Correct me if Im wrong, its been a while since I messed with MTA for either VC or SA, but didn't they remove things like pedestrians and the randomly generated cars driving down the road? So really once you get rid of all those things, how much data do you think is actually being moved? Correct me again, but isn't the collision detection in GTA fairly simplified to make it playable in single player? Not to mention that making MTA playable requires a rather good computer.
The level of complexity and the amount of data that must be transmitted are very different.
Minimal collision detection AI is far more simplistic Time based actions client side positioning(You can teleport yourself around in the game, till you get caught atleast) Are there any physics in WoW?
Those are the major differences i can think of off the top of my head.
The average idiot will then accuse them of releasing a broken feature and the at then all the review sites will dock them points, despite there repeated attempts to tell people that they can't provide any type of Quality of service.
I mean come one, people blame devs for network problems even when its just their shitty connection or their shitty hardware causing the problem. Do you somehow think console gamers will be any less bitchy about it?
My guess? Bandiwth or possibly a side effect of how they load the levels.
The transporting really only worked in the rather linear and confined halo and halo 2. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you have to be on one box for coop on both 1 and 2? Have they confirmed that in halo 3 lan coop you will still have to deal with the teleportation?
Really if it works on lan, but not online, I wonder if its a latency issue or a bandwidth issue. Alas, who knows.
I don't ever remember them promising online coop though, just hoping for it.
It could be based on how level geometry is loaded, and how enemies and such are loaded. It could be engine limitations.
Really the only game I have ever played where you can be on the other side of the physical game world is crackdown. Then again considering how a game is able to recover from the "host" leaving it seems like 2 players could move apart and load separate areas and trade only data that is relevant to the other client. However something about the way the game could have change.
IN the last 2 you were usually confined along a path with some stuff. Most of the wide open areas were arenas almost with 1 way in and one way out. There was not set distance between both players, but when one hit a check point, or a load point the player in the previous area was teleported up to the new point. Both things kept it so that only one area was loaded at any given time.
Now if the game is much more open and you have more room to run around it could be that the system of keeping the players together would be less effective, or possibly down right frustrating. Still this might not be as technical as it would be a gameplay related issue.
However the fact that it works over a lan would suggest to me that the issue is bandwidth and latency related. Possibly coordinating the in game AI could cause trouble, possibly the physics, ect ect.
Who knows. Feel free to correct me if I said anything too stupid.
Um what has rockstar changed? 1:Make something violent and controversial. Make sure there is a hoopla about it. 2:??????? 3:Profit, rather well.
Really none of the GTA games have been that big a departure. They really haven't been that innovative since GTA3. They have improved on a rather fun formula and added some nice social commentary and a rather funny, yet at the same time serious story.
Manhunt on the other hand... whats the point? All it seems to have are better graphics graphics and the Wii controller. What is going to make it different from the 1st game which i felt was rather craptastic?
Um what has rockstar changed?
1:Make something violent and controversial. Make sure there is a hoopla about it.
2:???????
3:Profit, rather well.
Really none of the GTA games have been that big a departure, really They haven't been innovative. They have improved on a rather fun formula and added some nice social commentary and a rather funny, yet at the same time serious story.
manhunt on the other hand... whats the point? All it seems to have are better graphics graphics and the Wii controller. What is going to make it different from the 1st game which i felt was rather craptastic?
They enforced part of their contract in an ongoing attempt to cover the industries ass for the next big thing that involves games. They are trying to prove they have a functional, well maintained, and consistent ratings system. They are trying to maintain advertising guidelines that the industry agreed to. They are trying to prove on the PR front that the ratings system isn't a sham.
Really the only thing the ESRB can do is make two adult ratings, one for "adult violence" and one for "adult sexual". The ones who are "censoring" developers is the Big 3 that won't allow an adult game on their systems and the retailers who won't stock adult games.
I would rather have drones too, but I would prefer that we didn't get into the war in the first place. I would prefer we didn't put humans, humans who have also been heavily trained and invested in by the government and by proxy the people in such backward ass situations in the first place.
Yes I realize that war can't be avoided sometimes, yes I realize force must be used, yes I realize that we don't always get to send soldiers into a situation with great intel and all the tools needed, yes I realize that sometimes commanders have to send there men on suicide missions, yes I realize that you can't always pick your battles and yes I am well aware of the fact that it could be a while before we see a nice simple and relatively clean cut conventional war.
However, its not the drones I worry about, I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear, it what happens beyond the drones, when you start to remove the layers of people between the order and the act.
The basic principle is that a charge will run along the surface of a material. IF you can isolate the inside from the outside you can in the most basic sense shield it. With something like the drones, it much harder than say, making a Faraday cage for reducing outside electrical noise in a test engineerign lab at a electronics manufacturer.
[sarcasm] What? are you crazy!?! The soldiers are all monster who are only there for fun. Why else would you join the military unless you want to kill people. Our soldiers are just a bunch rednecks with guns. Just look at what happened with Abu-ghraib. There is no morality within the military chain of command. [/sarcasm]
On a more serious note, I think that warfare should have... oh whats the word.. a "Human touch?" What really scares me are the justifications for a fully robotic military. Why make it easier to wage war? Why create the perception that it is less costly to get into a war? Maybe I'm wrong, but why make a fighting device that can be turned against you easier than a human?
Yes, I know we can do things like lock outs, kill switches, encryption, ect,ect. However wouldn't it be an ever escalating fight in that arena too? Each side breaking the other sides electronics? We see the results of that fairly often in the civilian sector don't we?
Do they have a deathwish? Socially active college students everywhere won't be able to function without facebook! How will they nkow who is dating who? Where will the post photographic proof of the latest stupid shit they did? Where else will the put their whiny I hate the opposite sex notes. Certainly not myspace.. for there is an evil there that does not sleep.
You would have an agrngy horde on your hands very quickly.
From what I can tell though, all it is doing is putting screens in front of your eyes. In its current form its no different than sitting in a dark room with good speaker and a big display. Something which might be more comfortable.
Games will have to be designed to use "VR" by allowing, very, very wide screen resolutions, wide enough so that there is stuff being rendered in you peripheral vision.The screen would have to be able to cover your entire visual range, it would also allow for a more realistic view angle. Even more advanced systems would simulate that, and at the same time give you 2 screens rendered from slightly different angles so that games would actually have depth in them. Yes, I know I'm oversimplifying that but that would be the basic best case for that tech.
After that you would have the holodeck or neural interfaces that completely bypass the eyes.
Its one thing for something to be nerdy. Its a whole nother thing when it makes you look like a complete ass....says a guy who plays DDR.
Before VR I want to see glasses, preferably ones that extend the screen into your peripheral vision and also allow you to glance up with your eyes and see what is above you. At the same time they need something light and fairly durable. They shouldn't generate a ton of heat, and you should be able to tap a button to turn off the video and also makes them translucent, so you can look at the room around you with out removing them. Im just saying, we need to move away from VR goggles to glasses.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct me if Im wrong, its been a while since I messed with MTA for either VC or SA, but didn't they remove things like pedestrians and the randomly generated cars driving down the road? So really once you get rid of all those things, how much data do you think is actually being moved? Correct me again, but isn't the collision detection in GTA fairly simplified to make it playable in single player? Not to mention that making MTA playable requires a rather good computer.
The level of complexity and the amount of data that must be transmitted are very different.
Apples to oranges
Minimal collision detection
AI is far more simplistic
Time based actions
client side positioning(You can teleport yourself around in the game, till you get caught atleast)
Are there any physics in WoW?
Those are the major differences i can think of off the top of my head.
Um trading data between 2 instances is harder than running 2 things within one?
The average idiot will then accuse them of releasing a broken feature and the at then all the review sites will dock them points, despite there repeated attempts to tell people that they can't provide any type of Quality of service.
I mean come one, people blame devs for network problems even when its just their shitty connection or their shitty hardware causing the problem. Do you somehow think console gamers will be any less bitchy about it?
My guess? Bandiwth or possibly a side effect of how they load the levels.
The transporting really only worked in the rather linear and confined halo and halo 2. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you have to be on one box for coop on both 1 and 2? Have they confirmed that in halo 3 lan coop you will still have to deal with the teleportation?
Really if it works on lan, but not online, I wonder if its a latency issue or a bandwidth issue. Alas, who knows.
I don't ever remember them promising online coop though, just hoping for it.
It could be based on how level geometry is loaded, and how enemies and such are loaded. It could be engine limitations.
Really the only game I have ever played where you can be on the other side of the physical game world is crackdown. Then again considering how a game is able to recover from the "host" leaving it seems like 2 players could move apart and load separate areas and trade only data that is relevant to the other client. However something about the way the game could have change.
IN the last 2 you were usually confined along a path with some stuff. Most of the wide open areas were arenas almost with 1 way in and one way out. There was not set distance between both players, but when one hit a check
point, or a load point the player in the previous area was teleported up to the new point. Both things kept it so that only one area was loaded at any given time.
Now if the game is much more open and you have more room to run around it could be that the system of keeping the players together would be less effective, or possibly down right frustrating. Still this might not be as technical as it would be a gameplay related issue.
However the fact that it works over a lan would suggest to me that the issue is bandwidth and latency related. Possibly coordinating the in game AI could cause trouble, possibly the physics, ect ect.
Who knows. Feel free to correct me if I said anything too stupid.
My friends could beat up your friends!!!!!
Then play it with a... er... your.. friend..... Never mind this is slashdot, we don't have any friends.
Not to say that I have no problems with the ESRB, they done some annoying things too, but so have the ESA and others.
They are in all the systems, the XBOX had parental controls last generation.
I can't decide if I should mod you funny or ask you if your serious.
Well doesn't matter anymore I guess.
bugger
Um what has rockstar changed?
1:Make something violent and controversial. Make sure there is a hoopla about it.
2:???????
3:Profit, rather well.
Really none of the GTA games have been that big a departure. They really haven't been that innovative since GTA3. They have improved on a rather fun formula and added some nice social commentary and a rather funny, yet at the same time serious story.
Manhunt on the other hand... whats the point? All it seems to have are better graphics graphics and the Wii controller. What is going to make it different from the 1st game which i felt was rather craptastic?
Um what has rockstar changed? 1:Make something violent and controversial. Make sure there is a hoopla about it. 2:??????? 3:Profit, rather well. Really none of the GTA games have been that big a departure, really They haven't been innovative. They have improved on a rather fun formula and added some nice social commentary and a rather funny, yet at the same time serious story. manhunt on the other hand... whats the point? All it seems to have are better graphics graphics and the Wii controller. What is going to make it different from the 1st game which i felt was rather craptastic?
They enforced part of their contract in an ongoing attempt to cover the industries ass for the next big thing that involves games. They are trying to prove they have a functional, well maintained, and consistent ratings system. They are trying to maintain advertising guidelines that the industry agreed to. They are trying to prove on the PR front that the ratings system isn't a sham.
Really the only thing the ESRB can do is make two adult ratings, one for "adult violence" and one for "adult sexual". The ones who are "censoring" developers is the Big 3 that won't allow an adult game on their systems and the retailers who won't stock adult games.
Man the quality of erotica fan fiction has fallen over time.
Dude its the Airforce, why wouldn't they have more geeks?
I would rather have drones too, but I would prefer that we didn't get into the war in the first place. I would prefer we didn't put humans, humans who have also been heavily trained and invested in by the government and by proxy the people in such backward ass situations in the first place.
Yes I realize that war can't be avoided sometimes, yes I realize force must be used, yes I realize that we don't always get to send soldiers into a situation with great intel and all the tools needed, yes I realize that sometimes commanders have to send there men on suicide missions, yes I realize that you can't always pick your battles and yes I am well aware of the fact that it could be a while before we see a nice simple and relatively clean cut conventional war.
However, its not the drones I worry about, I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear, it what happens beyond the drones, when you start to remove the layers of people between the order and the act.
People with considerable amounts of training?
The basic principle is that a charge will run along the surface of a material. IF you can isolate the inside from the outside you can in the most basic sense shield it. With something like the drones, it much harder than say, making a Faraday cage for reducing outside electrical noise in a test engineerign lab at a electronics manufacturer.
[sarcasm]
,ect. However wouldn't it be an ever escalating fight in that arena too? Each side breaking the other sides electronics? We see the results of that fairly often in the civilian sector don't we?
What? are you crazy!?! The soldiers are all monster who are only there for fun. Why else would you join the military unless you want to kill people. Our soldiers are just a bunch rednecks with guns. Just look at what happened with Abu-ghraib. There is no morality within the military chain of command.
[/sarcasm]
On a more serious note, I think that warfare should have... oh whats the word.. a "Human touch?" What really scares me are the justifications for a fully robotic military. Why make it easier to wage war? Why create the perception that it is less costly to get into a war? Maybe I'm wrong, but why make a fighting device that can be turned against you easier than a human?
Yes, I know we can do things like lock outs, kill switches, encryption, ect
That would explain the bitter ta.. :thump: :jerk: :twitch:
They do lose some compatibility though.
Do they have a deathwish? Socially active college students everywhere won't be able to function without facebook! How will they nkow who is dating who? Where will the post photographic proof of the latest stupid shit they did? Where else will the put their whiny I hate the opposite sex notes. Certainly not myspace.. for there is an evil there that does not sleep.
You would have an agrngy horde on your hands very quickly.
From what I can tell though, all it is doing is putting screens in front of your eyes. In its current form its no different than sitting in a dark room with good speaker and a big display. Something which might be more comfortable.
Games will have to be designed to use "VR" by allowing, very, very wide screen resolutions, wide enough so that there is stuff being rendered in you peripheral vision.The screen would have to be able to cover your entire visual range, it would also allow for a more realistic view angle. Even more advanced systems would simulate that, and at the same time give you 2 screens rendered from slightly different angles so that games would actually have depth in them. Yes, I know I'm oversimplifying that but that would be the basic best case for that tech.
After that you would have the holodeck or neural interfaces that completely bypass the eyes.
Its one thing for something to be nerdy. Its a whole nother thing when it makes you look like a complete ass....says a guy who plays DDR.
Before VR I want to see glasses, preferably ones that extend the screen into your peripheral vision and also allow you to glance up with your eyes and see what is above you. At the same time they need something light and fairly durable. They shouldn't generate a ton of heat, and you should be able to tap a button to turn off the video and also makes them translucent, so you can look at the room around you with out removing them. Im just saying, we need to move away from VR goggles to glasses.