There's a lot more than that to the game, not to mention that clever re-use of textures can go a long way. It's a question of asset management, good recording/compression of voices, etc.
Sure, you can throw a ton of different, high-quality stuff into a game and say "omg we can't fit this onto a disk!" But, well, that "problem" has been tackled by game developers for decades (ever since the first-ever video game probably). You'd have to be clueless yourself to think that *that* is what's delaying the game, honestly.
A dev house complaining about not knowing how to do something doesn't mean it can't be done. Even Blizzard wasn't clever enough to avoid limiting characters to specific servers in WoW. Not that they complained about it, heh.
Trust me I've played this game more than all but like 300 people. It doesn't matter what character I use against most people. But regardless, DK is a middle-tier char, below Roy and above Pikachu. The characters I mentioned earlier are top tier chars. It's been a while since I looked all that up, but Sheik was considered best in the US, and Fox best in Japan. Altogether I'd have to go with Fox, but they are always top 2. DK isn't even close. Some players are good with him, like "Canada Mike" and a few others who use him as their main. My fried Drephen is good with him; used to give my Link trouble (Link is at the top of middle tier btw).
Of course all these tiers are only even worth discussing when talking about 1v1 MLG style play. Not 4-man free-for-all where, say, being an avoidant turtle has a greater effect on your survival rate than the character you pick:-)
Are you serious? The 360 has no problem running Oblivion. Squeezing what little more (less?) content they'd have for GTA IV on there would in no way significantly delay anything unless they are rubbish at managing their assets compared to other dev houses.
Given the engine GTA IV is being developed on is the same as a 360 exclusive Rockstar made, the issue is most likely on the PS3 side.
I would be ecstatic if they mentioned this story mode was playable in co-op. I've been wanting something like that in a Smash game ever since the original.
Sadly HAL seems to only really do about 50% of what they're capable of; it would be okay if Smash games were released every couple of years, but waiting a whole generation and-then-some puts a lot of pressure on them to add more than just "the usual improvements."
Oh well. I'm big into Smash, so just knowing that they didn't blow off the single-player mode entirely this time around is good news to me.
Actually DK wasn't even close to the high tier characters in Melee. He was in the bottom half for sure. If you want to talk unbalanced, talk about Fox, Sheik, Falco, Peach:-) (It's questioned whether Marth would have been so high on the tiers if not for Ken's mad success with the character, which Ken has proven many times was mostly due to his sheer talent at the game rather than character strength.)
If you're dealing with small images, sure. But, um... HD photos can be several megabytes in size each. Any hi-res graphic will be affected quite a bit by the quality of compression used to store it.
Yes, the "vast majority" of users won't be affected. They also shouldn't be reading up on this or posting in this thread. Indeed it doesn't concern them. But there's an important minority of users (photographers, artists, other designers) who actually care about image formats.
Those are some bad mice then:-/ Even the poo Dell/Sun ones I've used at work and uni haven't been that bad. For myself I buy the $80-$100 Logitech ones and they're generally awesome, but seriously I've never seen a mouse not remain in a location from an action as light as clicking a button as long as you don't move your hand:-/
You've presented less evidence than even I to support *your* view of Vista. Zero, actually. So don't bother trying to call me on that count. I'm curious about what application compatibility issues you are planning on running into that will cost you all this time and money, as it's not like all I use is Internet Exporer and Wordpad.
By the way, have YOU read the article? Because as a matter of fact, I did, and it says little more than that some more folks than before think Vista is less secure than XP and are afraid of zero-day vulnerabilities. No evidence, just user perception. How does that make the OS a disaster?
I didn't buy a new comp with Vista without doing my share of research, so don't assume I'm willfully ignoring all these omgwtfcrazy problems it has. It's mostly FUD. You've bought into it. I've mentioned Vista's biggest problems in a previous post: DRM, driver support (something 3rd parties are responsible for anyway), and monetary cost.
So far I've found it as easy as "generally getting adjusted" to the device. As far as mice are concerned, that is. Though I understand what you're saying, it's something I've only seen as an issue when using a stylus and a _small_ Wacom tablet.
I do quite a bit of Photoshop work, and I've done more than my share of CAD stuff as well, using all sorts of mice and trackballs. I found it easy enough to get pixel precision with all of them.
Co-op has always been a highlight of Halo games for me, as it is what I felt truly set the game apart from its FPS predecessors.
4-player online co-op that allows you to save films of the gameplay? That right there is worth $60 for me easily. It will be my favorite gameplay mode (apart from split-screen co-op -- nothing beats having your buddy next to you as you whoop Covenant arse together, especially since it spares you having to wear that wretched headset.. and there's no lag ^_^).
Trackballs, laser mice, and old style mice all have PIXEL PRECISION. If you can pick a pixel you want to click on, and you can click on it, you have as high precision as possible. And I have yet to find any mouse that doesn't allow me to do exactly that.
Take your mouse, and see if you can move it 1 pixel to the left. Ok, now see if you can move it 1 pixel down. If you managed both, then congratulations you have a working mouse ^_^
What one would want to consider is response time, how frequently random lag occurs, ergonomics, button arrangement, ease of driver installation, button configuration software, general signal strength if it's wireless (does your other arm block the signal sometimes? I've seen that happen), general build quality, and button/scrollwheel/trackball "feel" (that new Logitech mouse with the scroll wheel that doesn't "click" when you move it comes to mind), etc.
The precision argument might have been relevant... oh heck I don't know when. It was probably never relevant.
Actually the analogy of actors/actresses in movies *does* come close to graphics in games. Sensory appeal is related to the size of the audience. The difference is the latter comes with "hardware requirements," but we've already established that devs out there are capable of not only more visually appealing graphics, but ones with greater fidelity than those in WoW, while keeping hardware requirements at or below WoW's level.
Really, you're giving me a REASON THE GRAPHICS ARE ASS. To begin with, my criticism was that the graphics are crap, not really why they are crap.
LOL @ "Vista disaster," give me a break. There's driver issues here and there, that's about it. Most complaints users have stem from either that or UAC, which can be turned off very easily. Likening the OS release to a presidential assassination is retarded. You're just trolling because it's popular to hate on Microsoft and currently on Vista. The OS's main issues are way too much DRM support, a high price, and demanding hardware requirements. None of these are a "Vista disaster."
The particular printer I have is known for issues with Vista... now, there *is* a lengthy and tedious way to get it to network properly (that's really the issue, is the networking) but it's a big pain in the arse and I will probably only get around to it when I am in a really, really good mood and with nothing to do.
Well... okay fair enough then HP are morons for not having Vista work properly with one of their best printers. Though MS should get on their case about it.
I'm not saying Vista is bad... the driver problem though is something that is partially MS's fault. Take for instance my HP color laser printer... it's networked to various computers in our home, but my new Vista computer is just not working with it. It finds the printer, installs drivers, and... nothing doing. Vista *should* have shipped with support of things like commonly available HP color laser printers right out of the box. It's not like HP is a very obscure company. So, in this particular case, I can't really say it's HP's fault over MS's.
There's issues of that sort with any OS rollout. When XP was released, a bunch of folks bashed it and praised 2000 as a far superior offering. It's the same thing this time around in that regard. I've had few issues with Vista at home (although it has been unable to network with our HP printer, which is a bother and most certainly Vista's fault, though something I *can* fix if I put in the effort), and find much of what it does to be an improvement over XP. It *has* made my user experience better, overall. Not something I expected, being a/. regular ^_^
Best-selling doesn't mean flawless. Need I mention how much Star Wars Episode 1 grossed? Or perhaps Titanic?
Blizzard does make quality games, but their graphics are ASS and you can't deny it. It's partly the artists' fault and partly the graphics programmers' fault, as I have seen better-looking games that use fewer resources.
I mean really what kind of argument is success in this regard? Someone can complain about Kate Winslet's awful acting in Titanic, and you'll say something like "it grossed over a billion worldwide. I think Cameron knew what he was doing, dude." Yeah... way to make no point at all.
It didn't suck enough. Stuff works with it, it's secure enough, it's no longer costly, it uses a fraction of the firepower recommended for Vista.
I don't think Vista is a bad OS at all. But if XP is working fine, and the next step up is only a mild improvement (and from my experience, something that the home user will notice more than a work user), it's not worth switching. XP just isn't bad enough to move on from.
(Now, if only OS's could get crappier over time, like cars...) Maybe MS should release a "critical update" that turns it into Windows ME or 98.
It was #4. I've already answered someone with regards to this. Mind you, #2 was answering a post just to point something like this out. ^_^ you're also the 3rd person to make this comment.
If low resource use is indeed the goal, then yes it is in large part the game designers' fault for misusing resources to such a degree.
But then again a game like Guild Wars has the same system requirements (actually, 2x less RAM and a lower cpu speed for the recommended system) and has far higher graphics fidelity than World of Warcraft. Better models, better textures, etc.
So, both the designers and the devs are to blame.
Of course, ArenaNet also has some monster talent to throw around, including some very key ex-Blizzard folks such as Pat Wyatt.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a lot more than that to the game, not to mention that clever re-use of textures can go a long way. It's a question of asset management, good recording/compression of voices, etc.
Sure, you can throw a ton of different, high-quality stuff into a game and say "omg we can't fit this onto a disk!" But, well, that "problem" has been tackled by game developers for decades (ever since the first-ever video game probably). You'd have to be clueless yourself to think that *that* is what's delaying the game, honestly.
A dev house complaining about not knowing how to do something doesn't mean it can't be done. Even Blizzard wasn't clever enough to avoid limiting characters to specific servers in WoW. Not that they complained about it, heh.
Trust me I've played this game more than all but like 300 people. It doesn't matter what character I use against most people. But regardless, DK is a middle-tier char, below Roy and above Pikachu. The characters I mentioned earlier are top tier chars. It's been a while since I looked all that up, but Sheik was considered best in the US, and Fox best in Japan. Altogether I'd have to go with Fox, but they are always top 2. DK isn't even close. Some players are good with him, like "Canada Mike" and a few others who use him as their main. My fried Drephen is good with him; used to give my Link trouble (Link is at the top of middle tier btw).
:-)
Of course all these tiers are only even worth discussing when talking about 1v1 MLG style play. Not 4-man free-for-all where, say, being an avoidant turtle has a greater effect on your survival rate than the character you pick
Are you serious? The 360 has no problem running Oblivion. Squeezing what little more (less?) content they'd have for GTA IV on there would in no way significantly delay anything unless they are rubbish at managing their assets compared to other dev houses.
Given the engine GTA IV is being developed on is the same as a 360 exclusive Rockstar made, the issue is most likely on the PS3 side.
I would be ecstatic if they mentioned this story mode was playable in co-op. I've been wanting something like that in a Smash game ever since the original.
Sadly HAL seems to only really do about 50% of what they're capable of; it would be okay if Smash games were released every couple of years, but waiting a whole generation and-then-some puts a lot of pressure on them to add more than just "the usual improvements."
Oh well. I'm big into Smash, so just knowing that they didn't blow off the single-player mode entirely this time around is good news to me.
Actually DK wasn't even close to the high tier characters in Melee. He was in the bottom half for sure. If you want to talk unbalanced, talk about Fox, Sheik, Falco, Peach :-) (It's questioned whether Marth would have been so high on the tiers if not for Ken's mad success with the character, which Ken has proven many times was mostly due to his sheer talent at the game rather than character strength.)
If you're dealing with small images, sure. But, um... HD photos can be several megabytes in size each. Any hi-res graphic will be affected quite a bit by the quality of compression used to store it.
Yes, the "vast majority" of users won't be affected. They also shouldn't be reading up on this or posting in this thread. Indeed it doesn't concern them. But there's an important minority of users (photographers, artists, other designers) who actually care about image formats.
The same can be said for music, video, etc.
It's an iPod shuffle! oooh, burn!
Scariest person to freeze-frame mid-speech in 2007: *still* Reggie
Go Reggie! I swear this is how he got to be President of NOA.
...a new country? Are there 3 Koreas now, or did they just rename South Korea to this?
Those are some bad mice then :-/ Even the poo Dell/Sun ones I've used at work and uni haven't been that bad. For myself I buy the $80-$100 Logitech ones and they're generally awesome, but seriously I've never seen a mouse not remain in a location from an action as light as clicking a button as long as you don't move your hand :-/
You've presented less evidence than even I to support *your* view of Vista. Zero, actually. So don't bother trying to call me on that count. I'm curious about what application compatibility issues you are planning on running into that will cost you all this time and money, as it's not like all I use is Internet Exporer and Wordpad.
By the way, have YOU read the article? Because as a matter of fact, I did, and it says little more than that some more folks than before think Vista is less secure than XP and are afraid of zero-day vulnerabilities. No evidence, just user perception. How does that make the OS a disaster?
I didn't buy a new comp with Vista without doing my share of research, so don't assume I'm willfully ignoring all these omgwtfcrazy problems it has. It's mostly FUD. You've bought into it. I've mentioned Vista's biggest problems in a previous post: DRM, driver support (something 3rd parties are responsible for anyway), and monetary cost.
So far I've found it as easy as "generally getting adjusted" to the device. As far as mice are concerned, that is. Though I understand what you're saying, it's something I've only seen as an issue when using a stylus and a _small_ Wacom tablet.
I do quite a bit of Photoshop work, and I've done more than my share of CAD stuff as well, using all sorts of mice and trackballs. I found it easy enough to get pixel precision with all of them.
Co-op has always been a highlight of Halo games for me, as it is what I felt truly set the game apart from its FPS predecessors.
.. and there's no lag ^_^).
4-player online co-op that allows you to save films of the gameplay? That right there is worth $60 for me easily. It will be my favorite gameplay mode (apart from split-screen co-op -- nothing beats having your buddy next to you as you whoop Covenant arse together, especially since it spares you having to wear that wretched headset
Trackballs, laser mice, and old style mice all have PIXEL PRECISION. If you can pick a pixel you want to click on, and you can click on it, you have as high precision as possible. And I have yet to find any mouse that doesn't allow me to do exactly that.
Take your mouse, and see if you can move it 1 pixel to the left. Ok, now see if you can move it 1 pixel down. If you managed both, then congratulations you have a working mouse ^_^
What one would want to consider is response time, how frequently random lag occurs, ergonomics, button arrangement, ease of driver installation, button configuration software, general signal strength if it's wireless (does your other arm block the signal sometimes? I've seen that happen), general build quality, and button/scrollwheel/trackball "feel" (that new Logitech mouse with the scroll wheel that doesn't "click" when you move it comes to mind), etc.
The precision argument might have been relevant... oh heck I don't know when. It was probably never relevant.
Actually the analogy of actors/actresses in movies *does* come close to graphics in games. Sensory appeal is related to the size of the audience. The difference is the latter comes with "hardware requirements," but we've already established that devs out there are capable of not only more visually appealing graphics, but ones with greater fidelity than those in WoW, while keeping hardware requirements at or below WoW's level.
Really, you're giving me a REASON THE GRAPHICS ARE ASS. To begin with, my criticism was that the graphics are crap, not really why they are crap.
LOL @ "Vista disaster," give me a break. There's driver issues here and there, that's about it. Most complaints users have stem from either that or UAC, which can be turned off very easily. Likening the OS release to a presidential assassination is retarded. You're just trolling because it's popular to hate on Microsoft and currently on Vista. The OS's main issues are way too much DRM support, a high price, and demanding hardware requirements. None of these are a "Vista disaster."
Either you're clueless about Vista, or American history, or you can't read seeing as you misquoted me in the first place.
The particular printer I have is known for issues with Vista... now, there *is* a lengthy and tedious way to get it to network properly (that's really the issue, is the networking) but it's a big pain in the arse and I will probably only get around to it when I am in a really, really good mood and with nothing to do.
Well... okay fair enough then HP are morons for not having Vista work properly with one of their best printers. Though MS should get on their case about it.
I'm not saying Vista is bad... the driver problem though is something that is partially MS's fault. Take for instance my HP color laser printer... it's networked to various computers in our home, but my new Vista computer is just not working with it. It finds the printer, installs drivers, and ... nothing doing. Vista *should* have shipped with support of things like commonly available HP color laser printers right out of the box. It's not like HP is a very obscure company. So, in this particular case, I can't really say it's HP's fault over MS's.
There's issues of that sort with any OS rollout. When XP was released, a bunch of folks bashed it and praised 2000 as a far superior offering. It's the same thing this time around in that regard. I've had few issues with Vista at home (although it has been unable to network with our HP printer, which is a bother and most certainly Vista's fault, though something I *can* fix if I put in the effort), and find much of what it does to be an improvement over XP. It *has* made my user experience better, overall. Not something I expected, being a /. regular ^_^
Best-selling doesn't mean flawless. Need I mention how much Star Wars Episode 1 grossed? Or perhaps Titanic?
Blizzard does make quality games, but their graphics are ASS and you can't deny it. It's partly the artists' fault and partly the graphics programmers' fault, as I have seen better-looking games that use fewer resources.
I mean really what kind of argument is success in this regard? Someone can complain about Kate Winslet's awful acting in Titanic, and you'll say something like "it grossed over a billion worldwide. I think Cameron knew what he was doing, dude." Yeah... way to make no point at all.
It didn't suck enough. Stuff works with it, it's secure enough, it's no longer costly, it uses a fraction of the firepower recommended for Vista.
I don't think Vista is a bad OS at all. But if XP is working fine, and the next step up is only a mild improvement (and from my experience, something that the home user will notice more than a work user), it's not worth switching. XP just isn't bad enough to move on from.
(Now, if only OS's could get crappier over time, like cars...) Maybe MS should release a "critical update" that turns it into Windows ME or 98.
It was #4. I've already answered someone with regards to this. Mind you, #2 was answering a post just to point something like this out. ^_^ you're also the 3rd person to make this comment.
If low resource use is indeed the goal, then yes it is in large part the game designers' fault for misusing resources to such a degree.
But then again a game like Guild Wars has the same system requirements (actually, 2x less RAM and a lower cpu speed for the recommended system) and has far higher graphics fidelity than World of Warcraft. Better models, better textures, etc.
So, both the designers and the devs are to blame.
Of course, ArenaNet also has some monster talent to throw around, including some very key ex-Blizzard folks such as Pat Wyatt.