate HTML renderer/framework for doing things.
I think technologies such as Java are a much better (and far more powerful) way of developing cross platform local apps of the form that you are imagining. I say this as someone who thinks that web apps are a great idea for certain applications, and as such I have spent a significant amount of time over the last 3 years building and maintaining some basic web apps (using PERL/SQLite/HTML/JavaScript) for the company I work for. I also maintain a couple of Windows only apps (though now that I think about it, one of these is only for in-house u se and could be a good candidate for turning into a web app as well!). Web apps are now good enough for most "desktop productivity" type applications, but if I was going to write a 3D game any time in the next 5 years, I really doubt that I would be considering a web browser as a platform.
IMO there is nothing particularly beautiful nor powerful about writing web apps (compared to writing local applications at least) apart from the fact that you can instantly update the application without your users having to download a new software client. I do like that a lot. But the hoops you have to jump through to render things the way you want or to function the way you want in a browser is just a PITA.. not to mention sloooow. We're running on multi-core, multi-gigahertz machines, and a local app on my original 5Mhz Amiga 500 could probably outrun a moderately complex web app..!
Well, I was more into my PC FPSes back then and used my PS1&2 for other types of game so I didn't hear about anything but the 'big' games (and I didn't even know Tribes was available for consoles) - but it seemed to me that during the 00s it was increasingly prevalent to have games with online multiplayer but no local multiplayer. Thankfully things seem to be getting better again. Maybe I was just looking at the wrong games.
If you define "boring" as "I have to actually engage my brain", then I agree with you.
I would much prefer to replay Half-Life or any of the expansion packs than sit through the boring-ass MW2 single player again (MW2 multi-player isn't bad, but I hate how you can't disable the auto-aim.. then again since I tend to get most of my kills with the knife, it doesn't matter so much).
I have played Halo co-op before, it didn't strike me as anything special. I've had much more enjoyable local multiplayer elsewhere, both co-op and vs.. as far back as the late 80s or at the least the early 90s on SEGAs, Amigas etc. Playing with friends always makes a game more fun. The only reason Halo was such a success is that it was the only console based FPS of the time to even offer local multiplayer and co-op.. there were a few years where games developers just seemed to stop doing that for whatever reason.
Yep. I remember being really excited when I first read about Halo (way back when it was still being made for Macs), but when I eventually tried the real thing, it was crap. Same level of boringness as the original Unreal. IMO the only people who would make such a big deal about games like Halo and Resistance: Fall of Man etc are people who haven't played decent FPSes like Half-Life.
Besides, this is not just an iPad issue. It applies to all modern touchscreen devices, especially the ones that use a single click and drag to scroll around (this shouldn't be such a problem on a multi-touch device as you could still simulate a hidden mouse pointer using a single finger movement and enable rollovers, and use 2 finger dragging for scrolling). It's something that developers these days should be taking into consideration as touchscreens become more common on phones, etc.
The word "ambivalent" derives from the Latin prefix ambi, meaning "both" and valence which is derived from the Latin valentia, meaning "strength". It is common to use the word "ambivalent" to describe a lack of feelings one way or the other towards issues or circumstances. A more specific and conventionally accepted word to use in this case, however, would be "indifferent". A good way to remember proper usage is to remember that the prefix ambi means "both", so if you are "ambivalent", you have both positive and negative feelings towards something, or have feelings for both sides of an issue.
Yeah, that's working out really well for Africa and the middle east so far! Sure will be a lot of fun if your economy completely tanks and you have all those guns lying around..
Those sims are generally only available on PC AFAIK. There are maybe some F1 sims for consoles that are more realistic, but they also are quite limited in their scope, as you can only drive F1 cars. What would you say is a better sim on a console? I'd quite like to try it as I love my driving and driving games.
I think the bar is generally pretty high these days though as even stuff like NFS Pro Street and NFS Shift seemed to have pretty decent handling models. Games like Race Driver: GRID are good fun but there is definitely too much grip, you really notice it when switching from playing something like GT.
When I played Arcade mode in the first few GT games (it's the only way to do multiplayer) there were a few decent cars available from each class (from normal everyday cars up to supercars). Definitely a low percentage of all the cars out of the game of course.
I can see the logic in having all the cars there for multiplayer games, but it still feels kind of cheap to me. When it comes to real party style games though that you only even bought just for a multiplayer experience, it really is a pain to have things all locked down at the start. For stuff like GT I really don't mind playing to unlock the cars though, and even only playing a couple of races here and there you could quickly save up enough for some cool cars if you actually are a good enough driver to want the "simulation" experience. You also win cars for winning events so it adds a bit of interest where you will try cars that otherwise you might have just passed by.
GT is definitely not aimed at casual gamers. If you're just buying it for arcade mode, you're wasting your money.. why not just get Ridge Racer or "Calling All Cars" and be done with it.
I thought it was fine. I really enjoyed GT 1 and 2, but since then I've been away from home studying and didn't have regular access to a PS2 for GT 3 and 4. I have a few other decent driving games for my PS3, and while I'm looking forward to GT5 (and I did enjoy both prologue and this demo), I don't have any amazing expectations. Finding out about the actual visible damage is cool, but GT has always been a high standard. I really like that they are including more cars again because one of my favourite things about the 2nd game was that I had ~600 cars in my garage, and had one to suit any occasion.
Anyway, just relax and enjoy your other games until then. I just got Need For Speed shift last week and it's a lot of fun in Pro mode. Maybe a bit more grippy than GT5 in Pro mode, but it's still good for practicing your racing technique, and it looks and sounds amazing.
I read about this a couple of days ago while looking into artificial flavouring actually.. the info is out there for people who care enough to look.
Having said that, just because food has one effect on rats, does not mean that it has the same effect on humans. I also found a couple of experiments on animals where they'd feed birds, pigs etc higher levels of protein in their diet and they'd end up with cancer.. I read a good book recently about studies of carbs and fat on humans, but it annoyingly didn't mention protein at all..
Anyway, processed corn based foods are just generally no good nutritionally.
And, above all, stop drugging them up. A kid shouldn't be taking medication for anything less than a serious physical problem.
True. It goes for more than just the drugs we're given by doctors though. I was just reading up on studies into artificial sweeteners yesterday. Some of them have a significant effect on mood, especially among those who already have mental issues.
IMO the more we mess about with our food, the more we're straying from the diet we've evolved to cope with. I'm avoiding sugary foods apart from right after exercising when my body actually needs the energy.. we might have evolved to deal with that too if it wasn't for drugs to help diabetics.. same goes for any other medical condition that might shorten someone's life or otherwise reduce their likelihood of reproducing. Being able to treat the symptoms of serious medical problems with drugs mean that we're going to see a lot more people who actually have those serious problems..:s There have been times in my life when I've been thinking that I just shouldn't have kids if it means they have a high risk of dealing with some of the stuff I've gone through.. I don't want to advocate Nazi style killing off of the weak, but I hope we can actually start making proper cures to these issues stuff sooner rather than later, or everyone will be needing drugs just to function day to day.
Some of these things are no doubt a simple result of poor parenting or the changing views of society, but diet has a big part to play too.
Actually, there is still a lot of fine skill in controlling the mouse in these games, but being good while running around with a real gun obviously requires a lot more than just quick reactions, as it uses many more muscle groups, especially if you're free standing..
I was annoyed recently when trying my first CoD game to find out that you can't even turn off the auto-aim when you play online though.. some poor n00bs are going to get a shock if they ever have to play a game where they do all the aiming themselves.
lol. I am definitely a gamer, but I still prefer playing drums and guitar on rock band with the peripherals than with a joypad. You can use the joypad if you prefer, or at least you could on GH3, it's obviously not as fun or as intuitive.
It's nothing to do with the controllers being "sophisticated" or not, it's to do with using the appropriate tool for the job. Motion controllers are a great idea, but they are no use for certain types of games.. ie the sixaxis controller sucks for motion controlled driving, and IMO so does that godawful MarioKart steering wheel for the Wii.. but those controllers both work well for other types of games (if you take the stupid steering wheel off the Wii controller;) ).. stuff like fl0w and flower on the PS3 work great with the sixaxis for example. I hate games where developers use the motion controls just because they're there, rather than because they're actually appropriate.
With the Wii sometimes it's necessary to incorporate the motion controls because of the lack of buttons to press, but still there are some games that really don't have many controls, but still require you to shake your arms about for no good reason. It's not even fun, especially when the code for interpreting what movement you are doing is crap.
Slashdot Mirror
That really depends on your definition of interpret. A browser takes a HTML page and renders it into a different information format, which in my book is interpreting it. It's even analogous to language interpretation since different browsers interpret the HTML slightly differently.
Executing is a level above interpreting. You can interpret programming instructions or any form of instructions (written/verbal language) from one format to another without actually having to execute them.
We're just talking about browser based games - that does not automatically imply online multiplayer. And like I said - latency is really not an issue with browser games, it is a connection issue which you'd have no matter what method you are using to play your games.
Can you imagine HTML+CSS+SVG running as a local C++ program? Beauty and power in one sleek package. If anyone knows more about things like this, let me know. I'm sure I'm not the first to speculate in this direction.
HTML is interpreted and that's going to slow things down compared to having a compiled local application. You're going to basically need the equivalent resources of a webserver and web browser running on your machine. Besides, your browser is probably already written in C++! So why would you need a separate HTML renderer/framework for doing things.
I think technologies such as Java are a much better (and far more powerful) way of developing cross platform local apps of the form that you are imagining. I say this as someone who thinks that web apps are a great idea for certain applications, and as such I have spent a significant amount of time over the last 3 years building and maintaining some basic web apps (using PERL/SQLite/HTML/JavaScript) for the company I work for. I also maintain a couple of Windows only apps (though now that I think about it, one of these is only for in-house u se and could be a good candidate for turning into a web app as well!). Web apps are now good enough for most "desktop productivity" type applications, but if I was going to write a 3D game any time in the next 5 years, I really doubt that I would be considering a web browser as a platform.
IMO there is nothing particularly beautiful nor powerful about writing web apps (compared to writing local applications at least) apart from the fact that you can instantly update the application without your users having to download a new software client. I do like that a lot. But the hoops you have to jump through to render things the way you want or to function the way you want in a browser is just a PITA.. not to mention sloooow. We're running on multi-core, multi-gigahertz machines, and a local app on my original 5Mhz Amiga 500 could probably outrun a moderately complex web app..!
Latency is not an issue for single player games if you're precaching everything.
If your issue is with latency in multiplayer, then you will have the same issues no matter what platform you are using for your gaming.
Well, I was more into my PC FPSes back then and used my PS1&2 for other types of game so I didn't hear about anything but the 'big' games (and I didn't even know Tribes was available for consoles) - but it seemed to me that during the 00s it was increasingly prevalent to have games with online multiplayer but no local multiplayer. Thankfully things seem to be getting better again. Maybe I was just looking at the wrong games.
If you define "boring" as "I have to actually engage my brain", then I agree with you.
I would much prefer to replay Half-Life or any of the expansion packs than sit through the boring-ass MW2 single player again (MW2 multi-player isn't bad, but I hate how you can't disable the auto-aim.. then again since I tend to get most of my kills with the knife, it doesn't matter so much).
I have played Halo co-op before, it didn't strike me as anything special. I've had much more enjoyable local multiplayer elsewhere, both co-op and vs.. as far back as the late 80s or at the least the early 90s on SEGAs, Amigas etc. Playing with friends always makes a game more fun. The only reason Halo was such a success is that it was the only console based FPS of the time to even offer local multiplayer and co-op.. there were a few years where games developers just seemed to stop doing that for whatever reason.
Yep. I remember being really excited when I first read about Halo (way back when it was still being made for Macs), but when I eventually tried the real thing, it was crap. Same level of boringness as the original Unreal. IMO the only people who would make such a big deal about games like Halo and Resistance: Fall of Man etc are people who haven't played decent FPSes like Half-Life.
Please try to keep posts on topic, Mr gerbil<=>arse obsessed dude.
Actually, I think Chuck Norris would take the cake and use it to asphyxiate the headline, before drop-kicking said headline into the sun.
why should Microsoft fix bugs in Windows
vs
why should Apple fix problems in Adobe's products
The difference there seems pretty obvious to me.
Besides, this is not just an iPad issue. It applies to all modern touchscreen devices, especially the ones that use a single click and drag to scroll around (this shouldn't be such a problem on a multi-touch device as you could still simulate a hidden mouse pointer using a single finger movement and enable rollovers, and use 2 finger dragging for scrolling). It's something that developers these days should be taking into consideration as touchscreens become more common on phones, etc.
Wow, you've changed my life! I suppose we could say that you've souffled it! I mean, you'd know what I meant, right?
From Wikipedia:
The word "ambivalent" derives from the Latin prefix ambi, meaning "both" and valence which is derived from the Latin valentia, meaning "strength". It is common to use the word "ambivalent" to describe a lack of feelings one way or the other towards issues or circumstances. A more specific and conventionally accepted word to use in this case, however, would be "indifferent". A good way to remember proper usage is to remember that the prefix ambi means "both", so if you are "ambivalent", you have both positive and negative feelings towards something, or have feelings for both sides of an issue.
No, no, no! That money should be going to GOD! He's a bit strapped for cash and forgot how to make more after his narcotics binge in the dark ages.
Yeah, that's working out really well for Africa and the middle east so far! Sure will be a lot of fun if your economy completely tanks and you have all those guns lying around..
Actually, one Dolly Parton's bosom (DDb) just happens to be exactly the same mass as that of a Double Decker Bus (DDB). Confusing, but convenient!
Those sims are generally only available on PC AFAIK. There are maybe some F1 sims for consoles that are more realistic, but they also are quite limited in their scope, as you can only drive F1 cars. What would you say is a better sim on a console? I'd quite like to try it as I love my driving and driving games.
I think the bar is generally pretty high these days though as even stuff like NFS Pro Street and NFS Shift seemed to have pretty decent handling models. Games like Race Driver: GRID are good fun but there is definitely too much grip, you really notice it when switching from playing something like GT.
When I played Arcade mode in the first few GT games (it's the only way to do multiplayer) there were a few decent cars available from each class (from normal everyday cars up to supercars). Definitely a low percentage of all the cars out of the game of course.
I can see the logic in having all the cars there for multiplayer games, but it still feels kind of cheap to me. When it comes to real party style games though that you only even bought just for a multiplayer experience, it really is a pain to have things all locked down at the start. For stuff like GT I really don't mind playing to unlock the cars though, and even only playing a couple of races here and there you could quickly save up enough for some cool cars if you actually are a good enough driver to want the "simulation" experience. You also win cars for winning events so it adds a bit of interest where you will try cars that otherwise you might have just passed by.
GT is definitely not aimed at casual gamers. If you're just buying it for arcade mode, you're wasting your money.. why not just get Ridge Racer or "Calling All Cars" and be done with it.
I thought it was fine. I really enjoyed GT 1 and 2, but since then I've been away from home studying and didn't have regular access to a PS2 for GT 3 and 4. I have a few other decent driving games for my PS3, and while I'm looking forward to GT5 (and I did enjoy both prologue and this demo), I don't have any amazing expectations. Finding out about the actual visible damage is cool, but GT has always been a high standard. I really like that they are including more cars again because one of my favourite things about the 2nd game was that I had ~600 cars in my garage, and had one to suit any occasion.
Anyway, just relax and enjoy your other games until then. I just got Need For Speed shift last week and it's a lot of fun in Pro mode. Maybe a bit more grippy than GT5 in Pro mode, but it's still good for practicing your racing technique, and it looks and sounds amazing.
I read about this a couple of days ago while looking into artificial flavouring actually.. the info is out there for people who care enough to look.
Having said that, just because food has one effect on rats, does not mean that it has the same effect on humans. I also found a couple of experiments on animals where they'd feed birds, pigs etc higher levels of protein in their diet and they'd end up with cancer.. I read a good book recently about studies of carbs and fat on humans, but it annoyingly didn't mention protein at all..
Anyway, processed corn based foods are just generally no good nutritionally.
Might work kind of like an organic stamp, "Non-deadly GM" or somesuch.
Haha. That would be a great ad campaign.
*waits for someone to give what they consider the "obligatory" xkcd ref*
And, above all, stop drugging them up. A kid shouldn't be taking medication for anything less than a serious physical problem.
True. It goes for more than just the drugs we're given by doctors though. I was just reading up on studies into artificial sweeteners yesterday. Some of them have a significant effect on mood, especially among those who already have mental issues.
IMO the more we mess about with our food, the more we're straying from the diet we've evolved to cope with. I'm avoiding sugary foods apart from right after exercising when my body actually needs the energy.. we might have evolved to deal with that too if it wasn't for drugs to help diabetics.. same goes for any other medical condition that might shorten someone's life or otherwise reduce their likelihood of reproducing. Being able to treat the symptoms of serious medical problems with drugs mean that we're going to see a lot more people who actually have those serious problems.. :s There have been times in my life when I've been thinking that I just shouldn't have kids if it means they have a high risk of dealing with some of the stuff I've gone through.. I don't want to advocate Nazi style killing off of the weak, but I hope we can actually start making proper cures to these issues stuff sooner rather than later, or everyone will be needing drugs just to function day to day.
Some of these things are no doubt a simple result of poor parenting or the changing views of society, but diet has a big part to play too.
Actually, there is still a lot of fine skill in controlling the mouse in these games, but being good while running around with a real gun obviously requires a lot more than just quick reactions, as it uses many more muscle groups, especially if you're free standing..
I was annoyed recently when trying my first CoD game to find out that you can't even turn off the auto-aim when you play online though.. some poor n00bs are going to get a shock if they ever have to play a game where they do all the aiming themselves.
lol. I am definitely a gamer, but I still prefer playing drums and guitar on rock band with the peripherals than with a joypad. You can use the joypad if you prefer, or at least you could on GH3, it's obviously not as fun or as intuitive.
It's nothing to do with the controllers being "sophisticated" or not, it's to do with using the appropriate tool for the job. Motion controllers are a great idea, but they are no use for certain types of games.. ie the sixaxis controller sucks for motion controlled driving, and IMO so does that godawful MarioKart steering wheel for the Wii.. but those controllers both work well for other types of games (if you take the stupid steering wheel off the Wii controller ;) ).. stuff like fl0w and flower on the PS3 work great with the sixaxis for example. I hate games where developers use the motion controls just because they're there, rather than because they're actually appropriate.
With the Wii sometimes it's necessary to incorporate the motion controls because of the lack of buttons to press, but still there are some games that really don't have many controls, but still require you to shake your arms about for no good reason. It's not even fun, especially when the code for interpreting what movement you are doing is crap.