You're wrong insofar as those things being innovative to the genre, but not about Halo/Halo 2 being innovative. When Microsoft brought Halo to the Xbox, everybody and his mother was complaining. In retrospect, it was the smartest thing they could do.
No, the game was not innovative as far as PC games go, but it was hugely innovative for a console game. The innovative part of the game was the network play. This is plainly evident in the lack of length in Halo 2's campaign. Sure, network existed beforehand (I played Quake 3 on Dreamcast...), but Microsoft has done it right with Halo and Halo 2, as far as multiplayer is concerned.
Co-op? Sure. Over LAN or Live? Of course. Tracking users' stats and creating optimally matched games with like-skilled players? Yes.
Halo, Halo 2, and Xbox Live really have done a lot for console gaming.
Err...yeah. Sorry, the telepathic mind-reader is coming in 10.5.
He said right in the article that the problem he had was with the marketing. It doesn't change the way you use your computer. At least stick to the things he is wrong about.
Right. Tiger is not worth $129, but Windows XP is worth $250 or whatever over Windows 2000.
No, maybe XP isn't worth the $200 over 2000, but it is certainly worth every penny of the $200 over 95/98/ME. It was never meant as an "upgrade" to 2000. Windows 95/98/ME/XP are meant for the home user, while 2000 is not, and in that regard XP was a huge upgrade over its predecessors.
That's entirely different. Game developers don't stop you from playing your Windows game in another OS by *adding* some sort of protective code. The two scenarios are nothing alike.
Slashdot Mirror
You're wrong insofar as those things being innovative to the genre, but not about Halo/Halo 2 being innovative. When Microsoft brought Halo to the Xbox, everybody and his mother was complaining. In retrospect, it was the smartest thing they could do.
No, the game was not innovative as far as PC games go, but it was hugely innovative for a console game. The innovative part of the game was the network play. This is plainly evident in the lack of length in Halo 2's campaign. Sure, network existed beforehand (I played Quake 3 on Dreamcast...), but Microsoft has done it right with Halo and Halo 2, as far as multiplayer is concerned.
Co-op? Sure. Over LAN or Live? Of course. Tracking users' stats and creating optimally matched games with like-skilled players? Yes.
Halo, Halo 2, and Xbox Live really have done a lot for console gaming.
Err...yeah. Sorry, the telepathic mind-reader is coming in 10.5.
He said right in the article that the problem he had was with the marketing. It doesn't change the way you use your computer. At least stick to the things he is wrong about.
Right. Tiger is not worth $129, but Windows XP is worth $250 or whatever over Windows 2000.
No, maybe XP isn't worth the $200 over 2000, but it is certainly worth every penny of the $200 over 95/98/ME. It was never meant as an "upgrade" to 2000. Windows 95/98/ME/XP are meant for the home user, while 2000 is not, and in that regard XP was a huge upgrade over its predecessors.
That's entirely different. Game developers don't stop you from playing your Windows game in another OS by *adding* some sort of protective code. The two scenarios are nothing alike.
Bah.. The fact that we didn't have riots shouldn't be something we celebrate. It should be expected.
We're moving closer and closer to a state governed by Christian conservatism. It may be great to be an American now, but who knows for how long.