The performance only gets better if you keep buying a newer computer and/or a newer video card. Gaming PCs are a costly endeavour compared to game consoles. Not to mention the know-how you need when selecting your configuration as hardware vendors certainly don't make it easy for customers to figure out what is what.
I think you underestimate the advantage of optimising for a hardware configuration designed for video games.
First, although it's often easier to think of Nintendo as a single entity (as I did earlier), they have dozens of internal teams
How is that a problem with my argument? It doesn't change anything.
Second, being formulaic isn't what made later games worse.
I disagree. The formula has been applied so strictly that current games in the series feel like uninspired rehashes of the same game. Puzzles that require you to try all of your items, markers that show you where you can use your hookshot, the obligatory sidekick, getting the Master Sword, etc. It's like they went through a checklist of what a Legend of Zelda game must have and then threw it all together.
Of course they have to have a gimmick. In Twilight Princess that was the wolf, which actually wasn't all that bad. It did a lot to make the first half of the game better. But by the second half the wolf form was barely used and that's coincidentally also where the game starts to feel more like work.
The Wind Waker has some of the same problems, but it reintroduced exploration to the series with a vast ocean. That did a lot of good for the game.
long cutscenes, long tutorial sections
I don't have much of a problem with long cutscenes, but I do have a problem with dozens of tutorial boxes popping up all over the game that treat me like an idiot that can't remember how to use something for longer than a half hour. Or how much every kind of rupee is worth.
Nintendo has long forgotten how to make a mainline Legend of Zelda game fun, though. They're artificial construct made following a strict Ocarina of Time model.
Consoles are nice for playing with friends, but PC's will always be better at running AAA games.
Nonsense. Standardised hardware is an advantage. Raw power doesn't always make things run better when there's tons of different hardware configurations out there.
When a game console is new it's actually more powerful then contemporary PCs, but let's conveniently forget about that, right?
Maybe if the other politicians wanted to talk about and deal with the issues that arise between muslims and other people. Like the homophobic muslims that give homosexuals shit in public. I'm not saying that what Wilders wants to do is right, but he wants to do something. That's why people vote for him.
Like a license, unsupported machines should not be on the world wide web and need to be disabled.
I find this to be a draconian measure. Their computer may still work perfectly fine but then it gets disabled because some big company decided to. Are you going to give them a free upgrade to Windows 7 (that may not work as well on their machine)?
What about users that can support themselves? I know there are still Windows 95, 98 and Me users out there that do and they're doing a pretty good job.
A $250-300 PC would last you much longer without getting outdated than the builtin media players and web browsers on TV's which essentially get outdated after 4-5 years (or less)
Considering how quickly computer hardware breaks these days (compared to the 90s), I'm not too sure about that.
In a way the irony is pretty thick since they fell for the same stupid idea that destroyed Sega with the Saturn.
They fell for the same stupid idea with the PS2 already, as it was hard to program for and cost an arm and a leg at launch. However their marketing and past success with the PS1 was so strong that it didn't matter in the end.
Karma is a bitch, isn't it, Sony? May you go down swiftly. I'd love nothing more after all the hostility and the recent rumours of tying PS4 games to the console with required online verification.
As for Win98, giving it any more RAM will be futile anyway. It maxes out at 512MB of addressable RAM. Windows 95 maxes out at 64.
Nonsense. Windows 98 maxes out at 1 GB of RAM, though there are workarounds and even patches to make it address more. Windows 95 can have at least up to 256 MB of RAM. It probably has the same limit as Windows 98, but that's untested as far as I know.
Win 9x (95/95 OSR2/98/98SE/ME) was overall a steaming pile of dung.
Bullshit. As desktop OSs they were pretty good. I recognise that WinNT overall is more stable, but Win9x did pretty well. Especially if you didn't allow IE4 anywhere near it. Most problems could be attributed to that buggy piece of shit.
In fact, Windows 95 is still so usable that I still use it on the computer that came with it. I love how it never gets in my way.
You got the version numbers wrong. Windows 95 was always version 4.0. Adding the Service Pack made it Windows 95A. The OSR2 version was Windows 95B. OSR2.5, finally, was Windows 95C.
Windows 98 wasn't that good when it was released, mostly because of IE4 being shoved down its throat, which made IE4 bugs relevant to the OS.
Your post amounts to "you're wrong" and "you're doing it wrong" without anything to back up your assertion that Windows 7 is better than Windows XP. In contrast, the pro XP camp seems to be doing a better job. Guess who will be taken more seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
*woosh*
The performance only gets better if you keep buying a newer computer and/or a newer video card. Gaming PCs are a costly endeavour compared to game consoles. Not to mention the know-how you need when selecting your configuration as hardware vendors certainly don't make it easy for customers to figure out what is what.
I think you underestimate the advantage of optimising for a hardware configuration designed for video games.
How is that a problem with my argument? It doesn't change anything.
I disagree. The formula has been applied so strictly that current games in the series feel like uninspired rehashes of the same game. Puzzles that require you to try all of your items, markers that show you where you can use your hookshot, the obligatory sidekick, getting the Master Sword, etc. It's like they went through a checklist of what a Legend of Zelda game must have and then threw it all together.
Of course they have to have a gimmick. In Twilight Princess that was the wolf, which actually wasn't all that bad. It did a lot to make the first half of the game better. But by the second half the wolf form was barely used and that's coincidentally also where the game starts to feel more like work.
The Wind Waker has some of the same problems, but it reintroduced exploration to the series with a vast ocean. That did a lot of good for the game.
I don't have much of a problem with long cutscenes, but I do have a problem with dozens of tutorial boxes popping up all over the game that treat me like an idiot that can't remember how to use something for longer than a half hour. Or how much every kind of rupee is worth.
Nintendo has long forgotten how to make a mainline Legend of Zelda game fun, though. They're artificial construct made following a strict Ocarina of Time model.
Nonsense. Standardised hardware is an advantage. Raw power doesn't always make things run better when there's tons of different hardware configurations out there.
When a game console is new it's actually more powerful then contemporary PCs, but let's conveniently forget about that, right?
Please stop abusing the apostrophe.
Does this allow the storage of porn? :)
Please re-read my post. It answers all of your questions.
Maybe if the other politicians wanted to talk about and deal with the issues that arise between muslims and other people. Like the homophobic muslims that give homosexuals shit in public. I'm not saying that what Wilders wants to do is right, but he wants to do something. That's why people vote for him.
The fact that 10% of the games you play are console games validates their existence, you pirating douchebag.
My keyboard has an AZERTY layout, you insensitive clod!
I find this to be a draconian measure. Their computer may still work perfectly fine but then it gets disabled because some big company decided to. Are you going to give them a free upgrade to Windows 7 (that may not work as well on their machine)?
What about users that can support themselves? I know there are still Windows 95, 98 and Me users out there that do and they're doing a pretty good job.
You're funny. Both of these depend largely on the programmer writing the code.
Considering how quickly computer hardware breaks these days (compared to the 90s), I'm not too sure about that.
I don't see what there is to be proud of.
They fell for the same stupid idea with the PS2 already, as it was hard to program for and cost an arm and a leg at launch. However their marketing and past success with the PS1 was so strong that it didn't matter in the end.
Karma is a bitch, isn't it, Sony? May you go down swiftly. I'd love nothing more after all the hostility and the recent rumours of tying PS4 games to the console with required online verification.
Nonsense. Windows 98 maxes out at 1 GB of RAM, though there are workarounds and even patches to make it address more. Windows 95 can have at least up to 256 MB of RAM. It probably has the same limit as Windows 98, but that's untested as far as I know.
As already said in this comment, it has 0x10000 16 bit words as memory.
That shit gets posted every year, but Java still sucks.
Yes, I have used it, and am still using it because some projects require it. Please stop spouting this nonsense.
There are some loud feminists in the world that strive to give women unfair advantages. That's not what emancipation is about, obviously.
Bullshit. As desktop OSs they were pretty good. I recognise that WinNT overall is more stable, but Win9x did pretty well. Especially if you didn't allow IE4 anywhere near it. Most problems could be attributed to that buggy piece of shit.
In fact, Windows 95 is still so usable that I still use it on the computer that came with it. I love how it never gets in my way.
You got the version numbers wrong. Windows 95 was always version 4.0. Adding the Service Pack made it Windows 95A. The OSR2 version was Windows 95B. OSR2.5, finally, was Windows 95C.
Windows 98 wasn't that good when it was released, mostly because of IE4 being shoved down its throat, which made IE4 bugs relevant to the OS.
Quite simply, Linux isn't designed to be a desktop OS. It's a server OS first and foremost.
Your post amounts to "you're wrong" and "you're doing it wrong" without anything to back up your assertion that Windows 7 is better than Windows XP. In contrast, the pro XP camp seems to be doing a better job. Guess who will be taken more seriously.