I've played a ton of games that could be considered purely fun and weren't intended for educational purposes, but I ended up learning simply because I was drawn in by the fun aspect.
For instance, Popcap games are brilliant in that they are simple, fun, and for the most part, educational. Word worm can help out vocabulary skills, and typer shark is a great way to improve your typing skills and speed without feeling like the goal of playing it is to improve your typing skills. I've always felt like I needed to save the diver!
Another good example is the Myst series. The first few games in the series were plenty challenging, and the puzzles caused the player to think analytically, using mathematical approaches without asking the player to actually compute anything (mostly).
And of course I can't leave out Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego! I learned all sorts of state capitols and information about various places because I wanted to catch Carmen. Of course, when I played that game, I probably wasn't old enough to differentiate between playing a game for fun and education. If I played now, I'd probably quit rather quickly because I realized that it was a definite educational tool, but at the time it was just fun.:)
Today sees the official launch of AMD's latest mid-range graphics cards. The Radeon HD 2600 and 2400 family aim to dethrone NVIDIA's GeForce 8600/8500/8400 by offering a greater feature-set, better performance and a lower comparative street price.
It all seems too good to be true from a company that has made late introductions something of a mission statement of late. After all, its exceedingly late to market Radeon HD 2900 XT could only compete against NVIDIA's G80 by having a hacksaw taken to its original pricing.
With all this in mind, let's now see if the DX10-compatible HD 2000-series can make AMD some decent money - it needs it.
A word or two first about testing.
AMD, in its infinite wisdom, provided HEXUS with Radeon HD 2600 XT and Radeon HD 2400 XT cards last Sunday night. The time between grabbing the hardware and publishing this review has been spent in pulling out what hair (collectively) we have left.
Short-notice, poor drivers and re-testing of copious amounts of hardware together mean that this should be considered more of an architectural-look and a performance-preview than a comprehensive, non-time-dependent appraisal of AMD's mid-range graphics technology.
Excuses out of the way!
AMD Radeon HD 2600 and HD 2400 series in detail
Today sees AMD fill out the mid-range and low-end with its DX10-supporting GPUs. Jumping straight into the proposed line-up with ye olde table, here's how they stack up against select NVIDIA SKUs.
That's a lot of numbers to digest, so let's reference them against some architectural discussion.
(Image)
The following discussion assumes a basic understanding of unified shading architecture. Should that not be the case, head on over to here to learn more.
Thinking about it some, the Radeon HD 2600's architecture is, for all intents and purposes, a shrunken version of the Radeon HD 2900 XT - and in more ways than one.
The obvious chops are to the stream-processors - which offer unified shading - down from 320 to 120. Unlike NVIDIA's boosted shader clocks, AMD's operate at core speed, which is 800MHz for both Radeon HD 2600 XT models. Simple maths tells us that 120 SPs, capable of 2 FLOPs per clock cycle, operating at 800MHz, push out 192 GFLOPs. That's true for vertex, pixel and geometry shading, of course, although each constituent shares its shading resource with the others.
Radeon HD 2600 XT is endowed with only four ROPs and eight texture-filter (FP32) units. The programmable tesellator, which allows for almost 'free' geometry production and other useful gubbins, survives intact from R600 and that's good news.
But the devil is in the details that you don't see on the above overview. The Radeon HD 2600 is based on a 65nm manufacturing process (65G+) and interfaces with its local memory via a 128-bit interface.
The table shows that there will be three SKUs based on Radeon HD 2600 (RV630). The XT will be offered in variants with GDDR3 memory or GDDR4, with the latter operating at faster speeds and providing greater bandwidth. Other than the difference in DRAM used, the two XTs are architecturally identical. The GDDR4 model will carry a ~£20 price premium over its GDDR3 counterpart.
Further differentiating the line is the Radeon HD 2600 PRO. This runs with a lower core speed - 600MHz - and slower (DDR2) memory. Again, variation in speed is the only difference. It still packs in 120 SPs, a 128-bit memory interface and a 256MiB framebuffer. Price is reduced accordingly, with retail examples reckoned to be available for around £60.
Have an architecture that's cut down compared to the R600 brings down the transistor count to around 390M. Models in the Radeon HD 2600 series, obviously, are designed to compete with NVIDIA's GeForce 8600 range. A quick look at the comparative specs tells us that the HD 2600 should do well in titles where shading is called to the fore, thanks to its higher pure FLOP rate, but will suffer in scenarios
Well, ok, it was only in my mind, but that counts, right?
Actually, I just turned my normal mouse on its side and started moving it around seeing how it would feel if it actually worked that way... To be honest, it was a bit more comfortable on my wrist, but I realized that I would lose an important function of the traditional orientation.
How many people use their fingers to move the mouse around? I know I do on occasion... When I'm making fine adjustments to my pointer, I don't move my whole wrist, I move my fingers only, and that reason alone keeps me from buying the vertical mouse. With your hand in the handshake position, you won't be able to move the mouse with your fingers, and won't get the same fine-grained control as you would with fingers.
Also, their "expert opinions" note on the article seems a bit flaky:
Some doctors who specialize in ergonomics consider the vertical position preferable.
Some doctors? It just seems like some doctor with a degree held one and said, "Yeah that feels a bit better." They made no mention of a medical reason to use one over any other mouse, they simply said, "It might feel a little better."
My boss and I were just talking human-machine interfaces yesterday. He was relating to me how he had purchased some stock in a company that specializes in human-machine interface R&D. I wondered how they managed to map brain waves (or thoughts?) to instructions.
Scientist: "Ok now to turn left just start thinking about any kind of cheese." *Patient starts spinning madly in a circle* Scientist: "HEY! You're thinking about my WIFE you bastard!"
A lot of people in comments are claiming conspiracy about the Air Force and Lockheed Martin denying comment on the plane's existence or lack thereof. When someone says information is classified, it is not a confirmation or a denial of its existence... It simply means that any information someone might have about the possible existence of a theoretical super-plane is on a need-to-know basis. If the general public has a need to know (wouldn't happen unless it was something like Armageddon) then the general public will be informed.
There's no need to immediately jump to "It's classified so it must exist." If that was the case, then ask any Air Force officer privy to classified information for info on that information. If you asked "Are there aliens at Area 51?" I guarantee you they'd respond with "That's classified." Same thing with "Is the Air Force testing prototype beam weapons?" Classified. I know that in this case, they simply denied comment, but the same principle applies. Saying nothing on the issue is not a confirmation of a person's suspicions.
The main web service periodically queries websites that list channel information and programming, storing those results in a database. User A submits a request for all programs running on Fox for October 10, 2007. User A's data is then retrieved from the database and returned, and user A is then flagged as having all current Fox scheduling for October 10, 2007. Subsequent requests will then be made to User A for said data instead of the original web service. Following this, all requests for that same data would be load balanced between available peers.
If any cash is needed for infrastructure, an ad and donation supported revenue stream could easily offset costs.
What if I was to write a web service that exposed the data garnered from website-scraping? You could just write a standard XML request, wrap it in SOAP tags and send it to the web service, and you'd be returned whatever information you requested- by channel, time, or show name...
FCC Official: "Oh you can have sex. Just no moaning, no grunting, no movement of any kind." Lois: "Well that's not very romantic... I mean, how are we..." Peter, interjecting: "I'm done. Night Lois." Passes out on top of Lois
Well, seeing as how the game's only available for consoles (PlayStation 2, PlayStation Portable, and Wii), there's no digital distribution method available that would make this feasible. Steam is for PC games only as far as I know.
If Bluray vs. HD-DVD is going to turn into another Betamax vs. VHS battle, it's going to suck for the consumer. VHS ultimately ended up winning over Betamax (obviously) but it took Sony 37 years to concede defeat. Sure most people were using VHS during that time, but the war was still being waged officially until not long ago, starting in 1975.
I hear a lot of people, and I mean a lot say they are waiting for the standards war to declare a winner before they pick a side. But with the way it's shaping up, (Netflix picking HD-DVD, Blockbuster picking Bluray) there doesn't seem that a winner will be declared any time soon. With that in mind, I can kiss off waiting until those technologies become more affordable until at least 2027!
1) Viruses - I no longer worry and I no longer need to check my PC - that's a relief. You can pick nits here about security but the bottom line is Ubuntu is orders of magnitude better.
I haven't had any sort of symantec product installed on any of my Windows PCs for the last 3 years.
2) Vulnerabilities - Windows is like Swiss cheese with so many vulnerabilities that it's sick - you can't connect XP to a public Internet connection (i.e., behind a router is OK but direct to the net isn't). Ubuntu? It's Linux - no worries.
Any computer connected to the internet without some hardware firewall is instantly vulnerable. Just because it's Linux doesn't mean anything. If 90% of the world used Linux, then Linux would be just as attacked as Windows with just as many problems. People don't bother writing as many hacks and back door programs for Linux because there's no point- there's not a large enough group of people to spam to.
3) Thanks to #1 and #2, I'm free from products like Symantec and Norton and the dollar expense, the complexity of administering them (those pop-ups are annoying and a productivity hit), and wondering when they expire next.
Like I said, no Symantec software of virus scanning software of any kind has been on any of my machines... I use Windows XP.
4) Software updates for the entire collection of software on the machine are simple in Ubuntu.
They are? The (how many, 4?) programs listed in the article are easily updateable? Amazing! Since when does individual software matter when you're comparing an operating system? When last I checked, updating software on Windows XP was pretty dang easy. Oh look, I just applied a patch for Starcraft in less than a minute! Windows must be better than Linux. But seriously though, are you vouching for Ubuntu, or are you vouching for Ubuntu + Other applications? That's like saying a Dell is great because it comes with Windows and all this other software that's easily updateable.
5) Backups are automatic.
Ever heard of the Windows System Restore? Yeah, it actually works... Backs up your PC automatically, and you can roll back to any date that you'd like, whenever you'd like.
Personally, I'm getting tired of people comparing Windows to flavors of Linux. Not so much comparing, more the ridiculous claims of "Linux is better than Windoze!!111" So you like Linux better... that's nice. I don't prefer it. I use Linux when I need to use Linux for web servers at work, and I use Windows at home because I like it better for my personal use.
Enough with the apples to oranges comparisons and ludicrous claims of superiority.
I'm married actually. And sadly, you're not far off... I didn't want to bring it up, but I was looking up a friend of mine on myspace (I would never even consider making an account there) who sent me some invitation email, and she saw that myspace was in my internet history about two weeks later. She was looking for some pancake recipe that she had looked up the same day... Anyway, she freaked out and started asking why I was using myspace, etc.
One of the examples in the essay is that a girlfriend wants to know if her boyfriend is cheating on her... but by checking if he has an account?
Give me a break... First of all, what if he created the account several years ago and hasn't visited in that long? If the said girlfriend sees only that he has an account and automatically jumps to "He's cheating on me, the louse!" then I think they have some trust issues that go way deeper than Match.com.
Second of all, it's a social networking / matchmaking site. How difficult would it be to sign up for a freebie account and just search for his damn name? Seems to me like that would be a lot more definitive than checking the magic 8 ball of "Does he have an account?"
One major issue with me and MMORPG's is that players have no direct impact on the surrounding world. This becomes even more poignant in a world like Middle Earth. For instance, if player Imbiblo and his uber guild kills Shelob, the raid boss of the spider cave instance, will they have any effect on the rest of the world? Will Shelob continually come back? Will players be able to fight iconic characters such as this?
In short, how is it that players can be made to feel like they are contributing something to the progression of the war of the ring without breaking MMO dynamics and limitations?
it'll probably sell millions in South Korea Actually, they'll sell millions of copies in North Korea too, but as a regional release, the UN will require that ghosts and nukes be replaced with hippies and flower power.
Well I was referring more to the graphical potential of each of the games, not the games themselves. I guess I should have made that more clear...
But, the original poster did mention that the nunchuk and wiimote was easier to use in a shooter than XBox analog control sticks. Comparing Red Steel and Gears of War in that way, I would much rather use the XBox controller.
Would you rather play a first-person shooter game on the Wii, which means less amazing graphics but more precise controls (Wiimote+nunchuck = almost as good as keyboard+mouse) or on the Xbox360/PS3, which means better graphics but useless controls (screw those stupid little analog sticks). It doesn't matter if a game looks better if you can't play it.
Yeah, I beat Gears of War on my 108" screen projecting from my 720p projector. And umm... I guarantee you that if you saw Gears of War and then immediately hooked up the Wii to the same setup and played Red Steel, you'd be begging for Gears of War back.
Slashdot Mirror
I've played a ton of games that could be considered purely fun and weren't intended for educational purposes, but I ended up learning simply because I was drawn in by the fun aspect.
:)
For instance, Popcap games are brilliant in that they are simple, fun, and for the most part, educational. Word worm can help out vocabulary skills, and typer shark is a great way to improve your typing skills and speed without feeling like the goal of playing it is to improve your typing skills. I've always felt like I needed to save the diver!
Another good example is the Myst series. The first few games in the series were plenty challenging, and the puzzles caused the player to think analytically, using mathematical approaches without asking the player to actually compute anything (mostly).
And of course I can't leave out Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego! I learned all sorts of state capitols and information about various places because I wanted to catch Carmen. Of course, when I played that game, I probably wasn't old enough to differentiate between playing a game for fun and education. If I played now, I'd probably quit rather quickly because I realized that it was a definite educational tool, but at the time it was just fun.
Today sees the official launch of AMD's latest mid-range graphics cards. The Radeon HD 2600 and 2400 family aim to dethrone NVIDIA's GeForce 8600/8500/8400 by offering a greater feature-set, better performance and a lower comparative street price. It all seems too good to be true from a company that has made late introductions something of a mission statement of late. After all, its exceedingly late to market Radeon HD 2900 XT could only compete against NVIDIA's G80 by having a hacksaw taken to its original pricing. With all this in mind, let's now see if the DX10-compatible HD 2000-series can make AMD some decent money - it needs it.
A word or two first about testing. AMD, in its infinite wisdom, provided HEXUS with Radeon HD 2600 XT and Radeon HD 2400 XT cards last Sunday night. The time between grabbing the hardware and publishing this review has been spent in pulling out what hair (collectively) we have left. Short-notice, poor drivers and re-testing of copious amounts of hardware together mean that this should be considered more of an architectural-look and a performance-preview than a comprehensive, non-time-dependent appraisal of AMD's mid-range graphics technology. Excuses out of the way! AMD Radeon HD 2600 and HD 2400 series in detail Today sees AMD fill out the mid-range and low-end with its DX10-supporting GPUs. Jumping straight into the proposed line-up with ye olde table, here's how they stack up against select NVIDIA SKUs.
(Table- see here)
That's a lot of numbers to digest, so let's reference them against some architectural discussion.
(Image)
The following discussion assumes a basic understanding of unified shading architecture. Should that not be the case, head on over to here to learn more. Thinking about it some, the Radeon HD 2600's architecture is, for all intents and purposes, a shrunken version of the Radeon HD 2900 XT - and in more ways than one. The obvious chops are to the stream-processors - which offer unified shading - down from 320 to 120. Unlike NVIDIA's boosted shader clocks, AMD's operate at core speed, which is 800MHz for both Radeon HD 2600 XT models. Simple maths tells us that 120 SPs, capable of 2 FLOPs per clock cycle, operating at 800MHz, push out 192 GFLOPs. That's true for vertex, pixel and geometry shading, of course, although each constituent shares its shading resource with the others. Radeon HD 2600 XT is endowed with only four ROPs and eight texture-filter (FP32) units. The programmable tesellator, which allows for almost 'free' geometry production and other useful gubbins, survives intact from R600 and that's good news. But the devil is in the details that you don't see on the above overview. The Radeon HD 2600 is based on a 65nm manufacturing process (65G+) and interfaces with its local memory via a 128-bit interface. The table shows that there will be three SKUs based on Radeon HD 2600 (RV630). The XT will be offered in variants with GDDR3 memory or GDDR4, with the latter operating at faster speeds and providing greater bandwidth. Other than the difference in DRAM used, the two XTs are architecturally identical. The GDDR4 model will carry a ~£20 price premium over its GDDR3 counterpart. Further differentiating the line is the Radeon HD 2600 PRO. This runs with a lower core speed - 600MHz - and slower (DDR2) memory. Again, variation in speed is the only difference. It still packs in 120 SPs, a 128-bit memory interface and a 256MiB framebuffer. Price is reduced accordingly, with retail examples reckoned to be available for around £60. Have an architecture that's cut down compared to the R600 brings down the transistor count to around 390M. Models in the Radeon HD 2600 series, obviously, are designed to compete with NVIDIA's GeForce 8600 range. A quick look at the comparative specs tells us that the HD 2600 should do well in titles where shading is called to the fore, thanks to its higher pure FLOP rate, but will suffer in scenarios
Actually, I just turned my normal mouse on its side and started moving it around seeing how it would feel if it actually worked that way... To be honest, it was a bit more comfortable on my wrist, but I realized that I would lose an important function of the traditional orientation.
How many people use their fingers to move the mouse around? I know I do on occasion... When I'm making fine adjustments to my pointer, I don't move my whole wrist, I move my fingers only, and that reason alone keeps me from buying the vertical mouse. With your hand in the handshake position, you won't be able to move the mouse with your fingers, and won't get the same fine-grained control as you would with fingers.
Also, their "expert opinions" note on the article seems a bit flaky:
Some doctors who specialize in ergonomics consider the vertical position preferable.
Some doctors? It just seems like some doctor with a degree held one and said, "Yeah that feels a bit better." They made no mention of a medical reason to use one over any other mouse, they simply said, "It might feel a little better."
My boss and I were just talking human-machine interfaces yesterday. He was relating to me how he had purchased some stock in a company that specializes in human-machine interface R&D. I wondered how they managed to map brain waves (or thoughts?) to instructions.
Scientist: "Ok now to turn left just start thinking about any kind of cheese."
*Patient starts spinning madly in a circle*
Scientist: "HEY! You're thinking about my WIFE you bastard!"
A lot of people in comments are claiming conspiracy about the Air Force and Lockheed Martin denying comment on the plane's existence or lack thereof. When someone says information is classified, it is not a confirmation or a denial of its existence... It simply means that any information someone might have about the possible existence of a theoretical super-plane is on a need-to-know basis. If the general public has a need to know (wouldn't happen unless it was something like Armageddon) then the general public will be informed.
There's no need to immediately jump to "It's classified so it must exist." If that was the case, then ask any Air Force officer privy to classified information for info on that information. If you asked "Are there aliens at Area 51?" I guarantee you they'd respond with "That's classified." Same thing with "Is the Air Force testing prototype beam weapons?" Classified. I know that in this case, they simply denied comment, but the same principle applies. Saying nothing on the issue is not a confirmation of a person's suspicions.
Think of it as a P2P type of community.
The main web service periodically queries websites that list channel information and programming, storing those results in a database. User A submits a request for all programs running on Fox for October 10, 2007. User A's data is then retrieved from the database and returned, and user A is then flagged as having all current Fox scheduling for October 10, 2007. Subsequent requests will then be made to User A for said data instead of the original web service. Following this, all requests for that same data would be load balanced between available peers.
If any cash is needed for infrastructure, an ad and donation supported revenue stream could easily offset costs.
I'm really liking the sound of this.
What if I was to write a web service that exposed the data garnered from website-scraping? You could just write a standard XML request, wrap it in SOAP tags and send it to the web service, and you'd be returned whatever information you requested- by channel, time, or show name...
Any takers?
Thank you kindly!
FCC Official: "Oh you can have sex. Just no moaning, no grunting, no movement of any kind."
Lois: "Well that's not very romantic... I mean, how are we..."
Peter, interjecting: "I'm done. Night Lois." Passes out on top of Lois
Well, seeing as how the game's only available for consoles (PlayStation 2, PlayStation Portable, and Wii), there's no digital distribution method available that would make this feasible. Steam is for PC games only as far as I know.
Can someone post the MTV article here? Gotta love super duper work filters.
I'm running Windows XP SP2, and this did not work for me.
Yes.
Do they really hit on girls JUST because they think they are girls?
Hell yes. Much more so if they know who they are talking to is a girl.
These games really impact their LIVES?
Sadly, yes...
Maybe I am the odd one, because I just don't get it.
No, you sir, are the smart one. Stay out while you still can!!
It will be leaked to Bittorrent, and it is called: "Journalisticality," a film documenting Michael Moore documentaries and how they are fake.
My head asplode.
If Bluray vs. HD-DVD is going to turn into another Betamax vs. VHS battle, it's going to suck for the consumer. VHS ultimately ended up winning over Betamax (obviously) but it took Sony 37 years to concede defeat. Sure most people were using VHS during that time, but the war was still being waged officially until not long ago, starting in 1975.
I hear a lot of people, and I mean a lot say they are waiting for the standards war to declare a winner before they pick a side. But with the way it's shaping up, (Netflix picking HD-DVD, Blockbuster picking Bluray) there doesn't seem that a winner will be declared any time soon. With that in mind, I can kiss off waiting until those technologies become more affordable until at least 2027!
From Mars to Jupiter:
Why can't I quit you?!
I haven't had any sort of symantec product installed on any of my Windows PCs for the last 3 years.
2) Vulnerabilities - Windows is like Swiss cheese with so many vulnerabilities that it's sick - you can't connect XP to a public Internet connection (i.e., behind a router is OK but direct to the net isn't). Ubuntu? It's Linux - no worries.
Any computer connected to the internet without some hardware firewall is instantly vulnerable. Just because it's Linux doesn't mean anything. If 90% of the world used Linux, then Linux would be just as attacked as Windows with just as many problems. People don't bother writing as many hacks and back door programs for Linux because there's no point- there's not a large enough group of people to spam to.
3) Thanks to #1 and #2, I'm free from products like Symantec and Norton and the dollar expense, the complexity of administering them (those pop-ups are annoying and a productivity hit), and wondering when they expire next.
Like I said, no Symantec software of virus scanning software of any kind has been on any of my machines... I use Windows XP.
4) Software updates for the entire collection of software on the machine are simple in Ubuntu.
They are? The (how many, 4?) programs listed in the article are easily updateable? Amazing! Since when does individual software matter when you're comparing an operating system? When last I checked, updating software on Windows XP was pretty dang easy. Oh look, I just applied a patch for Starcraft in less than a minute! Windows must be better than Linux. But seriously though, are you vouching for Ubuntu, or are you vouching for Ubuntu + Other applications? That's like saying a Dell is great because it comes with Windows and all this other software that's easily updateable.
5) Backups are automatic.
Ever heard of the Windows System Restore? Yeah, it actually works... Backs up your PC automatically, and you can roll back to any date that you'd like, whenever you'd like.
Personally, I'm getting tired of people comparing Windows to flavors of Linux. Not so much comparing, more the ridiculous claims of "Linux is better than Windoze!!111" So you like Linux better... that's nice. I don't prefer it. I use Linux when I need to use Linux for web servers at work, and I use Windows at home because I like it better for my personal use.
Enough with the apples to oranges comparisons and ludicrous claims of superiority.
I'm married actually. And sadly, you're not far off... I didn't want to bring it up, but I was looking up a friend of mine on myspace (I would never even consider making an account there) who sent me some invitation email, and she saw that myspace was in my internet history about two weeks later. She was looking for some pancake recipe that she had looked up the same day... Anyway, she freaked out and started asking why I was using myspace, etc.
Humbug.
One of the examples in the essay is that a girlfriend wants to know if her boyfriend is cheating on her... but by checking if he has an account?
Give me a break... First of all, what if he created the account several years ago and hasn't visited in that long? If the said girlfriend sees only that he has an account and automatically jumps to "He's cheating on me, the louse!" then I think they have some trust issues that go way deeper than Match.com.
Second of all, it's a social networking / matchmaking site. How difficult would it be to sign up for a freebie account and just search for his damn name? Seems to me like that would be a lot more definitive than checking the magic 8 ball of "Does he have an account?"
One major issue with me and MMORPG's is that players have no direct impact on the surrounding world. This becomes even more poignant in a world like Middle Earth. For instance, if player Imbiblo and his uber guild kills Shelob, the raid boss of the spider cave instance, will they have any effect on the rest of the world? Will Shelob continually come back? Will players be able to fight iconic characters such as this?
In short, how is it that players can be made to feel like they are contributing something to the progression of the war of the ring without breaking MMO dynamics and limitations?
Now be honest, how many people saw "MySpace," "woman," and "sex" and clicked the link right away?
Let me be the first to say:
Let there be ROCK!!
Actually, they'll sell millions of copies in North Korea too, but as a regional release, the UN will require that ghosts and nukes be replaced with hippies and flower power.
Well I was referring more to the graphical potential of each of the games, not the games themselves. I guess I should have made that more clear...
But, the original poster did mention that the nunchuk and wiimote was easier to use in a shooter than XBox analog control sticks. Comparing Red Steel and Gears of War in that way, I would much rather use the XBox controller.
Yeah, I beat Gears of War on my 108" screen projecting from my 720p projector. And umm... I guarantee you that if you saw Gears of War and then immediately hooked up the Wii to the same setup and played Red Steel, you'd be begging for Gears of War back.