rec.autos.simulators

OT: Why Consoles are Killing Sims (for now)

Dave Henri

OT: Why Consoles are Killing Sims (for now)

by Dave Henri » Tue, 01 Oct 2002 10:04:46


> >> Well that's what you get for using MSWindows!

> > You mean the OS that's required for most commercial PC games this side
> > of 1996?

  Isn't it also the OS for Sega Dreamcast and Xbox?
dave henrie
Uncle Feste

OT: Why Consoles are Killing Sims (for now)

by Uncle Feste » Tue, 01 Oct 2002 10:25:28





>>>> Well that's what you get for using MSWindows!

>>> You mean the OS that's required for most commercial PC games this side
>>> of 1996?

>> Funny.  Unreal Tournament 2003 has both versions (Linux & Windows) on
>> it's cd's.  Look for it to become a pattern.
>> http://www.racesimcentral.net/

> That would be the game I bought from a bargain bin a YEAR ago for the DC
> and never wanted to play enough to even break the wrapper?  THAT P.O.S.?
> FPS games are slow, they're made to forgive latency, and they're brain
> dead friendly.  The games are sloppy and the players are rude.  Screw it.

It's a new release.  Doesn't matter though, don't change the subject.
Either: A) it's a commercial release this side of 1996 not requiring
Windows or B) it is not.  Personal feelings/opinion are irrelevant.

- Show quoted text -

See?

Uh-huh.  (I'm a mechanic.  Doesn't take me long to fleece someone like
you for $50) :-)

I rest my case.

Irrelevant personal opinion in an attempt to change the focus once
again.  These are all commercial releases, post '96, & not text based.

Although I don't see any harm in a good text based adventure now & then.
  ;-)

--

Fester

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they
are free.  -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Chris Townsen

OT: Why Consoles are Killing Sims (for now)

by Chris Townsen » Tue, 01 Oct 2002 11:20:14

LOL! The fact that you mention the ability to run 8 tracks on your "Stereo"
system as a point of pride speaks volumes. Hell, 8-tracks were 15+ years
gone and a bad joke back when you were trying to figure out how to get Duke
to run on Winders. Your observations are some of the funniest stuff I have
read in ages. Hate to think of you trying to set up even a simple home
theater system, or for that matter navigating through a DVD menu.



> > Agree but then you also have to consider this...
> > Does your console run Office programs?
> > Does your console run drawing programs?
> > Does your console run music programs?
> > Does your console run wordprocessers?
> > Does your console run database programs?
> > Does your console run mail programs?
> > Does your console run video editing programs?
> > etc....

> You have to consider this...
> Does anybody do that at home?

>  > Does your console run Office programs?

> Silly me, I run those at the office.  That's why they're Office programs.

>  > Does your console run drawing programs?

> If it weren't for taking screenshots of error messages at work, I could
> honestly say that I've never run Paint in the last five years.

>  > Does your console run music programs?

> Silly me, I have a stereo system to play music the old-fashioned way.
> I even play 8-tracks on it.  Music programs can't do that.

>  > Does your console run wordprocessers?

> I see that your spell check is running fabulously.  I don't WANT a
> word processor for a toy.

>  > Does your console run database programs?

> Actually, yeah, they do.  That's how they manage game saves.

>  > Does your console run mail programs?

> No, there's a mailbox on my porch which handles my mail needs.
> There's a whole bunch of nice people in the Post Office to do
> that.  The PC is just a source of spam.

>  > Does your console run video editing programs?

> Oh, there's something I do every day <sarcasm>.  Who in the
> heck runs video editing programs for home use?  Other than
> kiddie *** there's no real purpose for it.

> > Nope, it doesn't, that's why it's a console.

> Which is exactly what I want.  The RIGHT tool for the RIGHT
> job.  That's what consoles are.

> > And if you want it to do, you have to hook a keyboard up, a printer, and
all
> > the other stuff.

> If it was just hooking them up, I wouldn't be bothered.  It's the
> seemingly endless patches, registrations, and configurations that
> rip the fun right out of anything associated with a PC.

> > And tell me then, what do you have? Yes A PC !!! with all the nice
> > installing driver problems etc...
> > There is a little effort to make when you want to run all at once.

> I don't deny that this is a PC.  I'm about to shoot the damned thing
> with my classic 1962 J.C. Higgins Model 20 12-Gauge shotgun if it comes
> up with one more error message or another stupid question trying to***
> ME OFF.  This is NOT a "little effort".  I had my Xbox playing games
> inside of 10 minutes of opening the console's package.  You can't get a
> PC to do that on a bet to save your life.

> > PS:
> > Why should i buy a console if i can get it to run on my PC?

> That's because you have to ask "if".  There's no "if" in console
> ***.  It's going to run, no "if" about it.  I don't like "if".
> Like Yoda said, "There is no Try.  There is only Do, or Do Not".
> To Hell with "if".  I don't play with "if".  My world is black
> and white, and I don't accept maybe's or if's or try's.  It works
> or it doesn't.  "IF" is the same as "doesn't" in my house.

> > And even more, why should i buy a PC if i could run it on my console.
> > Would having one of those not be simpler then having them both?

> Simpler is the bailiwick of the console.  There's no good reason to
> game on a PC.  It's like racing garbage trucks.  They're great at
> getting garbage, but they suck for most anything else.

> --
> Oh, oh.  Here come those crazy aliens again.  Help me, Elllleeot!
> Help me get home!  (Atari 2600 E.T. manual, worst game ever made)

Chris von Segger

OT: Why Consoles are Killing Sims (for now)

by Chris von Segger » Tue, 01 Oct 2002 12:53:44

Charlie-boy, you're such an idiot.  Let's set aside the fact that you're
thinking of a different game, since UT2003 isn't even out yet.  Let's
instead focus on your logic and your spectacular display of ignorance
regarding your subject.

First of all, if you never wanted to play the game, why did you buy it?
Personally, I find my money is better spent if I save it for games that I
want to play.

Second, how the hell can you know whatever you bought was a POS if you never
even cracked the cellophane?  Was the box ugly or something? Or is it just
maybe possible that the misconceptions you're so staunchly defending here
led you to an unjustified conclusion?

And finally, it's obvious you know next to nothing about the FPS genre.  I'm
assuming that the game you're thinking of was the original Unreal
Tournament.  That game was anything but slow.  I was running it on a PII 333
with a Voodoo3.  As long as I didn't try to max the detail settings, it ran
VERY smoothly.  On the Athlon 700 I upgraded to, it was like oiled glass
even with everything turned up.  Nothing slow about it.  And it was *not*
made to forgive latency.  As someone who played this game over a dialup
connection for a long time, I can certify that ping was a big issue in this
(and any other modern shooter) title.  Skill is definitely more important,
but if two players are of equal ability, the one with the lower ping will
win 90% of the time or more.  You'd know this if you'd bothered to play any
of the games you're bashing.

<snip>

If you're looking for such passive entertainment, might I suggest TV?  You
don't have to do anything at all.  No messing around with those inconvenient
consoles, with their hard-to-use gamepads and the game discs you have to
make sure you put in right-side-up.  You can just sit back, turn the brain
off, and vegetate for as much of YOUR TIME as you want.  Sounds like it's
much more your speed.

Are you really this incapable of distinguishing between a product and a
service?  When you take your car to the mechanic for an oil change, they
have YOUR vehicle right there in front of them.  They know exactly what
year, make and model it is, and have references (if needed) to tell them
exactly what filter to use, where everything is located, etc.  Of course
they can do it without your intervention.  If you really want to draw a
parallel between oil changes and game development, it'd be more accurate to
suppose you were to call the mechanic several months before the oil change
was to be performed and tell him you wanted some work done on an
unidentified vehicle that may have two, three or four wheels, might be
gas-powered, electric or a hybrid, and might have been manufactured in any
country on the planet to any standard (or none at all) in existence.  Then
you'd expect him to provide you with incredibly detailed instructions,
perfect to the letter, on exactly how this was to be accomplished, including
how many times to turn what kind of wrench and what size coveralls you
should wear while doing the work.

With this kind of belligerence, it's no surprise you only receive pleasure
from machines :)

Irrelevant.  Your personal taste in games has nothing to do with what's at
issue here, which is the suitability of the PC platform for gameplay.  Knock
down straw men all you want, but it won't prove anything.

Chris

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.racesimcentral.net/).
Version: 6.0.391 / Virus Database: 222 - Release Date: 9/19/2002

Longhor

OT: Why Consoles are Killing Sims (for now)

by Longhor » Tue, 01 Oct 2002 13:27:55

"Sam Altersitz" <unclethurs...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:3d9767cd.321905@news.nj.comcast.giganews.com...

> On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 12:29:25 -0400, "Longhorn"
> <ProjectBlackcomb__@so_hot_mail__.c0m> attempted to sound witty, but
> instead came out sounding like this... :

> >No, sorry, Windows can hardly be callsed bloatware on an Athlon XP2000+
PC
> >unless you're willing to call just about every other *nix or Linux OS
runing
> >the X Windowing system/X Windows (w/ KDE, GNOME, etc) bloatware too.
Even
> >more amusing is that the arguably most popular of the bunch, KDE, is
nothing
> >more than a copy of the old Windows GUI.   If you don't believe me,
please,
> >be my guess and try it out for yourself.  Try running Windows on the same
> >hardware you run Linux or *nix with X Windows, you'll find the PC will
> >perform/run just about the same under both enviornments.  If you really
want
> >to see your Linux system choke, try using Star Office, then we can talk
> >about bloatware.

> Let's see, I checked my friend's Windows XP folder.  1.41 GB.  Now,
> even you can't honestly say that XP requires such a large
> footprint/disk space requirement to run.

Windows 2000 will take just over a gig of space on hard drive.  With  the
graphic/multimedia extras, XP just takes slightly more space on a HD than
2000.

>When you start adding all
> the other 'features' that MS throws into their OSes, however, that's
> where the large footprint/disk space requirement comes in.

Here it becomes evident you are completely unaware how much hd space a
standard GNU/Linux installation takes up.  Standard Linux installations (w/
Xwin, KDE & Gnome, etc) take up just about as much space as a standard
2000/Xp installation.  Linux installations actually take up more HD space
than Windows if you start installing all of the bells&whisles and "features"
that Linux installation discs are jam packed with.

You seem to be under some impression that the market demands the utmost bare
essentials in an OS for a PC to "run," this is hardly the case.  The market
essentially demands/requires an Internet enabled OS.  Win, Mac, Linux, etc
are all Internet ready OS's, they come with browswers, email clients and the
proper software/files to establish basic Internet connections.  Also a
barebones Windows installation doesn't come with a whole lot extra
"featurs," as you like to call them.  A barebones Windows 2000/XP
installation will include the OS, IE, Outlook Express/messenger, media
player, a few accessories (calculator, notepad/wordpad, paint, simple games,
etc) and system tools.  That is basically it.

> I know you like to say how that's all functionality, but in all
> honesty an OS does not need many of the programs that come bundled in
> Windows to be functional.

Again, a barebones Windows installation doesn't come with all that many
programs "bundled" in.  The programs Windows is bundled with are arguably
needed for the OS to be functional *especially* in todays
Internet/Multimedia world.  You're singling out Windows here for no
particular reason other than general bias.  If you're going to be
intellectually honest you'd have to single out just about every other viable
OS outhere since they offer "extra" programs which aren't absolutely
essential to run a computer.  When will you start griping about how the Mac
or standard Linux installations come with sooooo many bundled programs which
are not necessary to have a functional OS?

>But the bundling of IE into the Windows OS
> (which can't be removed) is not necessary,

I and many others believe the browser is an integral part of any modern
operating system.  You don't seem to be angry at Apple for including IE in
Mac OS 9 & X.

> it's just another tactic to
> ensure marketshare in the Internet browser market.

no, not entirely true.  MSFT won the "browswer wars" with IE 4, Netscape's
offerings were arguably inferior to that of MSFT, this holds true to this
day.  Netscape 3 vs IE3 was debateable.  Anything before IE 3, Netscape
clearly offered a superior product.

> The bundling of
> Outlook/Outlook Express is not necessary for the OS to function

What are you talking about?  Almost everyone now who is using Windows 2000
or Windows XP is some kind of a network or has some kind of an Internet
connection.  The market demands their OS feature some type of email client.
The Mac OS, GNULinux OS, etc all have some sort of email client, why are you
singling out MSFT here?  I mean it is obvious youre bias against MSFT but
you're not even making a decent point anymore.

(and

> given how Outlook/Express are the easiest email clients to hit with
> viruses,

Wrong again.  Technically Outlook is more susceptible to viruses than OE but
these viruses only affect users who have notoriously low security settings.
I have been use both Outlook and OE for *years* never once have I been a
victim of a malicous email virus.

>I'd say their inclusion hurts the OS more than helps it).

Well pretty much everyone else in the business world would say you're dead
wrong.  Outlook is arguably the most functional personal email client on the
planet today, millions and millions of people use it today and find other
email clients sub par in comparison.  MSFT truly has a winner with Outlook,
people absolutely adore it, hence its popularity.  Notice how Outlooks isn't
bundled with Windows either, people pay good money to use it, and for good
reason too.  OE on the other is essentially just a basic email client, one
could do better, I simply use it as a basic news reader.

> The bundling of the WMP isn't necessary.

Are you kidding me, in todays DVD, mp3, mpeg consuming world?  A functional
high quality media player is absoultey important in a mulitmedia PC.  Do you
single out Apple for including Quicktime in the Mac or the dozesns of Linux
distros for offering many media players in many standard Linux
installations?  Doesn't look like it.  The hypocrisy of your post Sam is
very evident.

 >Etc. Especially when you

> consider that 2k/XP is supposed to be a server OS as well.

Huh?  Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home Edition, and Windows XP
Professional are supposed to be server OS's?  Come on Sam, you can do better
than that, you're not even trying anymore here.  The only supported widely
available server OS's MSFT has today are Windows 2000 server, advanced
server, and data center.

>There's
> absoulutely no need for half or more of those programs in a server OS.

Well that certainly is debatable.  It all depends on what type of
media/files the computer is primarily dealing with.

> That's bloatware.

No it isn't, it isn't slowing down the overall performance of the OS and
essentially just about *every* gripe you've had about Windows so far can be
said about a standard Mac OS setup and a standard Linux setup.  The all
include these features you apparently detest so much.   Its time to come up
with a real argument Sam.

>Things bundled into the OS that are not necessary
> for the OS to perform it's job,

If I bought a new Windows powered PC ( or a PC with any other OS for that
fact) and I couldn't automatically get it on the net, browse websites, get
my email, read my newsgroups, and listen/watch various types of media files,
I would say the OS doesn't have the necessary files to perform its job.  As
it stands now Windows has exactly what it needs to perform its job.

> and in some cases which hinder the
> OS/make the OS vunerable to malicious code/attack..

Not if you know anything about correct decent security/permission policies.

> >...you do know you can turn these off, right?

> Yes.  But in most cases it is only after the install.  They don't
> often inform you that they are putting themselves into the system
> tray.  It's easy enough to turn them off, but some of them
> automatically go back into the system tray as soon as you open the
> program (the Real Player is notorius for this, hence one reason why I
> don't use it).

Sounds like you're complaining about installing crappy software on your
machine.  You're supposed to be bashing Windows here, remember ;) lol

> >Are you insane? Only the now essentially discontinued Win 9x OSs were
> >horrible at managing resources and thats when compared to the likes of
> >NT/2000/XP/.Net.  Windows NT4,2000,XP, and .Net all manage system
resources
> >remarkably well.

> Glad to see it only got them 9 tries to get that right.

...and yet still MSFT was leagues ahead of the competition.  Apple anyone?

>But since I'm
> not running the NT kernel, nor are the majority of home users,

adoption doesn't happen over night.  Millions and millions of people, both
business and home users, are already using an NT version of Windows.

>the
> fact that Windows is horrible at managing resources still stands for
> most people.

Well this is all your opinion.  Windows 9x is horrible at managing resources
in comparions to a *nix style OS or an NT variant yes, but that is as far as
it goes.  The fact is most home computer users don't know enough about
computers in general to know Win 9x ( or anything before Mac OS X) isn't the
best at managing resouces.  This is the sad fact of the avg computer user.

> >lol, not really, personally, I find Netscape crashes the most on systems
> >running Linux.

> And IE crashes the most on systems running Windows.  The point being?

The point is you originally said programs run smoother on other OS's.  This
is not necessarily true as Netscape crashes many more times for me under
Linux than in Windows.  Since UNIX support was recently dropped, IE is only
supported on Windows and Mac, playing the numbers alone of course IE will
crash more often on systems running Windows than the Mac.  It is still
arguably the best browser on the planet.

- Show quoted text -

> >...that is unfortunate you're running into these problems as Explorer
rarely
> >crashes on Windows systems w/ an NT kernel.  Hell, if we're going to be
> >intellecutally honest here, Explorer rarely

...

read more »

magnulu

OT: Why Consoles are Killing Sims (for now)

by magnulu » Tue, 01 Oct 2002 19:56:18


  A review of DOA3 I read mentioned it caches a large amount of data to the
hard disk the first time a player runs the game.

  My point is it's generally much better to store data on a hard disk over a
CD or DVD-ROM- access times are much shorter.  And on a PC, this is called
"installing".

> --

> ====================================================



> :


> :
> : > Who says there's not supposed to be any installation? What mythology
is
> : > this?
> :
> :   The irony is, of course, the XBox cache's data to the hard disk, in
some
> : cases large amounts.  The difference between this and "installation" is
> : purely semantics.
> :
> :
> :

Charles Doan

OT: Why Consoles are Killing Sims (for now)

by Charles Doan » Tue, 01 Oct 2002 22:08:14



>>>>Well that's what you get for using MSWindows!

>>>You mean the OS that's required for most commercial PC games this side
>>>of 1996?

>   Isn't it also the OS for Sega Dreamcast and Xbox?
> dave henrie

Xbox, yes.  DC was an option, mostly used for ports from PC.  Sega
released Sega Rally Championship 2 to show off what WinCE could do,
and it was, well, less than completely spectacular compared to
games like Vanishing Point and Metropolis Street Racer (Project
Gotham Racing to Xbox).

--
Oh, oh.  Here come those crazy aliens again.  Help me, Elllleeot!
Help me get home!  (Atari 2600 E.T. manual, worst game ever made)

Charles Doan

OT: Why Consoles are Killing Sims (for now)

by Charles Doan » Tue, 01 Oct 2002 22:18:37






>> That would be the game I bought from a bargain bin a YEAR ago for the DC
>> and never wanted to play enough to even break the wrapper?  THAT P.O.S.?
>> FPS games are slow, they're made to forgive latency, and they're brain
>> dead friendly.  The games are sloppy and the players are rude.  Screw it.

> It's a new release.  Doesn't matter though, don't change the subject.
> Either: A) it's a commercial release this side of 1996 not requiring
> Windows or B) it is not.  Personal feelings/opinion are irrelevant.

My point was never that there were NO new releases supporting Linux.
I'm saying that they're few and far between.  You're not going to
disprove that by waving around one stupid game and saying "see! SEE!"
at me.  The fact that there's been "A" commercial release is not in
contention.  I'm not arguing that.  I'm saying that the library is
spartan at best.

<snip>

Not like I care, since I've made more than that with a 10 minute phone
call just last week.

The one you don't have?  I'm sure it appreciates the down time.

Compared to what the PSX got since '96, it's a JOKE.

Nope, Zork was cool.  The parsing was hard to get used to, but the game
was solid.

--
Oh, oh.  Here come those crazy aliens again.  Help me, Elllleeot!
Help me get home!  (Atari 2600 E.T. manual, worst game ever made)

Charles Doan

OT: Why Consoles are Killing Sims (for now)

by Charles Doan » Tue, 01 Oct 2002 22:29:34


> LOL! The fact that you mention the ability to run 8 tracks on your "Stereo"
> system as a point of pride speaks volumes. Hell, 8-tracks were 15+ years
> gone and a bad joke back when you were trying to figure out how to get Duke
> to run on Winders. Your observations are some of the funniest stuff I have
> read in ages. Hate to think of you trying to set up even a simple home
> theater system, or for that matter navigating through a DVD menu.

8 tracks kick butt.  They were just underappreciated.  There's a satisfaction
in feeling that cartridge kick into place and hearing those belts wind that
can't be duplicated in any other music media.

BTW, I'm running a Dolby Pro-Logic system.  Pioneer based, with Pioneers
up front and Advent minis in the rear.  Advent subwoofer handles the bass.
You couldn't stand in my living room with it cranked.  It would kill you.
It's knocked pictures off of my walls and things off of tables.  I went a
little crazy with Mechwarrior 2 (Sega Saturn) and got the cops called to
my house investigating a neighbor's report of World War III.

My stereo ain't half-bad.  I'll probably update it as soon as the standards
settle down a bit more.

--
Oh, oh.  Here come those crazy aliens again.  Help me, Elllleeot!
Help me get home!  (Atari 2600 E.T. manual, worst game ever made)

Charles Doan

OT: Why Consoles are Killing Sims (for now)

by Charles Doan » Tue, 01 Oct 2002 23:34:49

Chris von Seggern wrote:
>>>Funny.  Unreal Tournament 2003 has both versions (Linux & Windows) on
>>>it's cd's.  Look for it to become a pattern.
>>>http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/21/1341249&mode=thread&tid=127

>>That would be the game I bought from a bargain bin a YEAR ago for the DC
>>and never wanted to play enough to even break the wrapper?  THAT P.O.S.?
>>FPS games are slow, they're made to forgive latency, and they're brain
>>dead friendly.  The games are sloppy and the players are rude.  Screw it.

> Charlie-boy, you're such an idiot.  Let's set aside the fact that you're
> thinking of a different game, since UT2003 isn't even out yet.  Let's
> instead focus on your logic and your spectacular display of ignorance
> regarding your subject.

It's a sequel to a game I don't want to play even with it sitting on my
shelf in my house.

> First of all, if you never wanted to play the game, why did you buy it?
> Personally, I find my money is better spent if I save it for games that I
> want to play.

I don't care about money.  That's not a worry of mine.  I just wanted a
complete collection of Seganet games.  That was a Seganet game, so in the
interests of my complete collection, I had to have it.  I don't want to
play it, though.

> Second, how the hell can you know whatever you bought was a POS if you never
> even cracked the cellophane?  Was the box ugly or something? Or is it just
> maybe possible that the misconceptions you're so staunchly defending here
> led you to an unjustified conclusion?

The box is extremely ugly, and I hate FPS games.  The only one that ever
came close to changing my mind was HALO, but that's not a typical FPS game
by a long shot.  Somebody actually thought that one through and there's not
quite as much stupidity to the "plot" (aka excuse to blast everything).

> And finally, it's obvious you know next to nothing about the FPS genre.  I'm
> assuming that the game you're thinking of was the original Unreal
> Tournament.  That game was anything but slow.  I was running it on a PII 333
> with a Voodoo3.  As long as I didn't try to max the detail settings, it ran
> VERY smoothly.  On the Athlon 700 I upgraded to, it was like oiled glass
> even with everything turned up.  Nothing slow about it.  And it was *not*
> made to forgive latency.  As someone who played this game over a dialup
> connection for a long time, I can certify that ping was a big issue in this
> (and any other modern shooter) title.  Skill is definitely more important,
> but if two players are of equal ability, the one with the lower ping will
> win 90% of the time or more.  You'd know this if you'd bothered to play any
> of the games you're bashing.

I *HATE* the FPS genre.
The BOTS are idiots.  The AI sucks.  A 12-year-old can beat them (often does).
The HUMINT online players are rude bastards.  They're online for one reason,
and that's to be mean.  I've played Quake III Arena on the DC several times
and the players aren't smart, they're just agressive.  Run around a corner
and they're stupid enough to run right around that corner after you.
Spinfire a rocket into any corner you pass and you'll nail the dummy.

They're extremely simple-minded games, basically kiddie games to go with
the teenaged target audience they're made for, and I don't think that
beating up on foul-mouthed kiddies is a lot of fun.  I play games at least
40 hours per week, I have 25 years of experience at it, and the kiddies
don't stand the chance of a glass of water at a chili cook-off of beating
me.  All I get is cussing from 'em, not gameplay.  If I want people to
cuss at me, I can go to the homeless shelter with a "Vote Republican"
T-shirt on.  I don't need to log on to a room full of kiddies playing on
their daddy's machine to get disrespect.  Screw that.

>>Lazy doesn't have anything to do with it.  When I put a game on, that's
>>MY TIME, and I'm paying to be entertained.  It should be a done deal.
> If you're looking for such passive entertainment, might I suggest TV?  You
> don't have to do anything at all.  No messing around with those inconvenient
> consoles, with their hard-to-use gamepads and the game discs you have to
> make sure you put in right-side-up.  You can just sit back, turn the brain
> off, and vegetate for as much of YOUR TIME as you want.  Sounds like it's
> much more your speed.

I don't watch TV much at all.  I've watched two episodes of Seinfeld.
I've never watched any episode of "Friends" or "Ally McBeal" and I only
know they existed because they make the news.  I've never watched one
single "Survivor", and the only reason I ever watched "Walker" was
because I was senior-sitting my dying (now dead) great aunt and she
wanted to watch it with me.  I thought it sucked.  Phony-baloney
plastic-banana formulaic white-hat vs. black-hat spewage.  It's fun
when it's interactive, but it's not worth watching.

>>If an oil change went the way PC games usually do, it'd be like this:

>>Customer:  I'm here to pick up my car.  You changed the oil, right?
>>Mechanic:  Well, we drained it but we didn't know which brand to use.
>>Customer:  If I'd have cared, I'd have told you in the first place.
>>Mechanic:  Nope, you have to pick a favorite!  We need you to pick!
>>Customer:  Oh, for the love of Pete!  Valvoline, OKAY?  Does THAT work?
>>Mechanic:  This is a Pennzoil shop.  We don't have Valvoline.
>>Customer:  Then put Pennzoil into the car!  I DON'T CARE!  DO IT!
>>Mechanic:  Thank you!  Your car will be ready in another hour.
>>Customer:  <seriously thinks about busting a cap in mechanic ass>

>>I'm paying OTHER PEOPLE to do something for me when I buy a game.
>>Either they can do the job, or they can't.  If I have to lift so
>>much as one finger to help them, then they can't, they're incompetent,
>>and I don't want to do business with them at all.

> Are you really this incapable of distinguishing between a product and a
> service?  When you take your car to the mechanic for an oil change, they
> have YOUR vehicle right there in front of them.  They know exactly what
> year, make and model it is, and have references (if needed) to tell them
> exactly what filter to use, where everything is located, etc.

No, they don't.  I drive a 1984 Ford Bronco II.  Almost every mechanic
asks if it's a 4WD.  ALL 1984 Ford Bronco II's are 4WD.  It wasn't an
option.  You'll never see a 2WD 1984 Bronco II.  There weren't any made.
The question is therefore IGNORANT.

I was driving a 1964 Corvair in New Jersey, and (in case most don't know)
New Jersey outlaws self-service gas pumps.  That's right, you have to have
some MORON pump your gas for you.  So I pull into a service station in a
very cherry 1964 red Corvair convertible (top down) and a kid comes running
out to fill it up.  The idiot walks around the car TWICE looking for the
gas cap and then asks me where it is.  Driver's side fender, about 2 feet
from the guy you're asking, moron.  Worse, it was about 3 feet from the
PUMP!  Gee, silly me, parks with the gas cap next to the pump.  Stupid kid.
And New Jersey law says that I have to let him touch a classic car?
That's the kind of crapola that makes me hate the east coast.

> Of course
> they can do it without your intervention.  If you really want to draw a
> parallel between oil changes and game development, it'd be more accurate to
> suppose you were to call the mechanic several months before the oil change
> was to be performed and tell him you wanted some work done on an
> unidentified vehicle that may have two, three or four wheels, might be
> gas-powered, electric or a hybrid, and might have been manufactured in any
> country on the planet to any standard (or none at all) in existence.  Then
> you'd expect him to provide you with incredibly detailed instructions,
> perfect to the letter, on exactly how this was to be accomplished, including
> how many times to turn what kind of wrench and what size coveralls you
> should wear while doing the work.

No, that doesn't fly.  Namco had Soul Calibur available at DC's launch.
Namco had Tekken Tag Tourney available at PS2's launch.  The recently
released game "Perfect Dark" for the GC had been in development nearly
three years, LONG before anyone knew what a GC was.

>> > One of those gnat-sized attention spanned folk who can only grasp

> instant

>>>gratification without any effort expended.

>>No effort expended?  MY BUTT!  How do *you* get $50 without any effort?
>>That money is EARNED, and anybody who wants some of it has to do some
>>EARNING too.  I paid my dues in cold hard cash.  I'm the boss, it works
>>for me.  It's a machine, it's MY machine, and I'm supposed to be the one
>>receiving pleasure.
> With this kind of belligerence, it's no surprise you only receive pleasure
> from machines :)

I'm a misanthrope.  I base my life on the premise that everyone I meet is
stupider than me.  It works well, because most of the time I'm right.

>>>Text-based or 6 yr old games only on Linux.  Let's see...  Unreal
>>>Tournament, Quake 3, Unreal Tournament 2003, SimCity 3000, SiN, Soldier
>>>of Fortune, Railroad Tycoon 2, Mind Rover, Deus Ex... Yeah, sure buddy.

>>Name a game I actually want to play.
>>Something like Swingerz Golf for the Gamecube?

> Irrelevant.  Your personal taste in games has nothing to do with what's at
> issue here, which is the suitability of the PC platform for gameplay.  Knock
> down straw men all you want, but it won't prove anything.

Oh, is that it?  Cool, I can do that.

Explain to me why I see adapters to use PS2 controllers on PC USB ports, but
there isn't any such beast going the other way around?
PC gaming sucks.  They want controllers?  They rob consoles with adaptors.
PC gaming blows.  They want games?  They rob consoles with emulators.

To heck with PC gaming!  All roads of piracy lead through PC's and PC Gamers
are the ENEMY, they are the cause of everything bad concerning gaming.
This is war, and consoles are ...

read more »

Eldre

OT: Why Consoles are Killing Sims (for now)

by Eldre » Wed, 02 Oct 2002 04:14:29



>> Are you really this incapable of distinguishing between a product and a
>> service?  When you take your car to the mechanic for an oil change, they
>> have YOUR vehicle right there in front of them.  They know exactly what
>> year, make and model it is, and have references (if needed) to tell them
>> exactly what filter to use, where everything is located, etc.

>No, they don't.  I drive a 1984 Ford Bronco II.  Almost every mechanic
>asks if it's a 4WD.  ALL 1984 Ford Bronco II's are 4WD.  It wasn't an
>option.  You'll never see a 2WD 1984 Bronco II.  There weren't any made.
>The question is therefore IGNORANT.

So do you expect every mechanic to know the features/options(or lack thereof)
of every car?  I'd guess that even most OWNERS of said vehicle don't know that,
unless they happened to ask for a 2WD version when they BOUGHT it...

Eldred
--
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPLRank:+8.03
N2002 Rank:+20.124

Never argue with an idiot.  He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

OC

OT: Why Consoles are Killing Sims (for now)

by OC » Wed, 02 Oct 2002 04:23:11



You really are quite sad, aren't you?

So sad, that in your 30s (at least) you're actually chuffed to be
spending more time than most kids playing video games.  And than a few
more hours a week in a newsgroup arguing over weather one genre of
games is inferior to another, or babbling on about piracy.

OCT

Billy J. Dancefloo

OT: Why Consoles are Killing Sims (for now)

by Billy J. Dancefloo » Wed, 02 Oct 2002 04:46:38


>> [I]t's no surprise you only receive pleasure from machines.
> I'm a misanthrope.

yeah, a misanthrope who supposedly plays in golf foursomes on the
weekend.

that's ignorance, not misanthropy.

i bet your breath reeks of cheetos and steak'ums this very minute.

Goy Larse

OT: Why Consoles are Killing Sims (for now)

by Goy Larse » Wed, 02 Oct 2002 05:02:19

While this thread was slightly amusing at first, it's now gotten to be
nothing but a waste of bandwidth, so could you all please stop cross
posting and leave each NG to handle their own "misanthropes", whatever
that may be....a fancier word for misfits perhaps ?

Thx in advance

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy

http://www.theuspits.com

"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.