Computer Science Canada Wii? |
| Author: | Clayton [ Fri May 26, 2006 3:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Wii? |
I'm just interested in what everyone thinks about the Wii. i mean cmon, for a little over $200 (supposedly) you will get a totally backwards-compatible system, (in my opinion) cool nex gen controllers, and some great additions to current series, im definitely getting one, anyone else? |
|
| Author: | Cervantes [ Fri May 26, 2006 3:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I will not buy one. I will not buy a PS3. I will not buy an XBox360. I did not buy a <insert any console that isn't Sega Genesis here>. |
|
| Author: | Clayton [ Fri May 26, 2006 4:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
why would you not buy a wii though, i mean for your money, it is probably the best system ever, what with everything you can do with it |
|
| Author: | Mazer [ Fri May 26, 2006 4:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Probably because he does not intend to buy a console. Unless of course he's trying to tell me that he wants to buy my old Sega Genesis... for, what's that Cervantes? $400? Sure! I probably won't buy a Wii either (or any console, actually). Not for a while, anyways. |
|
| Author: | Cervantes [ Fri May 26, 2006 9:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Mazer wrote: Unless of course he's trying to tell me that he wants to buy my old Sega Genesis... for, what's that Cervantes? $400? Sure!
Not a chance! I've still got mine, you know. Superfreak82 wrote: why would you not buy a wii though, i mean for your money, it is probably the best system ever, what with everything you can do with it
I don't care how good a system it is or how good a deal it is, if it doesn't do what I want, I don't want it. Consumerism is rampant enough -- I'm not going to help it by going out and buying something that I don't need because it's a "good deal". |
|
| Author: | jamonathin [ Sat May 27, 2006 4:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
PC's are where it's at. Unless you have brothers and sisters/ any siblings taht often come over, then consoles are good, (kinda hard to share a computer) - but a lot of the good games out there are available for PC, and I personally would rather put that 200$ towards a new video card  . |
|
| Author: | cool dude [ Sat May 27, 2006 5:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
jamonathin wrote: PC's are where it's at. Unless you have brothers and sisters/ any siblings taht often come over, then consoles are good, (kinda hard to share a computer) - but a lot of the good games out there are available for PC, and I personally would rather put that 200$ towards a new video card
.i totally aggree with jamonathin (accept for putting $200 towards video card). i only play consoles when my friends come over. it really is pointless to spend that much money on a console when you don't play it much. put your money to good use i.e. your education, car, maybe start planning to buy future house and save money. consoles only make u stupider (if thats a word). no wonder cerventes is so smart  |
|
| Author: | [Gandalf] [ Sat May 27, 2006 6:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Cervantes wrote: I'm not going to help it by going out and buying something that I don't need because it's a "good deal".
Indeed! I don't see anything special in a Wii, in fact, I would take my time deciding between a Wii or a PS2. I haven't really liked Nintendos games since SNES, and I don't see anything special at all in their famed controller. I'll go with a PS3, if the price becomes decent a year or so after it's released. I much prefer the games, and it'd allow me to use my precious mouse+keyboard combination, along with some other great stuff. Still, that's an if. |
|
| Author: | Anonymous [ Sat May 27, 2006 6:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Out of all next gen consoles, I'd get a Wii for its functionality and definately it's pricepoint at $249.99. Compared to a Premium $399 XBox 360 and the Premiun $599 PS3. |
|
| Author: | rdrake [ Sun May 28, 2006 12:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Cervantes wrote: Consumerism is rampant enough -- I'm not going to help it by going out and buying something that I don't need because it's a "good deal". The mighty Cervantes strikes again. Why aren't people rushing out to get these new consoles? Not everybody has the oh so leet HD TVs and 7.1 surround sound to take full advantage of the new games.
As nice as it is to play realistic games, some people are just happy playing their older games. Games make or break consoles, not always the features of the machine. |
|
| Author: | jin [ Sun May 28, 2006 12:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Like cartoon_shark said: Games make or break consoles. This is why i believe Wii will be great as all nintendo consoles are because of their games. Both XBOX 360 and PS3 have amazing looking games but those games will lack the "fun factor" that is in the nintendo games and some of the other old consoles. If you have played mario kart or super smash brothers or mario tennis on N64 you of the "fun factor" i speak of. im not saying that only nintendo has fun games. Infact i dont own a N64 but have played these games with friends and have a blast everytime. i have the original playstation and PS2. for te PS there were fun games such as crash bash and a few others but there werent many for the PS2. Both microsoft and sony are making more realistic good looking games whereas nintendo still makes fun games. This is why i would like to own the Wii. The tennis game for Wii looked like fun. |
|
| Author: | [Gandalf] [ Sun May 28, 2006 1:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
jin wrote: Like cartoon_shark said: Games make or break consoles.
This is why i believe Wii will be great as all nintendo consoles are because of their games. Both XBOX 360 and PS3 have amazing looking games but those games will lack the "fun factor" that is in the nintendo games and some of the other old consoles. If you have played mario kart or super smash brothers or mario tennis on N64 you of the "fun factor" i speak of. im not saying that only nintendo has fun games. Infact i dont own a N64 but have played these games with friends and have a blast everytime. i have the original playstation and PS2. for te PS there were fun games such as crash bash and a few others but there werent many for the PS2. Both microsoft and sony are making more realistic good looking games whereas nintendo still makes fun games. This is why i would like to own the Wii. The tennis game for Wii looked like fun. Yeah, I agree, but that's where you get purely subjective. For example, my taste in games completely differs from yours, hence my preference of the Playstation. You shouldn't say that there is no fun factor in XBox/PS since that is an opinion, not a fact. Of course I agree that games being realistic is far from extremely important, but that is not to say that a game being realistic neccessarily takes away from that fun factor. And, as a minor side note, it's good to know that for the PS3 the games won't be limited by the hardware, but by the creativity and skill of the creators. |
|
| Author: | Mazer [ Sun May 28, 2006 8:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[Gandalf] wrote: And, as a minor side note, it's good to know that for the PS3 the games won't be limited by the hardware, but by the creativity and skill of the creators.
Yes, but also, it's good to know that for the Wii the games won't be limited by the hardware, but by the creativity and skill of the creators. I mean, why don't we figure out the point at which hardware is "limiting" game developers? You can still create great games for the (in approximate order of release: latest first) - XBox360 - XBox - PS3 - GameCube - PlayStation - Nintendo64 - Dreamcast - Sega Saturn I'm gonna be nice and not count the 16-bit and earlier consoles, as well as the Gameboy Advance. I hate to keep going on with "Graphics are dumb, gameplay is everything", but it's true that graphics alone don't make the game. And yes, I realise that there are other things besides uber graphics going into the next-gen consoles like uber physics and such, and that's great too but if I happen to play a game that doesn't have this I think I'll survive. As for "the creativity and skill of the creators" I'm really worried about the game industry these days. It's getting more and more expensive to make games because of all of the advances in these games. Everyone wants the highest number of polygons for each of their high-res texture covered perfect ragdoll physics featured characters (which in most cases, I see, you almost never get to really appreciate how good they look), and that takes alot of work. And usually that boils down to hiring a crapload of people to work on the game, or try and get the employees you do have to work themselves to the bone. I'm sure by now we've all heard about ea_spouse? PS: I had the weirdest dream last night that I was actually playtesting the Wii. The game seemed to be some kind of Guitar Hero-ish thing... I recall someone telling me it has to do with "how Metal you are." The game was really freaking tough, and after a while I noticed that no matter how Metal I was, I wouldn't get any points. When someone from Nintendo came by to take a look (and hey, I'm no Linux zealot) I saw that they were running Windows. 98. Crazy! Oh, and I got to meet Shigeru Miyamoto, so I forgave the whole Windows thing. |
|
| Author: | jin [ Sun May 28, 2006 10:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The reason i first gave was the reason why i would like to get Wii not why Wii would be better than the the other consoles. And i agree different people have different game tastes and i think you got mine wrong. I do like stupid fun multiplayer games but that is when i have friends over, these i cant enjoy playing alone. So if i could i will buy a PS3 beacause it has the games that i like to play. i am a final fantasy fan (from my point of view). i have played FF7, FF8, FFX, and FFX-2. i liked all of them except FFX-2 (not trying to offend anyone). but graphics wise they were the best at their time (again my view). And i saw the FF13 trailer which looked amazing to me. Other games which i liked on the PS3 were assassins, metal gear solid and tekken. So sorry about not claryfying i did not want to say that Wii is better or not i just wanted to say Wii is different and seems like fun. |
|
| Author: | MysticVegeta [ Sun May 28, 2006 1:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
LOL I have never owned anything except for my poor 4-year-old ps 1, LOL. I just dont see the point of buying games.. you get emus for ps2, xbox for free on the internet and games for them from <insert illegal means of getting games on internet> mediums. So my conclusion is I just bought a huge ass LCD screen that I use for computer gaming and I have everything I need right here  |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Sun May 28, 2006 1:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Mazer wrote: [Gandalf] wrote: And, as a minor side note, it's good to know that for the PS3 the games won't be limited by the hardware, but by the creativity and skill of the creators. Anyone who thinks developers won't run into barriers with regards to the performance of a platform must be joking. If nothing else, the greater specs will permit laziness with regards to optimization. Maybe even because they want to write cleaner code (uness your compiler/environment is really smart, fast code is generally messy code). If only for this reason, developers will hit the limits and feel constrained by them eventually. |
|
| Author: | jamonathin [ Sun May 28, 2006 1:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
jin wrote: i have played FF7, FF8, FFX, and FFX-2. i liked all of them except FFX-2 (not trying to offend anyone). but graphics wise they were the best at their time (again my view). And i saw the FF13 trailer which looked amazing to me.
Final Fantasy 3 (6) will pwn any of those games. I hate 3D final fantasy with a passion. Sabin is the 1337 |
|
| Author: | Andy [ Sun May 28, 2006 3:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
MysticVegeta wrote: LOL I have never owned anything except for my poor 4-year-old ps 1, LOL. I just dont see the point of buying games.. you get emus for ps2, xbox for free on the internet and games for them from <insert illegal means of getting games on internet> mediums. So my conclusion is I just bought a huge ass LCD screen that I use for computer gaming
and I have everything I need right here I hope you realize that piracy isnt something to be proud of, even if it's played on a 15 inch low rez lcd |
|
| Author: | MysticVegeta [ Sun May 28, 2006 9:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
lol I am proud of piracy and I have way bigger LCD screen than 15'' that I use for gaming... |
|
| Author: | rdrake [ Sun May 28, 2006 9:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
MysticVegeta wrote: lol I am proud of piracy and I have way bigger LCD screen than 15'' that I use for gaming... Well, can't exactly say many of us here promote or condone piracy.
As for the piracy bit itself, why not go out and buy the games you enjoy? After all, the people have put countless hours and effort into giving you hours of enjoyment, the least you could do is give them a few bucks. |
|
| Author: | ZeroPaladn [ Mon May 29, 2006 9:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
jamonathin wrote: Final Fantasy 3 (6) will pwn any of those games. I hate 3D final fantasy with a passion.
THANK YOU! Personally, consoles, at lest the next-gen ones, are much too expensive for a high school student like myself to afford. And if I want to play NES, SNES, N64, ect. games, I will not buy a whole new console to do so. I will just dust off the ones i got, and use my old TV for extra ghettoness(another made up word). Why spend $300+ on another hunk of plasic and wires when I can use the reallllllly old hunk of plastic and wires? Personally, PC all the way. World of Warcraft is fun for that $40/2 months... |
|
| Author: | Remm [ Mon May 29, 2006 9:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I fully agree. You should at least fund the games that you like, rather than skrew the company outta their hard earned money. On another note, what r ur feelings on the name change? Revolution to Wii... Personally, I think at the meeting there must've not been a single native english speaking person. If there was, they should be fied. then shot. 
Seriously, Wtf is a Wii? |
|
| Author: | Mazer [ Mon May 29, 2006 9:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm almost certain that this was already discussed here, but oh well. Anywho, I liked the name "Revolution". Wii is just weird. I don't hate it, I'm nearly 20 years old so luckily I'm mature enough to get past the "roflol is sounds liek pee!" comments that have flooded the internet. If I were to buy a console, would this name stop me from doing so? Would it stop you? What the hell is a Wii? What the hell is an XBox? What the HELL is an XBox360? Get over the name, people, it can easily be ignored. Frankly, on the topic of names, I'm more worried about the people living in China, Michigan, or Athens, Georgia. That's just sad. |
|
| Author: | Remm [ Mon May 29, 2006 9:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah, the name doesnt change anything, but its a bit agrivating. Revolution was fine, when they changed it i was a bit shocked, but i still stick with my base values. Playing a game with a remote control and a joystick doesnt sound too apitising. It looks good for shooters, but im not sure how the Wii's controler would fair with somthing like... a RPG. I'm sure it could bring up some innovative gameplay, but i wonder how well it will work. Well, we'll all see in due time. I'll stick with my ps3 for ff stuffs. Btw Nintendo has a real problem with putting the POWER button right beside the others. Like the ds, which is right above the control pad. Wonder how well THAT will work out  |
|
| Author: | Mazer [ Mon May 29, 2006 10:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ohh my... how much control do you think you need for an RPG? D-pad and an action button. And pause, if you'd like. Actually, I imagine it'd be better with the Wiimote; instead of using the D-pad or an analog stick to move a cursor around the various options, you point. Can't say I've seen anything about this power button. If the button is on the control, and is indeed for power, I would think it's just so you don't kill the batteries when you aren't using the specific controller and not for the console itself. And some PS3 fun: Kutaragi wrote: If you consider the PlayStation 3 a toy, then yes, it is an expensive toy. However, it is more than a toy. It is a PlayStation 3. And it is the only PlayStation 3. I hope that those who understand this will gladly purchase it.
How nice of him to clear that up. In particular I enjoy finally understanding that the PlayStation 3 isn't just a toy. Wii indeed. |
|
| Author: | Andy [ Mon May 29, 2006 12:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
MysticVegeta wrote: lol I am proud of piracy and I have way bigger LCD screen than 15'' that I use for gaming...
well now i'll know who to bust if i get a job with the National Security. and i hope you realize the emphasis wasnt on the 15, it was on low resolution. LCD gaming sucks |
|
| Author: | MysticVegeta [ Mon May 29, 2006 1:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
LOL, I am not really a crazy insane gamer so lcd works for me, tell me, isnt it better than to spend thousands of $$$ on buying s**t whose newer versions come out every year??? ok exagerating a bit with a year but still. Besides I cant afford those things on a high school student income which is actually 0$, LOL. so yeah, there is my opinion, I know it may not be the best so stop picking on me!!! |
|
| Author: | ZeroPaladn [ Mon May 29, 2006 1:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I got a 19" LCD Screen for my computer, and it is not half bad, though I'd still rather have my 17" projection one for quality. With LCD screen you tilt them and the brightness goes all out of whack. Back on topic... I dont really care that they changed the name, I'm still not buying it. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Mon May 29, 2006 7:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If you are going priate games at least do it with some 1337ness like i do. Get a laptop write it in to a game cube, download the game rom and then stream it back to the game cube so you can play it off of the noraml conotrl and screen. Then realises you just copyed animel corssing witch for some reason you all ready owned any how and go play WoW. |
|
| Author: | Blade [ Mon May 29, 2006 8:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Andy wrote: MysticVegeta wrote: lol I am proud of piracy and I have way bigger LCD screen than 15'' that I use for gaming...
well now i'll know who to bust if i get a job with the National Security. and i hope you realize the emphasis wasnt on the 15, it was on low resolution. LCD gaming sucks standard max resolution for LCD is 1280x1024. how much money would you have to spend on hardware to get a game to run smoothly at 1600x1200 or anything higher? besides, wouldn't it be nicer to have a game run with all the lil cool options and at a "lower", more video game standard resolution like 1024x768? i have a pretty powerful computer and with all the lil gidgets and gadgets on, it looks better then turnin some of those off just to get a super duper resolution. even so, why do you need a super duper resolution.. i dont think very many people play videogames for the awesome graphics. sure it enhances gameplay, but do you really NEED it? LCD gaming isn't bad anymore. because of the new response times there isnt very much ghosting. I own an LCD with a 12ms response time and there's basically no ghosting anymore. this was only a problem when response times were between like 30-50ms. you should know this. i've never had a problem with LCD gaming. why do you think its so horrible? |
|
| Author: | md [ Mon May 29, 2006 9:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I've had a LCD panel for a few years now and it definitely works fine for gaming. 1280x1024 is the max resolution, but that's plenty high for any games I play. Even at that resolution I can play most games with full eye candy and decent FPS. People who want 100+ fps are just stupid, the monitor only updates so many times a second so many of those "frames" are going to waste anyways. |
|
| Author: | Clayton [ Mon May 29, 2006 10:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ive been running an LCD screen for the last couple of years and have never had a problem with it, i personally prefer them to the old projection monitors to begin with, as with the idea to using computers over consoles for gaming, why? computers are not fully backwards compatible, i cant run my old command and conquer game on my windows XP that i used to love to play (and still do), whereas, i can still play my ORIGINAL NES, with all of its great games, to this day in my bedroom by hooking up a couple of cables, that is why i prefer to play consoles over PCs, plus you have to upgrade your PC constantly, and if you dont you are susceptible to many threats like viruses, spyware etc. plus if you find a game you want to play, but cant play it cuz my video card cant handle the graphics, or im short 64K of RAM etc. so, thats my choice |
|
| Author: | [Gandalf] [ Mon May 29, 2006 10:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Amazing... Remind me to avoid posting my "minor" thoughts, since emphasizing clearly does not do much... Mazer, wtd, you have some good points, but that's not how I intended what I said to be interpreted. I'm not even neccessarily talking about graphics or physics. I'm talking about things like mobility, where you can enter any building you see in the game. Or about story, where the writers are better able to expand on their ideas, where there can be any number of branches from the main plot. These are the things which I truly hope to see the PS3 do with it's impressive hardware, though I'm ready to be disappointed. Yes, I know it's hard to imagine the storyline being limited by the hardware, but I'll leave it at that since I can't really explain my thoughts.
ZeroPaladn wrote: World of Warcraft is fun for that $40/2 months...
Darn it... Do you realize for the money you (or whoever) pays for a few months to play World of Warcraft you could have bought a shiny new <insert moderately expensive shiny new item here>? These pay to play games are such ripoffs... Mazer wrote: luckily I'm mature enough to get past the "roflol is sounds liek pee!" comments that have flooded the internet.
It's funny, I've seen far fewer people making fun of the Wii in that manner than people posting similar comments to yours. As for condoning piracy... Well, I often hear people mentioning that the people who spent long hours creating the game deserve the benefits. Of course this is true. I don't know much about the way the money flows through the system for such things, but would sales really affect the wages of the programmers significantly? I'm pretty sure most of that extra benefit would go to the publisher, distributer, etc., who in my opinion (yes, I have one of those opinions...) already have enough money as it is. And I'm not talking about some extreme when the company is going to become bankrupt if they don't get some sales, I'm talking about your average giant like EA Games. Note: Don't take this post the wrong way, it's just that I'm expressing my thoughts and am too tired to be careful with my wording.[/rant/foolishness] |
|
| Author: | md [ Tue May 30, 2006 12:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Off topic: It's not a projection monitor. It's a CRT. Geez people these things aren't hard to get right. A projection monitor would be a projector and a screen. Such things are never as small as 17" (it would be a huge waste or energy). CRTs operate on an entirely different principal then projetors do so there is really no reason at all for you to be using such a misguided term. If your gonna say something please take the time to say it right. On topic: The Wii looks like a mighty decent console at a fair price (especially compared to the PS3). However, unless you are looking to buy a game console and you like the selection of games that will be available for the Wii it's not a terribly good deal. I for instance think the Wii is a great console with many inovative features; however I'm not going to buy one because I don't enjoy console gaming. |
|
| Author: | Blade [ Tue May 30, 2006 12:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Cornflake wrote: I've had a LCD panel for a few years now and it definitely works fine for gaming. 1280x1024 is the max resolution, but that's plenty high for any games I play. Even at that resolution I can play most games with full eye candy and decent FPS. People who want 100+ fps are just stupid, the monitor only updates so many times a second so many of those "frames" are going to waste anyways.
yeah, exactly. VESA says that to achieve a completely flicker-free display with CRT the frequency must be at least 72hz. so rendering anything higher than 72fps is kinda useless. however, for someone to percieve a series of sequential images as continous, the frequency must be at least 30hz. so if your card is rendering above 30fps, it should still be smooth enough to play and seem good. my computer can play pretty much everything with full eye candy and at 1280x1024 too. the only game i've actually had a hard time with that is EQ2. but like you said, it still look really awesome at those settings so i dont really see a need for anything higher. besides, my desk is totally sweet and roomy without a foot of tube extending backward. |
|
| Author: | md [ Tue May 30, 2006 1:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
To make matters more interesting many 17" CRTs and most LCDs operate at 60 Hz when running at 1280x1024. So anything over 60 fps is completely pointless. In fact when you run at more then the refresh rate of your monitor you risk getting graphics artefacts called tears which happen when the video memory is changed half way through a refresh. In effect you are making your graphics worse. |
|
| Author: | Blade [ Tue May 30, 2006 2:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
mine supports up to 72hz at 1280x1024. i cant remember for sure, but i think that risk is reduced when vsync is enabled? it kinda makes sense because it locks the fps at the refreash rate. so if the videocard is rendering at the same speed as refreash rate then there'll be less of a chance of the video memory being changed at that peticularly bad point. besides, if the monitor updates 72 times per second, then whats the use of rendering 140 frames per second? you're not going to see those extra frames. are you sure that most are only able to operate at 60hz at 1280x1024. i think that's what windows defaults the refreash rate to. i am sure that most monitors nowadays support above 60hz. |
|
| Author: | Mazer [ Tue May 30, 2006 8:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[Gandalf] wrote: ... I don't know much about the way the money flows through the system for such things, but would sales really affect the wages of the programmers significantly? I'm pretty sure most of that extra benefit would go to the publisher, distributer, etc., who in my opinion (yes, I have one of those opinions...) already have enough money as it is. And I'm not talking about some extreme when the company is going to become bankrupt if they don't get some sales, I'm talking about your average giant like EA Games...
Consider the lazy person who won't hang on to an empty cup of pop long enough to throw it out in a garbage can and instead just drops it on the sidewalk. "It's just one piece of trash, big deal." But it's not just one piece (as proven by the nearby sidewalk), other people think and act the same way, and it adds up. Quite a bit more for software piracy, because you don't have that neighbourhood full of people to see you littering. Anyways, the developers make very little of the retail price of the game. Supposing the game is $50, and like you said there's the publisher and distributor who want their cut, there isn't alot left for the team of 20-100+ people who spent ~2 years working on one product (and in the case of EA games with their latest and greatest version of NBA/NFL/NHL etc., there's probably some fees that go to the sports league in question). On top of that (and I'm afraid to see it looks like I'm just doing more EA bashing here) instead of things like overtime pay and nice big bonuses for the developers, the big wigs at the publisher often like to reward themselves for all the hard work they... er, for all the... for... they like to reward themselves. In summary, stop being a dick MysticVegeta. You pirate software, at least pretend you don't take pride in making people miserable. Note, this may not be indicative of the entire game industry, though it's true for quite a few places. I recently had a game developer magazine sent to me and it's loaded with advertisements for studios that are hiring game developers. Here's some incentives offered in one: "Gourmet cafeteria, daily massages, free karate lessons". It's the only issue of the gd mag I've seen so I don't know if this is a regular way for companies to advertise or if they want to distance themselves from the images of game development we got from the ea_spouse. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Tue May 30, 2006 8:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
On the contrary, that's the industry norm. There are a few exceptions (like DICE) that I'm aware of, but according to any insider I've talked to (and I know a few that are fond of telling stories), the big game corporations essentially hire and treat their programmers like slave labour. Wages are minimumish when you include uncompensated overtime, and the environment is extremely stressful. There is very room in the market for smaller or independent groups. Welcome to the Walmart economy of gaming. No wonder the average career in the industry is 3-5 years, and 90% of the employees are in their early 20's. This is an industry that profits from burning out the creativity and idealism of the newly graduated. |
|
| Author: | md [ Tue May 30, 2006 10:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Recently there have been lawsuits forcing the bigger companies to actually pay their staff better. But it's still not a good situation unless you are an executive. @LCDs my LCD only does 60Hz at 1280x1024. Newer LCDs might do better, but as mince wqas one of the first with < 25ms response times it isn't exactly new. Evne at 60Hz though an LCD doesn't ever suffer from flickering so there isn't much point in going higher. vsync does indeed reduce the chance of tearing. However because of hte way modern applications and hardware work it actually reduces it to 0. |
|
| Author: | Clayton [ Tue May 30, 2006 1:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
actually my cousin programs for sony and he was always talkin about how the people were getting underpaid (and not just there either) and he was complainin about how much shit they take to for the amount of work they do but oh well |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Tue May 30, 2006 4:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
@LCD and FPS: Humans can only see at a max in the range of 60fps and maybe a bit over that. The key hower to making things look real is not how many fps but the fluidity between the frames. If there is good fluidity between the frames 18fps can look fine and we aucatly see most things in the 20fps ~30fps range. So realy affter you hit 30fps there should be no real need to push it any more unless the games farmes are not fluided at all. Either way affter you pass the 60~75fps range there is no point at all since reality is only going at like 72fps  |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Wed May 31, 2006 8:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm not sure where you're getting that from, but the human eye is analog; it can detect much higher than 60 FPS. I researched this for an ergonomics project. Supposedly, some people can consistently detect the difference between rates as high as 250 FPS. I agree with the sentiment of your statements though. I doubt there is any actual advantage to frame rates above 60 FPS, and I'm usually quite content to view rates around half that. |
|
| Author: | md [ Wed May 31, 2006 10:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
There is no advantage because the monitor does not update at 250FPS. No matter how many frames your computer is capable of rendering a second only 60-75 of them will actually be displayed. These people who buy the newest video cards so they can get 300fps on some first person shooter have no idea what they are doing... but the people who market those cards sure do |
|
| Author: | Blade [ Wed May 31, 2006 2:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
some people are stupid that way, but that is not the reason powerful videocards exist. they exist because people who want to play new videogames that use the newer technology included with these new videocards like PS3.0 and HDR are able to. its so they can jack up the quality and still have smooth animation. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Wed May 31, 2006 5:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
codemage wrote: I'm not sure where you're getting that from, but the human eye is analog; it can detect much higher than 60 FPS. I researched this for an ergonomics project. Supposedly, some people can consistently detect the difference between rates as high as 250 FPS.
I agree with the sentiment of your statements though. I doubt there is any actual advantage to frame rates above 60 FPS, and I'm usually quite content to view rates around half that. I got it off a site witch i assumed to be acureite, i assume they ment noticeable to the average person. As i side the fuilidity of the frames means a lot. You could have very fuilded frams and play them at a low frame rate like 20fps and it whould look noraml but if you uses very unfuilient frames you probly could notice it up to 250 range. The point is past a scrent point it stops madering and could aucatly hurt the persons eyes :p |
|
| Author: | Clayton [ Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
@Blade: the only real reason that they continue to make video cards that can render these 300fps is so that people will spend more money on there product, by assuring everyone that what they have is crap unless its the brand new item, these people will continue to buy buy buy. there is really no need for half of the stuff that companies are producing right now, 300fps isnt really going to make that much of a difference to begin with, because, as cornflake said, only 60-75 of them are being put out, that being said, companies like Sony and MS could make their new consoles probably using older technology and it would still look fine, but like all other companies out there, all they care about is making money and not getting their asses sued |
|
| Author: | md [ Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
No, the new graphics cards can render near photo-realistic frames if you have hte software to do it. However because not everyone has them games are always designed to run at least a generation or two behind the leading edge. |
|
| Author: | Clayton [ Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
eh whatever, considering all of the crap that is out there, i dont really like the idea of having to upgrade computers even if games and such run on stuff a generation or 2 behind, to me it just doesnt make sense. |
|
| Author: | TheFerret [ Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Isn't that the same with consoles though, you upgrade em every few years, you can also do the same thing with computers and only upgrade em every 2 years or so but you can even lengthen that time and still have a decent computer... |
|
| Author: | Blade [ Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
SuperFreak82 wrote: @Blade: the only real reason that they continue to make video cards that can render these 300fps is so that people will spend more money on there product, by assuring everyone that what they have is crap unless its the brand new item, these people will continue to buy buy buy. there is really no need for half of the stuff that companies are producing right now, 300fps isnt really going to make that much of a difference to begin with, because, as cornflake said, only 60-75 of them are being put out, that being said, companies like Sony and MS could make their new consoles probably using older technology and it would still look fine, but like all other companies out there, all they care about is making money and not getting their asses sued
i really dont think you've read everything i've said. Blade wrote: VESA says that to achieve a completely flicker-free display with CRT the frequency must be at least 72hz. so rendering anything higher than 72fps is kinda useless.
if the monitor updates 72 times per second, then whats the use of rendering 140 frames per second? you're not going to see those extra frames. ^i said this BEFORE Cornflake said that rendering anything higher than 60-75fps is useless, then we discussed tearing and vsync. but best of all as i've said before, the real reason that videocards like that exist is not to render 10 year old games at 300fps, its for the NEW games that require so much more computing power to render the new advanced graphics smoothly. Blade wrote: some people are stupid that way, but that is not the reason powerful videocards exist. they exist because people who want to play new videogames that use the newer technology included with these new videocards like PS3.0 and HDR are able to. its so they can jack up the quality and still have smooth animation.
you should read the WHOLE topic before you argue something. edit: also, have you ever tried to play something like F.E.A.R on a TNT2 graphics card? |
|
| Author: | Clayton [ Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
@Blade: i misinterpereted (sp?) what you said, my bad @TheFerret: thats true, but the problem with computers is that i cant play the games that i have from like 6 years ago on it, like the command & conquer series (except newer versions) which require 98 or 95 to run, they cant run on XP,ME or (i think) 2000, and those are the games that i really enjoy to play, and i cant anymore because im running XP, whereas with consoles, if you treat them nicely, you can play them forever, i still have my Intellivison and Atari and i play them sometimes (go Space Invaders, go Pong!), so i guess its all a matter of opinion, for me, its much more worth it to go with a console for me, because i can then go back and play those games when i want to, and with the Wii, thats going to be even better as its supposed to be fully backwards compatible  |
|
| Author: | Mazer [ Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Compatibility mode let's you run things under Windows XP that were designed for earlier versions of the OS. Things like DOSbox let you run games and things that were made for DOS. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Fri Jun 02, 2006 6:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Also PC emulation technogly is booming thess days, i can simulate a windows xp box on my windows xp box....oh the fun
What i mean tho is you could emulate almost any type of computer thess days witch out breaking any laws if you own the software. This also gose for video game consoles too. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Blade wrote: ...also, have you ever tried to play something like F.E.A.R on a TNT2 graphics card?
I shudder to think that FEAR could be an even lamer experience on lesser hardware. |
|
| Author: | Vertico [ Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I dont usually have time to play with anything other then my computer,  . But im definity getting this. It looks good and that controller is fairly intense. Plus im a fan of the super smash bros. so that would most definity be the first game id get for it.
Wii!! |
|
| Author: | [Gandalf] [ Fri Jun 02, 2006 7:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hey, I'm no fanboy *cough*cartoon_shark*cough* , but I can see at least a few people buying the PS3 as an alternative to a high end PC. Let me reverse my perspective here a bit... People buy high end computers mostly for gaming, right? People also want word processing, internet access, and msn messenger, right? And what do you know, they can get all these things (or alternatives) from the PS3; decent 'computer' applications, and high end gaming. The price only supports this, what's a better deal for such people: a $600 Playstation, or a $1600 gaming computer?
I think this will be true for more than "a few people" if the Sony people make it possible for the average dumbo to have easy access to these things. It's also assuming that the mouse + keyboard combo will become quite popular. It is ALSO taking into consideration that the PS3 price will not remain at $600 forever. Right? |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[Gandalf] wrote: Hey, I'm no fanboy *cough*cartoon_shark*cough*
, but I can see at least a few people buying the PS3 as an alternative to a high end PC. Let me reverse my perspective here a bit... People buy high end computers mostly for gaming, right? People also want word processing, internet access, and msn messenger, right? And what do you know, they can get all these things (or alternatives) from the PS3; decent 'computer' applications, and high end gaming. The price only supports this, what's a better deal for such people: a $600 Playstation, or a $1600 gaming computer?
I think this will be true for more than "a few people" if the Sony people make it possible for the average dumbo to have easy access to these things. It's also assuming that the mouse + keyboard combo will become quite popular. It is ALSO taking into consideration that the PS3 price will not remain at $600 forever. Right? This only works is the PS3 morphs into a general purpose computer, which I do not believe it is well-suited for. A great many people only need a limited set of apps on the computer, but they intensely dislike the idea of being limited. This is a huge psychological factor you're discounting. They buy the console not because it's a relatively limited machine, but because for games they see it as specifically not being limited. |
|
| Author: | War_Caymore [ Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: I hate to keep going on with "Graphics are dumb, gameplay is everything", but it's true that graphics alone don't make the game.
I would have to completely agree with you. Gameplay is nearly everything (hence my games are made up of 8,16 and 32bit systems and QUAKE) but if the graphics don't fit and flow with the game, then it's a bad game all together (want a great example of a horrible game, but horribly addicting, go to www.gamerevolution.com and search "darkstone" )
I still play PONG. (random) hence the great idea of backward compadibility. The Wii will beable to do this all the way back to the NES days (yes!!! no more blowing into cartridges!!!) and would make it definately worth the money. |
|
| Author: | chrispminis [ Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ahhh the Wii. This is one of my first posts in a long time. But basically the Wii looks kickass. Its innovative and although some people might find the controller a bit crazy, I think itll work well. The sword and shield system with the nunchaku controller is sexy. Alas, I will not get a Wii though. The PS3 has stolen my heart. It has better hardware, and while some people say gameplay > graphics, and I agree, nice graphics are never a bad thing, + it helps the immersion in the game. Also, while the Wii has such classic sequels like SSB Brawl, the PS3 boasts FFXIII, Assassins Creed and MGS4 all which look to be orgasmic. Personally computer games > console games, but sometimes its nice to not have to worry about your computers performance and know that the console games will run on your console (i should hope.) |
|
| Author: | md [ Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
In case anyone here doesn't read slashdot; the PS3's Cell processor has a rather crippling memory read rate of 16Mb/s. Design flaws that big are pretty serious... I'm starting to doubt the PS3 will even make it as a console. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Cornflake wrote: In case anyone here doesn't read slashdot; the PS3's Cell processor has a rather crippling memory read rate of 16Mb/s. Design flaws that big are pretty serious... I'm starting to doubt the PS3 will even make it as a console.
Havent i been talking about the falws in the cell processor since the ps3 was 1st anocced? Any how.... Wii update: Sorces at ATI (the ones who make some of the chips for the wii) say that the wii will have a bulit in digtal cam and bulit in wireless head set. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tee hee. Other sources claim that the Wii has a slot that continuously ejects the finest Belgian truffles and that the internal processor is powered by little pieces of the triforce. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
codemage wrote: Other sources claim that the Wii has a slot that continuously ejects the finest Belgian truffles and that the internal processor is powered by little pieces of the triforce. Yes, there has been alot of rummers about the Wii going around but i bilive the one about the cam and head set might be right. I guse we will have to wait and see. BTW, the idea is that the cam can be used to put your face in to the games witch has been an idea that ninitedno has been trying to get in to gaming since the game boy pocket. |
|
| Author: | Clayton [ Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
i have heard stuff about this camera too and i was a bit surprised and, ill admit, a bit disbelieving, however after seeing the story in a couple of different places i am disposed to believe them this makes me happy as i think it would be cool to see your face as the main characters in the profile  |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I like them too as long as they do not drive up the dirce of the wii. I whould perfure not to have a cam and a head set and have more moeny in my pocket. |
|
| Author: | Remm [ Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
So true, a good element of the Wii's selling power is going to be that its cheaper than the ps3 and others, so why give that away so in a bunch of games you have to stare at yourself? Dont get me wrong, its a good idea and in most cases would be cool, but for some things you'd rather see a new face and see someone else's storyline. Thinking of it just brings me back to the origonal DOOM with the little head down there getting the living crap beat out of him as you take dmg. Well, if they are true, lets hope the games dont go overboard with it. |
|
| Author: | Mazer [ Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I can't imagine a Nintendo game with the player's face in it (Aside from the Tennis game at E3 with Miyamoto and others). It just wouldn't fit. |
|
| Author: | Remm [ Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
well, mazer, theres a few things it COULD go into, such as your face beside your score in a mario-party type of game. and.... ok i cant think of any others  . Pfft now im starting to doubt that its even true. lol
i cant think of anything else where your face would even be plausable. . . . they better not put before crisis on the wii. I'd kill square enix if they did that just so they could have their picture - taking thing in it from the jap phone. Well, we will all see in due time. |
|
| Author: | Mazer [ Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Remm wrote: well, mazer, theres a few things it COULD go into, such as your face
Wow. I thought I clicked on the "your mouse" thread and I could've sworn you were talking about punching me in the face with a mouse. You were like, **presses index finger and thumb together**, this close from getting banned. Don't worry, you're safe for now. But yeah, all I can think of aside from high scores is sticking your face onto the face of the character in the game... which is just kinda dumb. Other than that it sounds like that "eye toy" Sony had, which also seemed quite dumb. Though now I can imagine some possibly interesting use. |
|
| Author: | Clayton [ Tue Jun 06, 2006 10:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
well i honestly cant see how a little camera and a headset is going to drive the price to ridiculous heights so... im still all for it, if its some kind of cheesey use, oh well, so be it |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah - I've seen web-cams and usb headets in the dollar bin before. If they're used nicely - I wouldn't mind paying an extra few dollars for them. I, for one, would like to see my gorgeous mug in games. A lot of players go random with character creation in games, but a lot of players try to mimic their own features. (I managed to create my spitting image in 'the Godfather'). This could be a quick shortcut from the current method of Select default face #307 Tweak eyebrow width... Decrease left nostril flare... Increase upper lip divot... At this point, I'm just as impressed with the Wii's features as the price. If these things turn out to be *features* and not gimmicks, we may have a clear winner on our hands. |
|
| Author: | Remm [ Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
lol, mazer. When i read your quote i was like 'crap - i said that?!' n then saw that it was a portion of a larger sentance. ehehe. anyways, @codemage, that could work very well but it might get frustrating trying to take a picture, like if you do it from too far away it will get all pixel-y and you could accidentally cut off part of your head... which would make the picture look mightily funny. Lets hope when taking the picture, it has the a eye-toy view so you can line it up perfectly before clicking the picture off, otherwise it would be very frustrating. Oh, and about the Wii being powered by tiny bits of triforce, It could happen. |
|
| Author: | chrispminis [ Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You could have your face in a personalized RPG, or say a game like Rainbow Six, with your face and others on your team. And it could help online gameplay, although there could be privacy issues, and the obvious, some obnoxious kid is going to take pictures of various anatomical features and put it as his *face*. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Fri Jun 09, 2006 9:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
There will always be dickheads.
There are already lots of outlets where this sort of thing can happen. Typically, they've kept user images low res - enough that you could identify a face, but not enough so that anything graphic is well... graphic, in more than a cartoonish 5KB GIF way. Most services that allow this clearly state on their rating guide that the expressed rating (ie: teen) isn't guaranteed for online play due to the dynamics of the internet. |
|
| Author: | Clayton [ Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
if you are really worried about the privacy issue then dont bother paying for the camera and then you dont have to worry about having your picture on the internet |
|
| Author: | gilbamy [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
i am so getting one like come on playing old school games and the control is like awsome and zelda and fire emblem with roy |
|