rec.autos.simulators

by **Marc** » Sun, 02 Jun 2002 06:28:30

1980s and only after a VERY brief stint of Tomb Raider on a friend's
Playstation (but soon after the PC version came out which easily blew away
the Playstation one) I have NEVER looked back.
modifiable/hackable/extractable, have more variety in game genres: strategy,
action, adventure, RPG, simulation, etc, and are MUCH more cost effective
(PC vs console). Consoles are for kids and immature ***s who can't handle
REAL *** machines: PCs--PERIOD.

how old are you?
you'll find that a lot of ***s don't actually want to grow up, and will
take part in all kinds of activity to have fun, not just playing video
games.

After a certain age there is no shame in mucking around with toys, remote
control cars, scalextric sets etc, but you'll also find that a lot of
kids/***agers own and 'play' with PC's because they want to *try* and be
grown up.

It is because of the success of consoles that PC *** took off, consoles
manufactures where and still are always inovating to cram custom designed
chips for sound/gfx/cpu into small boxes using small amounts of RAM, and
providing all of this at such a low cost, PC's relied on CPU and memory and
still do to a large extent today, I remember using Nintendo Super famicom's
for *** when younger mates (trying to be grown up) were still using PC's
with speaker sound, and pathetic colours and resolutions.
You've also got consoles to thank for innovative games controllers, I
suppose next youll be saying its more grown up to use a keyboard to play
games?

When the Playstation came out in 1994 a Pentium P100 cost at least 6 times
more and could not offer anything like, Tekken, Ridge Racer, Wipeout etc the
Playstation introduced a new genre to the home, there is nothing kiddish
about playing consoles, and there is nothing grown up about 'playing' with
PC's.

Look back even further, when the Amiga cost 8 times less than a 'PC', PC
*** was just something to kill time at lunch breaks for nerds who had
nothing else to do, the Amiga was king of *** for ***s and kids alike.

The new age PC gamer who slags down video *** on other platforms is just
a nerd, who has too much time on his hands, or just has trouble getting his
head out from up his own arse.
Youll find that a lot of legendary PC games designers, list so called
kiddish console games as their favourites and also give credit to console
games for giving inspiration to their own.

As a console, arcade, and PC video game player, the main thing that I thank
the PC for, is an affordable large screen high res monitor, and nowdays,
games machines like the Dreamcast and GameCube can now properly use the only
big advantage that PC's have ever had.

good luck in growing up, you'll have more fun when you do.

by **Eep2** » Sun, 02 Jun 2002 06:44:49

That's because they aren't really mature and haven't grown up yet. ;)

> > Granted, GTA3 is fairly non-kiddie, but it still has the above kiddie
> console elements. One reason I like PC games: they tend to be directed
> towards (and developed by) mature kids and ***s for the most part. :)

> believe it or not alot of the 'mature' developers of some of the well known
> PC games, list games like Mario 64 at the top of their all time favourite
> lists.

by **Marc** » Sun, 02 Jun 2002 06:53:40

Owning consoles was never just about playing Mario, it was always about
being able to play your favourite arcade game or games that branched from
arcade games.

very good points, PC *** can become very teckie and nerdy, I admit that
it is very ***ive tweaking around trying to get more performance, and
reading up on the next step our favorite gfx chip maker has made (usually
just faster chips or memory, same old game but more frames before our eyes
per second)
but it does start to take up too much time and take you away from the whole
point of video games. Which is just to have as much fun with as much variety
in our valuable recreation time.

by **Marc** » Sun, 02 Jun 2002 06:58:31

> > > Granted, GTA3 is fairly non-kiddie, but it still has the above kiddie
> > console elements. One reason I like PC games: they tend to be directed
> > towards (and developed by) mature kids and ***s for the most part. :)

> > believe it or not alot of the 'mature' developers of some of the well
known
> > PC games, list games like Mario 64 at the top of their all time
favourite
> > lists.
> That's because they aren't really mature and haven't grown up yet. ;)

that was one of my points to another one of your posts, becoming mature and
growing up isnt all that great, except you can earn loads more cash to go
play with toys. :p

by **Eep2** » Sun, 02 Jun 2002 07:05:20

> > > Consoles are not just for kids? That's just a stereotype.

> > A stereotype continually reinforced by the majority of console games.

> > > I used to think that way, Eep; consoles are for kids or the braindead.
> > > Mostly because I hadn't owned one ever, and I didn't think much of when
> all
> > > my friends were playing Mario or sports games, and I was playing
> Pirates.

> > I stopped dorking with consoles since the 8-bit Nintendo back in the late
> 1980s and only after a VERY brief stint of Tomb Raider on a friend's
> Playstation (but soon after the PC version came out which easily blew away
> the Playstation one) I have NEVER looked back.
> > All of this is irrelevant for the simple fact that PC games are
> modifiable/hackable/extractable, have more variety in game genres: strategy,
> action, adventure, RPG, simulation, etc, and are MUCH more cost effective
> (PC vs console). Consoles are for kids and immature ***s who can't handle
> REAL *** machines: PCs--PERIOD.

> how old are you?

Old enough to have outgrown kiddie consoles. :)

- Show quoted text -

Bah, what a load of shit. Consoles didn't do SHIT for PCs except compete with them for video game market share. The first console, Odyssey, was released in 1972 but the first computer game, Spacewar, hit the scene in 1962, 10 years EARLIER. Since then, computers have continually surpassed consoles in terms of graphics quality (the Z80, an improved IBM 8080 CPU, became the staple of console CPUs for 10 years) and versatility (not just games). Consoles are a dying breed, just as arcades have been for over a decade now. Hell, even arcades were kicking console ass during the 1970s-80s. The gap consoles have over PCs in terms of graphics superiority is getting less and less--I suspect the next so-called "next-generation" consoles won't even be any more powerful than their PC counterparts--most likely even less so.

Consoles are for kiddie gamers and burnt-out druggies who can't use REAL computers.

by **Nitz Wals** » Sun, 02 Jun 2002 07:25:38

Throw another log onto the Eep-is-absolutely-batshit-looney fire.

by **Marc** » Sun, 02 Jun 2002 07:29:31

with them for video game market share. The first console, Odyssey, was
released in 1972 but the first computer game, Spacewar, hit the scene in
1962, 10 years EARLIER. Since then, computers have continually surpassed
consoles in terms of graphics quality (the Z80, an improved IBM 8080 CPU,
became the staple of console CPUs for 10 years) and versatility (not just
games). Consoles are a dying breed, just as arcades have been for over a
decade now. Hell, even arcades were kicking console ass during the
1970s-80s. The gap consoles have over PCs in terms of graphics superiority
is getting less and less--I suspect the next so-called "next-generation"
consoles won't even be any more powerful than their PC counterparts--most
likely even less so.

Back in the 70s and 80s as far as most people who didn't wear beards and
sandals were concerned, video games started in the arcades, I agree that
there is not much of a gap between PC's and consoles as we speak, but
innovation still has to come from somewhere, consoles may have used the old
8080 CPU, but they also used custom designed chips to run along side it, it
was called innovation, the history and architecture of the PC doesn't
involve any innovation towards game playing, even buying the latest gfx card
for a PC doesn't guarantee you the ultimate *** machine, unless the rest
of your hardware, OS etc are up to scratch.

computers.

LOL

BTW Did you keep the Jesus boots?

by **Eep2** » Sun, 02 Jun 2002 08:10:18

Like everything, there are varying degrees of maturity. One can still be more mature than consoles yet still immature towards having a desire to want to play more mature games (i.e. not Mario et al).

> > > > Granted, GTA3 is fairly non-kiddie, but it still has the above kiddie
> > > console elements. One reason I like PC games: they tend to be directed
> > > towards (and developed by) mature kids and ***s for the most part. :)

> > > believe it or not alot of the 'mature' developers of some of the well known
> > > PC games, list games like Mario 64 at the top of their all time favourite
> > > lists.

> > That's because they aren't really mature and haven't grown up yet. ;)

> that was one of my points to another one of your posts, becoming mature and
> growing up isnt all that great, except you can earn loads more cash to go
> play with toys. :p

by **Eep2** » Sun, 02 Jun 2002 08:31:54

> > Bah, what a load of shit. Consoles didn't do SHIT for PCs except compete
> with them for video game market share. The first console, Odyssey, was
> released in 1972 but the first computer game, Spacewar, hit the scene in
> 1962, 10 years EARLIER. Since then, computers have continually surpassed
> consoles in terms of graphics quality (the Z80, an improved IBM 8080 CPU,
> became the staple of console CPUs for 10 years) and versatility (not just
> games). Consoles are a dying breed, just as arcades have been for over a
> decade now. Hell, even arcades were kicking console ass during the
> 1970s-80s. The gap consoles have over PCs in terms of graphics superiority
> is getting less and less--I suspect the next so-called "next-generation"
> consoles won't even be any more powerful than their PC counterparts--most
> likely even less so.

> Back in the 70s and 80s as far as most people who didn't wear beards and
> sandals were concerned, video games started in the arcades, I agree that
> there is not much of a gap between PC's and consoles as we speak, but
> innovation still has to come from somewhere, consoles may have used the old
> 8080 CPU, but they also used custom designed chips to run along side it, it
> was called innovation, the history and architecture of the PC doesn't
> involve any innovation towards game playing, even buying the latest gfx card
> for a PC doesn't guarantee you the ultimate *** machine, unless the rest
> of your hardware, OS etc are up to scratch.

Bah, what do you think is and has been driving the computer industry for the past decade or so, Windows and business apps? Hardly. COMPUTER ***!

?

by **Marc** » Sun, 02 Jun 2002 09:13:07

> > > Bah, what a load of shit. Consoles didn't do SHIT for PCs except
compete
> > with them for video game market share. The first console, Odyssey, was
> > released in 1972 but the first computer game, Spacewar, hit the scene in
> > 1962, 10 years EARLIER. Since then, computers have continually surpassed
> > consoles in terms of graphics quality (the Z80, an improved IBM 8080
CPU,
> > became the staple of console CPUs for 10 years) and versatility (not
just
> > games). Consoles are a dying breed, just as arcades have been for over a
> > decade now. Hell, even arcades were kicking console ass during the
> > 1970s-80s. The gap consoles have over PCs in terms of graphics
superiority
> > is getting less and less--I suspect the next so-called "next-generation"
> > consoles won't even be any more powerful than their PC
counterparts--most
> > likely even less so.
> > Back in the 70s and 80s as far as most people who didn't wear beards and
> > sandals were concerned, video games started in the arcades, I agree that
> > there is not much of a gap between PC's and consoles as we speak, but
> > innovation still has to come from somewhere, consoles may have used the
old
> > 8080 CPU, but they also used custom designed chips to run along side it,
it
> > was called innovation, the history and architecture of the PC doesn't
> > involve any innovation towards game playing, even buying the latest gfx
card
> > for a PC doesn't guarantee you the ultimate *** machine, unless the
rest
> > of your hardware, OS etc are up to scratch.
> Bah, what do you think is and has been driving the computer industry for

the past decade or so, Windows and business apps? Hardly. COMPUTER ***!

You seem to be living in your own world,
I realize that many people upgrade just to play games, I realize that PC
games are one of the main type of programs that use todays high end
hardware, but you only mention Windows and business apps as the alternative,
how about Multimedia in general?
Digital imaging, Digital video, MP3's, and then there is communication, and
the fact that we can send and receive and stream the multimedia I mention.
Then there are graphics and design apps that become more powerful, and these
dont necessary fall into the business category.
Also there are more apps and information that we want to store on our
hardware than ever before.

Another reason that PC hardware has been driven forward is the bad
architecture of the Windows OS and lazy programing, memory hungry apps.
If you think computer *** is driving forward the hardware then it is
making a bad job of it, take a look at the Metroid Prime game in
action/video at http://www.racesimcentral.net/
preferred language and then choose GameCube, superb!, and more so when you
check the spec of the hardware.
What do you think of the Custom IBM Power PC Gekko BTW ?

by **Tom Juncewic** » Sun, 02 Jun 2002 12:36:55

> >Consoles are a dying breed

> Throw another log onto the Eep-is-absolutely-batshit-looney fire.

There are advantages to consoles. First, they are much simpler to use by
the masses than a PC. You pop in a cartridge or CD and turn it on. Zing!
The game plays. With a PC you have to install the game, hopefully having
enough drive space, enough hardware requirements, bug-free drivers, other
software hogging resources in the background, etc...Not everyone is as smart
as you are Eep! :-)

It's also nice for developers too because they have a single architecture to
push to its limits and test against without worrying about millions of
unknown configs and putting in options so that the "lowest popular
denominator" can still run it well.

Just my 2 pesos.

Tom

by **Eep2** » Sun, 02 Jun 2002 13:23:20

> > > > Bah, what a load of shit. Consoles didn't do SHIT for PCs except
> compete
> > > with them for video game market share. The first console, Odyssey, was
> > > released in 1972 but the first computer game, Spacewar, hit the scene in
> > > 1962, 10 years EARLIER. Since then, computers have continually surpassed
> > > consoles in terms of graphics quality (the Z80, an improved IBM 8080
> CPU,
> > > became the staple of console CPUs for 10 years) and versatility (not
> just
> > > games). Consoles are a dying breed, just as arcades have been for over a
> > > decade now. Hell, even arcades were kicking console ass during the
> > > 1970s-80s. The gap consoles have over PCs in terms of graphics
> superiority
> > > is getting less and less--I suspect the next so-called "next-generation"
> > > consoles won't even be any more powerful than their PC
> counterparts--most
> > > likely even less so.

> > > Back in the 70s and 80s as far as most people who didn't wear beards and
> > > sandals were concerned, video games started in the arcades, I agree that
> > > there is not much of a gap between PC's and consoles as we speak, but
> > > innovation still has to come from somewhere, consoles may have used the
> old
> > > 8080 CPU, but they also used custom designed chips to run along side it,
> it
> > > was called innovation, the history and architecture of the PC doesn't
> > > involve any innovation towards game playing, even buying the latest gfx
> card
> > > for a PC doesn't guarantee you the ultimate *** machine, unless the
> rest
> > > of your hardware, OS etc are up to scratch.

> > Bah, what do you think is and has been driving the computer industry for
> the past decade or so, Windows and business apps? Hardly. COMPUTER ***!

> You seem to be living in your own world,
> I realize that many people upgrade just to play games, I realize that PC
> games are one of the main type of programs that use todays high end
> hardware, but you only mention Windows and business apps as the alternative,
> how about Multimedia in general?
> Digital imaging, Digital video, MP3's, and then there is communication, and
> the fact that we can send and receive and stream the multimedia I mention.
> Then there are graphics and design apps that become more powerful, and these
> dont necessary fall into the business category.
> Also there are more apps and information that we want to store on our
> hardware than ever before.

> Another reason that PC hardware has been driven forward is the bad
> architecture of the Windows OS and lazy programing, memory hungry apps.
> If you think computer *** is driving forward the hardware then it is
> making a bad job of it, take a look at the Metroid Prime game in
> action/video at http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> preferred language and then choose GameCube, superb!, and more so when you
> check the spec of the hardware.
> What do you think of the Custom IBM Power PC Gekko BTW ?

<shrug> Why would I even bother with Nintendo console crap? Sorry, but multimedia et al aren't enough to drive the computer industry; *** drives it WAY more than all other markets COMBINED. There's a REASON the computer/video game industries are overtaking the movie industry...and the popularity of PCs and <blech> consoles is what's doing it, certainly not multimedia apps--though maybe on the Crapintosh since digital video et al is about all it has going for it. <snicker>

by **Eep2** » Sun, 02 Jun 2002 13:27:11

Yea, yea, the console vs PC debate is a tired argument. Regardless, I'm not a mindless gamer so I don't mind a bit of "work" to play games (and be able to modify/hack/edit them)--and do everything else I can with a PC that a console couldn't even BEGIN to dream of.

> > >Consoles are a dying breed

> > Throw another log onto the Eep-is-absolutely-batshit-looney fire.

> There are advantages to consoles. First, they are much simpler to use by
> the masses than a PC. You pop in a cartridge or CD and turn it on. Zing!
> The game plays. With a PC you have to install the game, hopefully having
> enough drive space, enough hardware requirements, bug-free drivers, other
> software hogging resources in the background, etc...Not everyone is as smart
> as you are Eep! :-)

> It's also nice for developers too because they have a single architecture to
> push to its limits and test against without worrying about millions of
> unknown configs and putting in options so that the "lowest popular
> denominator" can still run it well.

by **none** » Sun, 02 Jun 2002 16:35:57

>Look back even further, when the Amiga cost 8 times less than a 'PC', PC
>*** was just something to kill time at lunch breaks for nerds who had
>nothing else to do, the Amiga was king of *** for ***s and kids alike.

Amiga is a home computer, thus it is more closely tied to PC ***
than console ***. Amiga's game collection also was largely much
closer to PC than consoles. Mostly western games, hardly any Japanese
games, simulations, RPGs etc., it shared much more titles with PCs
than with consoles like Nintendo.

As for the rest of your diatribe, my oh my what a big chip you have on
your shoulder against PC gamers. Must be jealousy. Grow up, kid.

by **Marc** » Sun, 02 Jun 2002 18:47:44

> >Look back even further, when the Amiga cost 8 times less than a 'PC', PC
> >*** was just something to kill time at lunch breaks for nerds who had
> >nothing else to do, the Amiga was king of *** for ***s and kids
alike.

> Amiga is a home computer, thus it is more closely tied to PC ***
> than console ***. Amiga's game collection also was largely much
> closer to PC than consoles. Mostly western games, hardly any Japanese
> games, simulations, RPGs etc., it shared much more titles with PCs
> than with consoles like Nintendo.

> As for the rest of your diatribe, my oh my what a big chip you have on
> your shoulder against PC gamers. Must be jealousy. Grow up, kid.

But I am a PC gamer, both platforms should live side by side in my opinion,
your either a video game player or your not, there is a huge percentage of
the population who thinks video game playing is childish or nerdy period

most of all Im a video games player not a PC nerd trying to be better or
more grown up who slags down consoles without thinking what they offer.
I can afford any PC hardware so there is no jealousy, Ive got one of the
best Monitors and amplified speaker setups that money can buy, and its
shared by 2 of my consoles, and no, not to play mario, I just think there
are too many morans wearing PC tinted spectacles when it comes to video
games.

Wasnt the Amiga designed by the same people who did the Atari 400/800? and
that machine was considered just a games machine, and yet people like to
consider the Amiga as a 'proper' computer, many of the games on the Amiga
were Arcade clones, puzzle games etc, most of what had already been done on
previous 'home' computer systems and consoles. Nintendos first consoles in
Japan were actually known as Family computers. The Amiga was the best of
both worlds, the PC needs the console at its side to offer what the Amiga
did in terms of variety and fun.

rec.autos.simulators

GTA3 - my take

GTA3 - my take

GTA3 - my take

GTA3 - my take

GTA3 - my take

GTA3 - my take

GTA3 - my take

GTA3 - my take

GTA3 - my take

GTA3 - my take

GTA3 - my take

GTA3 - my take

GTA3 - my take

GTA3 - my take

GTA3 - my take

GTA3 - my take