Wow, I'm impressed. They even gave it a cool name just to Microsoft-ize it to make it look like their own original idea. Build something that your competition has been doing much longer than you, give it a cool name, and refer to it as a 'feature'. Wow, and all along I thought it was just how it was supposed to work.
Sadly, people will buy this OS in groves when it's released because of these 'features'. I'm sure I'll have someone I know come to me proclaiming the wonders of Vista and that they no longer have to reboot when they install a program. Of course I'll be sure to inform them that *nix has been doing this for, well, forever and they were just had by the Microsoft marketing machine. (Of course they won't believe me, even when I show them. So sad to see so many people brainwashed into believing Microsoft is all-powerful).
My first encounter with Linux was in 1997 with Slackware. I saw it sitting on a shelf in my college library. The name deceived me though, I assumed SLACKware meant it was geared towards slackers who didn't want to learn everything about the OS, but just run it. Man was I mistaken. So I took a hiatus from Slack for a few years to run Red Hat, and ended up coming back to Slack once I knew more of the ins and outs of Linux. I'm glad I did.
I'm running Slackware 10 on my home workstation now, and it's been great. Package management is fine, but I like to tinker and compile all my apps from source, optimized for *my* setup. I've tried a few other distros (I use FC1 at work) and they're all fine. It's just what ya like.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED that a Microsoft product would have numerous reports of failure a mere day after release (usually Microsoft products start to fail after a few days).
Too funny, glad I didn't buy into the hype.
Never had this kind of problem in the 16-Bit days. Back when the SNES was released, the biggest problem people had with their new consoles was a lack of games available at launch. I guess some things are trade-off. Perhaps if Microsoft would have focussed more on the quality of their hardware than pushing out as many pretty-looking titles as possible.... just a thought!
Hmmm, lets see. The last company that launched a new console about a year ahead of everyone, was Sega with the Dreamcast... and where are they now again?:>
3 consoles in the market is just too many, especially when almost all games are published on all systems already... where's the advantage? I'll hold out for my $99 Revolution with new innovative games as opposed to the same old rehashed titles that have less substance than a bowl of cereal (assuming Nintendo doesn't simply create '256-Bit' versions of Mario, Zelda and Starfox with nothing more than better graphics. Not saying they won't, but I'm holding out for some *real* innovation).
Amen brother. I've owned almost every game console released since the NES, including 2 different 3DOs, and I find it oh-so-ironic that the XBox is the first console I've ever owned that crashes on a regular basis.
Funny how my 3-4 Year old XBox fails, but my 18-Year-Old NES works flawlessly. For that reason alone, I will not be picking up a 360 later this month. I demand a high level of quality from my game consoles, and we all know Microsoft is ALL about quality.
Can't remember if I beat Jaws, but it was a fun game nonetheless.
What about Battletoads? I never was able to get by Level 3 (the speedsters). Damn you Rare!;)
AMEN! Gaming has never been the same level of quality as it was back in the 16-Bit days (hell, I'd rather play Genesis games above almost anything out on consoles today). When Sony (and subsequently Microsoft) got involved in the industry, they took gaming from the hands of the elite/nerdy and made it a 'pop culture item' >. After the 16-Bit era, I went from buying a game at least once a month, to once or twice a year (and there were a few years I went without anything new entirely).
I learned a while back that if you want to play a game that you'll have *fun* playing, make it yourself.
Although I don't play it often (that's what emus are for), I still have my NES hooked up, and still plays flawlessly. Oh the fond memories I've had throughout the years with that system. Only system better was the SNES in 1991. Ah memories.
I fully agree. I've been playing games since the days of the 2600 and have owned almost every system at some point (still have most of them too), so I'm very familiar with these points. Excellent Gameplay relates to funfactor, not realism.
The whole reason I play games in the first place is to engage in a virtual environment where I have the outlet to a) do things I normally couldn't do in real life, and b) work through a challenging and stimulating story without getting caught up in the details of the characters lives. I hate cinematic sequences. I figure if I can't pop in a game and start playing within 5 minutes (without going through tutorials... another pet peeve of mine with games today) then it isn't worth more than 5 minutes of my time to learn.
I play games to EXCAPE reality, so why would I be interested in a game that goes to great lengths to replicate it?
I'll admit, there are games where I *do* want a high degree of realism, particularly sports games, but not all. Racing games? I'd rather play Rage Racer or Ridge Racer 5 over any 'simulation' racing title anyday! Why? Those games are about sitting down and racing a car. I don't care if it's a real car with real physics. I own a car, if I want realism, I'll go pay my $1.14/Litre and go for a REAL drive.
Slashdot Mirror
"get me off the fucked-up people on this crazy rock!" What are ya doin' on ON those fucked-up people in the first place!?
5 better reasons why Web 2.0 matters: 1) Dylan 2) Dylan 3) Dylan 4) Dylan and 5) Dylan. ... because I spit hot fire. :)
(sorry, couldn't resist)
Wow, I'm impressed. They even gave it a cool name just to Microsoft-ize it to make it look like their own original idea. Build something that your competition has been doing much longer than you, give it a cool name, and refer to it as a 'feature'. Wow, and all along I thought it was just how it was supposed to work. Sadly, people will buy this OS in groves when it's released because of these 'features'. I'm sure I'll have someone I know come to me proclaiming the wonders of Vista and that they no longer have to reboot when they install a program. Of course I'll be sure to inform them that *nix has been doing this for, well, forever and they were just had by the Microsoft marketing machine. (Of course they won't believe me, even when I show them. So sad to see so many people brainwashed into believing Microsoft is all-powerful).
My first encounter with Linux was in 1997 with Slackware. I saw it sitting on a shelf in my college library. The name deceived me though, I assumed SLACKware meant it was geared towards slackers who didn't want to learn everything about the OS, but just run it. Man was I mistaken. So I took a hiatus from Slack for a few years to run Red Hat, and ended up coming back to Slack once I knew more of the ins and outs of Linux. I'm glad I did. I'm running Slackware 10 on my home workstation now, and it's been great. Package management is fine, but I like to tinker and compile all my apps from source, optimized for *my* setup. I've tried a few other distros (I use FC1 at work) and they're all fine. It's just what ya like.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED that a Microsoft product would have numerous reports of failure a mere day after release (usually Microsoft products start to fail after a few days). Too funny, glad I didn't buy into the hype. Never had this kind of problem in the 16-Bit days. Back when the SNES was released, the biggest problem people had with their new consoles was a lack of games available at launch. I guess some things are trade-off. Perhaps if Microsoft would have focussed more on the quality of their hardware than pushing out as many pretty-looking titles as possible.... just a thought!
Ah but one can dream. :)
That was back in the day when gaming didn't need to adhere to the marketing standards of pop-culture in order to be successful. Damn you Sony!
Hmmm, lets see. The last company that launched a new console about a year ahead of everyone, was Sega with the Dreamcast... and where are they now again? :>
3 consoles in the market is just too many, especially when almost all games are published on all systems already... where's the advantage? I'll hold out for my $99 Revolution with new innovative games as opposed to the same old rehashed titles that have less substance than a bowl of cereal (assuming Nintendo doesn't simply create '256-Bit' versions of Mario, Zelda and Starfox with nothing more than better graphics. Not saying they won't, but I'm holding out for some *real* innovation).
Amen brother. I've owned almost every game console released since the NES, including 2 different 3DOs, and I find it oh-so-ironic that the XBox is the first console I've ever owned that crashes on a regular basis. Funny how my 3-4 Year old XBox fails, but my 18-Year-Old NES works flawlessly. For that reason alone, I will not be picking up a 360 later this month. I demand a high level of quality from my game consoles, and we all know Microsoft is ALL about quality.
Just one more example of how I thank God every single day that I'm Canadian.
Can't remember if I beat Jaws, but it was a fun game nonetheless. What about Battletoads? I never was able to get by Level 3 (the speedsters). Damn you Rare! ;)
AMEN! Gaming has never been the same level of quality as it was back in the 16-Bit days (hell, I'd rather play Genesis games above almost anything out on consoles today). When Sony (and subsequently Microsoft) got involved in the industry, they took gaming from the hands of the elite/nerdy and made it a 'pop culture item' >. After the 16-Bit era, I went from buying a game at least once a month, to once or twice a year (and there were a few years I went without anything new entirely). I learned a while back that if you want to play a game that you'll have *fun* playing, make it yourself.
Although I don't play it often (that's what emus are for), I still have my NES hooked up, and still plays flawlessly. Oh the fond memories I've had throughout the years with that system. Only system better was the SNES in 1991. Ah memories.
I fully agree. I've been playing games since the days of the 2600 and have owned almost every system at some point (still have most of them too), so I'm very familiar with these points. Excellent Gameplay relates to funfactor, not realism. The whole reason I play games in the first place is to engage in a virtual environment where I have the outlet to a) do things I normally couldn't do in real life, and b) work through a challenging and stimulating story without getting caught up in the details of the characters lives. I hate cinematic sequences. I figure if I can't pop in a game and start playing within 5 minutes (without going through tutorials... another pet peeve of mine with games today) then it isn't worth more than 5 minutes of my time to learn. I play games to EXCAPE reality, so why would I be interested in a game that goes to great lengths to replicate it? I'll admit, there are games where I *do* want a high degree of realism, particularly sports games, but not all. Racing games? I'd rather play Rage Racer or Ridge Racer 5 over any 'simulation' racing title anyday! Why? Those games are about sitting down and racing a car. I don't care if it's a real car with real physics. I own a car, if I want realism, I'll go pay my $1.14/Litre and go for a REAL drive.