More TRNG News
lisatkiom
It sounds like the PS2 screenshots that we've seen may be in-game.
Lisa
--
Playing: Final Fantasy VIII
lisatkiom
"lisatkiom" <lisa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It sounds like the PS2 screenshots that we've seen may be in-game.
>
> Lisa
> --
> Playing: Final Fantasy VIII
Nevermind the in-game bit. They're obviously FMV.
Lisa
--
Playing: Final Fantasy VIII
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Eep²
The PS2 will be obsolete before it's even released. <yawn>
WombRaider wrote:
> In article <8sfkku$v7n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, lisatkiom
> <lisa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Nevermind the in-game bit. They're obviously FMV.
>
> I suggest you take a look at the Metal Gear Solid 2 movie. It's all
> in-game footage and looks better than other game's FMV. A lot of games
> for teh PS2 won't have FMV's per se, as it'll render them in realtime.
> I didn't believe any of this either until I saw the MGS2 trailer. It's
> all just jaw-dropping to see how powerful the PS2 really is.
--
http://tnlc.com/eep/ - Active Worlds, Tomb Raider, 3D game comparison, The Sims
Enable line/word wrap if text not wrapping. http://tnlc.com/eep/wrap.html for more info.
DON'T QUOTE SIG WHEN REPLYING!
WombRaider
> Nevermind the in-game bit. They're obviously FMV.
>
> Lisa
Loren Petrich
> In article <thHG5.4698$7N.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "lisatkiom" <lisa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > It sounds like the PS2 screenshots that we've seen may be in-game.
> Nevermind the in-game bit. They're obviously FMV.
Quick change of mind :-)
Furthermore, an increase from 500 to 5000 polygons does not seem
likely to produce the smoothness in those screenshots; that's because
each polygon will have, on average, a third the relative dimensions of
the polygons in the existing Lara models (software, of course).
--
Loren Petrich
pet...@netcom.com
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
And a fast train
lisatkiom
I've seen the MGS2 stuff and know what the PS2 is capable of, but I
think the TR screenshots are FMV because she is looking into the
camera.
lisatkiom
Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <8sfkku$v7n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, lisatkiom
> <lisa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "lisatkiom" <lisa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > It sounds like the PS2 screenshots that we've seen may be in-game.
> > Nevermind the in-game bit. They're obviously FMV.
>
> Quick change of mind :-)
>
> Furthermore, an increase from 500 to 5000 polygons does not seem
> likely to produce the smoothness in those screenshots; that's because
> each polygon will have, on average, a third the relative dimensions of
> the polygons in the existing Lara models (software, of course).
>
> --
> Loren Petrich
> pet...@netcom.com
> Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> And a fast train
Plus, she's looking into the camera.
Loren Petrich
> No more powerful than hardware transform and lighting on the PC...as soon as
> developers start coding for it in games, that is...
And some may already be doing that if they are using OpenGL as their
rendering API, and are using its T&L features. If the OpenGL driver
does not get the card to do it, then it will be done in software, the
selection being totally transparent to the engine code.
> The PS2 will be obsolete before it's even released. <yawn>
Maybe.
pH
graphic cards which features can't be used in current games because game
developers have to care for older graphic cards, too. But they haven't when
they program for PS2 or every other console.
"Eep²" <e...@tnlc.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:39EBE26A...@tnlc.com...
> No more powerful than hardware transform and lighting on the PC...as soon
as developers start coding for it in games, that is...
>
> The PS2 will be obsolete before it's even released. <yawn>
>
> WombRaider wrote:
>
> > In article <8sfkku$v7n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, lisatkiom
> > <lisa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Nevermind the in-game bit. They're obviously FMV.
> >
> > I suggest you take a look at the Metal Gear Solid 2 movie. It's all
> > in-game footage and looks better than other game's FMV. A lot of games
> > for teh PS2 won't have FMV's per se, as it'll render them in realtime.
> > I didn't believe any of this either until I saw the MGS2 trailer. It's
> > all just jaw-dropping to see how powerful the PS2 really is.
>
lisatkiom
are not in comepetition together. The next gen consoles are a major
upgrade for consolers and we're justifiably excited about them right
now.
In article <39EBE26A...@tnlc.com>,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> No more powerful than hardware transform and lighting on the PC...as
soon as developers start coding for it in games, that is...
>
> The PS2 will be obsolete before it's even released. <yawn>
>
> WombRaider wrote:
>
> > In article <8sfkku$v7n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, lisatkiom
> > <lisa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Nevermind the in-game bit. They're obviously FMV.
> >
> > I suggest you take a look at the Metal Gear Solid 2 movie. It's all
> > in-game footage and looks better than other game's FMV. A lot of
games
> > for teh PS2 won't have FMV's per se, as it'll render them in
realtime.
> > I didn't believe any of this either until I saw the MGS2 trailer.
It's
> > all just jaw-dropping to see how powerful the PS2 really is.
>
Eep²
Your argument is simply based off all the recent, so-called "next generation" <yawn> marketing hype of the Dreamcast, PS2, and X-Box, but, I'm telling you, give the PC industry a year or 2 (at most) and these consoles will be MUCH noticeably obsolete. You have to see (and understand) the hardware to realize why this will happen. I've already explained it below.
pH wrote:
> Anyway, it's cheaper to buy a PS2 than to upgrade the PC every year with new
> graphic cards which features can't be used in current games because game
> developers have to care for older graphic cards, too. But they haven't when
> they program for PS2 or every other console.
>
> "Eep²" <e...@tnlc.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:39EBE26A...@tnlc.com...
> > No more powerful than hardware transform and lighting on the PC...as soon
> as developers start coding for it in games, that is...
> >
> > The PS2 will be obsolete before it's even released. <yawn>
> >
> > WombRaider wrote:
> >
> > > In article <8sfkku$v7n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, lisatkiom
> > > <lisa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nevermind the in-game bit. They're obviously FMV.
> > >
> > > I suggest you take a look at the Metal Gear Solid 2 movie. It's all
> > > in-game footage and looks better than other game's FMV. A lot of games
> > > for teh PS2 won't have FMV's per se, as it'll render them in realtime.
> > > I didn't believe any of this either until I saw the MGS2 trailer. It's
> > > all just jaw-dropping to see how powerful the PS2 really is.
--
Chloe
and it can be stored in two ways.... genuis
--
art raider: http://www.emmott.clara.co.uk
a bit of culture for the artistc tr fan
Eep²
> Some people seem to be having a hard time with this; consoles and PCs
> are not in comepetition together.
Bullshit--ever heard of the X-Box?
> The next gen consoles are a major
> upgrade for consolers and we're justifiably excited about them right
> now.
<chuckle> Perhaps for short-sighted lemmings easily fooled by marketing hype...
> In article <39EBE26A...@tnlc.com>,
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> > No more powerful than hardware transform and lighting on the PC...as
> soon as developers start coding for it in games, that is...
> >
> > The PS2 will be obsolete before it's even released. <yawn>
> >
> > WombRaider wrote:
> >
> > > In article <8sfkku$v7n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, lisatkiom
> > > <lisa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nevermind the in-game bit. They're obviously FMV.
> > >
> > > I suggest you take a look at the Metal Gear Solid 2 movie. It's all
> > > in-game footage and looks better than other game's FMV. A lot of
> games
> > > for teh PS2 won't have FMV's per se, as it'll render them in
> realtime.
> > > I didn't believe any of this either until I saw the MGS2 trailer.
> It's
> > > all just jaw-dropping to see how powerful the PS2 really is.
--
lisatkiom
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> lisatkiom wrote:
>
> > Some people seem to be having a hard time with this; consoles and
PCs
> > are not in comepetition together.
>
> Bullshit--ever heard of the X-Box?
What exactly is your point? The Xbox is going to be a console like any
other. It'll be the most powerful of the 4, but it's still just a next
gen console.
> > The next gen consoles are a major
> > upgrade for consolers and we're justifiably excited about them right
> > now.
>
> <chuckle> Perhaps for short-sighted lemmings easily fooled by
marketing hype...
God dammit you're stupid. These consoles represent a giant leap from
the last generation. Everyone knows that they are comparable to PCs
right now, that a few years from now they will be far behind, and that
5 years from now another gneration of consoles will launch, which will
be comparable to PCs at that time and so on.
In addition, console gamer anticipation of the next gen consoles has
nothing to do with hype. We have been waiting, for the last year and
half or so, for the next gen consoles to be announced. In 2004 we
will be anticipating news of the PS3, Xbox2, etc.
There's no short-sitedness involved. Everyone (but you) understands
how it works.
Lisa
Eep²
> In article <39EC9DB6...@tnlc.com>,
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> > lisatkiom wrote:
> >
> > > Some people seem to be having a hard time with this; consoles and
> PCs
> > > are not in comepetition together.
> >
> > Bullshit--ever heard of the X-Box?
>
> What exactly is your point? The Xbox is going to be a console like any
> other. It'll be the most powerful of the 4, but it's still just a next
> gen console.
How dense can you be, Lisa? Do you even know who makes the X-Box? Microsoft. Think about that. Think about how dominating and monopolizing Microsoft likes to be. Imagine, if you will: the X-Box dominates console gaming, leading to the demise of the Playstation 2, Dreamcast, and Nintendo Dolphin. Console gamers get REAL gaming systems (PCs) with better CPUs (system and 3D), requiring Windows ("WIntel" architecture). Console gaming all but dies out as PC gaming surges.
Think about it.
> > > The next gen consoles are a major
> > > upgrade for consolers and we're justifiably excited about them right
> > > now.
> >
> > <chuckle> Perhaps for short-sighted lemmings easily fooled by
> marketing hype...
>
> God dammit you're stupid. These consoles represent a giant leap from
> the last generation. Everyone knows that they are comparable to PCs
> right now, that a few years from now they will be far behind, and that
> 5 years from now another gneration of consoles will launch, which will
> be comparable to PCs at that time and so on.
>
> In addition, console gamer anticipation of the next gen consoles has
> nothing to do with hype. We have been waiting, for the last year and
> half or so, for the next gen consoles to be announced.
Before that term, "next generation" was hyped you did not even THINK about the next Playstation (let alone Dreamcast, X-Box, and Dolphin). Shut up, lemming.
> In 2004 we will be anticipating news of the PS3, Xbox2, etc.
>
> There's no short-sitedness involved. Everyone (but you) understands
> how it works.
<pats your head> Sure you do, little lemming...
lisatkiom
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> lisatkiom wrote:
>
> > In article <39EC9DB6...@tnlc.com>,
> > =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> > > lisatkiom wrote:
> > >
> > > > Some people seem to be having a hard time with this; consoles
and
> > PCs
> > > > are not in comepetition together.
> > >
> > > Bullshit--ever heard of the X-Box?
> >
> > What exactly is your point? The Xbox is going to be a console like
any
> > other. It'll be the most powerful of the 4, but it's still just a
next
> > gen console.
>
> How dense can you be, Lisa? Do you even know who makes the X-Box?
Microsoft. Think about that. Think about how dominating and
monopolizing Microsoft likes to be. Imagine, if you will: the X-Box
dominates console gaming, leading to the demise of the Playstation 2,
Dreamcast, and Nintendo Dolphin. Console gamers get REAL gaming systems
(PCs) with better CPUs (system and 3D), requiring Windows ("WIntel"
architecture). Console gaming all but dies out as PC gaming surges.
>
> Think about it.
I have been posting about the Xbox since before the E3 and have been
following it closely. Two of the most important (console) developers
have not signed on. There has been a lot of speculation about the
Xbox's viability if these developers stay away. In addition, I don't
think the Japanese are going to go for the Xbox. They are not a
critical market for PC gaming, but they are for console gaming.
Finally, MS will be last out (a lot of people will have already bought
their next gen console) and a lot of people hate MS. They may bomb.
Again you are comparing consoles to PCs. I have told you repeatedly
that they are separate markets. PCs will never take the place of
consoles because the hardware upgrades are expensive.
And BTW, I'm not surprised that you don't know that Nintendo's next gen
machine is called the Gamecube.
> > > > The next gen consoles are a major
> > > > upgrade for consolers and we're justifiably excited about them
right
> > > > now.
> > >
> > > <chuckle> Perhaps for short-sighted lemmings easily fooled by
> > marketing hype...
> >
> > God dammit you're stupid. These consoles represent a giant leap
from
> > the last generation. Everyone knows that they are comparable to
PCs
> > right now, that a few years from now they will be far behind, and
that
> > 5 years from now another gneration of consoles will launch, which
will
> > be comparable to PCs at that time and so on.
> >
> > In addition, console gamer anticipation of the next gen consoles has
> > nothing to do with hype. We have been waiting, for the last year
and
> > half or so, for the next gen consoles to be announced.
>
> Before that term, "next generation" was hyped you did not even THINK
about the next Playstation (let alone Dreamcast, X-Box, and Dolphin).
Shut up, lemming.
This is unbelievable. I just told you that in the fourth year of a
console's lifetime, console gamers' speculation about and anticipation
of announcements of the next gen machines become widespread and that we
have been talking about the PS2 for about a year and a half. The Sony
groups have already had some PS3 threads. Everyone in there knows that
the thing is inevitable and that it will probably launch in 2005 (for
$299 like always).
I honestly can't believe we're even debating this. Are you for real?
Lisa
--
Playing: Final Fantasy VIII
pH
know a lot about computer hardware.
Of course the modern graphic chips (I mean the GeForce 2 GTS chips by
nVidia) ARE more powerful than the PS2 already. But my point was that its
features (especially T&L) are NOT used in most PC games yet.
NOT everybody has $500 for these modern graphic cards plus $500 for the
fastest processor so there are much more people with old graphic cards and
slow processors at the moment. Therefore game developers make games which
can run on such old hardware without bump mapping, T&L and so on with the
aim to sell much more games (CORE are a good example for that). Only
hardcore gamers invest so much money every 6 months.
A console is cheep and very easy to use: no installations, no patches, just
insert a game CD and play.
"Eep²" <e...@tnlc.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:39EC9CBD...@tnlc.com...
pH wrote:
> > No more powerful than hardware transform and lighting on the PC...as
soon
> as developers start coding for it in games, that is...
> >
> > The PS2 will be obsolete before it's even released. <yawn>
> >
> > WombRaider wrote:
> >
> > > In article <8sfkku$v7n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, lisatkiom
> > > <lisa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nevermind the in-game bit. They're obviously FMV.
> > >
> > > I suggest you take a look at the Metal Gear Solid 2 movie. It's all
> > > in-game footage and looks better than other game's FMV. A lot of games
> > > for teh PS2 won't have FMV's per se, as it'll render them in realtime.
> > > I didn't believe any of this either until I saw the MGS2 trailer. It's
> > > all just jaw-dropping to see how powerful the PS2 really is.
--
pH
Even an old 8-Bit game can be more fun than a super modern game. That's why
the people here are happy with Tomb Raider. Nobody (well, almost
nobody)cares that the graphics are not the best.
> > > > In article <8sfkku$v7n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, lisatkiom
> > > > <lisa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Nevermind the in-game bit. They're obviously FMV.
> > > >
> > > > I suggest you take a look at the Metal Gear Solid 2 movie. It's all
> > > > in-game footage and looks better than other game's FMV. A lot of
games
> > > > for teh PS2 won't have FMV's per se, as it'll render them in
realtime.
> > > > I didn't believe any of this either until I saw the MGS2 trailer.
It's
> > > > all just jaw-dropping to see how powerful the PS2 really is.
>
mche...@my-deja.com
we're very happy for you to enjoy your PC gaming goodness, you might be
interested to know that a great many of us play games on BOTH consoles
and PCs. We understand that both represent different kinds of markets
with different strengths and weaknesses, which is the point that Lisa
was trying to get across to you and that you are wholly unwilling to
accept because it doesn't conform to your pathetically narrow
minded "PC Uber Alles" worldview.
In article <39ECBB4F...@tnlc.com>,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> lisatkiom wrote:
>
> How dense can you be, Lisa? Do you even know who makes the X-Box?
>Microsoft. Think about that. Think about how dominating and
>monopolizing Microsoft likes to be. Imagine, if you will: the X-Box
>dominates console gaming, leading to the demise of the Playstation 2,
>Dreamcast, and Nintendo Dolphin. Console gamers get REAL gaming
>systems (PCs) with better CPUs (system and 3D), requiring Windows >
("WIntel" architecture). Console gaming all but dies out as PC gaming
>surges.
We're fully aware of Microsoft's upcoming console and what it's likely
to mean to the industry. Are you? Firstly, if you think that Microsoft
has any chance of changing the console market by flooding it with PC-
centric games, you (and more importantly, Microsoft) are sadly
mistaken. I don't think MS has any intention of trying to do so and
frankly, it would be tantamount to suicide for the X-Box. Microsoft's
goal is going to be to win over the players of other console systems,
which they'll do by putting out high quality CONSOLE (gasp!) style
games. Or rather, the various developers will be designing console
style games for the system. In any case, the X-Box is not designed to
win converts for PC gaming and if that was ever what MS had in mind,
they're going to be in for quite a rude awakening. PC gamers already
have PCs and as you're so fond of pointing out, the hardcore PC gamers
will have systems that soundly thrash the X-Box when it releases.
Console gamers will probably be enthralled with it if it has a good
selection of entertaining action games. PC gamers won't give two shits.
Another point that you might be interested in is the fact that the
console market is expanding FAR more rapidly than the PC market. That
doesn't mean the console hardware is always technically better than the
bleeding end PCs, but it's far more approachable and a hell of a lot
less expensive. While many of us "hardcore" gamers don't mind or may
even enjoy tweaking our systems to get the latest game to work, the
vast majority of gamers prefer a more casual experience and can't be
bothered to screw around with drivers, upgrades, and patches just to
have a little fun.
Does that make you a better person than they are? Are they lemmings
because they enjoy their entertainment for entertainment's sake without
wanting to devote their precious free time to troubleshooting a system?
Of course not. One could easily argue that you're the lemming, standing
in line at CompUSA with the latest and greatest video card in your hot
little hand, knowing full well that you'll have to drop another three
hundred bucks in six month's time to retain your badge of "hardcore PC
gamer". And what great fun you have when you get home, slap in your
card, and immediately have to start downloading bios updates for your
motherboard and driver updates for the card and patches for your games
so they'll run on the new hardware and so on and so on.
Meanwhile, John Q. Lemming checks out right behind you with a copy of
Gran Turismo which he'll be playing furiously as soon as he gets home,
not caring a whit that it's technically possible to see those cars in
slightly greater detail on a machine that cost only 5 or 10 times what
he paid for his game console. Trust me, this guy isn't crying over
framerates, polygon counts, or anti-aliasing. He's having a ball with a
fun game that he doesn't have to screw around with. He never even has
to think about whether his system is fast enough. If the developers
have done their job and know the system as they should, they've hit
their target platform, utilized the power it has available, and
stretched the limits of the hardware.
Meanwhile, your brand new NURB accellerated, Voxel-optimized,
terrapixel pumping Extrema Cobra Pro 9900i video card is idling along
with the latest game, never utilizing any of the vaunted features that
made your eyes glaze over the first time you looked at the bullet list.
By the time that the developers at Splode Software get around to using
any of those features, your card is 3 generations out of date and
you're tooling along on your next piece of bleeding edge hardware with
unexploited feature sets.
>
> Think about it.
>
Take your own advice.
> --
>
> http://tnlc.com/eep/ - Active Worlds, Tomb Raider, 3D game
comparison, The Sims
> Enable line/word wrap if text not wrapping.
http://tnlc.com/eep/wrap.html for more info.
> DON'T QUOTE SIG WHEN REPLYING!
>
>
Eep²
> No, I do not bet an awful lot on consoles. I'm objective that's all. And I
> know a lot about computer hardware.
>
> Of course the modern graphic chips (I mean the GeForce 2 GTS chips by
> nVidia) ARE more powerful than the PS2 already. But my point was that its
> features (especially T&L) are NOT used in most PC games yet.
The GeForce 256 is more powerful the PS2 and Dreamcast.
> NOT everybody has $500 for these modern graphic cards
Try more like $300 tops for recently released GeForce 2 cards; $125 for GeForce 256 cards.
> plus $500 for the fastest processor
Don't need the fastest CPU. I got my P3/533 for $100.
> so there are much more people with old graphic cards and
> slow processors at the moment.
And there are people who still have PSXes. <shrug>
> Therefore game developers make games which
> can run on such old hardware without bump mapping, T&L and so on with the
> aim to sell much more games (CORE are a good example for that).
You must be new to PC games. Ever heard of graphics options? Amazing how they work...
> A console is cheep and very easy to use: no installations, no patches, just
> insert a game CD and play.
...and get stuck with an obsolete system for years. No thanks.
> > > > In article <8sfkku$v7n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, lisatkiom
> > > > <lisa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Nevermind the in-game bit. They're obviously FMV.
> > > >
> > > > I suggest you take a look at the Metal Gear Solid 2 movie. It's all
> > > > in-game footage and looks better than other game's FMV. A lot of games
> > > > for teh PS2 won't have FMV's per se, as it'll render them in realtime.
> > > > I didn't believe any of this either until I saw the MGS2 trailer. It's
> > > > all just jaw-dropping to see how powerful the PS2 really is.
--
Eep²
> In article <39ECBB4F...@tnlc.com>,
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> > lisatkiom wrote:
> >
> > > In article <39EC9DB6...@tnlc.com>,
> > > =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> > > > lisatkiom wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Some people seem to be having a hard time with this; consoles and
> > > PCs
> > > > > are not in comepetition together.
> > > >
> > > > Bullshit--ever heard of the X-Box?
> > >
> > > What exactly is your point? The Xbox is going to be a console like any
> > > other. It'll be the most powerful of the 4, but it's still just a next
> > > gen console.
> >
> > How dense can you be, Lisa? Do you even know who makes the X-Box?
> Microsoft. Think about that. Think about how dominating and
> monopolizing Microsoft likes to be. Imagine, if you will: the X-Box
> dominates console gaming, leading to the demise of the Playstation 2,
> Dreamcast, and Nintendo Dolphin. Console gamers get REAL gaming systems
> (PCs) with better CPUs (system and 3D), requiring Windows ("WIntel"
> architecture). Console gaming all but dies out as PC gaming surges.
> >
> > Think about it.
>
> I have been posting about the Xbox since before the E3 and have been
> following it closely. Two of the most important (console) developers
> have not signed on. There has been a lot of speculation about the
> Xbox's viability if these developers stay away. In addition, I don't
> think the Japanese are going to go for the Xbox. They are not a
> critical market for PC gaming, but they are for console gaming.
> Finally, MS will be last out (a lot of people will have already bought
> their next gen console) and a lot of people hate MS. They may bomb.
>
> Again you are comparing consoles to PCs. I have told you repeatedly
> that they are separate markets.
Sorry, but they're not. PCs include gaming, which is directly competitive with console gaming. Stop generalizing PCs and learn how to read: I wrote PC GAMING. Duh. Think.
> PCs will never take the place of
> consoles because the hardware upgrades are expensive.
No more than a new console. Think.
> And BTW, I'm not surprised that you don't know that Nintendo's next gen
> machine is called the Gamecube.
<shrug> I don't follow console development too closely.
Your denseness is unbelievable. WHY is it that 4 years after the PSX was released, console gamers are speculating and antipating announcements of "next generation" consoles? BECAUSE THAT IS WHEN SONY RELEASED THE MARKETING HYPE. Duh. Think.
> The Sony groups have already had some PS3 threads. Everyone in there knows that
> the thing is inevitable and that it will probably launch in 2005 (for
> $299 like always).
More marketing hype for lemmings like you to inhale, plus you twits have had the PS2 hype for so long you simply expect to get reemed on schedule and are lubing up your asses for it like most Tomb Raider fans do year after year. Think.
> I honestly can't believe we're even debating this. Are you for real?
Yep, obviously moreso than you considering your level of fantasy. Attempt to come back to the real world. Think!
Mark A
>
> I honestly can't believe we're even debating this. Are you for real?
Surely you know every newsgroup has at least one obnoxious, trolling,
low-life in them? (CR)Eep just happens to be alt.games.tombraider's,
plus a few other newsgroups, judging by his continual cross-posting.
The only defence against such objectionable idiots is to completely
ignore them. They probably won't go away, unfortunately, as that's how
the sad bastards get their kicks in life, but at least you won't waste
your time being pointlessly annoyed by them.
Regards
Mark
Loren Petrich
> Oh, please. Spare us your holier than thou PC gamer rhetoric. ...> > ... Imagine, if you will: the X-Box
> >dominates console gaming, leading to the demise of the Playstation 2,
> >Dreamcast, and Nintendo Dolphin. Console gamers get REAL gaming
> >systems (PCs) with better CPUs (system and 3D), requiring Windows >
> ("WIntel" architecture). Console gaming all but dies out as PC gaming
> >surges.
Which makes me wonder what His Eepianness thinks about such
alternative PeeCee OSes as Linux and the BeOS and *BSD and ...
> Another point that you might be interested in is the fact that the
> console market is expanding FAR more rapidly than the PC market. That
> doesn't mean the console hardware is always technically better than the
> bleeding end PCs, but it's far more approachable and a hell of a lot
> less expensive. While many of us "hardcore" gamers don't mind or may
> even enjoy tweaking our systems to get the latest game to work, the
> vast majority of gamers prefer a more casual experience and can't be
> bothered to screw around with drivers, upgrades, and patches just to
> have a little fun.
As a Macintosh person, I must say that my hardware and OS has much
more in common with PeeCee hardware and OSes than console hardware and
OSes, which makes His Eepianness's anti-Macintosh attitude especially
strange.
However, I'm not the sort who likes to get the latest and greatest;
I've only purchased another computer when it was a really big jump over
my old one, and I'm not likely to buy another one until at least next
year.
As to 3D-accelerator cards, I've selected ATI ones because that's
what Apple uses, and one thing nice is that Apple's drivers have had
relatively few bugs. For example, OpenGL in a window works with zero
trouble, allowing me to write TR level and model viewers without too
much trouble.
> Does that make you a better person than they are? Are they lemmings
> because they enjoy their entertainment for entertainment's sake without
> wanting to devote their precious free time to troubleshooting a system?
> Of course not. One could easily argue that you're the lemming, standing
> in line at CompUSA with the latest and greatest video card in your hot
> little hand, knowing full well that you'll have to drop another three
> hundred bucks in six month's time to retain your badge of "hardcore PC
> gamer". And what great fun you have when you get home, slap in your
> card, and immediately have to start downloading bios updates for your
> motherboard and driver updates for the card and patches for your games
> so they'll run on the new hardware and so on and so on.
Cute thought. I have a Rage 128 card, and it's fallen behind the
times somewhat, but it's good enough for most of what I do. I probably
won't buy an ATI Radeon card, however, because I'm not sure that the
rest of my Macintosh is fast enough to do it justice.
> Meanwhile, your brand new NURB accellerated, Voxel-optimized,
> terrapixel pumping Extrema Cobra Pro 9900i video card is idling along
> with the latest game, never utilizing any of the vaunted features that
> made your eyes glaze over the first time you looked at the bullet list.
> By the time that the developers at Splode Software get around to using
> any of those features, your card is 3 generations out of date and
> you're tooling along on your next piece of bleeding edge hardware with
> unexploited feature sets.
Cute.
Eep²
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but more and more people are getting computers and using the Net. The latest console expansion is simply a last-ditch effort to milk console gamers for all their worth before the TRUE gaming platform comes of age and dominates COMPLETELY: PCs. Sorry, but it WILL and IS happening. If you can't see that, I'm sorry you're so dense.
> Does that make you a better person than they are? Are they lemmings
> because they enjoy their entertainment for entertainment's sake without
> wanting to devote their precious free time to troubleshooting a system?
> Of course not. One could easily argue that you're the lemming, standing
> in line at CompUSA with the latest and greatest video card in your hot
> little hand, knowing full well that you'll have to drop another three
> hundred bucks in six month's time to retain your badge of "hardcore PC
> gamer". And what great fun you have when you get home, slap in your
> card, and immediately have to start downloading bios updates for your
> motherboard and driver updates for the card and patches for your games
> so they'll run on the new hardware and so on and so on.
<chuckle> Perhaps for the newbies who don't know how to handle their hardware. I bought a new 3D card (GeForce 256) 3 years after my last 3D card (ATI Rage 2). I don't upgrade every 6 months; in fact, before my most recent upgrade (CPU, motherboard, video card, RAM, sound card, mouse), I upgraded my CPU about a year ago, then a couple years before that my CPU and motherboard.
> Meanwhile, John Q. Lemming checks out right behind you with a copy of
> Gran Turismo which he'll be playing furiously as soon as he gets home,
> not caring a whit that it's technically possible to see those cars in
> slightly greater detail on a machine that cost only 5 or 10 times what
> he paid for his game console. Trust me, this guy isn't crying over
> framerates, polygon counts, or anti-aliasing. He's having a ball with a
> fun game that he doesn't have to screw around with. He never even has
> to think about whether his system is fast enough. If the developers
> have done their job and know the system as they should, they've hit
> their target platform, utilized the power it has available, and
> stretched the limits of the hardware.
And *I* am the lemming? I at least have a clue about what to look for in a game's graphics technology and how my system will best render it. I encounter little difficulty getting games to work with my system because I've taken the time to know how to use the hardware, unlike most console gamers which are oblivious to the true computing power behind the games they mindlessly shell out $50 a game for.
> Meanwhile, your brand new NURB accellerated, Voxel-optimized,
> terrapixel pumping Extrema Cobra Pro 9900i video card is idling along
> with the latest game, never utilizing any of the vaunted features that
> made your eyes glaze over the first time you looked at the bullet list.
> By the time that the developers at Splode Software get around to using
> any of those features, your card is 3 generations out of date and
> you're tooling along on your next piece of bleeding edge hardware with
> unexploited feature sets.
Before hardware T&L came along I never noticed 3D card features not being utilized in games--and T&L is already being implemented, as in the case of Star Trek: Voyager - Elite Force (modified Quake 3 engine), I believe. As more PC gamers upgrade to T&L cards, just as more console gamers buy the new, "next-generation" consoles, developers will implement T&L into PC games and then it will be obvious how consoles are obsolete--and will STAY obsolete for YEARS--compared to PCs, which will continue to evolve WAY beyond consoles and even current PC 3D hardware technology.
> > Think about it.
>
> Take your own advice.
Right back at ya, sport.
WombRaider
What will be interesting is keeping an eye on the Indrema
(www.indrema.com) since it's developer's tools are free, it's open
sourced OS, has upgradeable video (it will ship with some nVidia card
that can be swaped out for a newer one without the need for driver
installs) and a few other "firsts" in the console market. Several
developers have already signed on to it. Working protoptypes are
already up and running.
In article <39ECDE...@rbgkew.org.uk>, Mark A
WombRaider
THere's been some very interesting news released about the Indrema,
Loren, it's worth looking into.
In article <171020000542056998%pet...@netcom.com>, Loren Petrich
<pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <39EBE26A...@tnlc.com>, Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
> > No more powerful than hardware transform and lighting on the PC...as soon as
> > developers start coding for it in games, that is...
>
> And some may already be doing that if they are using OpenGL as their
> rendering API, and are using its T&L features. If the OpenGL driver
> does not get the card to do it, then it will be done in software, the
> selection being totally transparent to the engine code.
>
> > The PS2 will be obsolete before it's even released. <yawn>
>
> Maybe.
WombRaider
<lisa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > The PS2 will be obsolete before it's even released. <yawn>
The PS2 is already out in Japan.
WombRaider
<lisa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I've seen the MGS2 stuff and know what the PS2 is capable of, but I
> think the TR screenshots are FMV because she is looking into the
> camera.
>
> Lisa
From what I've read sicnthe gameplay of TRNG is so different than the
current TR (meaning you won't be staring at her rear end throughout the
entire game) that it's actually an in-game cut scene with in-game
graphics. Not an FMV. Similar to the in-game cut scenes in the current
crop of TR games. WHere the camera is has little or nothing to do with
the TRNG since you can pan it all around, even in front of her while
you play.
Chloe
> And NOT the graphics are decisive about the quality of a game. The FUN is.
> Even an old 8-Bit game can be more fun than a super modern game. That's why
> the people here are happy with Tomb Raider. Nobody (well, almost
> nobody)cares that the graphics are not the best.
there still pretty anyway
Chloe
> You're betting an awful lot on a console (PSX) that was obsolete soon after it
> was released. The PS2 is ALREADY obsolete and yet you still think otherwise.
> Damn you're gullible. Console developers are locked into the console's
> hardware spec, which is why PSX games don't have any bilinear filtering when
> PCs got it within a year after the PSX's release (not to mention MANY other 3D
> features PSXers could only DREAM of using, unless they had a REAL gaming
> system like a PC, that is). Because consoles are non-upgradeable, developers
> are stuck using the release technology. In the computer gaming industry, game
> developers are not restricted to such stagnation and thus can (and do) make
> their games MUCH more visually impressive than console developers can.
>
> Your argument is simply based off all the recent, so-called "next generation"
> <yawn> marketing hype of the Dreamcast, PS2, and X-Box, but, I'm telling you,
> give the PC industry a year or 2 (at most) and these consoles will be MUCH
> noticeably obsolete. You have to see (and understand) the hardware to realize
> why this will happen. I've already explained it below.
>
all this from someone who uses a pc... pc are just there to gte you to spend
money upgrading them as they dont really wrok very well when you gte em out
the box...
pH
And try to read my postings carefully.
I DO NOT SAY THAT THE PS2 IS MORE POWERFUL THAN PC!!!
1) The new PC graphic cards are more powerful but their power isn't used
yet. You don't agree with this? Give a reason! (There are only few games
based on the Quake 3 Engine therefore this is not a reason to buy a GeForce
card yet.)
2) The PSX IS the most popular videogame system. It has been sold more than
50 million times. And THIS is the reason why game developers still make
games for it.
3) Games do NOT have to have perfect graphics to be FUN and that's what
games are made for! You don't agree? Give a reason! Do you play a game to
look at its graphics or to have fun?
4) There are so many very good console games which are not available for PC.
I can name a lot of them if you never heard about them and don't know which
games I am talking about.
5) Graphics options in PC games? Well, who wants to play with the lowest
adjustments?
6) You certainly want to buy a new graphic card and a faster processor (and
a new mainboard with DDRAM support plus 128 MB DDRAM) in the next months,
don't you? So add this money to the money you have already paid for the
current hardware in your PC.
"Eep²" <e...@tnlc.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:39ED458E...@tnlc.com...
pH wrote:
> You're betting an awful lot on a console (PSX) that was obsolete soon
after
> it was released. The PS2 is ALREADY obsolete and yet you still think
> otherwise. Damn you're gullible. Console developers are locked into the
> console's hardware spec, which is why PSX games don't have any bilinear
> filtering when PCs got it within a year after the PSX's release (not to
> mention MANY other 3D features PSXers could only DREAM of using, unless
they
> had a REAL gaming system like a PC, that is). Because consoles are
> non-upgradeable, developers are stuck using the release technology. In the
> computer gaming industry, game developers are not restricted to such
> stagnation and thus can (and do) make their games MUCH more visually
> impressive than console developers can.
>
> Your argument is simply based off all the recent, so-called "next
> generation" <yawn> marketing hype of the Dreamcast, PS2, and X-Box, but,
I'm
> telling you, give the PC industry a year or 2 (at most) and these consoles
> will be MUCH noticeably obsolete. You have to see (and understand) the
> hardware to realize why this will happen. I've already explained it below.
>
> pH wrote:
>
> > Anyway, it's cheaper to buy a PS2 than to upgrade the PC every year with
> new
> > graphic cards which features can't be used in current games because game
> > developers have to care for older graphic cards, too. But they haven't
> when
> > they program for PS2 or every other console.
> >
> > "Eep²" <e...@tnlc.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:39EBE26A...@tnlc.com...
> > > No more powerful than hardware transform and lighting on the PC...as
> soon
> > as developers start coding for it in games, that is...
> > >
> > > The PS2 will be obsolete before it's even released. <yawn>
> > >
> > > WombRaider wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <8sfkku$v7n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, lisatkiom
> > > > <lisa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Nevermind the in-game bit. They're obviously FMV.
> > > >
> > > > I suggest you take a look at the Metal Gear Solid 2 movie. It's all
> > > > in-game footage and looks better than other game's FMV. A lot of
games
> > > > for teh PS2 won't have FMV's per se, as it'll render them in
realtime.
> > > > I didn't believe any of this either until I saw the MGS2 trailer.
It's
> > > > all just jaw-dropping to see how powerful the PS2 really is.
--
pH
"Chloe" <baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:B6132F5B.22B3%baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk...
> someone very nice said somethign extremey interesteing and very worthwile
>
is.
> > Even an old 8-Bit game can be more fun than a super modern game. That's
why
> > the people here are happy with Tomb Raider. Nobody (well, almost
> > nobody)cares that the graphics are not the best.
> there still pretty anyway
This is exactly my opinion. I don't need modern PC hardware (buying of which
every 6 months would be wasted money) to enjoy Tomb Raider.
pH
> Before hardware T&L came along I never noticed 3D card features not being
>utilized in games--and T&L is already being implemented, as in the case of
Star
>Trek: Voyager - Elite Force (modified Quake 3 engine), I believe. As more
PC
>gamers upgrade to T&L cards, just as more console gamers buy the new,
>"next-generation" consoles, developers will implement T&L into PC games and
>then it will be obvious how consoles are obsolete--and will STAY obsolete
for
>YEARS--compared to PCs, which will continue to evolve WAY beyond
>consoles and even current PC 3D hardware technology.
Yeah, and 2 years later there will be T&L2 and no games supporting it. And
only you will upgrade your graphic card.
Jarno Kaarinen
>This is exactly my opinion. I don't need modern PC hardware (buying of which
>every 6 months would be wasted money) to enjoy Tomb Raider.
What exactly do you need to _enjoy_ Tomb Raider? Crack?
pH
which
> >every 6 months would be wasted money) to enjoy Tomb Raider.
>
> What exactly do you need to _enjoy_ Tomb Raider? Crack?
Say, can you read?
Do you understand English bad / middle / good / perfect? (select one please)
I wrote that money spended for hardware which features aren't used in
current games is wasted money. Do you know what hardware is? Well, TR is not
hardware, it's software.
I'm playing consoles mostly. DC and PSX. All my PC and console games are
original games, not "backup" copies (which you are using I suppose), believe
it or not. But I do not have to justify myself. You won't understand it.
lisatkiom
WombRaider <w0m6r...@macsr63tt3r.moc> wrote:
> In article <8shu6e$qvv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, lisatkiom
> <lisa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
Eep wrote the obsolete bit, not me.
Lisa
--
Playing: Final Fantasy VIII
lisatkiom
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> lisatkiom wrote:
>
> > In article <39ECBB4F...@tnlc.com>,
> > =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
> > > lisatkiom wrote:
> > >
consoles and
> > > > PCs
> > > > > > are not in comepetition together.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bullshit--ever heard of the X-Box?
> > > >
> > > > What exactly is your point? The Xbox is going to be a console
like any
> > > > other. It'll be the most powerful of the 4, but it's still
just a next
> > > > gen console.
> > >
> > Microsoft. Think about that. Think about how dominating and
> > monopolizing Microsoft likes to be. Imagine, if you will: the X-Box
> > dominates console gaming, leading to the demise of the Playstation
2,
> > Dreamcast, and Nintendo Dolphin. Console gamers get REAL gaming
systems
> > (PCs) with better CPUs (system and 3D), requiring Windows ("WIntel"
> > architecture). Console gaming all but dies out as PC gaming surges.
> > >
real?
>
>Attempt to come back to the real world. Think!
I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore. I have repeatedly
explained the differences between the console and gaming markets to
you, but you don't want to listen to me (or anyone else).
mche...@my-deja.com
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <e...@tnlc.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps you haven't noticed, but more and more people are getting
computers and using the Net. The latest console expansion is simply a
last-ditch effort to milk console gamers for all their worth before the
TRUE gaming platform comes of age and dominates COMPLETELY: PCs. Sorry,
but it WILL and IS happening. If you can't see that, I'm sorry you're
so dense.
>
I've certainly noticed that more and more people are getting on the
net. Of course, this fact has almost nothing to do with gaming. Perhaps
you've noticed that more and more budget PCs are being sold to these
people who are getting on the net. Not hulking, smoking, speed demon
PCs but rather, cheap low-end net appliance PCs designed for web
browsing and word processing. These aren't exactly gaming rigs and
frankly, the majority of these users aren't interested in doing
anything other than checking their stocks, reading the news on cnn.com,
and dropping an email to their sister in Portland.
If you were to take a look at the world outside your bedroom once in a
while, you might notice that the trend is for PCs to become
workstations and productivity enhancers while recreation and
entertainment is centered in living rooms. You know that place where
most people keep their tv, vcr, dvd player and stereo? It's not a
coincidence they call that an "Entertainment Center".
More importantly, consoles are evolving into genuine convergence
devices and are now capable of handling some of those tasks that used
to live on the PC. You'll notice that every console of the next
generation provides for some level of internet connectivity. They also
have mice and keyboards available as options. Ultimately you'll
probably be seeing a lot more people doing their web browsing and email
on these devices simply because it's so convenient.
If anything, successive generations of consoles are likely to start
drawing many of the more recreational tasks away from the desktop and
onto the couch. Why have to get up and go into your computer room to
check out the URL you just saw on a commercial when you can tap a
couple of buttons on your remote and pull up a web browser on your tv?
Now, I'm not saying that consoles are going to kill PC gaming. People
flog that dead horse every time a new generation of consoles arrive and
they haven't been right yet. By the same token, PC gaming will never
replace console gaming because there's a huge audience of gamers who
want convenient and hassle free entertainment. However, by its very
nature, console gaming will always have a larger market than PC gaming
and it has far more potential for growth. That doesn't make it an
inherently "better" experience than PC gaming. It merely reflects the
mass market appeal of consoles that PC games just can't compete with. A
blockbuster game on the PC might sell half a million units. The rare
exception such as Myst sells more than a million. A blockbuster game on
consoles sell several million and even mediocre console games typically
sell more units than a successful PC game.
In any case, we're talking about two very different markets and it
should be obvious by now that it takes more than specs to sell games.
If that were all it took, console gaming would never have gotten past
the days of the NES. The idea that PC gaming will eventually usurp
console gaming is incredibly short sighted. Console gaming was around
and successful for quite a while before PC gaming became a realistic
option and it's unlikely that we'll see it go away any time soon.
>
> <chuckle> Perhaps for the newbies who don't know how to handle their
hardware. I bought a new 3D card (GeForce 256) 3 years after my last 3D
card (ATI Rage 2). I don't upgrade every 6 months; in fact, before my
most recent upgrade (CPU, motherboard, video card, RAM, sound card,
mouse), I upgraded my CPU about a year ago, then a couple years before
that my CPU and motherboard.
>
Good for you. Console gamers don't have to worry about upgrades once a
year or every 18 months, however. And chances are, they're having just
as much fun with their games as you're having with yours. Again, they
couldn't care less whether their games are bump mapped, ray traced, or
dynamically lit. They have a piece of software tailored specifically
for the hardware they're using, allowing the console developers to
program to the metal and provide a level of stability and consistancy
of performance that PC developers can't even dream about.
More importantly, the gamer doesn't have to dick around with trying out
different screen resolutions or turning graphical options on and off
until they find a framerate that's acceptable to them. They just pop in
the disk, turn on the machine, and they're playing a game that looks
and runs identically on every machine capable of playing it. Billy down
the street doesn't have to turn off shadows to get the game to run as
fast on his year old Dreamcast as it does on your brand new one. It
just works. And that's the point.
> And *I* am the lemming? I at least have a clue about what to look for
in a game's graphics technology and how my system will best render it.
I encounter little difficulty getting games to work with my system
because I've taken the time to know how to use the hardware, unlike
most console gamers which are oblivious to the true computing power
behind the games they mindlessly shell out $50 a game for.
>
You ARE the lemming precisely because you're more interested in the
screen resolution and polygon count than you are in the quality of the
gaming experience. You're brainwashed by hardware specs and convinced
that the worthiness of a game is dictated by how many bullet items the
developers checked off when they designed their graphics engine. You're
sucked into the same fallacy as so many other hardware worshippers
who's ultimate objective is to invite their friends over to see the
latest game that they managed to get running at 1600x1200 with 4x FSAA.
Talk about <yawn>.
Further, a console gamer has NO difficulty getting a new game to work
with their system unless their console falls outside of the standard
platform because of mod chips and the like. Go figger that diverse
configurations would cause instability and incompatibility.
>
> Before hardware T&L came along I never noticed 3D card features not
being utilized in games--and T&L is already being implemented, as in
the case of Star Trek: Voyager - Elite Force (modified Quake 3 engine),
I believe. As more PC gamers upgrade to T&L cards, just as more console
gamers buy the new, "next-generation" consoles, developers will
implement T&L into PC games and then it will be obvious how consoles
are obsolete--and will STAY obsolete for YEARS--compared to PCs, which
will continue to evolve WAY beyond consoles and even current PC 3D
hardware technology.
>
Again, nobody is arguing that PC hardware can evolve new features
faster that consoles. The point is that consoles don't have to do that.
And in order for a PC gamer to increase their feature set, they have to
lay out as much or more cash than the cost of a new console. The end
result of this is that you've bought yourself a resolution upgrade and
some additional speed which do little more than make the games a bit
flashier. For all that, they're not any more fun. They just look a
little bit better.
On top of all of this, console games tend to improve graphically over
the course of a system's lifespan. Certainly there's an upper limit on
just how much you can push through the system, but because of the
hardware standardization, developers can use tricks and optimizations
to make generational improvements in graphics as familiarity with the
environment increases. PC developers can't begin to take advantage of
systems on this level as there's no consistant platform to target.
Instead, they count on gamers to throw money at the problem, locking
them into a constant upgrade cycle to maintain enough RAM, CPU speed,
and fillrate to compensate for the fact that the games can't be fine
tuned to any significant degree.
The fact is, anybody looking for some entertaining gaming can safely
lay down a couple hundred dollars on a console that will continue to be
competent for the next few years. PC gamers will likely have to spend
this same amount every year just to keep up and this is money that
could be better spent on the software industry to help grow the market.
Consoles make good financial sense and provide great, trouble-free
entertainment for a huge and rapidly growing market. PC gaming has
plenty of advantages of its own but requires a constant investment of
money and time just to maintain. Each has their audience and will
continue to, but to argue that one platform is inherently better than
the other and will ultimately replace it is simply uninformed and
narrow minded.
-MikeC
mche...@my-deja.com
"pH" <no_...@please.com> wrote:
> > What exactly do you need to _enjoy_ Tomb Raider? Crack?
>
> Say, can you read?
> Do you understand English bad / middle / good / perfect? (select one
please)
>
> I wrote that money spended for hardware which features aren't used in
> current games is wasted money. Do you know what hardware is? Well, TR
is not
> hardware, it's software.
>
> I'm playing consoles mostly. DC and PSX. All my PC and console games
are
> original games, not "backup" copies (which you are using I suppose),
believe
> it or not. But I do not have to justify myself. You won't understand
it.
>
>
Heh... I think he was just joking, actually. The general concensus
seems to be that Tomb Raider is kind of a tired franchise and should
probably be allowed to die quietly. A lot of people feel that every
iteration since TR2 has pretty much just been more of the same and
they're just getting a little tired of it. And when he said "crack" he
was talking about drugs, not piracy. Nobody is implying that you're
stealing software.
Anyway,
lisatkiom
I hope you're right. We'll see.
Lisa
--
Playing: Final Fantasy VIII
pH
the word crack because I'm not English.
But anyway, his comment was inappropriate because if he had read all my
postings he would have seen that I'm also a console gamer and do not play
only Tomb Raider.
<mche...@my-deja.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:8skn1d$5s0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Eep²
> someone very nice said somethign extremey interesteing and very worthwile
>
> > You're betting an awful lot on a console (PSX) that was obsolete soon after it
> > was released. The PS2 is ALREADY obsolete and yet you still think otherwise.
> > Damn you're gullible. Console developers are locked into the console's
> > hardware spec, which is why PSX games don't have any bilinear filtering when
> > PCs got it within a year after the PSX's release (not to mention MANY other 3D
> > features PSXers could only DREAM of using, unless they had a REAL gaming
> > system like a PC, that is). Because consoles are non-upgradeable, developers
> > are stuck using the release technology. In the computer gaming industry, game
> > developers are not restricted to such stagnation and thus can (and do) make
> > their games MUCH more visually impressive than console developers can.
> >
> > Your argument is simply based off all the recent, so-called "next generation"
> > <yawn> marketing hype of the Dreamcast, PS2, and X-Box, but, I'm telling you,
> > give the PC industry a year or 2 (at most) and these consoles will be MUCH
> > noticeably obsolete. You have to see (and understand) the hardware to realize
> > why this will happen. I've already explained it below.
>
> all this from someone who uses a pc... pc are just there to gte you to spend
> money upgrading them as they dont really wrok very well when you gte em out
> the box...
Perhaps for incompetent newbies like yourself...
Eep²
> I just don't see any arguments in your postings.
> And try to read my postings carefully.
>
> I DO NOT SAY THAT THE PS2 IS MORE POWERFUL THAN PC!!!
>
> 1) The new PC graphic cards are more powerful but their power isn't used
> yet. You don't agree with this? Give a reason! (There are only few games
> based on the Quake 3 Engine therefore this is not a reason to buy a GeForce
> card yet.)
Hardware T&L is not the only reason to buy a GeForce card, you ninny. GeForces are simply faster overall--well, the GeForce 2 is currently. The Voodoo5 supposedly beats the GeForce 256 and I think the ATI Radeon does too.
> 2) The PSX IS the most popular videogame system. It has been sold more than
> 50 million times. And THIS is the reason why game developers still make
> games for it.
<shrug> I see console popularity waning in the next few years after this big marketing hype of so-called "next generation" toasters. "Ooo, ahhh, they toast bread on BOTH sides now!"
> 3) Games do NOT have to have perfect graphics to be FUN and that's what
> games are made for! You don't agree? Give a reason! Do you play a game to
> look at its graphics or to have fun?
Both, but I usually prefer graphics over fun since I end up analyzing a game's graphics tech anyway. I do that...and to me that IS fun.
> 4) There are so many very good console games which are not available for PC.
> I can name a lot of them if you never heard about them and don't know which
> games I am talking about.
<shrug>
> 5) Graphics options in PC games? Well, who wants to play with the lowest
> adjustments?
Obviously people with less computing power. Duh. Think scalability. Better look that one up, sport.
> 6) You certainly want to buy a new graphic card and a faster processor (and
> a new mainboard with DDRAM support plus 128 MB DDRAM) in the next months,
> don't you?
nope
> So add this money to the money you have already paid for the
> current hardware in your PC.
I won't.
Eep²
> > Before hardware T&L came along I never noticed 3D card features not being
> >utilized in games--and T&L is already being implemented, as in the case of Star
> >Trek: Voyager - Elite Force (modified Quake 3 engine), I believe. As more PC
> >gamers upgrade to T&L cards, just as more console gamers buy the new,
> >"next-generation" consoles, developers will implement T&L into PC games and
> >then it will be obvious how consoles are obsolete--and will STAY obsolete for
> >YEARS--compared to PCs, which will continue to evolve WAY beyond
> >consoles and even current PC 3D hardware technology.
>
> Yeah, and 2 years later there will be T&L2 and no games supporting it. And
> only you will upgrade your graphic card.
You are such the short-sighted one, kid, if you don't think PC game developers will be adding T&L to their games. I already gave you an example of a game that already has it: Elite Force (or is it No One Lives Forever?). The point is, more and more people will be getting T&L cards, and developers adding T&L to their games is one way to motivate people to get T&L cards. In case you didn't know, the PC hardware industry is basically directed by 3D hardware development--this means games. No one needs 1GHz CPUs to run Windows...yet.
And I could've bought a GeForce 2, but I settled on a GeForce 256 (which is the first one, in case you're clueless, which you obviously are) because it was cheaper yet still better than every other card out there aside from the overpriced Voodoo5. I tried the Voodoo3 but it was flaky in Active Worlds (though fine in most of the games I tried it with). There was no Voodoo4 or TNT 2 Ultra AGP available.
Eep²
> > >This is exactly my opinion. I don't need modern PC hardware (buying of which
> > >every 6 months would be wasted money) to enjoy Tomb Raider.
> >
> > What exactly do you need to _enjoy_ Tomb Raider? Crack?
>
> Say, can you read?
> Do you understand English bad / middle / good / perfect? (select one please)
You're one to type considering your screwy understanding of English. There is no "middle" understanding.
> I wrote that money spended
"spent"
> for hardware which features aren't used in
> current games is wasted money. Do you know what hardware is? Well, TR is not
> hardware, it's software.
>
> I'm playing consoles mostly. DC and PSX. All my PC and console games are
> original games, not "backup" copies (which you are using I suppose), believe
> it or not. But I do not have to justify myself. You won't understand it.
--
Chloe
> I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore. I have repeatedly
> explained the differences between the console and gaming markets to
> you, but you don't want to listen to me (or anyone else).
be mad to buy a pc just for games...
Chloe
> In article <181020000545230418%w0m6r...@macsr63tt3r.moc>,
> WombRaider <w0m6r...@macsr63tt3r.moc> wrote:
>> In article <8shu6e$qvv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, lisatkiom
>> <lisa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The PS2 will be obsolete before it's even released. <yawn>
>>
>> The PS2 is already out in Japan.
>
> Eep wrote the obsolete bit, not me.
>
> Lisa
anyway if lara was pc only would anyone have heard of her excpet afew nerds?
psx1 is still going strong now..
Chloe
>
> "Chloe" <baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:B6132F5B.22B3%baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk...
>> someone very nice said somethign extremey interesteing and very worthwile
>>
>>> And NOT the graphics are decisive about the quality of a game. The FUN
> is.
>>> Even an old 8-Bit game can be more fun than a super modern game. That's
> why
>>> the people here are happy with Tomb Raider. Nobody (well, almost
>>> nobody)cares that the graphics are not the best.
>> there still pretty anyway
>
> This is exactly my opinion. I don't need modern PC hardware (buying of which
> every 6 months would be wasted money) to enjoy Tomb Raider.
>
>
I've seen screenshots taken with all kinds of fancy cards of all trs and
they look the same as psx. justa bit sharper but that is cos i have the ps
plugged into a crap tv...nothing wowy worth spending alot on
Chloe
> I just don't see any arguments in your postings.
> And try to read my postings carefully.
>
> I DO NOT SAY THAT THE PS2 IS MORE POWERFUL THAN PC!!!
>
> 1) The new PC graphic cards are more powerful but their power isn't used
> yet. You don't agree with this? Give a reason! (There are only few games
> based on the Quake 3 Engine therefore this is not a reason to buy a GeForce
> card yet.)
>
> 2) The PSX IS the most popular videogame system. It has been sold more than
> 50 million times. And THIS is the reason why game developers still make
> games for it.
>
> 3) Games do NOT have to have perfect graphics to be FUN and that's what
> games are made for! You don't agree? Give a reason! Do you play a game to
> look at its graphics or to have fun?
it's like when popel go oh this ong has such menagifull lyrics depsite thet
fact the tune is shite... good and game and good graphics wow but i'd rather
play good game that looks o.k than shite one thats look great
>
> 4) There are so many very good console games which are not available for PC.
> I can name a lot of them if you never heard about them and don't know which
> games I am talking about.
and well consoles are just more kinda relaxing than pcs...
>
> 5) Graphics options in PC games? Well, who wants to play with the lowest
> adjustments?
and who without microscope can really tell?
>
--
Chloe
> In article <8sgsee$vmf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, lisatkiom
> <lisa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've seen the MGS2 stuff and know what the PS2 is capable of, but I
>> think the TR screenshots are FMV because she is looking into the
>> camera.
>>
>> Lisa
>
> From what I've read sicnthe gameplay of TRNG is so different than the
> current TR (meaning you won't be staring at her rear end throughout the
> entire game) that it's actually an in-game cut scene with in-game
> graphics. Not an FMV. Similar to the in-game cut scenes in the current
> crop of TR games. WHere the camera is has little or nothing to do with
> the TRNG since you can pan it all around, even in front of her while
> you play.
wow next gne nude raider too... you can catully see her tits... amazing....
Eep²
pH wrote:
> Maybe you're right. I've overreacted. I didn't know the second meaning of
> the word crack because I'm not English.
>
> But anyway, his comment was inappropriate because if he had read all my
> postings he would have seen that I'm also a console gamer and do not play
> only Tomb Raider.
>
> <mche...@my-deja.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:8skn1d$5s0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <8sk67s$tbk$02$1...@news.t-online.com>,
> > "pH" <no_...@please.com> wrote:
> > > > What exactly do you need to _enjoy_ Tomb Raider? Crack?
> > >
> > > Say, can you read?
> > > Do you understand English bad / middle / good / perfect? (select one
> > please)
> > >
> > > I wrote that money spended for hardware which features aren't used in
> > > current games is wasted money. Do you know what hardware is? Well, TR
> > is not
> > > hardware, it's software.
> > >
> > > I'm playing consoles mostly. DC and PSX. All my PC and console games
> > are
> > > original games, not "backup" copies (which you are using I suppose),
> > believe
> > > it or not. But I do not have to justify myself. You won't understand
> > it.
> >
> > Heh... I think he was just joking, actually. The general concensus
> > seems to be that Tomb Raider is kind of a tired franchise and should
> > probably be allowed to die quietly. A lot of people feel that every
> > iteration since TR2 has pretty much just been more of the same and
> > they're just getting a little tired of it. And when he said "crack" he
> > was talking about drugs, not piracy. Nobody is implying that you're
> > stealing software.
--
http://tnlc.com/eep/ - Active Worlds, Tomb Raider, 3D game comparison, The Sims
Enable line/word wrap if text not wrapping. http://tnlc.com/eep/wrap.html for more info.
ONLY NEWBIES QUOTE SIGS WHEN REPLYING.
lisatkiom
Chloe <baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> someone very nice said somethign extremey interesteing and very
worthwile
>
> > WombRaider <w0m6r...@macsr63tt3r.moc> wrote:
> >> In article <8shu6e$qvv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, lisatkiom
> >> <lisa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Eep wrote the obsolete bit, not me.
> >
> > Lisa
> anyway if lara was pc only would anyone have heard of her excpet afew
nerds?
> psx1 is still going strong now..
the "nerds" of this world. I think they're great. As for the PSX, I
think it may have as much as a year left. There are some great PSX
games yet to be released outside of Japan.
Lisa
--
Playing: Final Fantasy VIII
Eep²
Consoles are becoming more like PCs, while PCs are becoming better PCs, and engulfing console technology and ease-of-use in the process. Consoles won't last with their wanna-be PClikeness because people will simply realize that PCs can (and DO) do more. And, yep, budget PCs are allowing more people to get computers, and, guess what? More people are playing PC games and are getting their eyes opened up to the technological advances over consoles. More people will and are buying better PC hardware to play these MUCH more powerful and sophisticated games. This "next-generation" console hype is a last-ditch effort to save consoles before the inevitable: PC gaming dominance. It IS and WILL happen.
> > <chuckle> Perhaps for the newbies who don't know how to handle their
> hardware. I bought a new 3D card (GeForce 256) 3 years after my last 3D
> card (ATI Rage 2). I don't upgrade every 6 months; in fact, before my
> most recent upgrade (CPU, motherboard, video card, RAM, sound card,
> mouse), I upgraded my CPU about a year ago, then a couple years before
> that my CPU and motherboard.
> >
>
> Good for you. Console gamers don't have to worry about upgrades once a
> year or every 18 months, however. And chances are, they're having just
> as much fun with their games as you're having with yours. Again, they
> couldn't care less whether their games are bump mapped, ray traced, or
> dynamically lit. They have a piece of software tailored specifically
> for the hardware they're using, allowing the console developers to
> program to the metal and provide a level of stability and consistancy
> of performance that PC developers can't even dream about.
>
> More importantly, the gamer doesn't have to dick around with trying out
> different screen resolutions or turning graphical options on and off
> until they find a framerate that's acceptable to them. They just pop in
> the disk, turn on the machine, and they're playing a game that looks
> and runs identically on every machine capable of playing it. Billy down
> the street doesn't have to turn off shadows to get the game to run as
> fast on his year old Dreamcast as it does on your brand new one. It
> just works. And that's the point.
I was impressed when the Dreamcast first came out, but just wait until PC game developers REALLY start utilizing hardware T&L and the Dreamcast will look like an Atart 2600.
> > And *I* am the lemming? I at least have a clue about what to look for
> in a game's graphics technology and how my system will best render it.
> I encounter little difficulty getting games to work with my system
> because I've taken the time to know how to use the hardware, unlike
> most console gamers which are oblivious to the true computing power
> behind the games they mindlessly shell out $50 a game for.
> >
>
> You ARE the lemming precisely because you're more interested in the
> screen resolution and polygon count than you are in the quality of the
> gaming experience. You're brainwashed by hardware specs and convinced
> that the worthiness of a game is dictated by how many bullet items the
> developers checked off when they designed their graphics engine. You're
> sucked into the same fallacy as so many other hardware worshippers
> who's ultimate objective is to invite their friends over to see the
> latest game that they managed to get running at 1600x1200 with 4x FSAA.
> Talk about <yawn>.
I don't show people high resolutions and FSAA, but I DO show people the cool realism of real-time, multiple-light-sourced, fading shadows; LOD (old news these days but haven't heard of a console game doing it yet!); weather and other atmospheric/environmental effects; environmental interaction; physics; lighting; etc, etc. And there are even "fun" games like Motocross Madness 2, Need for Speed 5, etc, which have good graphics/tech too!
> Further, a console gamer has NO difficulty getting a new game to work
> with their system unless their console falls outside of the standard
> platform because of mod chips and the like. Go figger that diverse
> configurations would cause instability and incompatibility.
>
> > Before hardware T&L came along I never noticed 3D card features not
> being utilized in games--and T&L is already being implemented, as in
> the case of Star Trek: Voyager - Elite Force (modified Quake 3 engine),
> I believe. As more PC gamers upgrade to T&L cards, just as more console
> gamers buy the new, "next-generation" consoles, developers will
> implement T&L into PC games and then it will be obvious how consoles
> are obsolete--and will STAY obsolete for YEARS--compared to PCs, which
> will continue to evolve WAY beyond consoles and even current PC 3D
> hardware technology.
> >
>
> Again, nobody is arguing that PC hardware can evolve new features
> faster that consoles. The point is that consoles don't have to do that.
Right, so they stagnate and become obsolete MUCH sooner, leaving console gamers stuck with shitty-looking games.
> And in order for a PC gamer to increase their feature set, they have to
> lay out as much or more cash than the cost of a new console.
And gain the ability to do FAR more things with their PC than any console can even BEGIN to dream of doing.
> The end result of this is that you've bought yourself a resolution upgrade and
> some additional speed which do little more than make the games a bit
> flashier. For all that, they're not any more fun. They just look a
> little bit better.
Perhaps if you upgrade every 6 months. I don't.
> On top of all of this, console games tend to improve graphically over
> the course of a system's lifespan. Certainly there's an upper limit on
> just how much you can push through the system, but because of the
> hardware standardization, developers can use tricks and optimizations
> to make generational improvements in graphics as familiarity with the
> environment increases. PC developers can't begin to take advantage of
> systems on this level as there's no consistant platform to target.
> Instead, they count on gamers to throw money at the problem, locking
> them into a constant upgrade cycle to maintain enough RAM, CPU speed,
> and fillrate to compensate for the fact that the games can't be fine
> tuned to any significant degree.
Not true. PC game developers use optimization tricks, too. And how much can a limited-spec console improve? The PSX sure as hell didn't gain bilinear texture filtering over its 5-year lifespan!
> The fact is, anybody looking for some entertaining gaming can safely
> lay down a couple hundred dollars on a console that will continue to be
> competent for the next few years. PC gamers will likely have to spend
> this same amount every year just to keep up and this is money that
> could be better spent on the software industry to help grow the market.
Hardly: $500 every 5 years perhaps. It's consoles that have to keep up with PCs, not the other way around.
> Consoles make good financial sense and provide great, trouble-free
> entertainment for a huge and rapidly growing market. PC gaming has
> plenty of advantages of its own but requires a constant investment of
> money and time just to maintain. Each has their audience and will
> continue to, but to argue that one platform is inherently better than
> the other and will ultimately replace it is simply uninformed and
> narrow minded.
I don't see PCs being dumbed down to console levels; do you? Nope. Consoles are, if anything, becoming more like PCs. Hence, the PC design will eventually replace the console design. It's already happening and YOU are the uninformed and narrowminded one if you can't see that. <shrug>
--
http://tnlc.com/eep/ - Active Worlds, Tomb Raider, 3D game comparison, The Sims
Enable line/word wrap if text not wrapping. http://tnlc.com/eep/wrap.html for more info.
Chloe
>
> I was impressed when the Dreamcast first came out, but just wait until PC game
> developers REALLY start utilizing hardware T&L and the Dreamcast will look
> like an Atart 2600.
would've though it;
Chloe
> Silly, you don't have to BE English to UNDERSTAND English. In case you hadn't
> noticed, English isn't limited to just England. <gasp>
america is proof of that and scotland wales and ireland,.. aurtrailia... new
zelanda nd amillion othe rplaces
Chloe
>
> <shrug> I see console popularity waning in the next few years after this big
> marketing hype of so-called "next generation" toasters. "Ooo, ahhh, they toast
> bread on BOTH sides now!"
>
>> 3) Games do NOT have to have perfect graphics to be FUN and that's what
>> games are made for! You don't agree? Give a reason! Do you play a game to
>> look at its graphics or to have fun?
>
> Both, but I usually prefer graphics over fun since I end up analyzing a game's
> graphics tech anyway. I do that...and to me that IS fun.
>
>> 4) There are so many very good console games which are not available for PC.
>> I can name a lot of them if you never heard about them and don't know which
>> games I am talking about.
--
Chloe
> Chloe wrote:
>
>> someone very nice said somethign extremey interesteing and very worthwile
>>
>>> You're betting an awful lot on a console (PSX) that was obsolete soon after
>>> it
>>> was released. The PS2 is ALREADY obsolete and yet you still think otherwise.
>>> Damn you're gullible. Console developers are locked into the console's
>>> hardware spec, which is why PSX games don't have any bilinear filtering when
>>> PCs got it within a year after the PSX's release (not to mention MANY other
>>> 3D
>>> features PSXers could only DREAM of using, unless they had a REAL gaming
>>> system like a PC, that is). Because consoles are non-upgradeable, developers
>>> are stuck using the release technology. In the computer gaming industry,
>>> game
>>> developers are not restricted to such stagnation and thus can (and do) make
>>> their games MUCH more visually impressive than console developers can.
>>>
>>> Your argument is simply based off all the recent, so-called "next
>>> generation"
>>> <yawn> marketing hype of the Dreamcast, PS2, and X-Box, but, I'm telling
>>> you,
>>> give the PC industry a year or 2 (at most) and these consoles will be MUCH
>>> noticeably obsolete. You have to see (and understand) the hardware to
>>> realize
>>> why this will happen. I've already explained it below.
>>
>> all this from someone who uses a pc... pc are just there to gte you to spend
>> money upgrading them as they dont really wrok very well when you gte em out
>> the box...
>
> Perhaps for incompetent newbies like yourself...
>
I'm not incompitent i use a mac...and psx... like dear womb raider...
pH
foreign language at school you don't learn things about drugs there! Think
about it.
"Eep²" <e...@tnlc.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:39EE0945...@tnlc.com...
> Silly, you don't have to BE English to UNDERSTAND English. In case you
hadn't noticed, English isn't limited to just England. <gasp>
>
> --
>
> http://tnlc.com/eep/ - Active Worlds, Tomb Raider, 3D game comparison, The
Sims
> Enable line/word wrap if text not wrapping. http://tnlc.com/eep/wrap.html
for more info.
pH
"Eep²" <e...@tnlc.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:39EE0712...@tnlc.com...
> pH wrote:
>
> > > >This is exactly my opinion. I don't need modern PC hardware (buying
of which
> > > >every 6 months would be wasted money) to enjoy Tomb Raider.
> > >
> > > What exactly do you need to _enjoy_ Tomb Raider? Crack?
> >
> > Say, can you read?
> > Do you understand English bad / middle / good / perfect? (select one
please)
>
> You're one to type considering your screwy understanding of English. There
is no "middle" understanding.
>
> > I wrote that money spended
>
> "spent"
>
> > for hardware which features aren't used in
> > current games is wasted money. Do you know what hardware is? Well, TR is
not
> > hardware, it's software.
> >
> > I'm playing consoles mostly. DC and PSX. All my PC and console games are
> > original games, not "backup" copies (which you are using I suppose),
believe
> > it or not. But I do not have to justify myself. You won't understand it.
>
> --
>
> http://tnlc.com/eep/ - Active Worlds, Tomb Raider, 3D game comparison, The
Sims
> Enable line/word wrap if text not wrapping. http://tnlc.com/eep/wrap.html
for more info.
pH
"Chloe" <baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:B613CD6D.2357%baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk...
> someone very nice said somethign extremey interesteing and very worthwile
>
> > Silly, you don't have to BE English to UNDERSTAND English. In case you
hadn't
> > noticed, English isn't limited to just England. <gasp>
> america is proof of that and scotland wales and ireland,.. aurtrailia...
new
> zelanda nd amillion othe rplaces
pH
"Chloe" <baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:B613C2E8.2301%baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk...
> someone very nice said somethign extremey interesteing and very worthwile
>
> >
> > "Chloe" <baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:B6132F5B.22B3%baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk...
> >> someone very nice said somethign extremey interesteing and very
worthwile
> >>
> >>> And NOT the graphics are decisive about the quality of a game. The FUN
> > is.
> >>> Even an old 8-Bit game can be more fun than a super modern game.
That's
> > why
> >>> the people here are happy with Tomb Raider. Nobody (well, almost
> >>> nobody)cares that the graphics are not the best.
> >> there still pretty anyway
> >
> > This is exactly my opinion. I don't need modern PC hardware (buying of
which
> > every 6 months would be wasted money) to enjoy Tomb Raider.
> >
> >
> I've seen screenshots taken with all kinds of fancy cards of all trs and
> they look the same as psx. justa bit sharper but that is cos i have the ps
> plugged into a crap tv...nothing wowy worth spending alot on
pH
"Eep²" <e...@tnlc.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:39EE069C...@tnlc.com...
> pH wrote:
>
> > > Before hardware T&L came along I never noticed 3D card features not
being
> > >utilized in games--and T&L is already being implemented, as in the case
of Star
> > >Trek: Voyager - Elite Force (modified Quake 3 engine), I believe. As
more PC
> > >gamers upgrade to T&L cards, just as more console gamers buy the new,
> > >"next-generation" consoles, developers will implement T&L into PC games
and
> > >then it will be obvious how consoles are obsolete--and will STAY
obsolete for
> > >YEARS--compared to PCs, which will continue to evolve WAY beyond
> > >consoles and even current PC 3D hardware technology.
> >
> > Yeah, and 2 years later there will be T&L2 and no games supporting it.
And
> > only you will upgrade your graphic card.
>
> You are such the short-sighted one, kid, if you don't think PC game
developers will be adding T&L to their games. I already gave you an example
of a game that already has it: Elite Force (or is it No One Lives Forever?).
The point is, more and more people will be getting T&L cards, and developers
adding T&L to their games is one way to motivate people to get T&L cards. In
case you didn't know, the PC hardware industry is basically directed by 3D
hardware development--this means games. No one needs 1GHz CPUs to run
Windows...yet.
>
> And I could've bought a GeForce 2, but I settled on a GeForce 256 (which
is the first one, in case you're clueless, which you obviously are) because
it was cheaper yet still better than every other card out there aside from
the overpriced Voodoo5. I tried the Voodoo3 but it was flaky in Active
Worlds (though fine in most of the games I tried it with). There was no
Voodoo4 or TNT 2 Ultra AGP available.
>
pH
Only people who can't argue do offend other people.
"Eep²" <e...@tnlc.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:39EE0522...@tnlc.com...
smr
> pH wrote:
>
> > > >This is exactly my opinion. I don't need modern PC hardware (buying of which
> > > >every 6 months would be wasted money) to enjoy Tomb Raider.
> > >
> >
> > Say, can you read?
> > Do you understand English bad / middle / good / perfect? (select one please)
>
> You're one to type considering your screwy understanding of English. There is no "middle" understanding.
>
> > I wrote that money spended
>
> "spent"
Spelling flames? Real nice, fuckbag. Do you have even ONE real-life
friend? Or just Lara...
Asshole.
smr
SH
> > Meanwhile, your brand new NURB accellerated, Voxel-optimized,
> > terrapixel pumping Extrema Cobra Pro 9900i video card is idling along
> > with the latest game, never utilizing any of the vaunted features that
> > made your eyes glaze over the first time you looked at the bullet list.
> > By the time that the developers at Splode Software get around to using
> > any of those features, your card is 3 generations out of date and
> > you're tooling along on your next piece of bleeding edge hardware with
> > unexploited feature sets.
> Cute.
>
> --
> Loren Petrich
> pet...@netcom.com
> Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> And a fast train
Well... Mr. Petrich is a fine example of when you CAN do with a an older
game,
and a higher end card. Consoles can do a lot, and the PS2 will be
impressive, but
you can't pull down the source code for a game, and add semi-transparency
to it. Then, when the next "NURB accellerated, Voxel-optimized, terrapixel
pumping
Extrema Cobra Pro 9900i video card" (sounds mouth watering, thought) comes
through, you can't pull out the source code again, and plug in the new
features you want.
PC and Consoles just sacrafice different things to get other things. PC's
kick out stability
so that they can be customized and enhanced to make the games look and play
better, and differently if you like. Consoles, in turn, sacrifice this, so
that they don't
crash because your system is slightly different, and you can just jump right
into the game.
Likewise, PC's and Consoles, in general, draw different types of people.
Some people
like the feeling of seeing how far they can push the tech envelope, or that
they
could theoretically hack into or otherwise modify a game. Some people just
want to
relax ona counch, and play a good game without worrying about why this works
with that.
As far as graphics, technicaly PC's win hands down-- There's no way a PS2
will
beat a computer with a lot of money thrown at it. But realistically, the
average
computer user won't have a PIII 800 mhz system with 256 RAM, and a GeForce
card in it. So in the end, it sort of evens out, anyway.
(Aleph One has an interesting architecture to it, with it's themes and
configurations,
but being stuck in Wintel land, I have only been able to extract tar files
so far.
I'll try to find something to work with .sit files, so I can download some
of the maps to
take advantage of the GL effects you put in. I'm not getting any sound,
is this a port-issue?)
-- SH
Eep²
> > Chloe wrote:
> >
> >> someone very nice said somethign extremey interesteing and very worthwile
> >>
> >>> You're betting an awful lot on a console (PSX) that was obsolete soon after
> >>> it
> >>> was released. The PS2 is ALREADY obsolete and yet you still think otherwise.
> >>> Damn you're gullible. Console developers are locked into the console's
> >>> hardware spec, which is why PSX games don't have any bilinear filtering when
> >>> PCs got it within a year after the PSX's release (not to mention MANY other
> >>> 3D
> >>> features PSXers could only DREAM of using, unless they had a REAL gaming
> >>> system like a PC, that is). Because consoles are non-upgradeable, developers
> >>> are stuck using the release technology. In the computer gaming industry,
> >>> game
> >>> developers are not restricted to such stagnation and thus can (and do) make
> >>> their games MUCH more visually impressive than console developers can.
> >>>
> >>> Your argument is simply based off all the recent, so-called "next
> >>> generation"
> >>> <yawn> marketing hype of the Dreamcast, PS2, and X-Box, but, I'm telling
> >>> you,
> >>> give the PC industry a year or 2 (at most) and these consoles will be MUCH
> >>> noticeably obsolete. You have to see (and understand) the hardware to
> >>> realize
> >>> why this will happen. I've already explained it below.
> >>
> >> all this from someone who uses a pc... pc are just there to gte you to spend
> >> money upgrading them as they dont really wrok very well when you gte em out
> >> the box...
> >
> > Perhaps for incompetent newbies like yourself...
>
> I'm not incompitent i use a mac...and psx... like dear womb raider...
That qualifies for incompetence in my book! Drive through...
Loren Petrich
wrote:
> Of course the modern graphic chips (I mean the GeForce 2 GTS chips by
> nVidia) ARE more powerful than the PS2 already. But my point was that its
> features (especially T&L) are NOT used in most PC games yet.
There is a way to do that: write the game with OpenGL and use its
T&L API's. The OpenGL driver can then hand off the T&L to the card if
the cord supports these features, or else do the T&L in software.
However, there are some reasons why that has not been common:
* Developers have to do their own T&L to do software rendering, a
concession to those whose machines lack 3D cards. Only recently have
some developers started to do hardware-acceleration-only 3D games.
* Even a few years ago, OpenGL seemed a bit heavyweight, and the
alternatives assumed screen-space coordinates, meaning that the T&L had
to be done by the game code.
* Microsoft has been pushing Direct3D for game graphics -- and making
OpenGL awkward to support in Win9x (a driver writer has to implement
most of OpenGL instead of only some rasterization back-end).
[I'm not sure how good Direct3D T&L is, or whether it follows OpenGL's
model of "do it in hardware when available, else do it in software", or
else follows the Direct3D pattern of not doing it at all if the card
does not implement it. If the latter, then it is not surprising that
T&L has not been commonly implemented in games]
* Not surprisingly, OpenGL drivers have often been "QuakeGL" drivers,
because of their implementing the "Carmack Subset" of OpenGL.
However, John Carmack has proved OpenGL's worth as a game-graphics
API, and he has helped rescue OpenGL from the sort of high-end
ghettoization that Unix had started to suffer from. It was under his
influence that Apple decided to officially support OpenGL in 1999,
replacing RAVE, an Apple-invented 3D API that never caught on outside
of the MacOS.
Which is why although the Macintosh ports of Tomb Raiders 1 and 2
use RAVE, Tomb Raiders 3 and 4 use OpenGL, something that will likely
be true of later versions.
> A console is cheep and very easy to use: no installations, no patches, just
> insert a game CD and play.
My Macintosh experience with games has been pretty much that, I must
say. The main exception was Unreal, whose name describes its memory
requirements *very* well.
> "Eep²" <e...@tnlc.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:39EC9CBD...@tnlc.com...
> You're betting an awful lot on a console (PSX) that was obsolete soon after
> it was released. The PS2 is ALREADY obsolete and yet you still think
> otherwise. Damn you're gullible. Console developers are locked into the
> console's hardware spec, which is why PSX games don't have any bilinear
> filtering when PCs got it within a year after the PSX's release (not to
> mention MANY other 3D features PSXers could only DREAM of using, unless they
> had a REAL gaming system like a PC, that is). ...
So the Playstation does pixelated-style graphics?
Loren Petrich
wrote:
> And NOT the graphics are decisive about the quality of a game. The FUN is.
> Even an old 8-Bit game can be more fun than a super modern game. That's why
> the people here are happy with Tomb Raider. Nobody (well, almost
> nobody)cares that the graphics are not the best.
However, one interesting side effect of the open-sourcing of old 3D
games has been the addition of 3D-accelerated graphics -- it certainly
makes those old games look more beautiful.
Loren Petrich
<w0m6r...@macsr63tt3r.moc> wrote:
> THere's been some very interesting news released about the Indrema,
> Loren, it's worth looking into.
I've been keeping track of the Indrema -- their developers' network
is supposed to be launched Real Soon Now.
This will give developers enough time to prepare Indrema versions
for next spring's Indrema rollout.
Which will mean that this Ex-Box-ish system will beat the M$ Ex-Box
by half a year. At least if they pull off that rollout on schedule.
Loren Petrich
<baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk> wrote:
[His Eepianness:]
> > Your argument is simply based off all the recent, so-called "next
> > generation"
> > <yawn> marketing hype of the Dreamcast, PS2, and X-Box, but, I'm telling
> > you,
> > give the PC industry a year or 2 (at most) and these consoles will be MUCH
> > noticeably obsolete. You have to see (and understand) the hardware to
> > realize
> > why this will happen. I've already explained it below.
> all this from someone who uses a pc... pc are just there to gte you to spend
> money upgrading them as they dont really wrok very well when you gte em out
> the box...
I wonder if some PeeCeeHeads like that sort of thing, because it
gives them a feeling that they have accomplished something.
Loren Petrich
wrote:
> 1) The new PC graphic cards are more powerful but their power isn't used
> yet. You don't agree with this? Give a reason! (There are only few games
> based on the Quake 3 Engine therefore this is not a reason to buy a GeForce
> card yet.)
One problem is not enough use of scalable graphics API's. OpenGL is
a good example of what I mean -- it supports T&L, and will perform T&L
in software if not available in the rendering hardware.
> 5) Graphics options in PC games? Well, who wants to play with the lowest
> adjustments?
Nobody who could avoid doing so, I'm sure. Scalability is a good way
of getting something to be playable on a wide variety of machines.
> 6) You certainly want to buy a new graphic card and a faster processor (and
> a new mainboard with DDRAM support plus 128 MB DDRAM) in the next months,
> don't you? So add this money to the money you have already paid for the
> current hardware in your PC.
Which makes supposed PeeCee cheapness look like a case of false
economy.
Loren Petrich
wrote:
> "Chloe" <baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:B6132F5B.22B3%baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk...
> > someone very nice said somethign extremey interesteing and very worthwile
> >
> > > And NOT the graphics are decisive about the quality of a game. The FUN
> is.
> > > Even an old 8-Bit game can be more fun than a super modern game. That's
> why
> > > the people here are happy with Tomb Raider. Nobody (well, almost
> > > nobody)cares that the graphics are not the best.
> > there still pretty anyway
> This is exactly my opinion. I don't need modern PC hardware (buying of which
> every 6 months would be wasted money) to enjoy Tomb Raider.
And my Macintosh is 3 years old and has a video card over a year old
-- and works fine with the TR series.
Loren Petrich
wrote:
> Maybe you're right. I've overreacted. I didn't know the second meaning of
> the word crack because I'm not English.
"Crack" is a kind of cocaine; more specifically, it's cocaine in
hard chunks rather than as a powder.
And that's where the "crack" comes from in "Evercrack", a common
nickname for Everquest on account of its addictive properties.
> <mche...@my-deja.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:8skn1d$5s0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <8sk67s$tbk$02$1...@news.t-online.com>,
> > "pH" <no_...@please.com> wrote:
> > > I'm playing consoles mostly. DC and PSX. All my PC and console games
> > are
> > > original games, not "backup" copies (which you are using I suppose),
> > believe
> > > it or not. But I do not have to justify myself. You won't understand
> > it.
I've seen several warez sites pose as backup servers. Their
operators seem like they would make excellent lawyers :-)
> > Heh... I think he was just joking, actually. The general concensus
> > seems to be that Tomb Raider is kind of a tired franchise and should
> > probably be allowed to die quietly. A lot of people feel that every
> > iteration since TR2 has pretty much just been more of the same and
> > they're just getting a little tired of it. And when he said "crack" he
> > was talking about drugs, not piracy. Nobody is implying that you're
> > stealing software.
I'm not complaining too much. However, I can see how some would get
jaded.
Loren Petrich
<baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> I've seen screenshots taken with all kinds of fancy cards of all trs and
> they look the same as psx. justa bit sharper but that is cos i have the ps
> plugged into a crap tv...nothing wowy worth spending alot on
How do they look the same? Maybe I have more of an eye for pixelated
vs. smooth graphics.
Loren Petrich
<baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> someone very nice said somethign extremey interesteing and very worthwile
> >> all this from someone who uses a pc... pc are just there to gte you to
> >> spend
> >> money upgrading them as they dont really wrok very well when you gte em out
> >> the box...
> > Perhaps for incompetent newbies like yourself...
> I'm not incompitent i use a mac...and psx... like dear womb raider...
Be careful, His Eepianness hates Macintoshes almost as much as he
hates game consoles -- even though Macs are much more PeeCee-like than
game consoles.
Loren Petrich
<w0m6r...@macsr63tt3r.moc> wrote:
> From what I've read sicnthe gameplay of TRNG is so different than the
> current TR (meaning you won't be staring at her rear end throughout the
> entire game) that it's actually an in-game cut scene with in-game
> graphics. Not an FMV. Similar to the in-game cut scenes in the current
> crop of TR games. WHere the camera is has little or nothing to do with
> the TRNG since you can pan it all around, even in front of her while
> you play.
I marvel at anyone getting that to work, because the easiest way to
get a view of where to go next is to have the camera be behind one's
player character. So if Lara is to go somewhere, you'll end up staring
at her butt. Or at least in that general direction.
Loren Petrich
> (Aleph One has an interesting architecture to it, with it's themes and
> configurations,
> but being stuck in Wintel land, I have only been able to extract tar files
> so far.
> I'll try to find something to work with .sit files, so I can download some
> of the maps to
> take advantage of the GL effects you put in. I'm not getting any sound,
> is this a port-issue?)
You can get StuffIt Expander for Windows at http://www.aladdinsys.com
Although I'm not sure how well it handles resource forks.
As to the sound not working, I'm in no position to debug that. The
Windows port uses the Simple DirectMedia Layer -- http://www.libsdl.org
-- meaning that there might be something there on troubleshooting
absent sound.
pH
and some racists (only one until now, you know who it is), too,
unfortunately.
He thinks this ng is only for people from England and USA and the people
from other countries with their not perfect English have to stay away.
His English is not too good because it's full of swearwords. And this is the
only way he can tell his opinion.
"Loren Petrich" <pet...@netcom.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:181020002039500231%pet...@netcom.com...
pH
is.
> > Even an old 8-Bit game can be more fun than a super modern game. That's
why
> > the people here are happy with Tomb Raider. Nobody (well, almost
> > nobody)cares that the graphics are not the best.
>
> However, one interesting side effect of the open-sourcing of old 3D
> games has been the addition of 3D-accelerated graphics -- it certainly
> makes those old games look more beautiful.
I agree.
Jarno Kaarinen
>I've seen screenshots taken with all kinds of fancy cards of all trs and
>they look the same as psx. justa bit sharper but that is cos i have the ps
>plugged into a crap tv...nothing wowy worth spending alot on
Well... having played both the PSX and PC (3Dfx Voodoo) version of
original Tomb Raider, I felt the PC version looked _much_ better and
cleaner, with higher resolution, no twisting and floating textures, no
big seams between textures, no disappearing polygons near the edges of
the screen, no "I can see the objects through ceilings and walls"
effect (thanks to hardware Z-buffer on 3Dfx card), etc. etc.
I'd expect that the Dreamcast version of Tomb Raider (4?) looks
similarly much cleaner than the PSX counterparts.
Whether that was worth it to spend for a PC and a 3D card (Rendition
Verite, 3Dfx Voodoo or PowerVR) back in 1996... that was for everyone
to decide for themself. Fortunately Tomb Raider was not the only 3D
game in town.
Jarno Kaarinen
>You are such the short-sighted one, kid, if you don't think PC game developers will be
>adding T&L to their games. I already gave you an example of a game that already has
>it: Elite Force (or is it No One Lives Forever?).
Actually there probably already are quite a few 3D PC games which
support them, even if we don't necessarily realize it. Evolva is one
such game, and if I don't remember wrong, MDK2 PC also supports T&L.
There is some lag before new features in hardware is implemented, but
it does happen gradually. Just like with the original 3D cards (not
all 3D games started supporting them right away).
Or taking console examples, it has been said both in the case of Sega
Saturn's early games and current PS2 games that they are not even
using all the processors in the machine, mainly because most game
developers haven't yet even figured out how to tak advantage of them
(esp. as both PS2 and Saturn seem to be so painful to develop for).
So early console games are neither taking advantage of all the bells
and whistles that the console offers (but the reasons for this are a
bit different than on PC side).
Jarno Kaarinen
>I've certainly noticed that more and more people are getting on the
>net. Of course, this fact has almost nothing to do with gaming. Perhaps
>you've noticed that more and more budget PCs are being sold to these
>people who are getting on the net. Not hulking, smoking, speed demon
>PCs but rather, cheap low-end net appliance PCs designed for web
>browsing and word processing. These aren't exactly gaming rigs and
So you say, but still whenever some friends or relatives of mine buy
PCs which they did not buy (primarily or at all) for gaming, they
still buy something like Athlon 700MHz with pretty powerful 3D card
and enough memory.
Meaning, they certainly buy fully PC game capable rigs, even if that
was not what they bought their PC for. It seems they want to play it
"safe", so they rather buy a higher-end PC with new components, than
some second-hand P133 with 32MB.
>If you were to take a look at the world outside your bedroom once in a
>while, you might notice that the trend is for PCs to become
>workstations and productivity enhancers while recreation and
>entertainment is centered in living rooms. You know that place where
Actually I haven't seen that. Consoles have been here for decades, in
the living rooms, but maybe you are tooo young to know that.
Did you know there were gaming consoles already before PSX? And that
they were in living rooms, not bed rooms?
>most people keep their tv, vcr, dvd player and stereo? It's not a
>coincidence they call that an "Entertainment Center".
>
>More importantly, consoles are evolving into genuine convergence
>devices and are now capable of handling some of those tasks that used
>to live on the PC. You'll notice that every console of the next
>generation provides for some level of internet connectivity. They also
As did the earlier consoles like Sega Saturn, and there were also
WebTV etc.
The problem is that these closed systems are very restrictive in what
you can do on the net, so people still rather buy a PC for it. WebTV
may be fine for simple web browsing, but suddenly you start seeing
lots of things in the web that you can't access or do because the "web
box" restrictions.
Are you writing your messages to net with WebTV by any chance?
>have mice and keyboards available as options. Ultimately you'll
>probably be seeing a lot more people doing their web browsing and email
>on these devices simply because it's so convenient.
You are silly if you think most people want to write e-mails, read
newsgroups etc. in the living room, where there is no privacy
whatsoever. And having to stop writing your e-mails because your kids
or wife want to watch TV instead.
>If anything, successive generations of consoles are likely to start
>drawing many of the more recreational tasks away from the desktop and
>onto the couch. Why have to get up and go into your computer room to
The problem is, most people don't want to do that stuff in the living
room. Did you always read for exams in the living room where everyone
is bugging you?
My second PC is a laptop which I can take anywhere (living room,
kitchen, bed room, whatever), but I still usually rather use it in the
same room where I have my desktop PC (I'd call that recreational, or
hobby, or work, room, depending on the case), because I can better
concentrate on it there.
I VERY rarely use it in the living room, even if I am playing games on
it.
JEP
the Gecko.
mche...@my-deja.com
Jarno Kaarinen <ja...@remotel.com> wrote:
> mche...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> So you say, but still whenever some friends or relatives of mine buy
> PCs which they did not buy (primarily or at all) for gaming, they
> still buy something like Athlon 700MHz with pretty powerful 3D card
> and enough memory.
>
> Meaning, they certainly buy fully PC game capable rigs, even if that
> was not what they bought their PC for. It seems they want to play it
> "safe", so they rather buy a higher-end PC with new components, than
> some second-hand P133 with 32MB.
Certainly, this is not uncommon these days. PC hardware has maintained
a more or less stable price point for about 20 years and if you're
willing to spend between $1500 and $2000 on a new system, you'll get a
very competent one. My very first IBM-PC cost me $2000 in 1983 and it
was very near the top of the line. That same $2000 (not adjusted) will
buy you a very good upper end system today as well. What I was pointing
out was the explosion of the sub $1000 PCs that began a few years ago
and is/was dominated by the budget components such as Celerons/K6s, low
end video cards, and small memory configurations. This is still a
thriving segment and is arguably expanding in user base faster than the
high end market (taking into account that high end users buy new
systems more frequently, while more casual users tend to stick with a
system for 3 or more years).
However, I would certainly recommend to even casual users that they buy
as much system as they can reasonably afford as it future proofs them
and will keep them from falling behind the curve as rapidly as one of
the budget PCs would. A lot of people are buying budget PCs
specifically for basic internet functions, however and that doesn't
require much power and won't for the forseeable future. A $999 computer
will browse the web just as well 5 years from now as it does today and
your word processor will probably still work just fine, so there's a
rapidly growing segment of people who want a system to serve these
needs and they're no more interested in hassles than the average
console gamer.
>
> >If you were to take a look at the world outside your bedroom once in
a
> >while, you might notice that the trend is for PCs to become
> >workstations and productivity enhancers while recreation and
> >entertainment is centered in living rooms. You know that place where
>
> Actually I haven't seen that. Consoles have been here for decades, in
> the living rooms, but maybe you are tooo young to know that.
>
> Did you know there were gaming consoles already before PSX? And that
> they were in living rooms, not bed rooms?
>
You know, I'm not even sure where you're going with this. I'm fully
aware that consoles have been around for decades. I've owned many
myself. However, console gaming has never been more popular than it is
today and the market is simply continuing to expand (and far more
rapidly than the PC game market for very obvious reasons). One very
likely reason for this is that you & I grew up with console (and
computer) gaming and we've never really outgrown it. Many of our
generation are just as enthusiastic about it now as we were when we
were playing Asteroids on our 2600s. But just as likely is the fact
that companies like Sony & Sega have managed to market gaming as
a "cool" thing to do. It's not just for geeks anymore. Consoles are
cheap, approachable, and fun and that's precisely what makes them
appealing to a mass market.
> >most people keep their tv, vcr, dvd player and stereo? It's not a
> >coincidence they call that an "Entertainment Center".
> >
> >More importantly, consoles are evolving into genuine convergence
> >devices and are now capable of handling some of those tasks that used
> >to live on the PC. You'll notice that every console of the next
> >generation provides for some level of internet connectivity. They
also
>
> As did the earlier consoles like Sega Saturn, and there were also
> WebTV etc.
>
> The problem is that these closed systems are very restrictive in what
> you can do on the net, so people still rather buy a PC for it. WebTV
> may be fine for simple web browsing, but suddenly you start seeing
> lots of things in the web that you can't access or do because the "web
> box" restrictions.
>
> Are you writing your messages to net with WebTV by any chance?
>
I agree that the earlier web appliances were very closed, but I think
you'll see that beginning to change over the next couple of years.
Specifically, I think the PS2 and X-Box have the potential to
significantly change the landscape. Both of these systems will be
broadband capable and provide mass storage. Further, both will use
industry standard interfaces to peripherals (USB, Firewire, ect.),
allowing to expand on their functionality. I think in this arena, the X-
Box is likely to have the advantage as you can pretty much count on it
coming with a version of IE which is fully capable of accepting plugins
like Shockwave, Real Player (or more likely, Media Player), and so on.
Because of it's very nature, I think the X-Box will likely provide a
much more PC like experience without the hardware and software hassles
that come with the PC. They will still be less expandable and versatile
than PCs, but they'll be much more stable because they have to be and
they'll include a lot more PC like functions.
And while I appreciate your clever "web TV" jab, I think you probably
know better. I'm banging this away on one of my Wintel machines, just
as you probably are.
> >have mice and keyboards available as options. Ultimately you'll
> >probably be seeing a lot more people doing their web browsing and
email
> >on these devices simply because it's so convenient.
>
> You are silly if you think most people want to write e-mails, read
> newsgroups etc. in the living room, where there is no privacy
> whatsoever. And having to stop writing your e-mails because your kids
> or wife want to watch TV instead.
>
Again, I haven't meant to imply that consoles are going to adopt all of
the functionality of a PC or that that they're ideal for every task
that a PC performs. However, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see
functions like this utilized in the living room. Not exclusively,
perhaps, but if the option is available, I expect people will begin to
utilize it because of convenience. Dad might very well come home from
work in the evening and want to do a little recreational browsing on
the web. He might very well find it appealing to be able to kick back
on the couch to read the headlines on cnn.com rather than having to sit
at a desktop PC as he's been doing for the last 10 hours. When he's
ready to work on that quarterly report, he'll probably fire up his
desktop or laptop, but for purely entertainment purposes, having a net
appliance in the living room is very convenient.
As for the sharing of devices, it's little different from having to
fight over what everyone wants to watch on tv, trying to get your
daughter off the phone after two hours, or having to take turns at the
family PC. Ultimately, the situation is likely to be resolved in the
same way these issues are handled today. Multiple iterations of the
appliance in question in a single household (phone lines, tvs, PCs,
ect.).
> >If anything, successive generations of consoles are likely to start
> >drawing many of the more recreational tasks away from the desktop and
> >onto the couch. Why have to get up and go into your computer room to
>
> The problem is, most people don't want to do that stuff in the living
> room. Did you always read for exams in the living room where everyone
> is bugging you?
>
> My second PC is a laptop which I can take anywhere (living room,
> kitchen, bed room, whatever), but I still usually rather use it in the
> same room where I have my desktop PC (I'd call that recreational, or
> hobby, or work, room, depending on the case), because I can better
> concentrate on it there.
>
> I VERY rarely use it in the living room, even if I am playing games on
> it.
>
>
I am not so dissimilar from you in this respect. However, my laptop
does, in fact, spend quite a bit of time on my coffee table, online
with a web browser open. And if my laptop isn't sitting there, my
fiancee's probably is. We really like being connected.
As for studying in the living room, that's not so uncommon. Perhaps in
a large household it may be less so, but I know a lot of families where
studying is done in living rooms or kitchens. This is a great way for
parents to be involved in their children's educations and I don't think
it's particularly rare. In fact, many of the parents I know web browse
with their children as part of homework/studying. This, of course, is
done huddling over a 17" screen in the computer room, office, or
whatever you call it (I call mine the Play Room). I can see having
access to this facility in the living room being very popular with
families.
I see great potential in these devices for bringing people together,
which is perhaps their greatest strength. Console gaming tends to be
communal in nature. Tv watching is much the same thing. The PC
experience is much more solitary and I'm not sure that's such a good
thing in recreation. Obviously there's a time when solitude is
necessary to get real work done, but because I'm largely arguing from a
context of entertainment, I think there's value in consoles that isn't
as accessable with PCs.
Again, I'm not arguing against the use of PCs. I own a gaming desktop
and three laptops and use them almost constantly. Mainly, I'm trying to
dispell eep's assertion that consoles are going to be made obsolete by
PCs and that ultimately gaming is going to be occurring at the desktop
and not in the living room. It's not simply a matter of technical specs
as eep would have us believe. Nobody is claiming that PCs can't surpass
consoles' graphical performance. They have always done so and that
hasn't killed the consoles yet.
The point that I've been trying to make is that consoles offer an
experience that the PC can't currently compete with and isn't likely to
in the near future. It's not a matter of resolution or speed, but
rather of convenience and accessability. Consoles are a mass market
consumer device in a way that PCs simply aren't. That's not to say that
they're better, but simply that they're cheap and approachable and for
better or worse, the easy thing will always be the more popular thing.
PCs aren't going to be killed by consoles, nor are consoles going to be
eliminated by PCs. If PCs were the wave of the future for gaming
entertainment, they would probably have eliminated consoles long before
now. The fact is that consoles are getting steadily increasing market
penetration and if eep's theory were to be believed, that wouldn't be
happening.
A PC with a Voodoo card frankly kicked the crap out of a Playstation
and both were available to consumers at roughly the same time. And yet,
the Playstation has thrived and is part of a rapidly expanding market
that includes numerous other big players. It managed to dominate the
32bit generation in consoles for various reasons, but the PS2 will have
to share the pie with a lot more competition this time around as
companies like Sega and Nintendo have learned from their mistakes in
the last round. Throw Microsoft into the mix and you know there's a
significant movement occurring here. MS wouldn't be pushing themselves
into the console arena if they didn't see just how important it's
becoming.
In the end, it's all about entertainment and consumers. The vast
majority of consumers don't want to have to jump through hoops just to
have a little recreation and they don't really care about the details
as long as they're having a good time. While increasing technology
certainly adds to the entertainment value of a game or movie, the
technology itself is not THE entertainment. People love to watch the
dinosaurs in Jurassic park, but most of them couldn't care less what
kind of workstation they were rendered on. That's my point.
This seems so fundamentally obvious to me that I'm not sure why it's
such a point of contention. We derive entertainment from the content,
not the medium. The medium can help enhance the experience, but if it
includes technical hurdles, many people won't bother. If you had to
routinely order new components for your VCR to watch the latest movies,
the technology probably would never have taken off. Or if you had to
adjust the tracking every time or adjust the horizontal hold, or tweak
the color settings on your tv, nobody would ever watch a movie at home.
Videophiles would be spending money hand over fist to have movies in
their homes, but Joe Blow would just go to the theater.
Anyway, if I haven't adequately made my point, I don't know what else I
can say. Consumers want trouble free entertainment and the easiest
option will almost always be the most popular whether it's the most
technically sophisticated or not. That, in no way, diminishes the value
of competing technologies. It just makes them less popular. Bottom
line, PC games are great and they look wonderful, but they're a much
bigger hassle than popping a disk into a console and just playing.
There will continue to be a market for them because they serve a
different type of gamer and have a different over-all paradigm that
appeals to a lot of people, but the console will continue to be a
powerful force because it's cheap, easy, and fun.
Nuff said,
-MikeC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Chloe
> Chloe <baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I've seen screenshots taken with all kinds of fancy cards of all trs and
>> they look the same as psx. justa bit sharper but that is cos i have the ps
>> plugged into a crap tv...nothing wowy worth spending alot on
>
> Well... having played both the PSX and PC (3Dfx Voodoo) version of
> original Tomb Raider, I felt the PC version looked _much_ better and
> cleaner, with higher resolution, no twisting and floating textures, no
> big seams between textures, no disappearing polygons near the edges of
> the screen, no "I can see the objects through ceilings and walls"
> effect (thanks to hardware Z-buffer on 3Dfx card), etc. etc.
yeh but thats as pc moniors have higher resolutions than tvs... so the graj
hpica cards might not do much... anyway I played tr2 ona an i mac with no
grahpics do dah to my knolwgede... and the screenshots look the same as the
pc ones with all kind sfo added dodahs...
>
> I'd expect that the Dreamcast version of Tomb Raider (4?) looks
> similarly much cleaner than the PSX counterparts.
they made lara look ugly in the addvery so the will be ounnished
>
> Whether that was worth it to spend for a PC and a 3D card (Rendition
> Verite, 3Dfx Voodoo or PowerVR) back in 1996... that was for everyone
> to decide for themself. Fortunately Tomb Raider was not the only 3D
> game in town.
>
--
Chloe
> Thank you for the explanation. There are really nice people here in the ng
> and some racists (only one until now, you know who it is), too,
> unfortunately.
>
> He thinks this ng is only for people from England and USA and the people
> from other countries with their not perfect English have to stay away.
why? i think foeign people are so much more inetersting...
>
> His English is not too good because it's full of swearwords. And this is the
> only way he can tell his opinion.
bad...
Chloe
> In article <8slppj$km$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, SH <lga...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>> (Aleph One has an interesting architecture to it, with it's themes and
>> configurations,
>> but being stuck in Wintel land, I have only been able to extract tar files
>> so far.
>> I'll try to find something to work with .sit files, so I can download some
>> of the maps to
>> take advantage of the GL effects you put in. I'm not getting any sound,
>> is this a port-issue?)
>
> You can get StuffIt Expander for Windows at http://www.aladdinsys.com
woho so maybe pecv e can read sits now?
>
> Although I'm not sure how well it handles resource forks.
>
> As to the sound not working, I'm in no position to debug that. The
> Windows port uses the Simple DirectMedia Layer -- http://www.libsdl.org
> -- meaning that there might be something there on troubleshooting
> absent sound.
--
art raider: http://www.emmott.clara.co.uk
Chloe
>>
>> I'm not incompitent i use a mac...and psx... like dear womb raider...
>
that woudlnt... sneible i call it... at leats i'm not apomus little shit who
is currnetly residing hwere the sun doesnt shine
Chloe
> In article <B613CE24.2359%baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk>, Chloe
> <baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>> someone very nice said somethign extremey interesteing and very worthwile
>>> Chloe wrote:
>
>>>> all this from someone who uses a pc... pc are just there to gte you to
>>>> spend
>>>> money upgrading them as they dont really wrok very well when you gte em out
>>>> the box...
>
>>> Perhaps for incompetent newbies like yourself...
>> I'm not incompitent i use a mac...and psx... like dear womb raider...
>
> Be careful, His Eepianness hates Macintoshes almost as much as he
> hates game consoles -- even though Macs are much more PeeCee-like than
> game consoles.
he is stupid.... macintosh is just the best...
Chloe
> In article <B613C2E8.2301%baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk>, Chloe
> <baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I've seen screenshots taken with all kinds of fancy cards of all trs and
>> they look the same as psx. justa bit sharper but that is cos i have the ps
>> plugged into a crap tv...nothing wowy worth spending alot on
>
> How do they look the same? Maybe I have more of an eye for pixelated
> vs. smooth graphics.
not excalt the same but not so bad that i would just have to buya stupif
little card thingy justto have thema snitch sharper..
Chloe
> In article <8sk038$p9j$07$1...@news.t-online.com>, pH <no_...@please.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Chloe" <baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> news:B6132F5B.22B3%baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk...
>>> someone very nice said somethign extremey interesteing and very worthwile
>>>
>>>> And NOT the graphics are decisive about the quality of a game. The FUN
>> is.
>>>> Even an old 8-Bit game can be more fun than a super modern game. That's
>> why
>>>> the people here are happy with Tomb Raider. Nobody (well, almost
>>>> nobody)cares that the graphics are not the best.
>>> there still pretty anyway
>
>> This is exactly my opinion. I don't need modern PC hardware (buying of which
>> every 6 months would be wasted money) to enjoy Tomb Raider.
>
> And my Macintosh is 3 years old
what model? is it beigey g3?
Chloe
> In article <8sjval$ook$07$1...@news.t-online.com>, pH <no_...@please.com>
which it always is... when you compare how much stuff mac users put in their
mahine it;s less... so macs are cheape rin theroy but pece users are naive..
Chloe
> In article <B613304F.22B4%baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk>, Chloe
yeh "i just spent 4 hours etting up my antrahx 2000 and boy thats the
quickest yet! now beofr ei cn do this i needto buya arsenic ripoffius
graphics enacer so i can view thing sin colour wow! i cant wait!"
Chloe
> In article <39EE0712...@tnlc.com>, e...@tnlc.com says...
>> pH wrote:
>>
>>>>> This is exactly my opinion. I don't need modern PC hardware (buying of
>>>>> which
>>>>> every 6 months would be wasted money) to enjoy Tomb Raider.
>>>>
>>>> What exactly do you need to _enjoy_ Tomb Raider? Crack?
>>>
>>> Say, can you read?
>>> Do you understand English bad / middle / good / perfect? (select one please)
>>
>> You're one to type considering your screwy understanding of English. There is
>> no "middle" understanding.
>>
>>> I wrote that money spended
>>
>> "spent"
>
> Spelling flames? Real nice, fuckbag. Do you have even ONE real-life
> friend? Or just Lara...
>
> Asshole.
>
> smr
anyway broken english is kinda cute....
Chloe
> Say this to (CR)Eep, not to me.
o.k...
Chloe
> Chloe, do you really want to support him?
no i wa sjust pointg out the plightof the other english spekay people... but
not the americans cos they seem ot hink english is amerocan..
Chloe
> Ohhh, how great you argue. You're silly! When you're learning English as a
> foreign language at school you don't learn things about drugs there! Think
> about it.
when ever you learn forgein langue in school you always learn crap like how
much is the aubergine?
Chloe
> In article <B613C189.22FC%baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk>,
> Chloe <baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>> someone very nice said somethign extremey interesteing and very
> worthwile
>>
>>> In article <181020000545230418%w0m6r...@macsr63tt3r.moc>,
>>> WombRaider <w0m6r...@macsr63tt3r.moc> wrote:
>>>> In article <8shu6e$qvv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, lisatkiom
>>>> <lisa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The PS2 will be obsolete before it's even released. <yawn>
>>>>
>>>> The PS2 is already out in Japan.
>>>
>>> Eep wrote the obsolete bit, not me.
>>>
>>> Lisa
>> anyway if lara was pc only would anyone have heard of her excpet afew
> nerds?
>> psx1 is still going strong now..
>> --
>>
>> art raider: http://www.emmott.clara.co.uk
>> a bit of culture for the artistc tr fan
>>
> None of us would be playing games on PCs or consoles if it wasn't for
> the "nerds" of this world. I think they're great. As for the PSX, I
> think it may have as much as a year left. There are some great PSX
> games yet to be released outside of Japan.
>
> Lisa
> --
I like nerds i am one...I was just poiinting out thata pc. only lara would
not be famous as psx /pc lara
Barney Gumble
"Chloe" <baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B614F91A.23E4%baba...@emmott.clara.co.uk...
> just cos i dont know how fixa compute rthats blown up.... i just bought one
> that woudlnt... sneible i call it... at leats i'm not apomus little shit who
> is currnetly residing hwere the sun doesnt shine
Word of advice kid: if your can't legibly converse in the chosen language of a newsgroup,
keep your fingers off the keyboard.
Chloe
>
dont fucking cuss me...