PC Gaming Dying
Edward Cowling London UK
refuses to buy a separate Xbox or Wii to play games on.
Over the years just about everything I wanted to play came out on in a
PC version, but now I've noticed that's not the case.
Is PC gaming dying ? And if so why ?
--
Edward Cowling Stop Thatcher's State Funeral
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/thatchfuneral/
nobody
> I'm one of those guys who buys a decent PC every couple of years and
> refuses to buy a separate Xbox or Wii to play games on.
>
> Over the years just about everything I wanted to play came out on in a
> PC version, but now I've noticed that's not the case.
>
> Is PC gaming dying ? And if so why ?
>
No. No it isn't.
Rick Cortese
> refuses to buy a separate Xbox or Wii to play games on.
>
> Over the years just about everything I wanted to play came out on in a
> PC version, but now I've noticed that's not the case.
>
> Is PC gaming dying ? And if so why ?
>
Kind of a tired topic/troll bait.
Nature of the market has changed: http://www.mmogchart.com/ and look at
the charts. This doesn't include the 'free to play' games which are
probably just as big. I've heard online games like Hearts and Backgammon
number in the 100k-300k range.
Only so much water in the well. If people are spending 300 hours/month
playing WoW there isn't much time for playing solo games. If you want to
play w/o interacting with others or develop a game that doesn't insist
on being MMP then the consoles are the ticket.
Rick
Mark Morrison
<edw...@genghis0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm one of those guys who buys a decent PC every couple of years and
>refuses to buy a separate Xbox or Wii to play games on.
>
>Over the years just about everything I wanted to play came out on in a
>PC version, but now I've noticed that's not the case.
>
>Is PC gaming dying ? And if so why ?
No - it's just becoming more diluted.
But it IS changing, multi-platform gaming means games are starting to
feel more like console games (hence the consolisation effect).
Ayatollah of rock 'n' roller
Teenagers...
Edward Cowling London UK
Cortese <rico...@earthlink.net> writes
>
>Only so much water in the well. If people are spending 300 hours/month
>playing WoW there isn't much time for playing solo games. If you want
>to play w/o interacting with others or develop a game that doesn't
>insist on being MMP then the consoles are the ticket.
>
I've never seen the fun in any of the multi user games. One girl I
worked with effectively shifted her psyche to WOW and considered it the
only thing worthwhile in her life. Sad really, she lost her job over her
general lack of interest in anything non WOW.
Edward Cowling London UK
roller <thi...@lse.co.ck> writes
>Oh please shut the fuck up you cunt. We've heard it all before for years.
>
>Teenagers...
>
>
goodnight with ?
Retard
Rick Cortese
> In message <nJ6dnagOW9SoDwnV...@earthlink.com>, Rick
> Cortese <rico...@earthlink.net> writes
>
>>
>> Only so much water in the well. If people are spending 300 hours/month
>> playing WoW there isn't much time for playing solo games. If you want
>> to play w/o interacting with others or develop a game that doesn't
>> insist on being MMP then the consoles are the ticket.
>>
>
> I've never seen the fun in any of the multi user games. One girl I
> worked with effectively shifted her psyche to WOW and considered it the
> only thing worthwhile in her life. Sad really, she lost her job over her
> general lack of interest in anything non WOW.
>
Granted, it happens. I've also seen the opposite happen too with burn
outs and shut-ins actually becoming socialble. At the very least you
sometimes end up wiyh an antisocial emotional cripple who at least can
type and spell up to 50 words or so. One I know actually went from hard
core unemployable stoner to data entry clerk.
'Dark Ages' before ~1985 and the [BBS door games, MMPOG] it was 300+
hours a month watching TV or Super Mario Brothers for a lot of these people.
Rick
Knight37
It's not completely dead but it is "dying" in the sense that fewer and
fewer A++ titles are PC Exclusive now. Sure, we still get some games,
but the majority of PC games from the Top 3 PC publishers are
multiplatform now, designed with the console controller in mind as far
as the interface goes. For shooters that's not so bad, since after all
mouse-KB is pretty much a no-brainer defacto standard so developers
don't fuck it up. For other games it just depends. Like take Oblivion
for example. Great game, PC verison was definitely the best because of
all the mods, but there's no denying that the fact it had to work with
the 360 controller impacted the PC's interface as well, vis a vis the
inventory management, etc.
If PC gaming were still strong I wouldn't be still on my computer that's
like 3 years old now. I'd have upgraded by now. But there's just flat
out nothing on PC exclusive that is worth upgrading for, coming from a
gamer who buys all the platforms anyway (PS3, X360, Wii, etc). Maybe
Diablo III or Dragon Age will be my excuse.
Oh well, not like there aren't plenty of games to play, I am not married
to the PC as far as a platform. And it's still by far the best platform
for MMO's.
Greg Johnson
<edw...@genghis0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Over the years just about everything I wanted to play came out on in a
>PC version, but now I've noticed that's not the case.
I haven't noticed any change - there have always been some console
games I'd like on the PC, so either you don't like the game types that
have generally been console-only, or you've been missing out.
>Is PC gaming dying ? And if so why ?
That's a separate issue, and no, I don't think it's dying out at all.
mcv
> refuses to buy a separate Xbox or Wii to play games on.
>
> Over the years just about everything I wanted to play came out on in a
> PC version, but now I've noticed that's not the case.
>
> Is PC gaming dying ? And if so why ?
This old meme again? PC gaming is not dying in the least. A few big name
publishers are abandoning the PC, but other, younger, more interesting
publishers are coming in their place. You might even argue that the last
couple of years have seen a renaissance in strategy gaming on the PC.
CRPGs, on the other hand, are in a sad state right now compared to 10
years ago, but 10 years ago was the golden age of CRPGs, and that may not
be a fair comparison. Everybody seems to playing WoW or AoC nowadays.
There's the Witcher ofcourse, and soon we'll get Fallout 3. I hope it's
good, and I hope a new publisher soon shows up to produce new CRPGs that
are graphically perhaps less ambitious, but with more emphasis on story
and dialogue again. I want a new Torment.
mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
mcv
>
> It's not completely dead but it is "dying" in the sense that fewer and
> fewer A++ titles are PC Exclusive now.
I have no idea what makes something an A++ title, but there's lots of
excellent games for PC, many of them exclusively for PC. It's just CRPGs
that are lacking compared to 10 years ago.
I think the problem is that many publishers see CRPGs as the little brother
of FPS, so they focus on graphics. 10 years ago, a CRPG publisher could
get away with simple 2D graphics, now everything has to be 3D, and that
costs time and money that could also have been spent on good story and
dialogue.
> If PC gaming were still strong I wouldn't be still on my computer that's
> like 3 years old now. I'd have upgraded by now.
Why? Why can't PC gaming be going strong without pushing hardware limits?
Shouldn't it be about the gameplay, rather than the graphics? I buy new
games that work perfectly fine on my 3 year old budget laptop, but they're
still new and fun games.
Besides, any claim that PC gaming might dying is easily refuted by
pointing to Blizzard's revenue.
Matt v3.3
> And then there's all the casual gaming/flash gaming out there.
> http://armorgames.com/play/751/shift
> You can't play that on a console!
Brilliant idea for a game! - he could sell that to Valve and make
some money. ;)
--
};> Matt v3.3 <:{
Nostromo
> On 03 Aug 2008 07:56:13 GMT, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, mcv wrote:
>
>> Besides, any claim that PC gaming might dying is easily refuted by
>> pointing to Blizzard's revenue.
>
> PC gaming being "profitable."
>
> Blizzard is pretty much turning all that profit on *one game*. One rather crap,
> repetitive game for people with nascent Asperger's at that (sorry fanboys,
> couldn't resist).
And here I thought it was spelt "Assburger's". I think that actually
made more sense. :-/
> Thus, people who were used to the previous *variety* of releases, especially in
> CRPGs, are experiencing a paucity of new titles.
>
> Things are hybidized, optimized for console controls, content is aimed at a
> lowest common denominator, the difficulty levels are lower to suit that
> denominator, and/or the gameplay has received a frontal lobotomy.
I think I liked it better when games were aimed at hobbyists & hardcore
gamers. Even though I could hardly claim to be a hardcore gamer nowadays
myself, more a time-limited casual gamer/dabbler. Well, unless I stumble
onto a mmorpg that panders to my OCD & Assburger's! <G>
> None of this interests someone who loved System Shock 2, or Diablo 2 or
> Baldur's Gate 2. There is no depth or variety left. Just eye candy.
Ain't that the truth. Can't wait to get old & see these current & new
generations running the show *sigh*.
> If I want that kind of depth, I have to fire up an old game. They aren't being
> made any more.
With some exceptions. Whether we like them or not, a few indies are
still towing the line & doing some good going out on a ledge or at least
giving us classic (if dated) crpgs.
> What's especially missing are elite levels of challenge beyond simple enemy HP
> and damage augmentation - real tactical challenges, rather than just
> exaggerated, unfair challenges. The cheap "expert" level is shallow gaming.
What? Are you trying to tell me that all those claims of better & better
AI which amounts to a 100,000% improvements over the past 10 years
are...*false*!? :-/
> But as has been correctly pointed out, this is just PC gaming *changing*. The
> Western CRPG doesn't make *enough* of a profit any more, so it's gonna die. The
> JRPG, however, is alive and kicking (if you like androgynous anime!).
Bletch. That crap is for bisexuals.
> And then there's all the casual gaming/flash gaming out there.
>
> http://armorgames.com/play/751/shift
>
> You can't play that on a console!
Well, they could port it. Still, as good as that orange crate from
Master Valve except it's free!!!
> ....and you can't beat the price. ;^)
There, now we both said it! ;)
> Have fun out there, with your PC.
I want the next generation of PCs ala Westworld humanoids, the sex
models in particular, for all my gaming needs. Do you think wives would
mind if it's not *really* a woman? >8^P
--
Nostromo
Ross Ridge
>Blizzard is pretty much turning all that profit on *one game*. One rather crap,
>repetitive game for people with nascent Asperger's at that (sorry fanboys,
>couldn't resist).
Blizzard is making a profit today on World of Warcraft, Warcraft III,
Diablo II, and Starcraft.
>But as has been correctly pointed out, this is just PC gaming *changing*. The
>Western CRPG doesn't make *enough* of a profit any more, so it's gonna die. The
>JRPG, however, is alive and kicking (if you like androgynous anime!).
Actually, Japanese RPGs are changing too. There aren't as many of them
coming out for the current generation of consoles as there were for the
previous two. If it wasn't for Microsoft spending big bucks on XBox
360 exclusive RPGs, things would be looking pretty bleak for Japanese
RPGs as well. It seems it's no that much easier to make a profit on
the consoles, so Japanese developers are releasing more RPGs on the
handhelds these days.
Ross Ridge
--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/
db //
John Slade
"Edward Cowling London UK" <edw...@genghis0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wS3pvIEM...@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
> I'm one of those guys who buys a decent PC every couple of years and
> refuses to buy a separate Xbox or Wii to play games on.
>
> Over the years just about everything I wanted to play came out on in a PC
> version, but now I've noticed that's not the case.
>
> Is PC gaming dying ? And if so why ?
I wouldn't say it's dying but it is slowing down. I love to play
flight simulators and that genre is almost dead. Only a few simulations come
out each year if that. But the reason PC gaming has poor sales is because of
piracy plain and simple. People can just download the game rather than buy
it. So they don't sell a lot of games and so they don't make a lot of games.
Console users typically don't pirate half as much as PC users. Just think,
when Halo 2 came out for the Xbox, people lined up at stores to buy it. Now
there are about 43 million Xboxes and Xbox 360s in the world and hundreds of
millions of computers out there and about 90% run Windows. Yet when Halo 2
came out for the computer, you didn't see lines at the store. Many computer
users downloaded it for free or had it already on console. Many did buy it
but probably not enough to justify the cost of porting the game to the PC.
Now the area where the PC does shine is in the online gamnig community and
the consoles are quickly catching up. Pretty soon you could be playing World
of Warcraft on a console with a version made special for it. But now many of
the online games like WOW are so complex, you need a keyboard. Keyboards and
mice are out now for consoles but soon they will be popular.
However there are still enough sales that warrant game production on
PCs. I just wish they would make more flight sims. There seems to be enough
great RPG games coming out each year for the PC. There's no shortage of FPS
games for the PC. But the main thing the producers need to do is get people
to buy games rather than download them. Lower prices is one thing and online
play as an added free bonus is another. Most FPS games you can play online
require you buy the game or at least buy a code to play. These things will
keep the PC market alive.
John
John Slade
"Zaghadka" <zagh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6vgb9417andbjt202...@4ax.com...
> On 03 Aug 2008 07:56:13 GMT, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, mcv wrote:
>
>>
>>pointing to Blizzard's revenue.
>
> alive" and
> PC gaming being "profitable."
>
> crap,
> repetitive game for people with nascent Asperger's at that (sorry fanboys,
> couldn't resist).
>
> especially in
> CRPGs, are experiencing a paucity of new titles.
>
> Things are hybidized, optimized for console controls, content is aimed at
> a
> lowest common denominator, the difficulty levels are lower to suit that
> denominator, and/or the gameplay has received a frontal lobotomy.
>
> Baldur's Gate 2. There is no depth or variety left. Just eye candy.
>
> being
> made any more.
>
I hear you. I never played System Shock 2 or Diablo 2 but played
Diablo 1. Right now I'm playing Baldur's Gate 1 and just installed Tales of
the Sword Cost. I bought the game about ten years ago, played a couple of
hours and quit. It sat there for almost ten years and I started playing it a
couple of months ago. It's way more fun than many of the great looking FPS
games that are getting boring these days. I'm glad I didn't play them back
then so I'm playing them now on old comptuers. Maybe when I'm finished with
the old games the newer games will have come around.
John
Nostromo
There's just so much wrong with your POV, so much ignorance wrapped into
one paragraph, I wouldn't know where to start (not that it would do any
good probably). Needless to say, you haven't a microbit of data or proof
to substantiate your claims, nor any experience with the file sharing
scene by the sounds of it, so we'll just leave it at that. Feel free to
call me a thief, so long as I can call you a female organ of my choice. :)
> However there are still enough sales that warrant game production on
> PCs. I just wish they would make more flight sims. There seems to be enough
> great RPG games coming out each year for the PC. There's no shortage of FPS
> games for the PC. But the main thing the producers need to do is get people
> to buy games rather than download them. Lower prices is one thing and online
> play as an added free bonus is another. Most FPS games you can play online
> require you buy the game or at least buy a code to play. These things will
> keep the PC market alive.
PC gaming is alive & well, just being mutated by the current younger
twitch/ADD/consolitis/eye candy crowd unfortunately. A lot of PC games
have moved to online or multiplayer models, which suits me fine so long
as there are extensive options to play solo casually, ala GW & most
mmos. There are plenty of ways to play these 'illegally' on private
networks, though that's one thing I generally wouldn't do, unless there
were no better option (e.g. the original service had gone downhill or
closed down completely). I don't understand the point of playing on a
sub-par underground network that could close down any moment, especially
in a game's prime, except to give it a short try (or be a complete
cheapskate :). Some times you do only get what you pay for.
--
Nostromo
mcv
> "Edward Cowling London UK" <edw...@genghis0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:wS3pvIEM...@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
>> I'm one of those guys who buys a decent PC every couple of years and
>> refuses to buy a separate Xbox or Wii to play games on.
>>
>> Over the years just about everything I wanted to play came out on in a PC
>> version, but now I've noticed that's not the case.
>>
>> Is PC gaming dying ? And if so why ?
>
> I wouldn't say it's dying but it is slowing down. I love to play
> flight simulators and that genre is almost dead. Only a few simulations come
> out each year if that.
Several flight simulators per year are published and you call the genre
dead? It's never been the biggest genre, but several per year sounds
pretty good to me.
> But the reason PC gaming has poor sales is because of
> piracy plain and simple. People can just download the game rather than buy
> it. So they don't sell a lot of games and so they don't make a lot of games.
I think you've got it the wrong way around. Piracy has always existed. The
problem is the way some publishers recently reacted to piracy: by hurting
the game experience for legitimate buyers, pushing people towards piracy,
and so destroying their own market. That, and they're simply moving towards
consoles, because for big publishers, it's an easier market to develop for.
On the console, the market demands pretty graphics and smooth gameplay,
whereas on the PC, people like depth and innovation. Those are easy for
small innovative companies, but not so much for big hulking behemoths
like EA (though Blizzard is an obvious exception here).
So for big publishers, consoles are the most attractive platform, but for
small ones, the PC is. In the past, all game publishers were pretty small,
but since gaming became big business and new games had multimillion dollar
budgets, emphasis moves towards consoles. That doesn't mean PC gaming is
going away; there have always been small developers, and there always will
be.
> Console users typically don't pirate half as much as PC users. Just think,
> when Halo 2 came out for the Xbox, people lined up at stores to buy it. Now
> there are about 43 million Xboxes and Xbox 360s in the world and hundreds of
> millions of computers out there and about 90% run Windows. Yet when Halo 2
> came out for the computer, you didn't see lines at the store.
Not all Windows PC owners own their machine to play Halo.
> Many computer users downloaded it for free or had it already on console.
And many didn't play it all. People who like Halo are probably more likely
to own a console, and if you've already played it there, why would you
pay again to play the same game of a different platform?
> Now the area where the PC does shine is in the online gamnig community and
> the consoles are quickly catching up. Pretty soon you could be playing World
> of Warcraft on a console with a version made special for it. But now many of
> the online games like WOW are so complex, you need a keyboard. Keyboards and
> mice are out now for consoles but soon they will be popular.
I doubt it. I don't doubt you can use keyboard and mouse on a console, but
that's not what a console is for. They're usually played on the couch, not
behind a desk.
> However there are still enough sales that warrant game production on
> PCs. I just wish they would make more flight sims. There seems to be enough
> great RPG games coming out each year for the PC.
Enough great RPGs each year? If you think zero is enough, yes. If there's
one genre that's seeing a serious lack of quality games, it's CRPGs.
There's The Witcher, and soon there'll be Fallout 3, and I don't really
know what other good CRPGs there are. Well, Mass Effect, I suppose. It's
not the late '90s anymore.
> There's no shortage of FPS
> games for the PC. But the main thing the producers need to do is get people
> to buy games rather than download them. Lower prices is one thing and online
> play as an added free bonus is another. Most FPS games you can play online
> require you buy the game or at least buy a code to play. These things will
> keep the PC market alive.
More importantly: playable quality games. Most big titles these days are
unplayable crap that compromises the integrity of your PC. That's not
something I'm willing to pay money for.
CoinSpin
> "Edward Cowling London UK" <edw...@genghis0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:wS3pvIEM...@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
>
>> I'm one of those guys who buys a decent PC every couple of years and
>> refuses to buy a separate Xbox or Wii to play games on.
>>
>> Over the years just about everything I wanted to play came out on in a PC
>> version, but now I've noticed that's not the case.
>>
>> Is PC gaming dying ? And if so why ?
>>
>
> I wouldn't say it's dying but it is slowing down. I love to play
> flight simulators and that genre is almost dead. Only a few simulations come
> out each year if that.
But what you get are typically highly polished, and have much improved
performance over the previous generation. Consider Flight Sim X and the
new X-Plane, both titles that fly circles around their predecessors in
the detail and realism department. They are "simulators" which means
there is a *tremendous* amount of attention that has to go into the
finest details in the program, to ensure everything is accurate and
reliable. Hell, some of them (including X-Plane) are used as commercial
pilot flight sims, so they HAVE to be accurate and as perfect as
possible. Also consider that usually when a flight sim hits the
shelves, it is typically more completed than many game titles these days
- generally due to that focus on details during development. A few sims
a year, for such a relatively small population of users, is a great ratio.
> But the reason PC gaming has poor sales is because of
> piracy plain and simple. People can just download the game rather than buy
> it. So they don't sell a lot of games and so they don't make a lot of games.
>
This is a very simplistic generalization, and not necessarily true...
People want quality in their PC games, and the industry has a habit of
throwing out half-finished crap that requires hours of patches to even
*play* for the first time, just to realize 15 minutes into the game that
it is complete junk. And the game companies just throw this crap out
there, flaws and all, and expect long lines to buy the title and general
bowing down and worship from the fans for even deigning to pay attention
to the PC crowd. If the developers would actually deliver *GOOD* games,
not just alot of hype with no follow-up, the dynamics of the situation
would be different.
Yes, many people download games. Guess what? Many people buy pirated
console games too. If someone is intent on being a pirate, they WILL be
a pirate, regardless of what type of system they are using. However,
many people download the games to actually check them out on their
systems so that they know if they will work. Or try them out a bit to
see if they are flaming piles of crap or worth the money. Or to get
their hands on the game while they wait for their idiotically slow
"pre-order" comes by cross-eyed 3 legged camel across the Sahara, taking
longer than if they had just gone down and bought it on release. Or
(very common here) to get a version that *doesn't have the stupid
anti-piracy DRM crap that makes it so hard to PLAY the freakin games for
paying customers* so they can actually *enjoy* their purchase, rather
than watch a bunch of errors and/or issues with virtual drives pop
up... Well, you get the picture. I, for one, tend to download a game
I'm interested in to see how it runs on my system. If it runs like
crap, I won't run out and buy it. Maybe later, as I hear about patching
and general improvements, I will fork over money for it. And I *do*
always pay for the quality games that I enjoy, I believe the only way to
keep the industry alive is to support it. But, seriously, "downloading
games" has killed the PC industry about as much as "downloading music"
has killed the music industry - check the studies, music downloads have
actually *helped* to bring up sales, provide more exposure for new
artists, and to push better quality (relatively) of music in general.
Remember the old days of buying an entire record/tape/CD that had 1 or 2
good songs and the rest were just ho-hum or crap? Can't happen these
days, people can buy 1 song at a time, and you better have a *lot* of
good songs if you want an entire CD sold.
> Console users typically don't pirate half as much as PC users. Just think,
> when Halo 2 came out for the Xbox, people lined up at stores to buy it. Now
> there are about 43 million Xboxes and Xbox 360s in the world and hundreds of
> millions of computers out there and about 90% run Windows. Yet when Halo 2
> came out for the computer, you didn't see lines at the store. Many computer
> users downloaded it for free or had it already on console. Many did buy it
> but probably not enough to justify the cost of porting the game to the PC.
>
Uhhhh... You *do* get how idiotic that rationalization is, right?
Halo, which was a *console* game created and packaged to help sell
people on the Xbox, was out for ages before it was ever ported to the
PC. As you said, most people who actually would *want* to play a game
like Halo, probably already had it. So why, on earth, would they want
to buy the same damn game for the PC? Now, if they had released the
game *simultaneously* on PC and Xbox, I can guarantee you there would
have been higher PC sales than there were. But, see, that wouldn't have
pushed PC owners to salivate and go out and drop money on an Xbox. You
are incorrectly blaming piracy and apathy in the PC community for a
situation that was engineered completely by a console marketing scheme.
> Now the area where the PC does shine is in the online gamnig community and
> the consoles are quickly catching up. Pretty soon you could be playing World
> of Warcraft on a console with a version made special for it. But now many of
> the online games like WOW are so complex, you need a keyboard. Keyboards and
> mice are out now for consoles but soon they will be popular.
>
Agreed here... And consider how the online titles that sell well and
make money are the ones that are polished and fun, not buggy piles of
dog crap (see the argument above about quality). The online developers
have to make something that will draw large crowds in, and make them
want to stay and pay monthly. So they *gasp* actually put some thought
and work into making something stable and fun, rather than flipping a
stinky turd at the public and saying "here, buy this, I don't care if
you actually play it or if it's even playable, just give me my money
now" then running off to the bank and patching things (maybe) later.
Online games have to keep interest, evolve and improve constantly, so
they tend to be shining examples of some of the *best* of what PC gaming
can be... Not talking the general concept or specifics of a particular
game, but the overall attitude in development and maintenance.
And hey, if consolers want to use keyboard and mouse and join the crowd,
great. But you are also bringing up another thing that is slowly
killing PC gaming - consolizing PC games. Rather than building
multi-platform games that use mouse and keyboard, they have to play to
the least common denominator, and force games into simplified user
interfaces that can be effectively controlled using a standard console
controller. PC gamers want complexity and our *mouse and keyboard*
dammit! If we wanted to play a game using a console gamepad, we'd own a
damn console and play it there. PCs generally cost more to begin with,
and take semi-constant upgrading to keep them up to current gaming
spec. So if you want to keep the PC crowd happy, don't throw out titles
that force all of that into the background and require you to use a
cheesy console gamepad - it tends to make you wonder why you didn't
spend the same amount of money you just dropped on your video card to
buy a complete console system instead. Seriously.
> However there are still enough sales that warrant game production on
> PCs. I just wish they would make more flight sims. There seems to be enough
> great RPG games coming out each year for the PC. There's no shortage of FPS
> games for the PC. But the main thing the producers need to do is get people
> to buy games rather than download them. Lower prices is one thing and online
> play as an added free bonus is another. Most FPS games you can play online
> require you buy the game or at least buy a code to play. These things will
> keep the PC market alive.
>
Yep, another reason online gaming is so lucrative - pretty hard to
pirate something you need a subscription to play. And I'm all for games
with a good basic engine that come out fairly cheap, then allow you to
buy little content packages along the way - some of the fairly recent
"episodic" games looked like they had the right idea, just need some
work on form, function, and accessibility issues.
CoinSpin
Jonathan Ellis
"CoinSpin" <coin^spam^sp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YPmdnYbRorbLNgTV...@comcast.com...
> John Slade wrote:
>> "Edward Cowling London UK" <edw...@genghis0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:wS3pvIEM...@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>> I'm one of those guys who buys a decent PC every couple of years and
>>> refuses to buy a separate Xbox or Wii to play games on.
My reason for not buying many new PC games:
Cost.
An individual game simply costs too much to be worth buying.
Also, when an individual game costs £30, but won't run on my computer unless
I buy £500 worth of upgrade, the cost isn't £30, it's £530. Which is too
much for a game, when I can continue playing my old games, surfing the net
and using email, on my existing machine, without spending so much as another
penny.
When people make games for the machines people HAVE (which is not
necessarily "a new, top-of-the-range PC that you bought last month", but far
more likely to be "a machine that was mid-range and affordable two years
ago, or top-of-the-range three years ago") rather than the machines they
WANT YOU TO HAVE, and price them realistically (i.e. about two thirds of the
current price, maybe half), I'll buy them.
Jonathan.
Nostromo
> This is a very simplistic generalization, and not necessarily true...
> People want quality in their PC games, and the industry has a habit of
> throwing out half-finished crap that requires hours of patches to even
> *play* for the first time, just to realize 15 minutes into the game that
> it is complete junk. And the game companies just throw this crap out
> there, flaws and all, and expect long lines to buy the title and general
> bowing down and worship from the fans for even deigning to pay attention
> to the PC crowd. If the developers would actually deliver *GOOD* games,
> not just alot of hype with no follow-up, the dynamics of the situation
> would be different.
Just to chime in here, I have several games sitting on my shelf for
which I've never taken the dvds out of their jewel case or loaded into
my drive. Reason is, I P2Ped the games to try them before I bought them
& didn't want to go through all the hassle of getting fucked around with
DRM/copyright shit which always causes me grief one way or the other.
So, the pre-loved, pre-hacked versions run happily while the originals
are relegated to poor-man's backup copies (in fact, I also burn off the
cracked ISOs just to be safe, so the originals are next to useless,
except as proof of ownership maybe). What's wrong with this picture ppl? :-/
> Yes, many people download games. Guess what? Many people buy pirated
> console games too. If someone is intent on being a pirate, they WILL be
Probably far more so than PC games these days *guffaw*.
> a pirate, regardless of what type of system they are using. However,
> many people download the games to actually check them out on their
> systems so that they know if they will work. Or try them out a bit to
> see if they are flaming piles of crap or worth the money. Or to get
> their hands on the game while they wait for their idiotically slow
> "pre-order" comes by cross-eyed 3 legged camel across the Sahara, taking
> longer than if they had just gone down and bought it on release. Or
> (very common here) to get a version that *doesn't have the stupid
> anti-piracy DRM crap that makes it so hard to PLAY the freakin games for
> paying customers* so they can actually *enjoy* their purchase, rather
> than watch a bunch of errors and/or issues with virtual drives pop
> up... Well, you get the picture. I, for one, tend to download a game
Oh yes, I did for years & in my face. God bless file sharing!
> I'm interested in to see how it runs on my system. If it runs like
> crap, I won't run out and buy it. Maybe later, as I hear about patching
> and general improvements, I will fork over money for it. And I *do*
> always pay for the quality games that I enjoy, I believe the only way to
> keep the industry alive is to support it. But, seriously, "downloading
> games" has killed the PC industry about as much as "downloading music"
> has killed the music industry - check the studies, music downloads have
> actually *helped* to bring up sales, provide more exposure for new
> artists, and to push better quality (relatively) of music in general.
You're preaching to the converted & then to the other half: casting your
pearls before swine. If the self-righteous bigots spent a half hour a
month on sites like Slyck or file sharing sites, they'd actually know
what they were talking about & their disagreement would actually have
context & carry some weight. As it stands, you can't carry a mature
conversation with most of them here, so what's left? Hey, I just stir
the pot & take the piss with idiots for my own amusement. >8^D
> Remember the old days of buying an entire record/tape/CD that had 1 or 2
> good songs and the rest were just ho-hum or crap? Can't happen these
> days, people can buy 1 song at a time, and you better have a *lot* of
> good songs if you want an entire CD sold.
Yup.
>> Console users typically don't pirate half as much as PC users. Just
>> think, when Halo 2 came out for the Xbox, people lined up at stores to
>> buy it. Now there are about 43 million Xboxes and Xbox 360s in the
>> world and hundreds of millions of computers out there and about 90%
>> run Windows. Yet when Halo 2 came out for the computer, you didn't see
>> lines at the store. Many computer users downloaded it for free or had
>> it already on console. Many did buy it but probably not enough to
>> justify the cost of porting the game to the PC.
>>
>
> Uhhhh... You *do* get how idiotic that rationalization is, right?
> Halo, which was a *console* game created and packaged to help sell
> people on the Xbox, was out for ages before it was ever ported to the
> PC. As you said, most people who actually would *want* to play a game
> like Halo, probably already had it. So why, on earth, would they want
> to buy the same damn game for the PC? Now, if they had released the
> game *simultaneously* on PC and Xbox, I can guarantee you there would
> have been higher PC sales than there were. But, see, that wouldn't have
> pushed PC owners to salivate and go out and drop money on an Xbox. You
> are incorrectly blaming piracy and apathy in the PC community for a
> situation that was engineered completely by a console marketing scheme.
Duh. At this point, do I even bother reading the rest of your post Coin? ;)
Damn straight!
> and take semi-constant upgrading to keep them up to current gaming
> spec. So if you want to keep the PC crowd happy, don't throw out titles
> that force all of that into the background and require you to use a
> cheesy console gamepad - it tends to make you wonder why you didn't
> spend the same amount of money you just dropped on your video card to
> buy a complete console system instead. Seriously.
>
>
>> However there are still enough sales that warrant game
>> production on PCs. I just wish they would make more flight sims. There
>> seems to be enough great RPG games coming out each year for the PC.
>> There's no shortage of FPS games for the PC. But the main thing the
>> producers need to do is get people to buy games rather than download
>> them. Lower prices is one thing and online play as an added free bonus
>> is another. Most FPS games you can play online require you buy the
>> game or at least buy a code to play. These things will keep the PC
>> market alive.
>>
>
> Yep, another reason online gaming is so lucrative - pretty hard to
> pirate something you need a subscription to play. And I'm all for games
> with a good basic engine that come out fairly cheap, then allow you to
> buy little content packages along the way - some of the fairly recent
> "episodic" games looked like they had the right idea, just need some
> work on form, function, and accessibility issues.
My only beef with online games is that unless you get into the betas,
it's hit & miss, because you fork over AU$70-100 to play a mmo for a
month & might hate it inside a week. If they gave away the client for
the first 2 weeks & THEN charged you full price + monthly thereafter,
they'd be putting their (rather than our) money where their mouths
always are & serving the customer & real fans. As it stands, on the flip
side, I can pay $70 for a SP offline game & if it's good enough play it
for *years*, ala D2 (LAN/TCP), RTCW, FarCry, GW (albeit online but for
free), PST, BG2, FO1/2 (which I reinstalled this year), etc, etc, just
to name a few that are permanent fixtures or get reinstalled every now &
then onto my HDs. Now THAT'S true value for money without gouging the
customer $15/mth!
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Hear, hear. Greed is Go(o)d. Except when the customers rebel. :)
Play many Indy games? There are some very good old school crpgs out
there that put most of the commercial ones to shame as far as depth of
gameplay, storyline & fun factor goes. Really.
--
Nostromo
Warewolf
news:YPmdnYbRorbLNgTV...@comcast.com:
> PC gamers want complexity and our *mouse and keyboard* dammit! If we
> wanted to play a game using a console gamepad, we'd own a damn console
> and play it there.
For most games, certainly, but for ported titles like Universal's HULK and
Ubisoft's 'Beyond Good and Evil', analog controls can prove helpful if not
a necessity.
(Any takers for an unofficial BGE patch?) ^_^;
> And I'm all for games with a good basic engine that come out fairly
> cheap, then allow you to buy little content packages along the way - some
> of the fairly recent "episodic" games looked like they had the right
> idea, just need some work on form, function, and accessibility issues.
Well, I'm of the 'Pay Once, Enjoy Forever' variety so I hope you're
prepared to field some (examples of) disagreement.
In fact, after discovering/purchasing a few 'Complete' packages, I'm a
little skeptical about 'expanding my horizons' in the retail circuit.
While the prospect of exploring an infinite universe sounds enticing, I
don't see much point in building it from (in the end, expensive) scratch.
Still, if the recipe allows for more versatile (and wish-twisting) genies
and (transformations into) female robots, perhaps I'll give the batter
another taste (preferably *without* the DRM salt).
Signed,
Warewolf
who wonders how many 'construction sets' are being used today. ^_^;
Scatter
> Several flight simulators per year are published and you call the genre
> dead? It's never been the biggest genre, but several per year sounds
> pretty good to me.
I wish it were so. Falcon4 Allied Force is still one of the main
multiplayer flightsims due to the lack of newer releases (it's
many years old and is only an update of an even older sim). For combat
flightsims there hsn't been a new big release for years (last IL2
update (1946) which gave us some extra planes, Flaming Cliffs).
MSFS gets a new version every couple of years though.
mcv
> On 06 Aug 2008 09:16:24 GMT, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, mcv wrote:
>
>>> I wouldn't say it's dying but it is slowing down. I love to play
>>
>>dead? It's never been the biggest genre, but __several__ per year sounds
>>pretty good to me.
>
> Funny. My thesaurus doesn't list "several" as a synonym for "few."
I've always understood them both to mean "more than one". Which one doesn't?
Greg Johnson
wrote:
>On 07 Aug 2008 22:30:47 GMT, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, mcv wrote:
>
>>Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 06 Aug 2008 09:16:24 GMT, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, mcv wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't say it's dying but it is slowing down. I love to play
>>>>> flight simulators and that genre is almost dead. Only a __few__ simulations come
>>>>> out each year if that.
>>>>
>>>>__Several__ flight simulators per year are published and you call the genre
>>>>dead? It's never been the biggest genre, but __several__ per year sounds
>>>>pretty good to me.
>>>
>>> Funny. My thesaurus doesn't list "several" as a synonym for "few."
>>
>>I've always understood them both to mean "more than one". Which one doesn't?
>>
>several (American Heritage Dictionary)
>
>several (sev´er-el, sev´rel) adjective
>1. Being of a number more than two or three but not many: several miles
>away.
>
> [Middle English, separate, from Anglo-Norman, from Medieval Latin separalis,
>seperalis, from Latin separ, from separare, to separate. See separate.]
>
>Several *usually* implies more than three. It's always more than a few if
>you're using both words in the same conversation.
Several requires more than one, and implies more than two, in my
experience.
>Few has a connotation of sparse.
Few means not many, but "a few" usually implies 2-3. So for me, a few
and several overlap at 3.
> Several has a connotation of a few *handfuls*.
>
>The buck stops at eleven, though, because after that you have a dozen.
>
>It also means distinct, but you hardly hear or read anyone saying things like
>"I told him three several times" or "we went our several ways."
Actually, I have heard that second one. Once.
mcv
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:25:15 GMT, Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>>On 07 Aug 2008 22:30:47 GMT, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, mcv wrote:
>>>Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 06 Aug 2008 09:16:24 GMT, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, mcv wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I wouldn't say it's dying but it is slowing down. I love to play
>>>>>> flight simulators and that genre is almost dead. Only a __few__ simulations come
>>>>>> out each year if that.
>>>>>
>>>>>__Several__ flight simulators per year are published and you call the genre
>>>>>dead? It's never been the biggest genre, but __several__ per year sounds
>>>>>pretty good to me.
>>>>
>>>> Funny. My thesaurus doesn't list "several" as a synonym for "few."
>>>
>>>I've always understood them both to mean "more than one". Which one doesn't?
>>>
>>several (American Heritage Dictionary)
>>
>>1. Being of a number more than two or three but not many: several miles
>>away.
>>
>> [Middle English, separate, from Anglo-Norman, from Medieval Latin separalis,
>>seperalis, from Latin separ, from separare, to separate. See separate.]
>>
>>Several *usually* implies more than three. It's always more than a few if
>>you're using both words in the same conversation.
>
> Several requires more than one, and implies more than two, in my
> experience.
>
>>Few has a connotation of sparse.
>
> Few means not many, but "a few" usually implies 2-3. So for me, a few
> and several overlap at 3.
I don't think either word implies such an exact range. "There were only
a few people at the concert" could still refer to more than 10. Although
I agree that "several" implies more than two, and not just more than one.
So if only two flightsims are released per year, it's a few and not
several.
infer...@my-deja.com
> Edward Cowling London UK wrote:
>
> > I'm one of those guys who buys a decent PC every couple of years and
> > refuses to buy a separate Xbox or Wii to play games on.
>
> > PC version, but now I've noticed that's not the case.
>
> > Is PC gaming dying ? And if so why ?
>
PC gaming is not exactly dying, but it has since past its peak, which
should be around late 90s. At that time, PC gaming has all sorts of
genres and every developers put development for PC gaming as priority.
Many genres has long vanished. PC gaming is now more like a niche,
albeit a large enough niche that there is still plenty going on. But
no doubt the main actions are now in console gaming nowadays.
Only massive online gaming is still where PC gaming shines at, that
too might be changing too.
infer...@my-deja.com
> This old meme again? PC gaming is not dying in the least. A few big name
> publishers are abandoning the PC, but other, younger, more interesting
> publishers are coming in their place. You might even argue that the last
> couple of years have seen a renaissance in strategy gaming on the PC.
> CRPGs, on the other hand, are in a sad state right now compared to 10
> years ago, but 10 years ago was the golden age of CRPGs, and that may not
> be a fair comparison. Everybody seems to playing WoW or AoC nowadays.
> There's the Witcher ofcourse, and soon we'll get Fallout 3. I hope it's
> good, and I hope a new publisher soon shows up to produce new CRPGs that
> are graphically perhaps less ambitious, but with more emphasis on story
> and dialogue again. I want a new Torment.
Solo RPG will never recover now that MMORPG has been unleashed. As
pure economics will dictates that solo RPG is too risky and not as
profitable as a successful MMORPG. Sure, there will always be some
publishers feel confident enough to do an epic solo RPG from time to
time, but we will definitely not going back to the days where everyone
trying to outdo each others (and many fell by the way side as a
result). The industry has consolidated. In a way, it is like the
comics industry, small and the unfit has closed down, and now we are
left with a few giants. So now we are only getting well established
series, and occassionally someone will try something new. But we won't
witness the old days again.
Wargaming, flight simulator, adventures, space sims are almost unheard
of these days. Remember how many of those we get in a single year in
the past? For those of us who always like to see something new and
daring (though not necessarily good) might find the landscape barren
now. However, good games are still being released in sufficient
quantity for the PC each year. So instead of getting 50+ games in a
year, now we probably only play a couple truly good games each year.
As all new games now emphasize replayability, having fewer games are
not really such a big issue at the moment.
MJB
"mcv" <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:48a068c3$0$188$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> Greg Johnson <greg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Funny. My thesaurus doesn't list "several" as a synonym for "few."
>>>>
>>>>I've always understood them both to mean "more than one". Which one
>>>>doesn't?
>>>>
Just to muddy the waters even further - I've always thought of 'several' as
a reference to actual numerical count while 'few' was a reference to
expected frequency. As in:
'I have several close friends' versus 'I have few close friends'. I doubt
anyone would consider both statements as equivalent in meaning.
--
MJB
Mr. Tin's Miniature Painting Workshop:
http://web.newsguy.com/Mrtinsworkshop/
Knight37
> > This old meme again? PC gaming is not dying in the least. A few big name
A customer enters a game shop.
Mr. Praline: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
(The owner does not respond.)
Mr. Praline: 'Ello, Miss?
Owner: What do you mean "miss"?
Mr. Praline: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a
complaint!
Owner: We're closin' for lunch.
Mr. Praline: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about
this PC Gaming Industry what I purchased not half an hour ago from
this very boutique.
Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Computer Game
Industry...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's
dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead platform when I see one,
and I'm looking at one right now.
Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable
industry, the Computer Game Industry, idn'it, ay? Beautiful graphics!
Mr. Praline: The graphics don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Owner: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!
Mr. Praline: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up!
(shouting at the developers) 'Ello, Mister Carmack! I've got a lovely
fresh cuttle fish for you if you show...
(owner hits the cage)
Owner: There, he moved!
Mr. Praline: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the developers!
Owner: I never!!
Mr. Praline: Yes, you did!
Owner: I never, never did anything...
Mr. Praline: (yelling and hitting the developers repeatedly)
'ELLO MEIER!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine
o'clock alarm call!
(Takes gaming industry and thumps its head on the counter. Throws
it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
Mr. Praline: Now that's what I call a dead industry.
Owner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!
Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!?
Owner: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Computer
Game Industries stun easily, major.
Mr. Praline: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad
enough of this. That game industry is definitely deceased, and when I
purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack
of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a
prolonged squawk.
Owner: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.
Mr. Praline: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is
that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im
home?
Owner: The Computer Game Industry prefers keepin' on it's back!
Remarkable industry, id'nit, squire? Lovely graphics!
Mr. Praline: Look, I took the liberty of examining that game
industry when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it
had been sitting on its perch in the first place was that it had been
NAILED there.
(pause)
Owner: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed
that bird down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart
with its beak, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!
Mr. Praline: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this industry wouldn't "voom" if you
put four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised!
Owner: No no! 'E's pining!
Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This game industry
is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is
maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't
nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic
processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket,
'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the
bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-GAME-INDUSTRY!!
(pause)
Owner: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek
behind the counter) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of
the shop, and uh, we're right out of computer game industries.
Mr. Praline: I see. I see, I get the picture.
Owner: I got a console game industry?
(pause)
Mr. Praline: Pray, does it let me use mouse and keyboard?
Owner: Nnnnot really.
Mr. Praline: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS
IT?!!???!!?
Owner: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)
Mr. Praline: Well.
(pause)
Owner: (quietly) D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?
Mr. Praline: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.
Justisaur
Whee, a bunch of crappy games I can replay again and again to unlock
'new' content. I hate that. Even the good 'replayable' games don't
last me very long, as I usually finish them in a week and a second
time in a week after that.
I remember the old days where I'd play MoM over and over and over,
probably hundreds of times in all, as it gave you random maps, and had
all sorts of choices you could make about what spells, races, etc, you
could use. That game kept me entertained for months, if not more than
a year. Now I'm lucky if I get two weeks out of a game, and the
prices haven't gone down proportionally.
Everything is converging into the same game, there's less and less to
differentiate games from each other too. So there's even less reason
to play a game over, let alone the first time.
- Justisaur
Kyle Haight
>
>Just to muddy the waters even further - I've always thought of 'several' as
>a reference to actual numerical count while 'few' was a reference to
>expected frequency.
Funny. I always thought of it as:
couple = 2
few = 3
several = 4
some = 5
--
Kyle Haight
MJB
"Kyle Haight" <kha...@lefDELETEtistME.org> wrote in message
news:IqOdnQWn06vYsT7V...@giganews.com...
You're just making that up. Nobody thinks like that...
<grin>
"I had a couple of aces"
"I have a FEW aces".
"Read 'em and weep - a full house. A couple of dueces and a few treys."
That's just soooo wrong.
Kyle Haight
>
>You're just making that up. Nobody thinks like that...
I do. A couple of my friends do as well. Granted, we're strange; we
also have an explicit naming framework for acronyms of varying lengths:
1 char = Initial = I
2 char = Short Acronym = SA
3 char = Three Letter Acronym = TLA
4 char = Extended Three Letter Acronym = ETLA
5 char = Double Extended Three Letter Acronym = DETLA
And yes, we do use those terms in conversation.
>"I had a couple of aces"
>"I have a FEW aces".
>"Read 'em and weep - a full house. A couple of dueces and a few treys."
Yes, those sound right to me.
>That's just soooo wrong.
Speak for yourself. Like the White Queen from _Alice In Wonderland_, when
I use a word it means exactly what I intend it to mean, and that's what
I intend. B-P
--
Kyle Haight
MJB
"Kyle Haight" <kha...@lefDELETEtistME.org> wrote in message
> In article <g7vbd...@news4.newsguy.com>, MJB <mrt...@OLDsguy.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>You're just making that up. Nobody thinks like that...
>
> I do. A couple of my friends do as well. Granted, we're strange; we
> also have an explicit naming framework for acronyms of varying lengths:
>
> 1 char = Initial = I
> 2 char = Short Acronym = SA
> 3 char = Three Letter Acronym = TLA
> 4 char = Extended Three Letter Acronym = ETLA
> 5 char = Double Extended Three Letter Acronym = DETLA
>
> And yes, we do use those terms in conversation.
You and your two friends - just a 'few' weirdos.
<smirk>
>
>>"I had a couple of aces"
>>"I have a FEW aces".
>>"Read 'em and weep - a full house. A couple of dueces and a few treys."
>
> Yes, those sound right to me.
>
>>That's just soooo wrong.
>
> Speak for yourself.
Let me ask the hamster in my pocket:
"Boo agrees. You're batty as a bag full of giant space hamsters."
> Like the White Queen from _Alice In Wonderland_, when
> I use a word it means exactly what I intend it to mean, and that's what
> I intend. B-P
Only someone who thinks exactly like you would consider a comparison to the
white queen from AiW in the slightest bit flattering.
<grin>
Because the white queen was batshit crazy.
Nostromo
> "Kyle Haight" <kha...@lefDELETEtistME.org> wrote in message
> news:IqOdnQWn06vYsT7V...@giganews.com...
>> In article <g7umb...@news4.newsguy.com>, MJB <mrt...@OLDsguy.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Just to muddy the waters even further - I've always thought of 'several'
>>> as
>>> a reference to actual numerical count while 'few' was a reference to
>>> expected frequency.
>> Funny. I always thought of it as:
>>
>> couple = 2
>> few = 3
>> several = 4
>> some = 5
>>
>> --
>> Kyle Haight
>
> You're just making that up. Nobody thinks like that...
>
> <grin>
>
> "I had a couple of aces"
> "I have a FEW aces".
> "Read 'em and weep - a full house. A couple of dueces and a few treys."
>
> That's just soooo wrong.
Yeah, everyone knows several is more than some - sheeezzz!!!
--
Nostromo
Matt v3.3
> Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This game industry
> is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is
> maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't
> nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic
> processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket,
> 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the
> bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-GAME-INDUSTRY!!
ROTFLMAO! Great stuff Knight ...
You ought to stick around here more often. ;)
Hey, I found the clip -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XUTBJIV93w
--
};> Matt v3.3 <:{
JAB
> In article <g7vbd...@news4.newsguy.com>, MJB <mrt...@OLDsguy.com> wrote:
>> You're just making that up. Nobody thinks like that...
>
> I do. A couple of my friends do as well. Granted, we're strange; we
> also have an explicit naming framework for acronyms of varying lengths:
>
> 1 char = Initial = I
> 2 char = Short Acronym = SA
> 3 char = Three Letter Acronym = TLA
> 4 char = Extended Three Letter Acronym = ETLA
> 5 char = Double Extended Three Letter Acronym = DETLA
>
... I always find it strange that TLA is defined as "three letter
acronym" when it's not even a acronym itself.
mcv
> "mcv" <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:48a068c3$0$188$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>> Greg Johnson <greg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Funny. My thesaurus doesn't list "several" as a synonym for "few."
>>>>>
>>>>>I've always understood them both to mean "more than one". Which one
>>>>>doesn't?
>>>>>
>
> Just to muddy the waters even further - I've always thought of 'several' as
> a reference to actual numerical count while 'few' was a reference to
> expected frequency. As in:
>
> 'I have several close friends' versus 'I have few close friends'. I doubt
> anyone would consider both statements as equivalent in meaning.
And then there's the subtle difference between "few" and "a few".
mcv
> On Aug 3, 3:42?pm, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> This old meme again? PC gaming is not dying in the least. A few big name
>> publishers are abandoning the PC, but other, younger, more interesting
>> publishers are coming in their place. You might even argue that the last
>> couple of years have seen a renaissance in strategy gaming on the PC.
>> CRPGs, on the other hand, are in a sad state right now compared to 10
>> years ago, but 10 years ago was the golden age of CRPGs, and that may not
>> be a fair comparison. Everybody seems to playing WoW or AoC nowadays.
>> There's the Witcher ofcourse, and soon we'll get Fallout 3. I hope it's
>> good, and I hope a new publisher soon shows up to produce new CRPGs that
>> are graphically perhaps less ambitious, but with more emphasis on story
>> and dialogue again. I want a new Torment.
>
> Solo RPG will never recover now that MMORPG has been unleashed. As
> pure economics will dictates that solo RPG is too risky and not as
> profitable as a successful MMORPG.
A lot of potential CRPG customers have moved to MMORPGs, but there are
still a lot of people left who wouldn't touch WoW with a 10-foot pole.
I refuse to believe that CRPGs themselves aren't still a viable market.
Perhaps not for big 3D graphics extravaganzas, but I'm not interested
in those anyway. I want well written stories.
> The industry has consolidated. In a way, it is like the
> comics industry, small and the unfit has closed down, and now we are
> left with a few giants.
But there are lots of excellent small comics. And the same could be
true for CRPGs.
> Wargaming, flight simulator, adventures, space sims are almost unheard
> of these days.
There are plenty of excellent wargames, much better than anything we've
seen before. It may be a tiny market, but it's viable, and it's being
serviced by a couple of specialist publishers. We need the same thing
for CRPGs.
infer...@my-deja.com
>
> A lot of potential CRPG customers have moved to MMORPGs, but there are
> still a lot of people left who wouldn't touch WoW with a 10-foot pole.
> I refuse to believe that CRPGs themselves aren't still a viable market.
> Perhaps not for big 3D graphics extravaganzas, but I'm not interested
> in those anyway. I want well written stories.
Among the giants, probably BioWare and Bethesda are the only
developers left who are specialized in CRPG development, with massive
game worlds and/or well written plots. Gone were the days when we have
Origin, SirTech, 3DO, SSI, Mindscape, or even *gasp* Electronic Arts
or Sierra etc all releasing CRPGs one after the other all year round.
In the past I never have thought Bethesda would be one of the
remaining developers after all the others have fallen. The Arena and
Daggerfall were so buggy then. :-)
> > The industry has consolidated. In a way, it is like the
> > comics industry, small and the unfit has closed down, and now we are
> > left with a few giants.
>
> But there are lots of excellent small comics. And the same could be
> true for CRPGs.
The same is actually happening. Small developers still exist who
release CRPGs now and then. It is just that they do not get much
coverage and their titles are mostly unknown to many people, like
Silverfall. Or such a one-hit wonder that we don't see any further
titles from the same developer, like Titan Quest.
I have to stated that I don't consider titles who is too much of a
strategic or action game hybrids to be fit into the categories of
CRPGs, such as BioShock, Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, Hell Gate: London
etc.
> > Wargaming, flight simulator, adventures, space sims are almost unheard
> > of these days.
>
> There are plenty of excellent wargames, much better than anything we've
> seen before. It may be a tiny market, but it's viable, and it's being
> serviced by a couple of specialist publishers. We need the same thing
> for CRPGs.
The last wargame which achieved some kind of mainstream fame that I
can remember is Panzer General, which is so successful several sequels
are spawned after it. After that I just cannot remember there are many
wargames, or at least have not heard of them much. Most of the
successful titles are more qualified as strategy games instead of
wargames.
Warewolf
news:48a43610$0$188$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl:
> infer...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> The industry has consolidated. In a way, it is like the
>> comics industry, small and the unfit has closed down, and now we are
>> left with a few giants.
>
> But there are lots of excellent small comics.
Would you mind posting some examples? ^_^;
I haven't really enjoyed a (mainstream) comic or graphic novel in
*years*.
In fact, the better ones that I've found have been from independent
studios and/or publishers that were willing to take risks.
Still, as good as
Archie's Madhouse
Buck Godot
What's New
Prime Slime Tales
Aristocratic Extraterrestrial Time-Travelling Thieves
and 'adult titles' like
Empowered
Genus
XXXenophile
The Adventures of Captain Jack
are, I have to wonder how much longer the industry will last.
I guess it's one of the drawbacks of being a stickler. 9_9
Signed,
Warewolf
who is currently enjoying some of the fruits of the internet 'tree'.
Among them
The Wotch
http://www.thewotch.com/
Melonpool
http://melonpool.com/
Sequential Art
http://www.collectedcurios.com/sequentialart.html
Greed (a crossover comic)
http://www.fireball20xl.com/greed/
Supermegatopia (14+ for 'cheesecake')
http://www.supermegatopia.com/
Sabrina Online (14+ for some story elements)
http://www.sabrina-online.com/
Kyle Haight
<infer...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>Among the giants, probably BioWare and Bethesda are the only
>developers left who are specialized in CRPG development, with massive
>game worlds and/or well written plots.
Obsidian falls somewhere in the middle. They aren't a 'giant', but they
aren't a one-shot-wonder either, and they definitely specialize in CRPGs.
I just wish their reach didn't exceed their grasp. (Translation: I wish
they would design games whose scale matched the development time allowed
by their budgets, so they didn't have to release stuff 90% done.) I
wonder how much longer they'll survive if Alpha Protocol flops, though.
--
Kyle Haight
Mark Morrison
wrote:
I've recently started reading http://www.thezombiehunters.com/ - a
good Eveil Dead 'homage'. Good story, nice art, fun characters.
Dimensional Traveler
If they're getting as far as 90% done before release, they're doing better
than most companies.
--
History Channel is showing 'Ice Road Truckers' as part of their
"American Originals" brand of shows.
'Ice Road Truckers' is a show about Canadian truck drivers.
(Sig life is directly related to amount of commentary received about
it.)
Kyle Haight
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>If [Obsidian is] getting as far as 90% done before release, they're
>doing better than most companies.
Obsidian gets less-far on their games than other CRPG developers. So
if we say that "most companies" ship at, say, 85%, then Obsidian would
be shipping at 75%. (Or something; this is a qualitative assessment,
not a quantitative one.)
Obsidian has had two high-profile CRPG releases to date. One, KOTOR2,
is infamous for its rushed-bordering-on-incomplete endgame, and spawned
a fan project to restore significant cut content. The second, NWN2, had
a cliffhanger ending that wasn't resolved until the Mask of the Betrayer
expansion pack -- aka "the rest of NWN2". That's not a good track
record for finishing what you start.
--
Kyle Haight
CoinSpin
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:28:04 GMT, Scatter
> <us...@eeepc-r.domain_not_set.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>> On 2008-08-06, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Several flight simulators per year are published and you call the genre
>>> dead? It's never been the biggest genre, but several per year sounds
>>> pretty good to me.
>>>
>> I wish it were so.
>>
>
> How many flight sims do you need per year anyway? These are not FPS or
> console action games which people play for one weekend before
> completing them. These are games people play for months or even years.
> A bit like MMOs.
>
> What frequently appearing new flight sims would offer anyway? A bit
> more polished graphics? Have there been any recent new fighter jets
> that need to be simulated in new games? What would be the incentive of
> people playing Falcon4 Allied Force to jump ship in to a bit more
> polished contender from another company?
>
> Face it, flight sims are a genre where new games appear rarely mainly
> because existing games have so much replay value and pretty much
> everything has been done already. It might have been different in the
> 80s and 90s when there was still lots of improvement to be made with
> graphics, better physics models etc. I remember playing Falcon on
> Commodore Amiga and thinking: "Yeah this is ok, but this could be
> soooo much better!" (starting from the wacky digital controls,
> unrealistic graphics, pretty unrealistic avionics/physics model, slow
> graphics etc.). Same can't be said for flight combat sims of today.
>
I'm getting the feeling (from a few comments in other posts) that
"flight sim" was meant to be "flight *combat* sim" really... If the OP
was a true flight sim buff, then as you say they would only care if a
single good title came out, and be happy with continuously using that
program. Combat flight sim users generally get bored after they run the
set of missions, and want something new/different/better. If this is
the case, then they have a valid gripe, there are fewer and fewer good
titles along those lines these days - and what DOES come out is usually
very consolized and "arcadey" feeling.
CoinSpin
Angof
"riku" <ri...@none.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:9q8ua49rjlah3j0it...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:28:04 GMT, Scatter
> <us...@eeepc-r.domain_not_set.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Face it, flight sims are a genre where new games appear rarely mainly
> because existing games have so much replay value and pretty much
> everything has been done already. It might have been different in the
> 80s and 90s when there was still lots of improvement to be made with
> graphics, better physics models etc. I remember playing Falcon on
> Commodore Amiga and thinking: "Yeah this is ok, but this could be
> soooo much better!" (starting from the wacky digital controls,
> unrealistic graphics, pretty unrealistic avionics/physics model, slow
> graphics etc.). Same can't be said for flight combat sims of today.
>
That's a good point about those kind off games. I play Battleground Europe:
World War II Online, and have done for 6 1/2 years.
A great game BTW... http://www.battlegroundeurope.com/ I feel justified in
linking to it as it does have a RPG layer. ;)
I also have Falcon 4 Allied force and it's hard to imagine anyone looking at
that and deciding to update it, at least not for quite some time yet.
Scatter
> How many flight sims do you need per year anyway?
One "new" (as in different/not rehashed) combat sim per year would be
nice.
> What frequently appearing new flight sims would offer anyway? A bit
> more polished graphics? Have there been any recent new fighter jets
> that need to be simulated in new games? What would be the incentive of
> people playing Falcon4 Allied Force to jump ship in to a bit more
> polished contender from another company?
Different aircraft: Air to Ground is very different from air to air,
Strike is different from ground support, helos very diffferent from jets
Different eras: Modern, cold war, WW2, WW1
Different battlefields
Improved AI
Better graphics - F4AF is based on very old code and makes visual
navigation difficult with it's less than stellar scenery. Visual
target ID can also be difficult with older titles due to "popup"
Working 3D cockpits - not common with older titles (like f4/af)
Better netcode - again F4AF is based on really old code and is pretty
weird/wonky
There are actually very few decent combat flight sims that run
properly on modern systems (that's XP or vista) and none of those
could be considered to be perfect.
> Face it, flight sims are a genre where new games appear rarely mainly
> because existing games have so much replay value and pretty much
> everything has been done already.
It's true that they have a lot of replay (if they're decent to start
with) but even a good sim becomes boring after a few years. Good
multiplayer (including co-op) is pretty much mandatory for one to live
that long.
Due to a lack of combat flightsims I've been playing ArmA online since its
release. It's popular enough that there is a stream of quite good
co-op missions to keep things interesting (along with Vietnam and
Desert Storm mods).
Now back to RPGs. I'm just about to install Baldurs Gate on my eeePC
to play when not at a real computer. I've loaded a lot of older games
from many gaming genres onto it over the last couple of months - with
most working very acceptably (big prob is the 800x480 screen).
Nats
"Scatter" <us...@eeepc-r.domain_not_set.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrngboqm...@eeepc-r.domain_not_set.invalid...
> On 2008-08-24, riku <ri...@none.invalid.com> wrote:
>> How many flight sims do you need per year anyway?
>
> One "new" (as in different/not rehashed) combat sim per year would be
> nice.
>
gaming for me is EF2000, Tornado, F117 and TAW to date. F4 was also very
good. But we badly need some new blood in the genre. Black Shark as a
helicopter sim looks 'quite' promising except I dont like helo sims much and
it sounds like it only has canned missions.
CoinSpin
I'd be all for new combat flight sims as well, I grew up playing F15,
Falcon, Gunship, etc... Always had a soft spot for aviation and
warbirds in particular.
The problem (as I mentioned previously in this line of posts) is
numbers. Combat flight sims are not as sexy as some of the new titles,
and sales of recent sims has been steadily dwindling over time, so devs
don't expect a big payoff if they choose to put one together. If they
can't count on the payoff, they can't justify putting their massive
juggernaut of people and hardware behind a project like that. At best,
there might be a small division that gets to trickle time and money into
a combat flight sim, making the development process much slower than you
find with other more lucrative genres. About the only time you get an
actual workforce push behind a title is when it's not a true combat
flight sim, but a consolish and arcadey title (see the "Blazing Angels"
releases for examples).
I think our only hope is indies... But the ever-growing mod scene could
have some potential for the future, if the right things happen... What
I would REALLY like to see is something like MS Flight Sim or X-Plane
adapting a model for damage, weaponry and ground targets into their
code, then putting together a mission toolkit for the masses. They
already have the ability to model and include just about any aircraft,
and those models can be very accurate and realistic as far as handling
and maneuverability. So, incorporate damage and weapons, and then let
the combat flight sim buffs out there create an infinite variety of
missions to be run. Then, as the core sim program gets updated (which
both MS and X-Plane do regularly), you could keep the refresh and
improvement cycle in your combat flight sim as well. With infinite mod
variety, and a corresponding increase in consumer interest in a product
that would now have crossover between the pure flight sim crowd and the
combat flight sim crowd, seems like this would be a win/win for everybody.
CoinSpin
Morvak
For me it's
couple = 2
few = 3
several = 7
some = more than 1
drybones
"Morvak" <mea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ee43bc5b-8b62-4ed2...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
For me it's
<SIGH>
drybones
Nostromo
-0700, Anno Domini:
For me:
couple = 1.51-2.49
few = 2.5-4.2734
several = 4.123-9.499
some = 3.3765-5.23
I'm funny that way *huge Shrek sigh*. We all done now? ;-p
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
09:32:23 GMT, Anno Domini:
Just re-installed Kotor on the work Z61t Thinkpad (not bad C2D with 1280x800
rez), but I'll be buggered if I can get it working in WS, even with proggies
like uniws.exe & instructions like these:
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/WSGF_Hacks_for_SW:KOTOR
Anyone else had success with this game in widescreen? Not sure how to get it
working properly - when I apply the patch for 1440x900 (as per instructions)
I end up with a slightly better rez (presumably one scaled down to
1280x800), but the UIs on the bottom of the screen float 1/3 of the way up
(the portraits on the left) & the action menu also floats 1/3 to the left
towards the middle of the screen...bleh. Must be the re-scaling patch. Guess
I can just go back to a std stretched out 1024x768, but it's hard on the
eyes.
--
Nostromo
CoinSpin
Almost... I just need "handfull" and "buttload" numerically defined,
then I can rest.
CoinSpin
Flo 'Irian' Schaetz
> It's not completely dead but it is "dying" in the sense that fewer and
> fewer A++ titles are PC Exclusive now.
And why is "not PC exclusive" = "dying"? Does the english language "die"
if more people _also_ speak french? :-)
CoinSpin
oui
Kyle Haight
CoinSpin <coin^spam^sp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>Almost... I just need "handfull" and "buttload" numerically defined,
>then I can rest.
Are you looking for a definition of English buttload, or metric buttload?
They're similar but not identical.
--
Kyle Haight
GSV Three Minds in a Can
wonderful person Kyle Haight <kha...@lefDELETEtistME.org> said
And of course the English buttload has an American and UK (aka East, and
West-Pondian) variant.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
12,541 Km walked. 2,442 Km PROWs surveyed. 44.0% complete.
Kyle Haight
GSV Three Minds in a Can <G...@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Are you looking for a definition of English buttload, or metric buttload?
>>They're similar but not identical.
>
>And of course the English buttload has an American and UK (aka East, and
>West-Pondian) variant.
I thought the EU was pressuring the UK to switch to the metric buttload
along with the other metric units of measurement.
--
Kyle Haight
Nostromo
17:24:21 -0500, Anno Domini:
ROFLMFAO! >8^D
--
Nostromo
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Well yes, but we distracted them with the old 'unacceptably bent
bananas' gambit, and tabled 'metrication of the buttload' for some time
after 2050, by when there some real hope that Brussels will be under
water. Keep pumping the CO2 guys!!
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Kendrick Kerwin Chua
GSV Three Minds in a Can <G...@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>Bitstring <IYydnWXpsK0IkyLV...@giganews.com>, from the
>wonderful person Kyle Haight <kha...@lefDELETEtistME.org> said
>>In article <6+g+9xGI...@from.is.invalid>,
>>GSV Three Minds in a Can <G...@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Are you looking for a definition of English buttload, or metric buttload?
>>>>They're similar but not identical.
>>>
>>>And of course the English buttload has an American and UK (aka East, and
>>>West-Pondian) variant.
>>
>>I thought the EU was pressuring the UK to switch to the metric buttload
>>along with the other metric units of measurement.
>
>Well yes, but we distracted them with the old 'unacceptably bent
>bananas' gambit, and tabled 'metrication of the buttload' for some time
>after 2050, by when there some real hope that Brussels will be under
>water. Keep pumping the CO2 guys!!
You're hitting the wrong target. Remember that the International Prototype
Buttload is stored in a vault in France. Poor buttload cleaning standards
and ionic dissipation of buttload particles has made yearly comparisons
less meaningful, which is why the practical difference between the two
English buttload measures is almost nil. If we flood France, then the ISO
will be forced to produce a new prototype buttload using modern materials
with more stability.
-KKC, who senses the joke may be getting too academic now.
--
-- A class action lawsuit has been settled against | kendrick @
Paypal for $3.5 million. Read the full notification | io . com
at http://www.steelesettlement.com/ and see if you |
are eligible for class membership and payment. | http://www.io.com/~kkc
Kyle Haight
Kendrick Kerwin Chua <kend...@nospam.io> wrote:
>
>You're hitting the wrong target. Remember that the International Prototype
>Buttload is stored in a vault in France. Poor buttload cleaning standards
>and ionic dissipation of buttload particles has made yearly comparisons
>less meaningful, which is why the practical difference between the two
>English buttload measures is almost nil. If we flood France, then the ISO
>will be forced to produce a new prototype buttload using modern materials
>with more stability.
>
>-KKC, who senses the joke may be getting too academic now.
The platinum-iridium buttload stopped being the official standard sometime
in the mid-1990s, when the metric buttload was redefined in terms of
a specified quantity of cesium atoms. I don't remember the exact number,
but you can probably google it.
--
Kyle Haight
Richard
Couple = 2
but, some,few and several are really interchangeable and have no numeric
value assigned to them.
Nats
news:gsadnYFu57PbsyDV...@comcast.com...
Funny how theres actually more discussion about flight sims on this site
than games.flight-sim.
Matt v3.3
> Couple = 2
>
> but, some,few and several are really interchangeable
> and have no numeric value assigned to them.
How about -
Couple = 2
Few = Threesome
Several = Orgy
;-P
--
};> Matt v3.3 <:{
Jonathan Ellis
"Kyle Haight" <kha...@lefDELETEtistME.org> wrote in message
news:V7-dna2y7accqyLV...@giganews.com...
> The platinum-iridium buttload stopped being the official standard sometime
> in the mid-1990s, when the metric buttload was redefined in terms of
> a specified quantity of cesium atoms. I don't remember the exact number,
> but you can probably google it.
I'm trying still to find out the exchange rate between the metric shitload
and the imperial fuckton...
Jonathan.
Dimensional Traveler
--
"What Kind of perv rememembers the scenes where she's clothed???"
Anim8rFSK, 8/23/08
Kendrick Kerwin Chua
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>> "Kyle Haight" <kha...@lefDELETEtistME.org> wrote in message
>> news:V7-dna2y7accqyLV...@giganews.com...
>>> The platinum-iridium buttload stopped being the official standard
>>> sometime in the mid-1990s, when the metric buttload was redefined in
>>> terms of a specified quantity of cesium atoms. I don't remember the
>>> exact
>>> number, but you can probably google it.
>>
>> I'm trying still to find out the exchange rate between the metric
>> shitload and the imperial fuckton...
>>
>That's cause no one knows.
Conversion is variable. Remember, shitload is a measurement of weight,
whereas fuckton is a measurement of mass. Also, while no longer strictly
true in our era of modern chemistry and plastics, traditionally a shitload
refers to dry measurement only.
-KKC, who senses that the horse may be dead at this point. :)
Dimensional Traveler
> In article <48c192ec$0$17184$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>>> "Kyle Haight" <kha...@lefDELETEtistME.org> wrote in message
>>> news:V7-dna2y7accqyLV...@giganews.com...
>>>> The platinum-iridium buttload stopped being the official standard
>>>> sometime in the mid-1990s, when the metric buttload was redefined
>>>> in terms of a specified quantity of cesium atoms. I don't
>>>> remember the exact
>>>> number, but you can probably google it.
>>>
>>> I'm trying still to find out the exchange rate between the metric
>>> shitload and the imperial fuckton...
>>>
>> That's cause no one knows.
>
> Conversion is variable. Remember, shitload is a measurement of weight,
> whereas fuckton is a measurement of mass. Also, while no longer
> strictly true in our era of modern chemistry and plastics,
> traditionally a shitload refers to dry measurement only.
>
> -KKC, who senses that the horse may be dead at this point. :)
But does anyone care?
Kendrick Kerwin Chua
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>Kendrick Kerwin Chua wrote:
>>
>> -KKC, who senses that the horse may be dead at this point. :)
>
>But does anyone care?
You're probably on to something there. The evolution/gravity debate is
going to last longer than the increasingly academic humor about standards
of measure. Hopefully someone will soon release a game of which we can
debate the merits instead.
-KKC, hunting around for a copy of The Longest Journey.
Kyle Haight
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> -KKC, who senses that the horse may be dead at this point. :)
>
>But does anyone care?
This group has a significant population of sadistic necrophiliac
zoophiles -- people who enjoy beating dead horses.
--
Kyle Haight
CoinSpin
LOL! Ok, my new favorite quote... Thanks Kyle!
Scatter
> Funny how theres actually more discussion about flight sims on this site
> than games.flight-sim.
A bit sad really isn't it? I actually belong to an online squadron and
it's pretty quiet there as well. Still, hopefully it'll pick up when a new
decent title finally arrives. I'm hoping that BlackShark comes out
soon and that it isn't pants.
Scatter
> Like take Oblivion
> for example. Great game, PC verison was definitely the best because of
> all the mods, but there's no denying that the fact it had to work with
> the 360 controller impacted the PC's interface as well, vis a vis the
> inventory management, etc.
I played fallout3 from begining to end with an x360 controller on my
PC inareclining chair with my feet up. It's a nice way to play an
rpg'ish game (and wouldn't have been as good without VATS).