GTA3 - my take

Well I took the risk and laid down my $52 bucks at EB. Installed fine. Safedisc sucks ass as usual causing slow, delayed loading of game but it finally fires up eventually. Menus do their job well enough. Stuck with default mouse/keyboard setup to start with and max gfx with 12x10 32bit res. Intro and movies are well done. Gameplay seems to be a combo of Street Fighter mixed with Midtown Madness and touch of the old Taxi game thrown in for good measure. There is a bug causing the subtitle text to randomly be blank block areas but that happened rarely and a restart of the game fixes it. Win98se here, latest driver, latest DX crap, etc.. THERE ARE NO IN MISSION SAVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can save while you are in what I'd call 'slacker cruise' mode. Its kind of a time when your character isn't on a definite mission but you are still in the game world able to walk and drive around. Car physics are actually pretty impressive. Car can slowly roll over if you hit a inside curb while turning sharply at speed. Drop a door from too much damage and if you run over it, it causes the car to bounce over the door. Car gets damaged a bit too easily it seems. Car understeers big time as one would expect from the big sedan I was driving at the time. It no Nascar but it isn't gaudy arcady either. THERE IS NO ANALOG CONTROL FOR CAR STEERING!!! Least I haven't figured out a way yet. What am I doing wrong? I can't set any of my joystick or Rumble pad axis's to steer or accelerate/brake. They seem to have a default only setting when in the game. Steering with a joystick or analog stick on my Rumblepad seems either on or off(digital). Mouse seems to be the only way to steer the car with analog type control. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this issue. Thats all for now. Lots of stuff to explore and try in the game enviroment.

On Wed, 22 May 2002 17:48:12 -0700, Destroy wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> THERE IS NO ANALOG CONTROL FOR CAR STEERING!!! Least I haven't figured > out a way yet. What am I doing wrong? I can't set any of my joystick or > Rumble pad axis's to steer or accelerate/brake. They seem to have a > default only setting when in the game. Steering with a joystick or > analog stick on my Rumblepad seems either on or off(digital). Mouse > seems to be the only way to steer the car with analog type control. > Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this issue.

Analog steering works fine with my Thrustmaster Firestorm Dual Power. Analog running works, too...push a little, he walks, push a lot, he runs. Press a button, he sprints. Geo -- George Mealer | geo*AT*snarksoft*DOT*com "C is for Cthulhu, that's good enough for me! Oh, Cthulhu, Cthulhu...Cthulhu starts with C!"

> Analog steering works fine with my Thrustmaster Firestorm Dual Power. What about the car? Did you map the axis somehow in the control config menu, how? Please elaborate.

>THERE ARE NO IN MISSION SAVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can save while you are >in what I'd call 'slacker cruise' mode. Its kind of a time when your >character isn't on a definite mission but you are still in the game >world able to walk and drive around. There doesnt need to be in mission saves. I know this flies in the face of pc game mentality..but you cant fail in this game...if you die...oh well wake up at the hospital jack another ride and go get em again. I played the ps2 version to the end with friends..and every mission is doable with thought and patience...i look forward to playing my PC version into the ground! Bad SUshi

Destroy <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >> Analog steering works fine with my Thrustmaster Firestorm Dual Power. > > > What about the car? Did you map the axis somehow in the control config > menu, how? Please elaborate. > >

Yes, also with the car. No mapping available, at least that I saw. It just worked from the getgo. I'm sorry I don't have more to offer...I'm sure it's frustrating. For what it's worth, the stick that's working is the one on the X/Y axis, not the R/Z axis one. It doesn't recognize the second stick at all (actually a peeve of mine with the game). Geo -- George Mealer geo*AT*snarksoft*DOT*com "There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. It is 'dead'." -- Jack Cohen

On Wed, 22 May 2002 20:26:16 -0500, Destroy <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> Analog steering works fine with my Thrustmaster Firestorm Dual Power. > > >What about the car? Did you map the axis somehow in the control config >menu, how? Please elaborate. Set your controls in the game to 'Classic' instead of 'Standard'.

> There doesnt need to be in mission saves. I know this flies in the > face of pc game mentality..but you cant fail in this game...if you > die...oh well wake up at the hospital jack another ride and go get em > again. The thing I always disliked when I played it on the PS2 was that if you failed a mission, you had to go all the way back to meet up again with the person who gave you the mission just you they could give it to you again.

player one <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]: > Set your controls in the game to 'Classic' instead of 'Standard'. I tried this this morning to see if it made a difference. The only real difference this makes is that left/right/back on the stick or keyboard make your guy aim and go absolute left/right/back, instead of strafing or backpedalling. All the analog stuff works the same way. Destroy should be seeing analog steering (and running) regardless of his setting. Geo -- George Mealer geo*AT*snarksoft*DOT*com "There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. It is 'dead'." -- Jack Cohen

"Jeeters" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:_e7H8.113373$[email hidden]... > The thing I always disliked when I played it on the PS2 was that if you > failed a mission, you had to go all the way back to meet up again with the > person who gave you the mission just you they could give it to you again. > So don't fail. Anyway that is what happened in GTA 1&2, and probably in PC GTA 3 as well (I don't know because I haven't played the PC version). -- Nick "The overriding purpose of software is to be useful, rather than correct." John Carmack, id Software

Just curious.. what kind of controller do you recommend for GTA3? Would a gamepad work best? Destroy <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (40 lines)

> Well I took the risk and laid down my $52 bucks at EB. > > Installed fine. > > Safedisc sucks ass as usual causing slow, delayed loading of game but it > finally fires up eventually. > > Menus do their job well enough. Stuck with default mouse/keyboard setup > to start with and max gfx with 12x10 32bit res. > > Intro and movies are well done. > > Gameplay seems to be a combo of Street Fighter mixed with Midtown > Madness and touch of the old Taxi game thrown in for good measure. > > There is a bug causing the subtitle text to randomly be blank block > areas but that happened rarely and a restart of the game fixes it. > Win98se here, latest driver, latest DX crap, etc.. > > THERE ARE NO IN MISSION SAVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can save while you are > in what I'd call 'slacker cruise' mode. Its kind of a time when your > character isn't on a definite mission but you are still in the game > world able to walk and drive around. > > Car physics are actually pretty impressive. Car can slowly roll over if > you hit a inside curb while turning sharply at speed. Drop a door from > too much damage and if you run over it, it causes the car to bounce over > the door. Car gets damaged a bit too easily it seems. Car understeers > big time as one would expect from the big sedan I was driving at the > time. It no Nascar but it isn't gaudy arcady either. > > THERE IS NO ANALOG CONTROL FOR CAR STEERING!!! Least I haven't figured > out a way yet. What am I doing wrong? I can't set any of my joystick or > Rumble pad axis's to steer or accelerate/brake. They seem to have a > default only setting when in the game. Steering with a joystick or > analog stick on my Rumblepad seems either on or off(digital). Mouse > seems to be the only way to steer the car with analog type control. > Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this issue. > > Thats all for now. Lots of stuff to explore and try in the game enviroment.

For all intents and purposes - let's put it this way, I have yet to find a difference - gameplay is identical between the PS2 and PC versions. Except that the graphics and sound are vastly improved in PC, and, of course...mods. ;) Two nifty documented features: You can easily reskin the player (see \gta3\skins directory) and add another radio station that plays your MP3s (dump MP3s or shortcuts to MP3s in the \gta3\mp3 directory - the Office Space soundtrack is choice here, hehe). Milhouse "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:xGcH8.2417$[email hidden]... > > "Jeeters" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:_e7H8.113373$[email hidden]... > > The thing I always disliked when I played it on the PS2 was that if you > > failed a mission, you had to go all the way back to meet up again withthe > > person who gave you the mission just you they could give it to youagain. > > > > So don't fail. Anyway that is what happened in GTA 1&2, and probably inPC

Quoted text (12 lines)

> GTA 3 as well (I don't know because I haven't played the PC version). > > > -- > Nick > > "The overriding purpose of software is > to be useful, rather than correct." > John Carmack, id Software > > >

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Nick wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > "Jeeters" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:_e7H8.113373$[email hidden]... > > The thing I always disliked when I played it on the PS2 was that if you > > failed a mission, you had to go all the way back to meet up again with the > > person who gave you the mission just you they could give it to you again. > > So don't fail. Anyway that is what happened in GTA 1&2, and probably in PC > GTA 3 as well (I don't know because I haven't played the PC version).

In GTA1 and 2 you only had a certain number of lives, and if you ran out you had to start the entire chapter again from scratch. GTA3 is much better in that it gives you infinite lives, you can have as much reckless fun as you like and if you die in the process it isn't a big setback. -- Andrew Gillett http://argnet.fatal-design.com/ ICQ: See homepage US videogame release dates at: http://www.release-dates.com/

On 23 May 2002 16:14:42 -0700, [email hidden] (Doug Welzel) wrote: >Just curious.. what kind of controller do you recommend for GTA3? >Would a gamepad work best? > Yep. I use a USB adapter which allows a standard Playstation or Playstation 2 gamepad to be used on a PC. It's fantastic for many types of games, including GTA3. You can find them on EBAY, and elsewhere, for about 10-15 bucks. These are what I am talking about: http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?MfcISAPICommand=GetResult&ht=1&SortProperty=MetaEndSort&ebaytag1code=0&query=usb+playstation While I haven't tried them, these pads would also, probably, be suitable: http://www.ebgames.com/ebx/categories/products/product.asp?pf_id=189701 http://www.ebgames.com/ebx/categories/products/product.asp?pf_id=189994

player one <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On 23 May 2002 16:14:42 -0700, [email hidden] (Doug Welzel) wrote: > > >Just curious.. what kind of controller do you recommend for GTA3? > >Would a gamepad work best? > > > > Yep. > > I use a USB adapter which allows a standard Playstation or > Playstation 2 gamepad to be used on a PC.

is the right stick working for you? GTA3 seems to only recognise the left stick here. couldn't get the pedals on the wheel to work either. I must say it pisses me off. every time a PC port of a playstation game comes out, they (the console-minded knuckle head developers) manage to screw up the control system in one way or another. Gunnar, who WAS looking forward to playing GTA3 with a wheel. -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 "a poster is a human being or the software equivalent"

On Fri, 24 May 2002 00:28:33 +0100, Andrew R. Gillett <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Nick wrote: >> >> "Jeeters" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:_e7H8.113373$[email hidden]... >> > The thing I always disliked when I played it on the PS2 was that if you >> > failed a mission, you had to go all the way back to meet up again with the >> > person who gave you the mission just you they could give it to you again. >> >> So don't fail. Anyway that is what happened in GTA 1&2, and probably in PC >> GTA 3 as well (I don't know because I haven't played the PC version). > >In GTA1 and 2 you only had a certain number of lives, and if you ran out >you had to start the entire chapter again from scratch. GTA3 is much >better in that it gives you infinite lives, you can have as much reckless >fun as you like and if you die in the process it isn't a big setback.

Yep, great fun, and if you happen to run over a couple of cops, you don't have to reload. :) (or well, the gun perhaps). Still, not failing is hard, since where on Earth do I find 25 Triads to blaze?! Some missions are just damn hard (shooting 20 people at a boat with a pad?!). Highly addictive though. :) Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

On Thu, 23 May 2002 21:45:07 +0100, "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote: >So don't fail. Good tip - I'm at the 'van heist' mission where you have to ram and steal a money transport truck. Tried it about 20 times now and the police keeps ramming me off the road :-/ Andre

On Fri, 24 May 2002 14:45:41 +0200, Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>On Thu, 23 May 2002 21:45:07 +0100, "Nick" <[email hidden]> >wrote: > >>So don't fail. > >Good tip - I'm at the 'van heist' mission where you have to ram and >steal a money transport truck. Tried it about 20 times now and the >police keeps ramming me off the road :-/

Open the rear door so to release some money to bribe the police off. :) Ah, I still even am stuck in Liberty City itself; no bridges or anything yet. :( Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

Yes, it happens on the PC version too, and I hate it. All this console crap is stupid: limited saves, bouncing/floating powerups, flashing damage indicators (in GTA3 it's only on the health at least, but in most, if not all, console games the character flashes)--it's just all so damn kiddieish, just like console games are mostly developed for: kids and immature adults. 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 adults for the most part. :) At least with the PC version there's a glimmer of hope that it can be hacked to allow in-mission saving... Nick wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> "Jeeters" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:_e7H8.113373$[email hidden]... > > The thing I always disliked when I played it on the PS2 was that if you > > failed a mission, you had to go all the way back to meet up again with the > > person who gave you the mission just you they could give it to you again. > > So don't fail. Anyway that is what happened in GTA 1&2, and probably in PC > GTA 3 as well (I don't know because I haven't played the PC version).

On Fri, 24 May 2002 15:06:03 GMT, Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote: >At least with the PC version there's a glimmer of hope that it can be hacked to allow in-mission saving... Okay, now, usually I understand in-mission save gripes. In GTA3, the missions are short and decisive: you either complete them or you don't. In most of them there's no logical place to save. There's also no penalty for messing up a mission, even if you die; just jack another car, return to the person you got the mission from, and try it again. The only time you should be saving in GTA3 is when you want to stop playing it and do something else.

On 24 May 2002 04:55:11 +0200, Gunnar Horrigmo <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>player one <[email hidden]> writes: >> On 23 May 2002 16:14:42 -0700, [email hidden] (Doug Welzel) wrote: >> >> >Just curious.. what kind of controller do you recommend for GTA3? >> >Would a gamepad work best? >> > >> >> Yep. >> >> I use a USB adapter which allows a standard Playstation or >> Playstation 2 gamepad to be used on a PC. > >is the right stick working for you? GTA3 seems to only recognise the >left stick here. >

Only the left stick .. >Gunnar, who WAS looking forward to playing GTA3 with a wheel. >couldn't get the pedals on the wheel to work either. I, personally, wouldn't want to play GTA3 with a wheel. It might make walking, jumping and aiming a little difficult .. :)

[email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) wrote in news:[email hidden]: > Still, not failing is hard, since where on Earth do I find 25 Triads > to blaze?! Some missions are just damn hard (shooting 20 people at a > boat with a pad?!). Triads -looooove- basketball. :) Geo -- George Mealer geo*AT*snarksoft*DOT*com "There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. It is 'dead'." -- Jack Cohen

"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Yes, it happens on the PC version too, and I hate it. > > All this console crap is stupid: limited saves, bouncing/floatingpowerups, flashing damage indicators (in GTA3 it's only on the health at least, but in most, if not all, console games the character flashes)--it's just all so damn kiddieish, just like console games are mostly developed for: kids and immature adults. > > Granted, GTA3 is fairly non-kiddie, but it still has the above kiddieconsole elements. One reason I like PC games: they tend to be directed towards (and developed by) mature kids and adults for the most part. :) > > At least with the PC version there's a glimmer of hope that it can behacked to allow in-mission saving... > i think you would be happier just watching movies

On Fri, 24 May 2002 17:07:59 GMT, George Mealer <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>[email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) wrote in >news:[email hidden]: > > >> Still, not failing is hard, since where on Earth do I find 25 Triads >> to blaze?! Some missions are just damn hard (shooting 20 people at a >> boat with a pad?!). > >Triads -looooove- basketball.

Lol, I'll show them basketball! :) I've noticed the basketball field; too bad they seemed scared off by the first deaths or so. :) Needed another 6 victims. I'll try again. :) Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

Regardless, this type of saving is still console-ish and more an annoyance than anything. Hitman was criticized because of it. Tomb Raider 3 was going to have "save game gems" but instead they turned into "full health powerups" which still looked silly and unrealistic. When are console porters going to get it through their thick skulls that PC games don't need to have this shit in them? Geez... atholbrose wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Fri, 24 May 2002 15:06:03 GMT, Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote: > >At least with the PC version there's a glimmer of hope that it can be hacked to allow in-mission saving... > > Okay, now, usually I understand in-mission save gripes. In GTA3, the > missions are short and decisive: you either complete them or you don't. In > most of them there's no logical place to save. There's also no penalty for > messing up a mission, even if you die; just jack another car, return to > the person you got the mission from, and try it again. The only time you > should be saving in GTA3 is when you want to stop playing it and do > something else.

No, I'd be happier if PC ports didn't include these things. :) drink wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Yes, it happens on the PC version too, and I hate it. > > > > All this console crap is stupid: limited saves, bouncing/floating > powerups, flashing damage indicators (in GTA3 it's only on the health at > least, but in most, if not all, console games the character flashes)--it's > just all so damn kiddieish, just like console games are mostly developed > for: kids and immature adults. > > > > 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 adults for the most part. :) > > > > At least with the PC version there's a glimmer of hope that it can be > hacked to allow in-mission saving... > > > > i think you would be happier just watching movies

That's a hard little mission...the basketball is really the best way to go... It also helps to just move damn fast, i.e. have a Banshee with you if you can and at least use it to bust through the fence on the court...only problem is you have to toast them, run-overs don't count. Milhouse "Ruud van Gaal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (24 lines)

> On Fri, 24 May 2002 17:07:59 GMT, George Mealer > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >[email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) wrote in > >news:[email hidden]: > > > > > >> Still, not failing is hard, since where on Earth do I find 25 Triads > >> to blaze?! Some missions are just damn hard (shooting 20 people at a > >> boat with a pad?!). > > > >Triads -looooove- basketball. > > Lol, I'll show them basketball! :) > > I've noticed the basketball field; too bad they seemed scared off by > the first deaths or so. :) Needed another 6 victims. > > I'll try again. :) > > > Ruud van Gaal > Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ > Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

No, I'd be happier if PC ports didn't include these things. :) drink wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Yes, it happens on the PC version too, and I hate it. > > > > All this console crap is stupid: limited saves, bouncing/floating > powerups, flashing damage indicators (in GTA3 it's only on the health at > least, but in most, if not all, console games the character flashes)--it's > just all so damn kiddieish, just like console games are mostly developed > for: kids and immature adults. > > > > 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 adults for the most part. :) > > > > At least with the PC version there's a glimmer of hope that it can be > hacked to allow in-mission saving... > > > > i think you would be happier just watching movies

Ram harder then. ;) Are you just using any car or what? Mafia Sentinels work well for this if you want more speed, or just steal a big truck and get it done in a few hits. Once you get in the truck, you're basically home free. Oh, and if you get a chance...try pronouncing the name on the back - "Gruppe Sechs" sometime. Hehehe. Milhouse "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Thu, 23 May 2002 21:45:07 +0100, "Nick" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >So don't fail. > > Good tip - I'm at the 'van heist' mission where you have to ram and > steal a money transport truck. Tried it about 20 times now and the > police keeps ramming me off the road :-/ > > Andre

I don't get what the problem is, if you like a game buy it, if not don't. It really is that simple. -- Ian P <email invalid due to spam> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > No, I'd be happier if PC ports didn't include these things. :) >

On Fri, 24 May 2002 20:10:13 +0100, "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I don't get what the problem is, if you like a game buy it, if not don't. It >really is that simple. Yes, but if they didn't have in them things you didn't like you could enjoy more games.

"Whine, Whine... Bitch, Moan..."... I'm not going to even buy the PC version. Waste of money. I'd have to shell out for an overpriced PC game controller, when the Playstation's already works good enough. "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Yes, it happens on the PC version too, and I hate it. > > All this console crap is stupid: limited saves, bouncing/floatingpowerups, flashing damage indicators (in GTA3 it's only on the health at least, but in most, if not all, console games the character flashes)--it's just all so damn kiddieish, just like console games are mostly developed for: kids and immature adults. > > Granted, GTA3 is fairly non-kiddie, but it still has the above kiddieconsole elements. One reason I like PC games: they tend to be directed towards (and developed by) mature kids and adults for the most part. :) > > At least with the PC version there's a glimmer of hope that it can behacked to allow in-mission saving... > > Nick wrote: > > > "Jeeters" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:_e7H8.113373$[email hidden]... > > > The thing I always disliked when I played it on the PS2 was that ifyou > > > failed a mission, you had to go all the way back to meet up again withthe > > > person who gave you the mission just you they could give it to youagain. > > > > So don't fail. Anyway that is what happened in GTA 1&2, and probably inPC > > GTA 3 as well (I don't know because I haven't played the PC version). >

they purposely added control with mouse and keyboard because its BETTEr than the console type controller. if you use a mouse you get to aim your gun easily and its great damnit "Magnulus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8VAH8.12464$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (30 lines)

> "Whine, Whine... Bitch, Moan..."... > > I'm not going to even buy the PC version. Waste of money. I'd have to > shell out for an overpriced PC game controller, when the Playstation's > already works good enough. > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Yes, it happens on the PC version too, and I hate it. > > > > All this console crap is stupid: limited saves, bouncing/floating > powerups, flashing damage indicators (in GTA3 it's only on the health at > least, but in most, if not all, console games the character flashes)--it's > just all so damn kiddieish, just like console games are mostly developed > for: kids and immature adults. > > > > 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 adults for the most part. :) > > > > At least with the PC version there's a glimmer of hope that it can be > hacked to allow in-mission saving... > > > > Nick wrote: > > > > > "Jeeters" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:_e7H8.113373$[email hidden]... > > > > The thing I always disliked when I played it on the PS2 was that if > you > > > > failed a mission, you had to go all the way back to meet up again

with > the > > > > person who gave you the mission just you they could give it to you > again. > > > > > > So don't fail. Anyway that is what happened in GTA 1&2, and probablyin > PC > > > GTA 3 as well (I don't know because I haven't played the PC version). > > > > >

Yeah, but driving a car with a mouse? I can't imagine that. "drink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:05BH8.15148$[email hidden]... > they purposely added control with mouse and keyboard because its BETTErthan

Quoted text (8 lines)

> the console type controller. if you use a mouse you get to aim your gun > easily and its great damnit > > "Magnulus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8VAH8.12464$[email hidden]... > > "Whine, Whine... Bitch, Moan..."... > > > > I'm not going to even buy the PC version. Waste of money. I'd have

to

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > shell out for an overpriced PC game controller, when the Playstation's > > already works good enough. > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Yes, it happens on the PC version too, and I hate it. > > > > > > All this console crap is stupid: limited saves, bouncing/floating > > powerups, flashing damage indicators (in GTA3 it's only on the health at > > least, but in most, if not all, console games the character

flashes)--it's

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > just all so damn kiddieish, just like console games are mostly developed > > for: kids and immature adults. > > > > > > 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 adults for the most part. :) > > > > > > At least with the PC version there's a glimmer of hope that it can be > > hacked to allow in-mission saving... > > > > > > Nick wrote: > > > > > > > "Jeeters" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:_e7H8.113373$[email hidden]... > > > > > The thing I always disliked when I played it on the PS2 was that

if

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > you > > > > > failed a mission, you had to go all the way back to meet up again > with > > the > > > > > person who gave you the mission just you they could give it to you > > again. > > > > > > > > So don't fail. Anyway that is what happened in GTA 1&2, and probably > in > > PC > > > > GTA 3 as well (I don't know because I haven't played the PC

version).

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > > > > > > > > > >

Magnulus wrote: > Yeah, but driving a car with a mouse? I can't imagine that. > Imagine it pretty much sucking ass.

The problem is that it's not about liking or disliking a game, but ENJOYING playing it. At the very least these console "gimmicks" should be OPTIONAL in PC ports. Ian P wrote: > I don't get what the problem is, if you like a game buy it, if not don't. It > really is that simple. > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > No, I'd be happier if PC ports didn't include these things. :)

So use a wheel joystick--der. Granted, Rockstar didn't include joystick tweaking options (sensitivity, dead zone, etc)--more console portilitis! Magnulus wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> Yeah, but driving a car with a mouse? I can't imagine that. > > "drink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:05BH8.15148$[email hidden]... > > they purposely added control with mouse and keyboard because its BETTEr than > > the console type controller. if you use a mouse you get to aim your gun > > easily and its great damnit > > > > "Magnulus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:8VAH8.12464$[email hidden]... > > > "Whine, Whine... Bitch, Moan..."... > > > > > > I'm not going to even buy the PC version. Waste of money. I'd have to > > > shell out for an overpriced PC game controller, when the Playstation's > > > already works good enough. > > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Yes, it happens on the PC version too, and I hate it.

Eep� wrote: > So use a wheel joystick--der. Granted, Rockstar didn't include joystick > tweaking options (sensitivity, dead zone, etc)--more console portilitis! Case and point, there is a race mission that took me 5 times to finally beat cause I can't steer the freaking car properly with a wheel or joystick!!

use the keyboard to drive it works fine "Magnulus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tZBH8.12527$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (24 lines)

> Yeah, but driving a car with a mouse? I can't imagine that. > > "drink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:05BH8.15148$[email hidden]... > > they purposely added control with mouse and keyboard because its BETTEr > than > > the console type controller. if you use a mouse you get to aim your gun > > easily and its great damnit > > > > "Magnulus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:8VAH8.12464$[email hidden]... > > > "Whine, Whine... Bitch, Moan..."... > > > > > > I'm not going to even buy the PC version. Waste of money. I'd have > to > > > shell out for an overpriced PC game controller, when the Playstation's > > > already works good enough. > > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Yes, it happens on the PC version too, and I hate it. > > > > > > > > All this console crap is stupid: limited saves, bouncing/floating > > > powerups, flashing damage indicators (in GTA3 it's only on the health

at > > > least, but in most, if not all, console games the character > flashes)--it's > > > just all so damn kiddieish, just like console games are mostlydeveloped > > > for: kids and immature adults. > > > > > > > > Granted, GTA3 is fairly non-kiddie, but it still has the abovekiddie > > > console elements. One reason I like PC games: they tend to be directed > > > towards (and developed by) mature kids and adults for the most part.:) > > > > > > > > At least with the PC version there's a glimmer of hope that it canbe

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > hacked to allow in-mission saving... > > > > > > > > Nick wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Jeeters" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:_e7H8.113373$[email hidden]... > > > > > > The thing I always disliked when I played it on the PS2 was that > if > > > you > > > > > > failed a mission, you had to go all the way back to meet up

again > > with > > > the > > > > > > person who gave you the mission just you they could give it toyou > > > again. > > > > > > > > > > So don't fail. Anyway that is what happened in GTA 1&2, andprobably

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > in > > > PC > > > > > GTA 3 as well (I don't know because I haven't played the PC > version). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

drink wrote: > use the keyboard to drive it works fine Thats like saying use your steering wheel in walk mode; it just aint right. <sigh>

"Eep�", in his infinite wisdom, <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Yes, it happens on the PC version too, and I hate it. > > All this console crap is stupid: limited saves, bouncing/floatingpowerups, flashing damage indicators (in GTA3 it's only on the health at least, but in most, if not all, console games the character flashes)--it's just all so damn kiddieish, just like console games are mostly developed for: kids and immature adults. Quake, Serious Sam, and Unreal Tournament have floating powerups. Consoles are not just for kids? That's just a stereotype. 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. Well, a few weeks ago I took the plunge and bought a Playstation 2 and it has really opened my eyes. I haven't seen a gaming system this good since the Commodore Amiga in the variety of games. PC's, on the other hand, seem to have stagnated with first-person shooters qualifying as "action games", mostly they seem to have become tech demos for folks who want to show off their hardware. PS2 has a larger selection of games than what you will find on the PC, with the possible exception of strategy games and flight sims (but I have seen Civ II and Red Alert for Playstation, and there are fantasy flying games), and it is backwards compatible with Playstation games. I picked up a small library of Playstation 1 games like Bushido Blade,, Metal Gear Solid, Tenchu, Tekken 3, Soul Blade, Silent Hill, Resident Evil... they are all good, and there's not much like them on the PC. I bought Final Fantasy X for 20 dollars at a video store and I'm enjoying it alot.

On Fri, 24 May 2002 11:37:15 -0500, player one <[email hidden]> wrote: >I, personally, wouldn't want to play GTA3 with a wheel. >It might make walking, jumping and aiming a little difficult .. :) You can use the wheel for driving and keys/mouse to walk/look. Long live the PC :) Andre

On Fri, 24 May 2002 13:19:32 GMT, [email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) wrote: >Open the rear door so to release some money to bribe the police off. >:) Err.. how do you open the backdoor? Or am I missing the joke here :) Andre

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Ah, I still even am stuck in Liberty City itself; no bridges or >anything yet. :( > > >Ruud van Gaal >Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ >Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

On Fri, 24 May 2002 18:52:13 GMT, "Milhouse" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Ram harder then. ;) > >Are you just using any car or what? Mafia Sentinels work well for this if >you want more speed, or just steal a big truck and get it done in a few >hits. Once you get in the truck, you're basically home free. I got into the truck a coupe of times, 2-3 times, but every time when I was in the truck the game crashed. It crashes a lot, about every 30 minutes, quite anoying :-/ Andre

Magnulus wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> "Eep�", in his infinite wisdom, <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Yes, it happens on the PC version too, and I hate it. > > > > All this console crap is stupid: limited saves, bouncing/floating > powerups, flashing damage indicators (in GTA3 it's only on the health at > least, but in most, if not all, console games the character flashes)--it's > just all so damn kiddieish, just like console games are mostly developed > for: kids and immature adults. > > Quake, Serious Sam, and Unreal Tournament have floating powerups.

Yes, and I don't play any of them (but not JUST because of these). > 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.

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Well, a few weeks ago I took the plunge and bought a Playstation 2 and it > has really opened my eyes. I haven't seen a gaming system this good since > the Commodore Amiga in the variety of games. PC's, on the other hand, seem > to have stagnated with first-person shooters qualifying as "action games", > mostly they seem to have become tech demos for folks who want to show off > their hardware. PS2 has a larger selection of games than what you will find > on the PC, with the possible exception of strategy games and flight sims > (but I have seen Civ II and Red Alert for Playstation, and there are fantasy > flying games), and it is backwards compatible with Playstation games. I > picked up a small library of Playstation 1 games like Bushido Blade,, Metal > Gear Solid, Tenchu, Tekken 3, Soul Blade, Silent Hill, Resident Evil... they > are all good, and there's not much like them on the PC. I bought Final > Fantasy X for 20 dollars at a video store and I'm enjoying it alot.

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 adults who can't handle REAL gaming machines: PCs--PERIOD.

"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 24 May 2002 18:52:13 GMT, "Milhouse" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Ram harder then. ;) > > > >Are you just using any car or what? Mafia Sentinels work well for thisif

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >you want more speed, or just steal a big truck and get it done in a few > >hits. Once you get in the truck, you're basically home free. > > I got into the truck a coupe of times, 2-3 times, but every time when > I was in the truck the game crashed. It crashes a lot, about every 30 > minutes, quite anoying :-/ > > Andre

Do you have all of the latest XP patches? I haven't had any crashes at all on mine... Milhouse

"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > All of this is irrelevant for the simple fact that PC games aremodifiable/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 adults who can't handle REAL gaming machines: PCs--PERIOD. > Most PC mods never got off the drawing boards. The modability of PC games is greatly overstated. The action genre comes down to "first person shooters" on the PC. There's not much else. Maybe Duke Nukem: Manhattan Project will give the PC action genre some diversity. Consoles have most of those genres you listed, with the possible exception of sims and strategy games, but even then, I have seen Civ II for Playstation. Shigeru Miyamoto (Mario creator) is suppossedly working on Pikmin, which will be sort of a strategy game for Nintendo. Part of the problem is that strategy game is so narrowly defined by PC gamers. There are sims for the Playstation, but most of them are Japanese only (like Densha De Go- a train simulator) Some of those driving games probably border on being simulations. PC's more cost effective? I could probably build an Athlon 1700 with a GeForce 3 or Radeon 8500 for around 500-600 dollars, but add on a monitor, and you have something around 700-900 dollars at the very least (lets not forget if you buy these through somebody like Falcon or Dell, you could spend thousands). You don't need a new computer like this to read e-mail (a five year old computer would work fine)... only to play games. For 200-300 dollars you can buy a game console system and the rest of the money you can use to buy/rent games... You do the math. PC's have never been great gaming platforms. They have been passable, but never great. I think the Commodore Amiga was probably the best game machine that was still a home computer. It had all kinds of games (including strategy and sims), and it had arcade quality graphics and sound. The IBM PC on the other hand, at the time, gave really crappy graphics and sound, yet cost alot more.

Then don't. Drive with the keys as that's the default setup. Anything more to whine about? ;-) On Fri, 24 May 2002 21:52:47 -0400, "Magnulus" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (63 lines)

> Yeah, but driving a car with a mouse? I can't imagine that. > >"drink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:05BH8.15148$[email hidden]... >> they purposely added control with mouse and keyboard because its BETTEr >than >> the console type controller. if you use a mouse you get to aim your gun >> easily and its great damnit >> >> "Magnulus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:8VAH8.12464$[email hidden]... >> > "Whine, Whine... Bitch, Moan..."... >> > >> > I'm not going to even buy the PC version. Waste of money. I'd have >to >> > shell out for an overpriced PC game controller, when the Playstation's >> > already works good enough. >> > >> > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> > news:[email hidden]... >> > > Yes, it happens on the PC version too, and I hate it. >> > > >> > > All this console crap is stupid: limited saves, bouncing/floating >> > powerups, flashing damage indicators (in GTA3 it's only on the health at >> > least, but in most, if not all, console games the character >flashes)--it's >> > just all so damn kiddieish, just like console games are mostly developed >> > for: kids and immature adults. >> > > >> > > 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 adults for the most part. :) >> > > >> > > At least with the PC version there's a glimmer of hope that it can be >> > hacked to allow in-mission saving... >> > > >> > > Nick wrote: >> > > >> > > > "Jeeters" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> > > > news:_e7H8.113373$[email hidden]... >> > > > > The thing I always disliked when I played it on the PS2 was that >if >> > you >> > > > > failed a mission, you had to go all the way back to meet up again >> with >> > the >> > > > > person who gave you the mission just you they could give it to you >> > again. >> > > > >> > > > So don't fail. Anyway that is what happened in GTA 1&2, and probably >> in >> > PC >> > > > GTA 3 as well (I don't know because I haven't played the PC >version). >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> > >

On Sat, 25 May 2002 03:55:15 GMT, Destroy <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > >Eep� wrote: > >> So use a wheel joystick--der. Granted, Rockstar didn't include joystick > >> tweaking options (sensitivity, dead zone, etc)--more console portilitis! > > >Case and point, there is a race mission that took me 5 times to finally >beat cause I can't steer the freaking car properly with a wheel >or joystick!!

Took me two tries to win with keys. And even then I think it was to do with the car I had. I find it very easy to control with keys.

On Sat, 25 May 2002 05:31:13 GMT, Destroy <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > >drink wrote: > >> use the keyboard to drive it works fine > > >Thats like saying use your steering wheel in walk mode; it just aint >right. <sigh>

Maybe not but it works. <sighs harder>

On Sat, 25 May 2002 06:45:31 -0400, "Magnulus" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> 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 adults who can't handle >REAL gaming machines: PCs--PERIOD. >> > > Most PC mods never got off the drawing boards. The modability of PC games >is greatly overstated.

I don't agree. It's the people doing them that tend to have a talent defecit. As you say, a lot of mods don't get finished becuase they come uyp with all these fancy ideas but don't have the skills to do them. Don't blame the game for peoples shortcomings. > > The action genre comes down to "first person shooters" on the PC. There's >not much else. Maybe Duke Nukem: Manhattan Project will give the PC action >genre some diversity. That's alright if you want retro platform games. If I wanted those I would get a console. > PC's have never been great gaming platforms. They have been passable, but >never great. I think the Commodore Amiga was probably the best game machine >that was still a home computer. It had all kinds of games (including >strategy and sims), and it had arcade quality graphics and sound. The IBM >PC on the other hand, at the time, gave really crappy graphics and sound, >yet cost alot more. Never been great gaming platforms? You jest surely?

player one <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> On 24 May 2002 04:55:11 +0200, Gunnar Horrigmo <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Gunnar, who WAS looking forward to playing GTA3 with a wheel. > >couldn't get the pedals on the wheel to work either. > > I, personally, wouldn't want to play GTA3 with a wheel. > It might make walking, jumping and aiming a little difficult .. :)

sure, but there's no reason you couldn't use mouse/keyboard, or even a pad for running around even if you drove the cars with a wheel. -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 to err is human -- to forgive is bovine.

Magnulus wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 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 adults who can't handle > REAL gaming machines: PCs--PERIOD. > > > > Most PC mods never got off the drawing boards. The modability of PC games > is greatly overstated.

Not total conversion mods but simply being able to modify the game at ALL (like I did with Max Payne to make it 1st-person). > The action genre comes down to "first person shooters" on the PC. There's > not much else. Maybe Duke Nukem: Manhattan Project will give the PC action > genre some diversity. Not true; there are 3rd-person action (and action-adventure--Tomb Raider et al) games

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Consoles have most of those genres you listed, with the possible > exception of sims and strategy games, but even then, I have seen Civ II for > Playstation. Shigeru Miyamoto (Mario creator) is suppossedly working on > Pikmin, which will be sort of a strategy game for Nintendo. Part of the > problem is that strategy game is so narrowly defined by PC gamers. There > are sims for the Playstation, but most of them are Japanese only (like > Densha De Go- a train simulator) Some of those driving games probably border > on being simulations.

Oh please...console strategy games suck. Hell, even their sims suck: I remember when Mechwarrior 3 came out on the PS and its control was pure, unadulterated CRAP compared to the PC version.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> PC's more cost effective? I could probably build an Athlon 1700 with a > GeForce 3 or Radeon 8500 for around 500-600 dollars, but add on a monitor, > and you have something around 700-900 dollars at the very least (lets not > forget if you buy these through somebody like Falcon or Dell, you could > spend thousands). You don't need a new computer like this to read e-mail (a > five year old computer would work fine)... only to play games. For 200-300 > dollars you can buy a game console system and the rest of the money you can > use to buy/rent games... You do the math.

Ah, yes, do the math, Mag--you forgot about the TV cost and everything ELSE you can do with PCs that consoles can't even BEGIN to fathom. This discussion is quite old. The latest console price cuts should be evidence enough they're just not selling that well. <chuckle> > PC's have never been great gaming platforms. They have been passable, but > never great. I think the Commodore Amiga was probably the best game machine > that was still a home computer. It had all kinds of games (including > strategy and sims), and it had arcade quality graphics and sound. The IBM > PC on the other hand, at the time, gave really crappy graphics and sound, > yet cost alot more. Oh please...the PCs have always been good gaming machines--and even moreso when 3D acceleration hit mainstream. Consoles are for kiddies; PCs are for the big boys. Tip: this latest console "generation" is already obsolete in case you didn't notice. ;) And don't try to upgrade them...or be disappointed as PC graphics surpass consoles 10fold in the next couple years. Me, I'm stickin' with an easily upgradable gaming system where *I* can choose how to configure it best for the games I want to play and can modify those games if I so choose. Consoles don't even come close.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Thu, 23 May 2002 21:45:07 +0100, "Nick" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >So don't fail. > > Good tip - I'm at the 'van heist' mission where you have to ram and > steal a money transport truck. Tried it about 20 times now and the > police keeps ramming me off the road :-/ > > Andre

Try using the big truck near the docks, pick it up, get some good speed, and ram a couple of times into the security van, when he bails, nick it, take it to the pay & spray to get rid of the cops, then cruise down to the garage.

On Fri, 24 May 2002 20:39:55 -0400, "Magnulus" <[email hidden]> wrote: >"Whine, Whine... Bitch, Moan..."... > > I'm not going to even buy the PC version. Waste of money. I'd have to >shell out for an overpriced PC game controller, when the Playstation's >already works good enough. I use the PS controller on my PC. It works real nice. 10 bucks for the adapter.... http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?MfcISAPICommand=GetResult&ht=1&SortProperty=MetaEndSort&ebaytag1code=0&query=psx+usb [shrug]

> PC's have never been great gaming platforms. They have been passable, but > never great. I think the Commodore Amiga was probably the best game machine > that was still a home computer. It had all kinds of games (including > strategy and sims), and it had arcade quality graphics and sound. The IBM > PC on the other hand, at the time, gave really crappy graphics and sound, > yet cost alot more. Yep still have my Amiga 1200, but running WinUAE on my PC is working great have been playing lot's of my old games, my wife is playing the old Abasic game of monopoly on her PC with WinUAE & love's it. I have been playing deuteros, graphics are crap but game play is great,

On Sat, 25 May 2002 14:36:30 +0100, Bindu <[email hidden]> wrote: >Try using the big truck near the docks, pick it up, >get some good speed, and ram a couple of times into the security van, > >when he bails, nick it, take it to the pay & spray to get rid of the >cops, then cruise down to the garage. Thanks, I never thought about that pay&spray shop.. Andre

On Sat, 25 May 2002 09:23:52 GMT, "Milhouse" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Do you have all of the latest XP patches? I haven't had any crashes at all >on mine... > >Milhouse I'm running W98SE with a GF2 GTS and the 7.something drivers.. Andre

Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... [...] > 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 adults for the most part. :) What makes it non-kiddie, that you can drive to the park with a prostitute and kill her afterwards, so that you don't have to pay her??? I bet that's really popular with the kids. Bjoern [...]

Um, first of all your can't even GET a prostitute to do anything until after awhile, all the while your money drains about $1/second. Second, what makes GTA3 non-kiddie is the language, setting, violence, and, of course, gameplay. GTA3 isn't for preteens (and I'd question it for early-mid teens too). I'd rate it R (NC-17) if it was a movie. Bjoern wrote: > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > > 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 adults for the most part. :) > > What makes it non-kiddie, that you can drive to the park with a > prostitute and kill her afterwards, so that you don't have to pay > her??? I bet that's really popular with the kids.

Um, first of all your can't even GET a *** to do anything until after awhile, all the while your money drains about $1/second. Second, what makes GTA3 non-kiddie is the language, setting, ***, and, of course, gameplay. GTA3 isn't for pre***s (and I'd question it for early-mid ***s too). I'd rate it R (NC-17) if it was a movie. > > 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. :) > What makes it non-kiddie, that you can drive to the park with a > *** and kill her afterwards, so that you don't have to pay > her??? I bet that's really popular with the kids.

On Sat, 25 May 2002 10:18:56 +0200, Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>On Fri, 24 May 2002 13:19:32 GMT, [email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) >wrote: > >>Open the rear door so to release some money to bribe the police off. >>:) > >Err.. how do you open the backdoor? Or am I missing the joke here :)

Uhm, you're missing the joke! :) Although I did read that if you do enough Vigilante missions that you can get a bribe or 2. No kidding there. Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

Great post! I rarely if ever play games on my PC anymore. PCs have way too many FPSs. Most of the FPSs are all the same, only a few rare gems. I hope Doom 3 resurrects great PC FPS games, because Doom (not doom 2) was great. Cygnus The Bringer of Balance "Magnulus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<zVGH8.16527

Quoted text (21 lines)

> Quake, Serious Sam, and Unreal Tournament have floating powerups. > > Consoles are not just for kids? That's just a stereotype. > > 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. > > Well, a few weeks ago I took the plunge and bought a Playstation 2 and it > has really opened my eyes. I haven't seen a gaming system this good since > the Commodore Amiga in the variety of games. PC's, on the other hand, seem > to have stagnated with first-person shooters qualifying as "action games", > mostly they seem to have become tech demos for folks who want to show off > their hardware. PS2 has a larger selection of games than what you will find > on the PC, with the possible exception of strategy games and flight sims > (but I have seen Civ II and Red Alert for Playstation, and there are fantasy > flying games), and it is backwards compatible with Playstation games. I > picked up a small library of Playstation 1 games like Bushido Blade,, Metal > Gear Solid, Tenchu, Tekken 3, Soul Blade, Silent Hill, Resident Evil... they > are all good, and there's not much like them on the PC. I bought Final > Fantasy X for 20 dollars at a video store and I'm enjoying it alot.

On 25 May 2002 14:34:27 +0200, Gunnar Horrigmo <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>player one <[email hidden]> writes: >> On 24 May 2002 04:55:11 +0200, Gunnar Horrigmo <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> >Gunnar, who WAS looking forward to playing GTA3 with a wheel. >> >couldn't get the pedals on the wheel to work either. >> >> I, personally, wouldn't want to play GTA3 with a wheel. >> It might make walking, jumping and aiming a little difficult .. :) > >sure, but there's no reason you couldn't use mouse/keyboard, or even a >pad for running around even if you drove the cars with a wheel.

Ever tried it within an Hyperstim? <g> Remco

On Fri, 24 May 2002 14:45:41 +0200, Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote: >Good tip - I'm at the 'van heist' mission where you have to ram and >steal a money transport truck. Tried it about 20 times now and the >police keeps ramming me off the road :-/ I don't remember that specific mission. But in general, when a mission in GTA3 is hard it's because you're using a bad strategy (there is often more than one good one). Once you figure out a good strategy I almost always finished missions in 1 or 2 tries.

[email hidden] (Doug Welzel) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (44 lines)

> Just curious.. what kind of controller do you recommend for GTA3? > Would a gamepad work best? > > Destroy <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > > Well I took the risk and laid down my $52 bucks at EB. > > > > Installed fine. > > > > Safedisc sucks ass as usual causing slow, delayed loading of game but it > > finally fires up eventually. > > > > Menus do their job well enough. Stuck with default mouse/keyboard setup > > to start with and max gfx with 12x10 32bit res. > > > > Intro and movies are well done. > > > > Gameplay seems to be a combo of Street Fighter mixed with Midtown > > Madness and touch of the old Taxi game thrown in for good measure. > > > > There is a bug causing the subtitle text to randomly be blank block > > areas but that happened rarely and a restart of the game fixes it. > > Win98se here, latest driver, latest DX crap, etc.. > > > > THERE ARE NO IN MISSION SAVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can save while you are > > in what I'd call 'slacker cruise' mode. Its kind of a time when your > > character isn't on a definite mission but you are still in the game > > world able to walk and drive around. > > > > Car physics are actually pretty impressive. Car can slowly roll over if > > you hit a inside curb while turning sharply at speed. Drop a door from > > too much damage and if you run over it, it causes the car to bounce over > > the door. Car gets damaged a bit too easily it seems. Car understeers > > big time as one would expect from the big sedan I was driving at the > > time. It no Nascar but it isn't gaudy arcady either. > > > > THERE IS NO ANALOG CONTROL FOR CAR STEERING!!! Least I haven't figured > > out a way yet. What am I doing wrong? I can't set any of my joystick or > > Rumble pad axis's to steer or accelerate/brake. They seem to have a > > default only setting when in the game. Steering with a joystick or > > analog stick on my Rumblepad seems either on or off(digital). Mouse > > seems to be the only way to steer the car with analog type control. > > Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this issue. > > > > Thats all for now. Lots of stuff to explore and try in the game enviroment.

Get the gravis gamepad pro (it looks like PS1's controller). Its very good if your used to play on a gamepad.

Joe62 wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On Fri, 24 May 2002 14:45:41 +0200, Andre Warringa > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >>Good tip - I'm at the 'van heist' mission where you have to ram and >>steal a money transport truck. Tried it about 20 times now and the >>police keeps ramming me off the road :-/ > > > I don't remember that specific mission. But in general, when a mission > in GTA3 is hard it's because you're using a bad strategy (there is > often more than one good one). Once you figure out a good strategy I > almost always finished missions in 1 or 2 tries.

I had no problems at all with this mission. Just jacked a large moving truck for the job. The one before it, taking out Chunky Lee Chong, was harder. -- Fester "The Ferrari is a tainted vehicle and Formula 1 is no longer a sport. If they had instructed me to do the same I would have told them to stuff it." -- Stirling Moss

Yep...I think it's every 10 criminals you kill or something like that, you get a bribe delivered to your hideouts...there's a few scattered around the world, too... Similarly, finding 10 secret packages gets you a weapon delivered to your hideout for free. And I believe doing a certain number of fire truck missions gets you the flamethrower delivered... I don't know/remember what taxi and paramedic missions get you. Milhouse "Ruud van Gaal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> On Sat, 25 May 2002 10:18:56 +0200, Andre Warringa > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >On Fri, 24 May 2002 13:19:32 GMT, [email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) > >wrote: > > > >>Open the rear door so to release some money to bribe the police off. > >>:) > > > >Err.. how do you open the backdoor? Or am I missing the joke here :) > > Uhm, you're missing the joke! :) > > Although I did read that if you do enough Vigilante missions that you > can get a bribe or 2. No kidding there. > > > Ruud van Gaal > Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ > Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

On Tue, 28 May 2002 08:28:22 GMT, "Milhouse" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Yep...I think it's every 10 criminals you kill or something like that, you >get a bribe delivered to your hideouts...there's a few scattered around the >world, too... > >Similarly, finding 10 secret packages gets you a weapon delivered to your >hideout for free. > >And I believe doing a certain number of fire truck missions gets you the >flamethrower delivered... > >I don't know/remember what taxi and paramedic missions get you.

Interesting stuff. I've read that with taxi missions you can get an indestructable taxi. Gotta do more of those missions. Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

"Magnulus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tZBH8.12527$[email hidden]... > Yeah, but driving a car with a mouse? I can't imagine that. Try Quake 3 Rally (mod for Q3A). It's amazingly good fun, and yes... you steer with the mouse. Play it online for much fun, and get all that crashing out of your system before hitting GPL <g> -- Nick "The overriding purpose of software is to be useful, rather than correct." John Carmack, id Software

"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Not total conversion mods but simply being able to modify the game at ALL(like I did with Max Payne to make it 1st-person). Is that the mod which just moved the camera forward, or is there a real 1st person mod? BTW, you are very anti-console, try the live-and-let-live approach <g>. -- Nick "The overriding purpose of software is to be useful, rather than correct." John Carmack, id Software

"Milhouse" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Yep...I think it's every 10 criminals you kill or something like that, you > get a bribe delivered to your hideouts...there's a few scattered around the > world, too... > > Similarly, finding 10 secret packages gets you a weapon delivered to your > hideout for free. > > And I believe doing a certain number of fire truck missions gets you the > flamethrower delivered...

20 on each island, I believe. > I don't know/remember what taxi and paramedic missions get you. 100 taxi deliveries are supposed to get you the "borgnine taxi", whatever that is. paramadic gets you health for every 50th patient (I think), and infinite run if you ever get to 12th level. good luck. :) -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 DE RECTIS NON TOLERANDUM EST

Nick wrote: > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Not total conversion mods but simply being able to modify the game at ALL > (like I did with Max Payne to make it 1st-person). > > Is that the mod which just moved the camera forward, or is there a real 1st person mod? Define "real". I'd say moving the camera forward IS a real 1st-person mod because it keeps the player character's body in-view. I'd much rather have THIS kind of 1st-person view than the typical floating camera syndrome of most FPSes. > BTW, you are very anti-console, try the live-and-let-live approach <g>. Oh, I do--all the lemming morons and kids who can't handle REAL gaming systems can use consoles all they want--hell, I had an Atari 400 and original Nintendo back when I was a wee lad, but I outgrew them and went onto REAL gaming machines: PCs. :)

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Nick wrote: > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > BTW, you are very anti-console, try the live-and-let-live approach <g>. > > Oh, I do--all the lemming morons and kids who can't handle REAL gaming systems can use consoles all they want>

Yeah, that's a real nice "live and let live" approach, there, Eepster. Much like the racist who says "hey, I don't give a rat's ass what dem niggers do so long as they don't live in my neighborhood". Ass. smr

"smr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Yeah, that's a real nice "live and let live" approach, there, Eepster. > Much like the racist who says "hey, I don't give a rat's ass what dem > niggers do so long as they don't live in my neighborhood". I wouldn't imply that Eep would write such a thing. After all, it's properly formatted.

Yet another false analogy fallacy, twit. <adds you to THIS newsgroup's filter list too> smr wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > > Nick wrote: > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > BTW, you are very anti-console, try the live-and-let-live approach <g>. > > > > Oh, I do--all the lemming morons and kids who can't handle REAL gaming systems can use consoles all they want> > > Yeah, that's a real nice "live and let live" approach, there, Eepster. > Much like the racist who says "hey, I don't give a rat's ass what dem > niggers do so long as they don't live in my neighborhood". > > Ass.

"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Granted, GTA3 is fairly non-kiddie, but it still has the above kiddieconsole elements. One reason I like PC games: they tend to be directed towards (and developed by) mature kids and adults 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.

> > 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 whenall > > my friends were playing Mario or sports games, and I was playingPirates. > > I stopped dorking with consoles since the 8-bit Nintendo back in the late1980s 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 aremodifiable/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 adults who can't handle REAL gaming machines: PCs--PERIOD. how old are you? you'll find that a lot of adults 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/teenagers 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 gaming 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 gaming 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 gaming was just something to kill time at lunch breaks for nerds who had nothing else to do, the Amiga was king of gaming for Adults and kids alike. The new age PC gamer who slags down video gaming 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.

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

Quoted text (10 lines)

> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > 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 adults 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.

"Magnulus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:zVGH8.16527$[email hidden]... > Quake, Serious Sam, and Unreal Tournament have floating powerups. > > Consoles are not just for kids? That's just a stereotype. > > 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 whenall > my friends were playing Mario or sports games, and I was playing Pirates. 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. > Well, a few weeks ago I took the plunge and bought a Playstation 2 andit > has really opened my eyes. I haven't seen a gaming system this good since > the Commodore Amiga in the variety of games. PC's, on the other hand,seem > to have stagnated with first-person shooters qualifying as "action games", > mostly they seem to have become tech demos for folks who want to show off > their hardware. PS2 has a larger selection of games than what you willfind > on the PC, with the possible exception of strategy games and flight sims > (but I have seen Civ II and Red Alert for Playstation, and there arefantasy > flying games), and it is backwards compatible with Playstation games. I > picked up a small library of Playstation 1 games like Bushido Blade,,Metal > Gear Solid, Tenchu, Tekken 3, Soul Blade, Silent Hill, Resident Evil...they > are all good, and there's not much like them on the PC. I bought Final > Fantasy X for 20 dollars at a video store and I'm enjoying it alot. very good points, PC gaming can become very teckie and nerdy, I admit that it is very addictive 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.

"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Marc wrote: > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > 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 adults 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 timefavourite > > 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

Marc wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > > 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 adults who can't handle > REAL gaming machines: PCs--PERIOD. > > how old are you?

Old enough to have outgrown kiddie consoles. :)

Quoted text (43 lines)

> you'll find that a lot of adults 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/teenagers 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 gaming 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 gaming 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 > gaming was just something to kill time at lunch breaks for nerds who had > nothing else to do, the Amiga was king of gaming for Adults and kids alike. > > The new age PC gamer who slags down video gaming 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.

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.

"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... >Consoles are a dying breed Throw another log onto the Eep-is-absolutely-batshit-looney fire.

"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Bah, what a load of shit. Consoles didn't do SHIT for PCs except competewith 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 gaming machine, unless the rest of your hardware, OS etc are up to scratch. > Consoles are for kiddie gamers and burnt-out druggies who can't use REALcomputers. LOL BTW Did you keep the Jesus boots?

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). Marc wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Marc wrote: > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > 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 adults 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

Marc wrote:

Quoted text (25 lines)

> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > 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 gaming 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 GAMING! > > Consoles are for kiddie gamers and burnt-out druggies who can't use REAL > computers. > > LOL > > BTW Did you keep the Jesus boots? ?

"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Marc wrote: > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > Bah, what a load of shit. Consoles didn't do SHIT for PCs exceptcompete > > 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 8080CPU, > > became the staple of console CPUs for 10 years) and versatility (notjust > > 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 graphicssuperiority > > is getting less and less--I suspect the next so-called "next-generation" > > consoles won't even be any more powerful than their PCcounterparts--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 theold > > 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 gfxcard > > for a PC doesn't guarantee you the ultimate gaming machine, unless therest > > of your hardware, OS etc are up to scratch. > Bah, what do you think is and has been driving the computer industry forthe past decade or so, Windows and business apps? Hardly. COMPUTER GAMING! 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 gaming 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://nintendo-europe.com/e3/index.html click on your 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 ?

"Nitz Walsh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:CLSJ8.154878$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > >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

Marc wrote:

Quoted text (62 lines)

> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Marc wrote: > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > 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 gaming 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 GAMING! > > 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 gaming 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://nintendo-europe.com/e3/index.html click on your > 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; gaming 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>

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. Tom Juncewicz wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> "Nitz Walsh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:CLSJ8.154878$[email hidden]... > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > >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.

"Marc" <_@_> wrote: >Look back even further, when the Amiga cost 8 times less than a 'PC', PC >gaming was just something to kill time at lunch breaks for nerds who had >nothing else to do, the Amiga was king of gaming for Adults and kids alike. Amiga is a home computer, thus it is more closely tied to PC gaming than console gaming. 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.

"none" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Marc" <_@_> wrote: > > >Look back even further, when the Amiga cost 8 times less than a 'PC', PC > >gaming was just something to kill time at lunch breaks for nerds who had > >nothing else to do, the Amiga was king of gaming for Adults and kidsalike.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Amiga is a home computer, thus it is more closely tied to PC gaming > than console gaming. 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.

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Marc wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> very good points, PC gaming can become very teckie and nerdy, I admit that > it is very addictive 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.

I got Sof2 yesterday. When I tried to install it on my high-end PC at work, the installer would always stop making any progress after inserting the second CD. When I installed it at home, the game ran, but it then took half an hour of changing every possible graphics option until I got a barely playable frame rate. This is on a PC which is well above the minimum spec. Despite the tens of tweakable graphics options, only one made any difference to the frame rate. And the graphics in some respects are inferior to the original SoF. -- Andrew Gillett http://argnet.fatal-design.com/ ICQ: See homepage US videogame release dates at: http://www.release-dates.com/

Marc wrote:

Quoted text (24 lines)

> "none" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > "Marc" <_@_> wrote: > > > > >Look back even further, when the Amiga cost 8 times less than a 'PC', PC > > >gaming was just something to kill time at lunch breaks for nerds who had > > >nothing else to do, the Amiga was king of gaming for Adults and kids > alike. > > > > Amiga is a home computer, thus it is more closely tied to PC gaming > > than console gaming. 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.

It's not about TRYING to be better or more grown up, but simply BEING better and grown up. PCs do WAY more things consoles can't even BEGIN to DREAM of doing. PCs ARE better and more grown up than their ugly red-headed stepsibling consoles.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 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?

No, Atari makes Atari; Commodore made Amigas (and Commodore 64s).

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 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.

<chuckle> "Family computer" my ass; Nintendos don't even have keyboards--uh...yea, some family computer that is! The Atari 400/800 easily beat Nintendos in terms of family computing simply because they HAD keyboards.

Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]: >> >> Wasnt the Amiga designed by the same people who did the Atari >> 400/800? > > No, Atari makes Atari; Commodore made Amigas (and Commodore 64s). > Incorrect. elements of the original atari team were involved in the development of the amiga. "same people" not "same company"

Quoted text (15 lines)

>> 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. > > <chuckle> "Family computer" my ass; Nintendos don't even have > keyboards--uh...yea, some family computer that is! The Atari 400/800 > easily beat Nintendos in terms of family computing simply because they > HAD keyboards. > >

Let's not forget that in terms of computer games, the PC had nothing on other computers, or consoles, until DOOM was released. Every other game up until that point was broadly the same on all platforms, except the PC. Until DOOM, PC gamers were stuck with tat like "Jane of the Jungle" and other sub marioworld platform scrollers. I got my first ZX Spectrum in 1981, since then, I've had three more speccy's, a Commodore 64, a SNES (super famicom), playstation (PSX), Atari Lynx, an Amiga 1200, and currently a PC. There is nothing in PC games that isn't already in "console" games. I don't see the PC as a superior gaming machine because I can run Excel 2000 or Visual Studio 6 on it. It's a much more versatile tool than my PSX, and I'll admit my current PC is better at games than the PSX, but my old Cyrix 200 16mb system I had when I bought my PSX was nowhere near as good as the PSX. PC "better" than console? Maybe so, if you spend about 3x the cost of the console on the PC. If we're comparing apples and oranges, let's at least weigh them out the same. cheers John

JM wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]: > > >> Wasnt the Amiga designed by the same people who did the Atari > >> 400/800? > > > > No, Atari makes Atari; Commodore made Amigas (and Commodore 64s). > > Incorrect. elements of the original atari team were involved in the > development of the amiga. "same people" not "same company"

<shrug> "Commodore" isn't "Atari".

Quoted text (19 lines)

> >> 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. > > > > <chuckle> "Family computer" my ass; Nintendos don't even have > > keyboards--uh...yea, some family computer that is! The Atari 400/800 > > easily beat Nintendos in terms of family computing simply because they > > HAD keyboards. > > Let's not forget that in terms of computer games, the PC had nothing on > other computers, or consoles, until DOOM was released. Every other game up > until that point was broadly the same on all platforms, except the PC. > Until DOOM, PC gamers were stuck with tat like "Jane of the Jungle" and > other sub marioworld platform scrollers.

Uh, Doom was hardly the game to spark PC game superiority. Perhaps you heard of Wolfenstein 3D? And this is just referring to the beginning of mainstream 3D on the PC; 2D games were a bit hit during the previous decade! > I got my first ZX Spectrum in 1981, since then, I've had three more > speccy's, a Commodore 64, a SNES (super famicom), playstation (PSX), Atari > Lynx, an Amiga 1200, and currently a PC. There is nothing in PC games that > isn't already in "console" games. Where is Thief for consoles? Oh, right, it doesn't exist. <snicker> > I don't see the PC as a superior gaming > machine because I can run Excel 2000 or Visual Studio 6 on it. It's a much > more versatile tool than my PSX, and I'll admit my current PC is better at > games than the PSX, but my old Cyrix 200 16mb system I had when I bought my > PSX was nowhere near as good as the PSX. Silly JM, Cyrix crap isn't better than ANYTHING (except, perhaps, other Cyrix crap). Regardless, like I said, the consoles have the lead for a SHORT while before the PC overtakes them and leaves them in the dust for YEARS. > PC "better" than console? Maybe so, if you spend about 3x the cost of the > console on the PC. If we're comparing apples and oranges, let's at least > weigh them out the same. <shrug> It's still all fruit. PCs do far more than consoles, while they don't cost that much more (and don't forget the TV price for consoles!).

JM <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]: > Let's not forget that in terms of computer games, the PC had > nothing on other computers, or consoles, until DOOM was released. > Every other game up until that point was broadly the same on all > platforms, except the PC. Until DOOM, PC gamers were stuck with > tat like "Jane of the Jungle" and other sub marioworld platform > scrollers. Unless you count adventure games, of course.

"Marc" <'> wrote: >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 Fair enough.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>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.

I disagree. First of all, Amiga had hardly any Japanese games. Japanese games are usually considered to be the strength of consoles (if you are into that kind of games). Amiga had games only from Europe and America. People are even complaining XBox games are too much like PC games only because it doesn't have that much Japanese support. The games people usually remember warmly from Amiga were mostly PC-type games, like various simulations (Falcon AT, Carrier Command or Starglider 2 anyone?), RPGs like Dungeon Master, etc. Amiga had more 2D shooters and platform jumping games than PC, but a) they were never Japanese, like they usually are on consoles b) quite a big part of them were made available also for PC, like Xenon 1-2, Magic Pockets, Lethal Weapon, Speedball 1-2, Chaos Engine etc. When Amiga gaming was starting to dry up, at least for me it felt much more natural to move from Amiga gaming to PC gaming than to console gaming. PC had much more of the kind of stuff that IMHO made Amiga gaming worth it. I think the similarity of Amiga and PC gaming mostly stems from the fact that both have mostly American and European games and hardly any Japanese titles. Amiga had some more (European) 2D action games than PC, though. Too bad most of them sucked and were made by some hackers in their freetime. If you were into high quality 2D shooters or platform games, you had to have a Super Nintendo or Sega Genesis anyway, Amiga didn't really cut it compared to their 2D action games.

JM <[email hidden]> wrote: >Let's not forget that in terms of computer games, the PC had nothing on >other computers, or consoles, until DOOM was released. Every other game up Long before Doom, PC was the king of all kinds of simulations, western RPGs, adventure games etc. Wolfenstein3D was probably the first PC game that showed PC can offer even action games that rival or even surpass console action games. But since those times consoles have again become the kings of action games (and only action games, IMHO).

In article <[email hidden]>, none <[email hidden]> wrote: >When Amiga gaming was starting to dry up, at least for me it felt much >more natural to move from Amiga gaming to PC gaming than to console >gaming. PC had much more of the kind of stuff that IMHO made Amiga >gaming worth it. I think the similarity of Amiga and PC gaming mostly >stems from the fact that both have mostly American and European games >and hardly any Japanese titles. I agree - RPGs and Strategy were the main influence for me, but DOOM was also part of it. The other software product that made a big difference was Windows 95. Win 3.1 was intolerable. It was probably '97-'98 before PCs could do smooth arcade games, and by then the time of the Amiga was long gone. Gerry Quinn -- http://bindweed.com Entertainment software for Windows Puzzles, Strategy Games, Kaleidoscope Screensaver Download evaluation versions free - no time limits

"Gerry Quinn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:NllK8.1691$[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>,none <[email hidden]> wrote: > It was probably '97-'98 before PCs could do smooth arcade games, andby > then the time of the Amiga was long gone. The PC arcade games from the late 80s and early 90s (thinking of Commander Keen in particular) were smoother than any PC game from the Windows era (since the latter have to live with preemptive multitasking). -- Rainer Deyke | [email hidden] | http://rainerdeyke.com

Around Sun, 02 Jun 2002 16:07:40 GMT, "Rainer Deyke" <[email hidden]> solemnly uttered: >The PC arcade games from the late 80s and early 90s (thinking of >Commander Keen in particular) were smoother than any PC game from the >Windows era (since the latter have to live with preemptive >multitasking). Pretty obvious that John Carmack programmed Commander Keen, huh? Looked great and ran fast... :-) -- Alex Pavloff - www.pavloff.net

Huh? Console action games pale in comparison to PC action games--unless you're referring to beat-em-up fighting games <yawn>. Action (typically FPSes) are king on PC. none wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> JM <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Let's not forget that in terms of computer games, the PC had nothing on > >other computers, or consoles, until DOOM was released. Every other game up > > Long before Doom, PC was the king of all kinds of simulations, western > RPGs, adventure games etc. Wolfenstein3D was probably the first PC > game that showed PC can offer even action games that rival or even > surpass console action games. But since those times consoles have > again become the kings of action games (and only action games, IMHO).

"Gerry Quinn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:NllK8.1691$[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, none<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> >When Amiga gaming was starting to dry up, at least for me it felt much > >more natural to move from Amiga gaming to PC gaming than to console > >gaming. PC had much more of the kind of stuff that IMHO made Amiga > >gaming worth it. I think the similarity of Amiga and PC gaming mostly > >stems from the fact that both have mostly American and European games > >and hardly any Japanese titles. > > I agree - RPGs and Strategy were the main influence for me, but DOOM was > also part of it. > > The other software product that made a big difference was Windows 95. > Win 3.1 was intolerable. > > It was probably '97-'98 before PCs could do smooth arcade games, and by > then the time of the Amiga was long gone. > > Gerry Quinn

Yep it was Windows 95 that made the PC bigger with games, 3.1 was to hard for mr & mrs Jones to set up games on, also the soundcard was the thing that made the PC a game system & we all know it was SB, even if they were not the first soundcard for the PC. Don't for get Commodore were big in PC also..... Gary C. [Ex Commodore staff member, Amiga User Support Australia]

Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> JM wrote: > >> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]: >> >> >> Wasnt the Amiga designed by the same people who did the Atari >> >> 400/800? >> > >> > No, Atari makes Atari; Commodore made Amigas (and Commodore 64s). >> >> Incorrect. elements of the original atari team were involved in the >> development of the amiga. "same people" not "same company" > > <shrug> "Commodore" isn't "Atari". >

Shrug nothing, you were wrong, simple as that. > > Uh, Doom was hardly the game to spark PC game superiority. Perhaps you > heard of Wolfenstein 3D? And this is just referring to the beginning > of mainstream 3D on the PC; 2D games were a bit hit during the > previous decade! > Yes, I've heard of Wolf3d, but Wolf3d was not the catalyst for the PC gaming revolution, Doom was. That is the fact of the matter. Before then (and still today) 2d games were, in their entirety, shite on the PC. Christ, the PC didn't even have hardware sprites, it stood no chance vs consoles and amigas pre 3d era.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> I got my first ZX Spectrum in 1981, since then, I've had three more >> speccy's, a Commodore 64, a SNES (super famicom), playstation (PSX), >> Atari Lynx, an Amiga 1200, and currently a PC. There is nothing in >> PC games that isn't already in "console" games. > > Where is Thief for consoles? Oh, right, it doesn't exist. <snicker> >

Thief is a great game. Why should it be available for consoles? It barely sold any copies on the PC. There's nothing in Thief that couldn't be done in a console, and there are console stealth based games (Tenchu for one, but it's no thief).

Quoted text (11 lines)

>> I don't see the PC as a superior gaming >> machine because I can run Excel 2000 or Visual Studio 6 on it. It's >> a much more versatile tool than my PSX, and I'll admit my current PC >> is better at games than the PSX, but my old Cyrix 200 16mb system I >> had when I bought my PSX was nowhere near as good as the PSX. > > Silly JM, Cyrix crap isn't better than ANYTHING (except, perhaps, > other Cyrix crap). Regardless, like I said, the consoles have the lead > for a SHORT while before the PC overtakes them and leaves them in the > dust for YEARS. >

OK, now we've established that you're ingorant as well as ill informed. Fact is the best 3d card out when I got my first PC was the Orchid Righteous (voodoo1). The XBox and PS2 both look capable of presenting graphics just as well as my geforce2 based card in this PC. This is where you tell me that the XBox and PS2 have nothing on the top end geforce4 cards, so let me save you the bother by reminding you that the card alone costs more than either entire console (excepting the cheap version coming out, which only costs slightly less than an XBox- bargain!) > <shrug> It's still all fruit. PCs do far more than consoles, while > they don't cost that much more (and don't forget the TV price for > consoles!). > > Of course I forget the cost of my TV, I didn't buy it to play games on, that's just an added bonus. You cannot buy a new PC today for the same money as a PS2 or XBox that will play equivalent games to the same standard (eg GTA3). As I said, even though you have a talent for ignoring the facts laid before you, I'll repeat. My PC is a much better piece of equipment than any current console, because I use it for more than games. I also accept that it cost me a hell of a lot more money than an XBox. If I purely wanted to play games, and had no other consideration, a �200 console is a much better proposition than a �500 PC. You'll be telling me the PC is a great games PC because you can play the Sims on it, next. Feel free to join in the discussion when you have some actual facts to back up your opinion. cheers John

Rikard Peterson <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> JM <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:[email hidden]: > >> Let's not forget that in terms of computer games, the PC had >> nothing on other computers, or consoles, until DOOM was released. >> Every other game up until that point was broadly the same on all >> platforms, except the PC. Until DOOM, PC gamers were stuck with >> tat like "Jane of the Jungle" and other sub marioworld platform >> scrollers. > > Unless you count adventure games, of course. >

I don't, as it happens. Monkey Island and Day of the Tentacle did not make the PC a viable gaming option in 1991. cheers John

none <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> JM <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>Let's not forget that in terms of computer games, the PC had nothing >>on other computers, or consoles, until DOOM was released. Every other >>game up > > Long before Doom, PC was the king of all kinds of simulations, western > RPGs, adventure games etc. Wolfenstein3D was probably the first PC > game that showed PC can offer even action games that rival or even > surpass console action games. But since those times consoles have > again become the kings of action games (and only action games, IMHO). > >

There was nothing on the PC before doom that wasn't done either as well, individually, or far, far better, on the alternative computing platforms and consoles. Gunship on the Amiga was just as good as the PC version. RType on the PC? Sonic? Street Fighter 2? Ah well... I said it in another reply, Wolf3d was not popular, it took DOOM to kickstart the proper PC gaming industry that we know today. I know, I was there at the time, I saw it all happen, played Doom on a 386dx40 and everything :-) cheers John

none <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> JM <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>> Unless you count adventure games, of course. >>> >> >>I don't, as it happens. Monkey Island and Day of the Tentacle did not >>make the PC a viable gaming option in 1991. > > You are grazy. Sierra, Dynamix and LucasArts adventure games of the > time were true gems. > >

but without the added advantage of lotus-123, you wouldn't buy a PC to play them, would you? I mean, seriously. Monkey Island 1 & 2 were certainly available on other computer platforms, if not consoles. cheers John

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action JM <[email hidden]> wrote: > but without the added advantage of lotus-123, you wouldn't buy a PC to play > them, would you? I mean, seriously. I remember a friend of mine had a PC and a King's Quest game or two; I really wanted one of those machines :) Of course, the machines were ludicrously expensive at the time (or maybe I just remember it as such), so I never did get one.

none <[email hidden]> wrote in > For one thing, rather silly of you to compare PC to _all_ other gaming > platforms. As if it is "PC vs all" or something? Did you own all other > gaming platforms at the time? I didn't start it :p In 1995, I had an Amiga 1200, a SNES, and an Atari Lynx (all for a combined price of significantly less than a contemporary PC, I might add). There was still nothing on the PC that made me want to spend the outrageous amount of money to buy one. > But anyway, you are wrong, as simple as that. Which alternative > computer or console had superior versions of e.g. Wing Commander 1-2 > or Red Baron? For the record, the Amiga versions of WC and RB sucked > royally (both slower and inferior graphics, and no analog joystick > support IIRC). Same goes to e.g. LucasArts and Sierra/Dynamix > adventures of the time. Are you saying the PC version of Wing Commander wasn't a scabby sprite based pile of crap? I know the amiga version was :D Red Baron had analogue stick support. Still, there were hundreds more games (of good quality) on the consoles, and alternative computer platforms, than the PC. In an era when cross platform development was rife, the PC was truly left out in the cold. I don't know anyone today who'd use the Wing Commander series as an arguemt for how PC games are *good* ;) >>Gunship on the Amiga was just as good as the PC version. > > Which Gunship? Gunship2000? Superior on PC of course. ;^P > I beg to differ. Much more playable on the Amiga- I've played both versions. Likewise Frontier Elite 2. > What's your point? You take prime examples from *****SEVERAL***** > other gaming systems and that somehow in your mind proves PC didn't > exist as a gaming platform before Doom? You mention Sonic which > basically existed only on Sega machines, and later SF2 which didn't. I > guess you owned all the gaming machines at the time, right? I'm saying people would have to be crazy to buy a PC in those days, solely on the basis of the gaming software. Costs were astronomical. Besides, some other nonce started this whole thing saying nothing can ever compare to a PC for gaming. Surely if I can buy, eg, three gaming platforms combined for the same cost as a PC, then in terms of *gaming* potential, I can justifiably compare all three against it. You're forgetting how outrageously expensive "IBM compaitble" was in those days. I bought my own first PC in may 1998 when the cyrix 200 systems were dropping under �500. If you want to commant on what �500 will buy you today, I'll say one cracking PC for games, as long as you stick to the pre-directx8. but �500 would buy you, an XBox, a PS2 and a GB advance- if games are your only interest, surely it's a viable proposition to leave the beige box aside? > Anyway, there actually were some quite nice 2D shooters also for PC, > even if they weren't the bread and butter of PC gaming. Check > http://www.the-underdogs.org/genre.php?name=Action&subgen=Shoot%20em-up > for more information. And naturally PC shined on 3D shooters already > at that time, like Stellar 7 and the sequel Nova 9. PCs couldn't do parralax, or hardware sprites :p

Quoted text (11 lines)

>>Sonic? > > Jazz the JackRabbit? > >>Street Fighter 2? > > Actually Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo PC version was heralded as a > near pixel-perfect copy of the arcade version. But before that, I > found One Must Fall much more interesting fighting game than most > console offerings. >

The SNES version was spot on, for me. SNES= �50 from Dixons, including Aladdin (cheesy game) SF2- �15 from the games shop. even if I could beat the software price for the PC (by pirating for example) I couldn't buy a PC that would do streetfighter2 as well as a SNES. �50 was well worth it. especially when you could buy absolute classics like Secret of Mana. Now, of course, I play Secret of Mana on my SNES emulator on my PC- what goes around comes around :D

Quoted text (14 lines)

>>Ah well... > > Exactly. > >>I said it in another reply, Wolf3d was not popular, it took DOOM to >>kickstart the proper PC gaming industry that we know today. I know, I >>was > > You obviously missed the (years) earlier boom with PC games like Wing > Commander 1-2, King's Quest 5, Space Quest 3-4, Ultima Underworld, > Ultima 7 etc. Doom was merely a game that took everyone by surprise > because it made the _action_ games on other platforms, most notably > Amiga and Super Nintendo, look feeble in comparison. You know, the > very genre which was said to suck forever on PC?

Yes, I missed the boom, me and everybody else in my town. I know because when I got my amiga in 1992, and my housemate at the time with his 486sx25 could not find a decent game to play on his pc, which cost a lot more (he'd bought it to program pascal allegedly), and those of us with �400 or less computers, were rolling in quality games. It was accountants buying "leisure software" for the kids to play with at the weekend on the PC. I don't know anyone on my CompSci degree who'd bought a PC for the games potential. >>there at the time, I saw it all happen, played Doom on a 386dx40 and >>everything :-) > > Probably your first PC game anyway. Does not mean PC didn't exist as a > viable gaming platform long before that already, even if people were > not playing Doom clones on it. It wasn't viable, it cost too much. Unless "daddy" bought one for the office, most people could not afford to even sit in front of a PC about 10 years ago. Unless you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth, and probably had a BBC micro before it :D I don't mind PCs at all, I wonder what else I would have spent the thick end of a grand on (1.4athlon, 19inch monitor, gf2 graphics, steering wheel and pedals) having a blast with GTA3 on the PC right now- sod the PS2. XBox and PS2 are not viable for me, because I have a piece of electronics that can equal them, today, in games. If I had to start from scratch, I couldn't justify spending �1000 on just games. This PC has "evolved" still has the original floppy drive from that cyrix 200 in it- a true "woodsman's axe". There's nothing like Tekken 3 on my PC though, unless I fire up EPSXE... My argument is, PCs were not a viable option for purely playing games on for the vast majority of people, both in terms of the cost of the equipment, and the variety and quality of games available, say ten years ago. cheers John

JM <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> none <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:[email hidden]: > >> You are grazy. Sierra, Dynamix and LucasArts adventure games of >> the time were true gems. > > but without the added advantage of lotus-123, you wouldn't buy a > PC to play them, would you? I mean, seriously. Monkey Island 1 & > 2 were certainly available on other computer platforms, if not > consoles.

I wouldn't buy a PC *today* only to play games. Rikard

JM wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]: > > > JM wrote: > > > >> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]: > >> > >> >> Wasnt the Amiga designed by the same people who did the Atari > >> >> 400/800? > >> > > >> > No, Atari makes Atari; Commodore made Amigas (and Commodore 64s). > >> > >> Incorrect. elements of the original atari team were involved in the > >> development of the amiga. "same people" not "same company" > > > > <shrug> "Commodore" isn't "Atari". > > Shrug nothing, you were wrong, simple as that.

Relatively wrong...and relatively right. :) <shrug> Get over it, low self-esteem boy.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Uh, Doom was hardly the game to spark PC game superiority. Perhaps you > > heard of Wolfenstein 3D? And this is just referring to the beginning > > of mainstream 3D on the PC; 2D games were a bit hit during the > > previous decade! > > Yes, I've heard of Wolf3d, but Wolf3d was not the catalyst for the PC > gaming revolution, Doom was. That is the fact of the matter. Before then > (and still today) 2d games were, in their entirety, shite on the PC. > Christ, the PC didn't even have hardware sprites, it stood no chance vs > consoles and amigas pre 3d era.

And yet the PC was FAR more popular than the Amiga. Obviously the PC DID stand a chance (winning, even) vs. the Amiga. Consoles are another matter, but since 3D came onto the scene, PCs have kicked their asses too. ;) But, of course, PC games were always much more revolutionary than console games even in the pre-3D era, so...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >> I got my first ZX Spectrum in 1981, since then, I've had three more > >> speccy's, a Commodore 64, a SNES (super famicom), playstation (PSX), > >> Atari Lynx, an Amiga 1200, and currently a PC. There is nothing in > >> PC games that isn't already in "console" games. > > > > Where is Thief for consoles? Oh, right, it doesn't exist. <snicker> > > Thief is a great game. Why should it be available for consoles? It barely > sold any copies on the PC. There's nothing in Thief that couldn't be done > in a console, and there are console stealth based games (Tenchu for one, > but it's no thief).

Indeed...it IS no Thief--and that's my point.

Quoted text (14 lines)

> >> I don't see the PC as a superior gaming > >> machine because I can run Excel 2000 or Visual Studio 6 on it. It's > >> a much more versatile tool than my PSX, and I'll admit my current PC > >> is better at games than the PSX, but my old Cyrix 200 16mb system I > >> had when I bought my PSX was nowhere near as good as the PSX. > > > > Silly JM, Cyrix crap isn't better than ANYTHING (except, perhaps, > > other Cyrix crap). Regardless, like I said, the consoles have the lead > > for a SHORT while before the PC overtakes them and leaves them in the > > dust for YEARS. > > OK, now we've established that you're ingorant as well as ill informed. > Fact is the best 3d card out when I got my first PC was the Orchid > Righteous (voodoo1).

Uh, so what? That's you. The PSX can't even fucking do bilinear texture filtering! Even 1st-generation PC 3D accelerators could do that! > The XBox and PS2 both look capable of presenting > graphics just as well as my geforce2 based card in this PC. This is where > you tell me that the XBox and PS2 have nothing on the top end geforce4 > cards, so let me save you the bother by reminding you that the card alone > costs more than either entire console (excepting the cheap version coming > out, which only costs slightly less than an XBox- bargain!) See standard default PC vs console debate. PCs blow away consoles in terms of versatility and cost-effectiveness.

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > <shrug> It's still all fruit. PCs do far more than consoles, while > > they don't cost that much more (and don't forget the TV price for > > consoles!). > > Of course I forget the cost of my TV, I didn't buy it to play games on, > that's just an added bonus. You cannot buy a new PC today for the same > money as a PS2 or XBox that will play equivalent games to the same standard > (eg GTA3). As I said, even though you have a talent for ignoring the facts > laid before you, I'll repeat. My PC is a much better piece of equipment > than any current console, because I use it for more than games. I also > accept that it cost me a hell of a lot more money than an XBox. If I > purely wanted to play games, and had no other consideration, a �200 console > is a much better proposition than a �500 PC.

For kiddie gamers and immature adults, perhaps. For REAL gamers, PCs are the only way to go. :) > You'll be telling me the PC is a great games PC because you can play the > Sims on it, next. Among many other unique games unavailable on consoles, yes. :) > Feel free to join in the discussion when you have some actual facts to back > up your opinion. Facts? I've been slamming them into your arrogant little face the entire time, sport. "Open your fucking [eyes], jackass!"

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action Eep? <[email hidden]> wrote: > Relatively wrong...and relatively right. :) Eep is relatively useless.

Eric VanHeest <[email hidden]> wrote in news:adha1m$ibo$[email hidden]: > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action Eep? <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> Relatively wrong...and relatively right. :) > > Eep is relatively useless. But absolutely annoying. -- Ajay Tanwar | MCSE | [email hidden] "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." -Despair.com

On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, none wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> JM <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >I don't know anyone today who'd use the Wing Commander series as an > >arguemt for how PC games are *good* ;) > > My you are silly. You know, I wouldn't use any 1990 game on any > platform as an example _today_ about how good the game is. SF2 on SNES > looks crappy nowadays. >

But you'd be far more likely to use it and its sequels and derivatives as an example of what's good in console gaming. Despite the twin advantages of modding and more than two players, multiplayer FPS is still but beginning to match the variety and execution available to true devotees of the genre. > >PCs couldn't do parralax, or hardware sprites :p > > And you'd be wrong with that parallax statement. Well, sure, PC > couldn't do hardware sprites, but with 486 machines and above, it > really didn't matter anymore. It did when you took into account the SNES's blending abilities. At the time of its release, Final Fantasy 6 would not have been doable on a PC, even ignoring the fact you'd need either a TV-out card or some serious trickery to make the same set of pixels look as good on the PC. > Yeah those scaling 2D sprites in > Wolfenstein3D or Ultima Underworld are software based, yet they look > much better than anything on SNES? > Uh, no. It was the worlds that those games had over the SNES, not their inhabitants. -- [email hidden] I'm supposed to put a quote here?

Hello, just barging in... "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> JM wrote: > > > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]: > > > > > JM wrote: > > > > > >> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]: > > >> > > >> >> Wasnt the Amiga designed by the same people who did the Atari > > >> >> 400/800? > > >> > > > >> > No, Atari makes Atari; Commodore made Amigas (and Commodore 64s). > > >> > > >> Incorrect. elements of the original atari team were involved in the > > >> development of the amiga. "same people" not "same company" > > > > > > <shrug> "Commodore" isn't "Atari". > > > > Shrug nothing, you were wrong, simple as that. > > Relatively wrong...and relatively right. :) <shrug> Get over it, low

self-esteem boy. > One may argue that giving the correct answer, but not to the question posed is absolutely wrong in itself. The statement you made was absolutely correct in itself, but meaningless to the question. Obviously, JM knew pretty much about Atari and Commodore. Or maybe, to use your view of things: "Commodore" is relatively "Atari", but not absolutely... ;-)

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > Uh, Doom was hardly the game to spark PC game superiority. Perhaps you > > > heard of Wolfenstein 3D? And this is just referring to the beginning > > > of mainstream 3D on the PC; 2D games were a bit hit during the > > > previous decade! > > > > Yes, I've heard of Wolf3d, but Wolf3d was not the catalyst for the PC > > gaming revolution, Doom was. That is the fact of the matter. Before then > > (and still today) 2d games were, in their entirety, shite on the PC. > > Christ, the PC didn't even have hardware sprites, it stood no chance vs > > consoles and amigas pre 3d era. > > And yet the PC was FAR more popular than the Amiga. Obviously the PC DID

stand a chance (winning, even) vs. the Amiga. Consoles are another matter, but since 3D came onto the scene, PCs have kicked their asses too. ;) But, of course, PC games were always much more revolutionary than console games even in the pre-3D era, so... > Your first statement means nothing, unless you can provide some evidence that *gaming* PCs were more popular than Amigas! You can, by the same token, prove that pen and paper are better for gaming than PCs, since they are more popular. Naturally, you can play games using pen and paper, but that's hardly the main use for them! Note: I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're making a statement without a proper proof.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > >> I got my first ZX Spectrum in 1981, since then, I've had three more > > >> speccy's, a Commodore 64, a SNES (super famicom), playstation (PSX), > > >> Atari Lynx, an Amiga 1200, and currently a PC. There is nothing in > > >> PC games that isn't already in "console" games. > > > > > > Where is Thief for consoles? Oh, right, it doesn't exist. <snicker> > > > > Thief is a great game. Why should it be available for consoles? It

barely > > sold any copies on the PC. There's nothing in Thief that couldn't bedone > > in a console, and there are console stealth based games (Tenchu for one, > > but it's no thief). > > Indeed...it IS no Thief--and that's my point. > If Thief hasn't sold among "REAL" players, why should it sell with the "kiddies"? What point ARE you making? Present a game which succeeded with PC gamers and failed with console gamers to illustrate your point. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. But you're just making empty statements.

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > >> I don't see the PC as a superior gaming > > >> machine because I can run Excel 2000 or Visual Studio 6 on it. It's > > >> a much more versatile tool than my PSX, and I'll admit my current PC > > >> is better at games than the PSX, but my old Cyrix 200 16mb system I > > >> had when I bought my PSX was nowhere near as good as the PSX. > > > > > > Silly JM, Cyrix crap isn't better than ANYTHING (except, perhaps, > > > other Cyrix crap). Regardless, like I said, the consoles have the lead > > > for a SHORT while before the PC overtakes them and leaves them in the > > > dust for YEARS. > > > > OK, now we've established that you're ingorant as well as ill informed. > > Fact is the best 3d card out when I got my first PC was the Orchid > > Righteous (voodoo1). > > Uh, so what? That's you. The PSX can't even fucking do bilinear texture

filtering! Even 1st-generation PC 3D accelerators could do that! > Please elaborate. When were those cards available when compared with the PSX? If the PSX sold prior to those cards, then it would only be natural why *at the time* the PSX was better, no? At any rate, what does bilinear texture filtering have to do with anything? It might make the game look better, sure. What about the frame rate? What does a "REAL" player have to do with the crop of games coming every few months? If I recall well, there was a discussion not long ago about Morrowind. Someone said something about having to replace his old "256" with a newer GeForce card. That someone wasn't able to understand how come the game required such high-end specs. Sounds familiar? This doesn't happen with consoles. Sure, the graphics can hardly evolve using the same hardware, but at least you can rest assured everything will run well. It is by design. Who cares about graphic quality when the framerate stalls? Who cares about trilinear-z-buffered-LOD using multi-dimensional-rotating-frustrums when good ol' windows gives you the "Blue Screen"? > > The XBox and PS2 both look capable of presenting > > graphics just as well as my geforce2 based card in this PC. This iswhere > > you tell me that the XBox and PS2 have nothing on the top end geforce4 > > cards, so let me save you the bother by reminding you that the cardalone > > costs more than either entire console (excepting the cheap versioncoming > > out, which only costs slightly less than an XBox- bargain!) > > See standard default PC vs console debate. PCs blow away consoles in termsof versatility and cost-effectiveness. > Please elaborate! Cost-effectiveness in terms of what, exactly? You're willing to pay a lot of money in order to get the newest games running on your system. That doesn't sound like a cost-effective decision to me... Buying an older computer with low-end hardware and older software versions will get you those "Office"-like applications running smoothly. It will also leave you with enough cash to buy a console and play games. That sounds more cost-effective to me, since you wouldn't have to upgrade neither to enjoy the best of both worlds. I bought a used Dreamcast for 50$. A new one costs about 80$. Please explain (even briefly) why a PC is more cost-effective. There are points to be made for PCs. Heck, I play a lot more on my PC, and I love using it. But I think you're barking up the wrong tree, here.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > <shrug> It's still all fruit. PCs do far more than consoles, while > > > they don't cost that much more (and don't forget the TV price for > > > consoles!). > > > > Of course I forget the cost of my TV, I didn't buy it to play games on, > > that's just an added bonus. You cannot buy a new PC today for the same > > money as a PS2 or XBox that will play equivalent games to the same

standard > > (eg GTA3). As I said, even though you have a talent for ignoring thefacts > > laid before you, I'll repeat. My PC is a much better piece of equipment > > than any current console, because I use it for more than games. I also > > accept that it cost me a hell of a lot more money than an XBox. If I > > purely wanted to play games, and had no other consideration, a �200console > > is a much better proposition than a �500 PC. > > For kiddie gamers and immature adults, perhaps. For REAL gamers, PCs arethe only way to go. :) > Umm, that would be *relatively* REAL gamers. Or maybe REAL gamers with VIRTUAL (girl) friends... ;-) (Don't take it personally - I don't know you...) > > You'll be telling me the PC is a great games PC because you can play the > > Sims on it, next. > > Among many other unique games unavailable on consoles, yes. :) > Now you're actually saying something! This is a good point. Although, I think very few people will bother to buy a PC just to play the Sims. But I may be wrong here. There is such thing as a killer application. Strangely, I believe it has worked primarily for consoles, when it comes to games... Oh, and BTW, the same can be said for text-only adventures! (are we drooling already?) > > Feel free to join in the discussion when you have some actual facts toback > > up your opinion. > > Facts? I've been slamming them into your arrogant little face the entiretime, sport. "Open your fucking [eyes], jackass!" > Is that a movie quote? BTW, you're slamming statements, with very little figures and facts behind them. This means that if you're right, it is by pure luck, although luck happens, you know. All the best, ph7 p.s. What does REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS have to do with this discussion? -- Don't mind your make-up, Make your mind up! (Frank Zappa)

ph7 wrote:

Quoted text (34 lines)

> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > JM wrote: > > > > > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]: > > > > > > > JM wrote: > > > > > > > >> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]: > > > >> > > > >> >> Wasnt the Amiga designed by the same people who did the Atari > > > >> >> 400/800? > > > >> > > > > >> > No, Atari makes Atari; Commodore made Amigas (and Commodore 64s). > > > >> > > > >> Incorrect. elements of the original atari team were involved in the > > > >> development of the amiga. "same people" not "same company" > > > > > > > > <shrug> "Commodore" isn't "Atari". > > > > > > Shrug nothing, you were wrong, simple as that. > > > > Relatively wrong...and relatively right. :) <shrug> Get over it, low > self-esteem boy. > > > > One may argue that giving the correct answer, but not to the question posed > is absolutely wrong in itself. > The statement you made was absolutely correct in itself, but meaningless to > the question. > Obviously, JM knew pretty much about Atari and Commodore. > Or maybe, to use your view of things: "Commodore" is relatively "Atari", but > not absolutely... > ;-)

<shrug> It's all relative.

Quoted text (27 lines)

> > > > Uh, Doom was hardly the game to spark PC game superiority. Perhaps you > > > > heard of Wolfenstein 3D? And this is just referring to the beginning > > > > of mainstream 3D on the PC; 2D games were a bit hit during the > > > > previous decade! > > > > > > Yes, I've heard of Wolf3d, but Wolf3d was not the catalyst for the PC > > > gaming revolution, Doom was. That is the fact of the matter. Before then > > > (and still today) 2d games were, in their entirety, shite on the PC. > > > Christ, the PC didn't even have hardware sprites, it stood no chance vs > > > consoles and amigas pre 3d era. > > > > And yet the PC was FAR more popular than the Amiga. Obviously the PC DID > stand a chance (winning, even) vs. the Amiga. Consoles are another matter, > but since 3D came onto the scene, PCs have kicked their asses too. ;) But, > of course, PC games were always much more revolutionary than console games > even in the pre-3D era, so... > > > > Your first statement means nothing, unless you can provide some evidence > that *gaming* PCs were more popular than Amigas! > You can, by the same token, prove that pen and paper are better for gaming > than PCs, since they are more popular. Naturally, you can play games using > pen and paper, but that's hardly the main use for them! > > Note: I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're making a statement without a > proper proof.

Uh, you want evidence/proof? YOU hunt down the sales figures. Me, I KNOW PCs were more popular because of my experience with them. I saw one Amiga at ONE (1) high school (not even my own had one). It was never used, but I gave it a try one time--blech! The resolution was way too big and clunky and SimCity looked like shit on it compared to the Mac SE next to it (even though it was only in black and white). One (1) friend had an Amiga because he was older, ran a BBS, and into video stuff (of which Amigas were actually good at). Later on I had another friend who had an Amiga, but it was crap compared to my then 386/40.

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > > >> I got my first ZX Spectrum in 1981, since then, I've had three more > > > >> speccy's, a Commodore 64, a SNES (super famicom), playstation (PSX), > > > >> Atari Lynx, an Amiga 1200, and currently a PC. There is nothing in > > > >> PC games that isn't already in "console" games. > > > > > > > > Where is Thief for consoles? Oh, right, it doesn't exist. <snicker> > > > > > > Thief is a great game. Why should it be available for consoles? It barely > > > sold any copies on the PC. There's nothing in Thief that couldn't be done > > > in a console, and there are console stealth based games (Tenchu for one, > > > but it's no thief). > > > > Indeed...it IS no Thief--and that's my point. > > If Thief hasn't sold among "REAL" players, why should it sell with the > "kiddies"? > What point ARE you making? Present a game which succeeded with PC gamers and > failed with console gamers to illustrate your point.

Uh, are you SERIOUSLY asking this question? Civilization, MechWarrior 2, Half-Life, etc--all suck on consoles. > Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. But you're just making empty statements. No, you're making empty observations.

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > > >> I don't see the PC as a superior gaming > > > >> machine because I can run Excel 2000 or Visual Studio 6 on it. It's > > > >> a much more versatile tool than my PSX, and I'll admit my current PC > > > >> is better at games than the PSX, but my old Cyrix 200 16mb system I > > > >> had when I bought my PSX was nowhere near as good as the PSX. > > > > > > > > Silly JM, Cyrix crap isn't better than ANYTHING (except, perhaps, > > > > other Cyrix crap). Regardless, like I said, the consoles have the lead > > > > for a SHORT while before the PC overtakes them and leaves them in the > > > > dust for YEARS. > > > > > > OK, now we've established that you're ingorant as well as ill informed. > > > Fact is the best 3d card out when I got my first PC was the Orchid > > > Righteous (voodoo1). > > > > Uh, so what? That's you. The PSX can't even fucking do bilinear texture > filtering! Even 1st-generation PC 3D accelerators could do that! > > > > Please elaborate. When were those cards available when compared with the > PSX?

Around the same time. Pick when the Voodoo came out and do the math. > If the PSX sold prior to those cards, then it would only be natural why *at > the time* the PSX was better, no? Perhaps for a month or so, as usual. > At any rate, what does bilinear texture filtering have to do with anything? Everything, since it perfectly illustrates why PC hardware at the time was better than the PSX. > It might make the game look better, sure. What about the frame rate? Hardware-accelerated bilinear texture filtering is faster that software non-filtering. > What does a "REAL" player have to do with the crop of games coming every few > months? If I recall well, there was a discussion not long ago about > Morrowind. Someone said something about having to replace his old "256" with > a newer GeForce card. That someone wasn't able to understand how come the > game required such high-end specs. Sounds familiar? <shrug> I had a GF 256 and its performance is practically the same as a GF3 Ti 200 with Morrowind. > This doesn't happen with consoles. Sure, the graphics can hardly evolve using the same hardware, but > at least you can rest assured everything will run well. It is by design. Who > cares about graphic quality when the framerate stalls? Who cares about > trilinear-z-buffered-LOD using multi-dimensional-rotating-frustrums when > good ol' windows gives you the "Blue Screen"? Who cares about being stuck with the same hardware for 3 years while PCs overtake consoles by leaps and bounds in the mean time? Kids and immature adult gamers don't, obviously. :) REAL gamers do, however.

Quoted text (24 lines)

> > > The XBox and PS2 both look capable of presenting > > > graphics just as well as my geforce2 based card in this PC. This is where > > > you tell me that the XBox and PS2 have nothing on the top end geforce4 > > > cards, so let me save you the bother by reminding you that the card alone > > > costs more than either entire console (excepting the cheap version coming > > > out, which only costs slightly less than an XBox- bargain!) > > > > See standard default PC vs console debate. PCs blow away consoles in terms > of versatility and cost-effectiveness. > > > > Please elaborate! Cost-effectiveness in terms of what, exactly? You're > willing to pay a lot of money in order to get the newest games running on > your system. That doesn't sound like a cost-effective decision to me... > Buying an older computer with low-end hardware and older software versions > will get you those "Office"-like applications running smoothly. It will also > leave you with enough cash to buy a console and play games. That sounds more > cost-effective to me, since you wouldn't have to upgrade neither to enjoy > the best of both worlds. > I bought a used Dreamcast for 50$. A new one costs about 80$. Please explain > (even briefly) why a PC is more cost-effective. > > There are points to be made for PCs. Heck, I play a lot more on my PC, and I > love using it. But I think you're barking up the wrong tree, here.

Man, you are SO out of touch with hardware prices. I bought my P3/533 w/Soyo motherboard for ~$200 a couple years ago or so. The GF256 was $125, and I had existing components. Even still, if I hadn't upgraded and just bought a completely new system (which is ludicrous if you already have one--you just upgrade modularly--duh) it would have cost me $1000 max and would still handle most current games without a problem. The trick is to not buy whole systems and simply buy in parts and upgrade modularly. PC cost-effectiveness blows away consoles for what PCs can do--PERIOD.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > Feel free to join in the discussion when you have some actual facts to back > > > up your opinion. > > > > Facts? I've been slamming them into your arrogant little face the entire > time, sport. "Open your fucking [eyes], jackass!" > > > > Is that a movie quote?

Jerky Boys > BTW, you're slamming statements, with very little figures and facts behind > them. This means that if you're right, it is by pure luck, although luck > happens, you know. YOU do the research if you want facts and figures. Me, I already know the results--I just don't have the nitty gritty details--and I don't need 'em. <shrug> > p.s. What does REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS have to do with this discussion? "GTA3" is in the subject. Trace the thread back to find out why it was crossposted.

"ph7" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:adjc29$ngs$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> Uh, so what? That's you. The PSX can't even fucking do bilinear >> texture filtering! Even 1st-generation PC 3D accelerators could do >>that! > Please elaborate. When were those cards available when compared > with the PSX? > If the PSX sold prior to those cards, then it would only be > natural why *at the time* the PSX was better, no?

The Playstation was launched in Japan in 1994, US launch was in 1995. The Rendition Verite V1000, the first viable PC 3d gaming card, was launched in 1996.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> Facts? I've been slamming them into your arrogant little face the >> entire time, sport. "Open your fucking [eyes], jackass!" > Is that a movie quote? > BTW, you're slamming statements, with very little figures and > facts behind them. This means that if you're right, it is by pure > luck, although luck happens, you know.

Remember this when Eep claims he never attacks first. Also remember, arguing with Eep is like wrestling a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it. -- Ajay Tanwar | MCSE | [email hidden] "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." -Despair.com

In article <[email hidden]>, none <[email hidden]> wrote: > >I bought a gaming PC in 1991 or so, so your experience is not of >course the only "right one". Amiga as a serious gaming or computing >platform was dead long before 1995. All it was getting at that point >was poor PC ports, even if that. Utter inane rubbish. Gerry Quinn -- http://bindweed.com Entertainment software for Windows Puzzles, Strategy Games, Kaleidoscope Screensaver Download evaluation versions free - no time limits

"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> ph7 wrote: > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > JM wrote: > > > > > > > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]: > > > > > > > > > JM wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in

news:[email hidden]: > > > > >> > > > > >> >> Wasnt the Amiga designed by the same people who did the Atari > > > > >> >> 400/800? > > > > >> > > > > > >> > No, Atari makes Atari; Commodore made Amigas (and Commodore64s). > > > > >> > > > > >> Incorrect. elements of the original atari team were involved inthe

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > > >> development of the amiga. "same people" not "same company" > > > > > > > > > > <shrug> "Commodore" isn't "Atari". > > > > > > > > Shrug nothing, you were wrong, simple as that. > > > > > > Relatively wrong...and relatively right. :) <shrug> Get over it, low > > self-esteem boy. > > > > > > > One may argue that giving the correct answer, but not to the question

posed > > is absolutely wrong in itself. > > The statement you made was absolutely correct in itself, but meaninglessto > > the question. > > Obviously, JM knew pretty much about Atari and Commodore. > > Or maybe, to use your view of things: "Commodore" is relatively "Atari",but > > not absolutely... > > ;-) > > <shrug> It's all relative. > Relatively silly, actually. > > > > > Uh, Doom was hardly the game to spark PC game superiority. Perhapsyou > > > > > heard of Wolfenstein 3D? And this is just referring to thebeginning > > > > > of mainstream 3D on the PC; 2D games were a bit hit during the > > > > > previous decade! > > > > > > > > Yes, I've heard of Wolf3d, but Wolf3d was not the catalyst for thePC > > > > gaming revolution, Doom was. That is the fact of the matter. Beforethen > > > > (and still today) 2d games were, in their entirety, shite on the PC. > > > > Christ, the PC didn't even have hardware sprites, it stood no chancevs > > > > consoles and amigas pre 3d era. > > > > > > And yet the PC was FAR more popular than the Amiga. Obviously the PCDID > > stand a chance (winning, even) vs. the Amiga. Consoles are anothermatter, > > but since 3D came onto the scene, PCs have kicked their asses too. ;)But, > > of course, PC games were always much more revolutionary than consolegames

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > even in the pre-3D era, so... > > > > > > > Your first statement means nothing, unless you can provide some evidence > > that *gaming* PCs were more popular than Amigas! > > > You can, by the same token, prove that pen and paper are better for

gaming > > than PCs, since they are more popular. Naturally, you can play gamesusing > > pen and paper, but that's hardly the main use for them! > > > > Note: I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're making a statement withouta > > proper proof. > > Uh, you want evidence/proof? YOU hunt down the sales figures. Me, I KNOWPCs were more popular because of my experience with them. I saw one Amiga at ONE (1) high school (not even my own had one). It was never used, but I gave it a try one time--blech! The resolution was way too big and clunky and SimCity looked like shit on it compared to the Mac SE next to it (even though it was only in black and white). One (1) friend had an Amiga because he was older, ran a BBS, and into video stuff (of which Amigas were actually good at). Later on I had another friend who had an Amiga, but it was crap compared to my then 386/40. I never made that statement. The burden of proof is on your shoulders... You claim to know your logic fairly well, but you should know that anecdotal stories do not serve as evidence. That is, if you want to be taken seriously... I'm sure even people who actually agree with you, that the PC is better for gaming, cannot rely on your personal stories as any "proof" for its validity. > > > > > >> I got my first ZX Spectrum in 1981, since then, I've had threemore > > > > >> speccy's, a Commodore 64, a SNES (super famicom), playstation(PSX), > > > > >> Atari Lynx, an Amiga 1200, and currently a PC. There is nothingin > > > > >> PC games that isn't already in "console" games. > > > > > > > > > > Where is Thief for consoles? Oh, right, it doesn't exist.<snicker> > > > > > > > > Thief is a great game. Why should it be available for consoles? Itbarely > > > > sold any copies on the PC. There's nothing in Thief that couldn'tbe done > > > > in a console, and there are console stealth based games (Tenchu forone,

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > > but it's no thief). > > > > > > Indeed...it IS no Thief--and that's my point. > > > > If Thief hasn't sold among "REAL" players, why should it sell with the > > "kiddies"? > > What point ARE you making? Present a game which succeeded with PC gamers

and > > failed with console gamers to illustrate your point. > > Uh, are you SERIOUSLY asking this question? Civilization, MechWarrior 2,Half-Life, etc--all suck on consoles. > Yes I was. You listed a few games, that's great. You may also explain why they suck (I never saw the console versions). > > Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. But you're just making emptystatements. > > No, you're making empty observations. > Such as? > > > > >> I don't see the PC as a superior gaming > > > > >> machine because I can run Excel 2000 or Visual Studio 6 on it.It's > > > > >> a much more versatile tool than my PSX, and I'll admit my currentPC > > > > >> is better at games than the PSX, but my old Cyrix 200 16mb systemI > > > > >> had when I bought my PSX was nowhere near as good as the PSX. > > > > > > > > > > Silly JM, Cyrix crap isn't better than ANYTHING (except, perhaps, > > > > > other Cyrix crap). Regardless, like I said, the consoles have thelead > > > > > for a SHORT while before the PC overtakes them and leaves them inthe > > > > > dust for YEARS. > > > > > > > > OK, now we've established that you're ingorant as well as illinformed. > > > > Fact is the best 3d card out when I got my first PC was the Orchid > > > > Righteous (voodoo1). > > > > > > Uh, so what? That's you. The PSX can't even fucking do bilineartexture

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > filtering! Even 1st-generation PC 3D accelerators could do that! > > > > > > > Please elaborate. When were those cards available when compared with the > > PSX? > > Around the same time. Pick when the Voodoo came out and do the math. >

Other people did this for me, see other replies. > > If the PSX sold prior to those cards, then it would only be natural why*at > > the time* the PSX was better, no? > > Perhaps for a month or so, as usual. > > > At any rate, what does bilinear texture filtering have to do withanything? > > Everything, since it perfectly illustrates why PC hardware at the time wasbetter than the PSX. > > > It might make the game look better, sure. What about the frame rate? > > Hardware-accelerated bilinear texture filtering is faster that softwarenon-filtering. > I am impressed! Who would have believed... This statement is on par with " "Commodore" isn't "Atari" ". LOL > > What does a "REAL" player have to do with the crop of games coming everyfew > > months? If I recall well, there was a discussion not long ago about > > Morrowind. Someone said something about having to replace his old "256"with > > a newer GeForce card. That someone wasn't able to understand how comethe > > game required such high-end specs. Sounds familiar? > > <shrug> I had a GF 256 and its performance is practically the same as aGF3 Ti 200 with Morrowind. > I think this makes your case even worse. You actually upgraded your system with nil results. What a waste of $$$... > > This doesn't happen with consoles. Sure, the graphics can hardly evolveusing the same hardware, but > > at least you can rest assured everything will run well. It is by design.Who > > cares about graphic quality when the framerate stalls? Who cares about > > trilinear-z-buffered-LOD using multi-dimensional-rotating-frustrums when > > good ol' windows gives you the "Blue Screen"? > > Who cares about being stuck with the same hardware for 3 years while PCsovertake consoles by leaps and bounds in the mean time? You're making a logical fallacy here. In the mean time, the PC hardware changes as well. This means you can't be stuck with the same hardware for 3 years, otherwise the PCs will be "leaps and bounds in the meantime" for your PC, as well ! > Kids and immature adult gamers don't, obviously. :) REAL gamers do,however. Let me see if I understand correctly. Since you make of console gamers "kids and immature adults", and PC gamers as "mature adults", would you say that gamers who have both are, on average, teens (the average of both), or old folks (the sum of both)? :) > > > > The XBox and PS2 both look capable of presenting > > > > graphics just as well as my geforce2 based card in this PC. This iswhere > > > > you tell me that the XBox and PS2 have nothing on the top endgeforce4 > > > > cards, so let me save you the bother by reminding you that the cardalone > > > > costs more than either entire console (excepting the cheap versioncoming > > > > out, which only costs slightly less than an XBox- bargain!) > > > > > > See standard default PC vs console debate. PCs blow away consoles interms > > of versatility and cost-effectiveness. > > > > > > > Please elaborate! Cost-effectiveness in terms of what, exactly? You're > > willing to pay a lot of money in order to get the newest games runningon > > your system. That doesn't sound like a cost-effective decision to me... > > Buying an older computer with low-end hardware and older softwareversions > > will get you those "Office"-like applications running smoothly. It willalso > > leave you with enough cash to buy a console and play games. That soundsmore > > cost-effective to me, since you wouldn't have to upgrade neither toenjoy > > the best of both worlds. > > I bought a used Dreamcast for 50$. A new one costs about 80$. Pleaseexplain > > (even briefly) why a PC is more cost-effective. > > > > There are points to be made for PCs. Heck, I play a lot more on my PC,and I > > love using it. But I think you're barking up the wrong tree, here. > > Man, you are SO out of touch with hardware prices. I bought my P3/533w/Soyo motherboard for ~$200 a couple years ago or so. The GF256 was $125, and I had existing components. Even still, if I hadn't upgraded and just bought a completely new system (which is ludicrous if you already have one--you just upgrade modularly--duh) it would have cost me $1000 max and would still handle most current games without a problem. The trick is to not buy whole systems and simply buy in parts and upgrade modularly. PC cost-effectiveness blows away consoles for what PCs can do--PERIOD. > I paid 50$ for a console. You paid about 325$ for an upgrade (and you neglected to mention the "added value" of your spiffy GF 3). And you say what you did was more cost effective? Please direct me to the correct entry in the dictionary, where it says that cost effective means paying more for the same thing... > > > > Feel free to join in the discussion when you have some actual factsto back > > > > up your opinion. > > > > > > Facts? I've been slamming them into your arrogant little face theentire

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > time, sport. "Open your fucking [eyes], jackass!" > > > > > > > Is that a movie quote? > > Jerky Boys > > > BTW, you're slamming statements, with very little figures and facts

behind > > them. This means that if you're right, it is by pure luck, although luck > > happens, you know. > > YOU do the research if you want facts and figures. I don't wish to do the research. I'm giving you an open ear to present some facts to convince me. If I wished so, I would have brought the data myself. Thankfully, others did. It seems like you almost got away with false data. > Me, I already know the results--I just don't have the nitty grittydetails--and I don't need 'em. <shrug> With "results", you mean your opinion, yes? And please don't shrug so much, it will strain your shoulders, and hurt your gaming abilities in the end. <bungee jumps with rope not attached> > > p.s. What does REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS have to do with this discussion? > > "GTA3" is in the subject. Trace the thread back to find out why it wascrossposted. > I admit to not have played any of the series. But from what I understand, it's not a car simulator, it's a crime simulator. Maybe it should be crossposted to ALT.CRIME... :) Now, since you already changed the subject, is it not the time to delete that particular one already?

Your arguments are flawed. It is understandable that people prefer one type of system over another - it creates a friendly rivalry. But when somebody blindly refuses to accept that their beloved system is in any way inferior to another one, even when it is, there is cause for concern. If you actually looked at the hardware side of the PS2 (and probably GC as well, although I don't know very much about it) and compared it to a PC or xbox, then you would realise just how bad PCs really are. They are dark ages machines, built under the paradigm of 'anything you can do, I can brute-force'. The entire architecture of a PC is fatally flawed. Each and every bit may have nice big numbers to fool the average moron on the street (I include Eep2 in this), but there are so many bottlenecks that a PC can only compare to a real gaming console (ie not an xbox) if it has at least four times the power. I am not saying that a PS2 is better than a PC/xbox, all I am saying is that the hardware is beautiful, rather than clunky, slow and illogical. The PS2 graphics chip has a huge bus (2,560 bits) running to a simple 4Mb cache. The PC has a tiny bus (which was 'upgraded' minimally to the AGP standard), running to 64Mb/128Mb Video RAM. What is the difference, you might ask. Well, here is an analogy I read somewhere which sounds really weird, but illustrates the principle perfectly: Imagine you have 2 buckets of water (barrels of water for animals to drink) which are serving elephants. To keep these full, you have a pipe which pumps more water into the buckets. The pipes are the graphics buses, and the buckets are video memory. The PS2 has a huge pipe and a tiny bucket, so when the elephant (which symbolises the output to the screen) comes and drinks the water, it sucks it up really quickly - but the pipe is big enough to pump more water than the elephant drinks, so the elephant can keep sucking all year and the bucket will never run dry of water (data). On the other hand, the PC has a huge bucket and a tiny pipe, so while the elephant will take a while to empty the bucket, the pipe cannot replenish the water fast enough so eventually it will run dry. Thus, the PS2 graphic synthesizer can keep the throughput much higher than the PC. Yes, even if you have a GeForce 9 with 72 Gigs of Video Memory. At least until buses are improved dramatically on the PC. It doesn't matter how many cars can leave town A per minute, or how many can enter town B per minute, if the road between them is a single-carriageway, but if it is a six-lane motorway then it is using its full potential. Of course, it is harder to program the PS2 to take advantage of this properly, but then why spend your time making decent, fast code when you can just throw some shit code at a PC and bump up the minimum specs? Why spend all that time and effort making a properly integrated machine when you can just bump up the clock speeds and brute force it? Why spend your time making a lean, perfectly balanced and fast Lotus Elise with a modest power plant when you can stick a Formula 1 engine in a knackered Volvo and get the same top speed? Why bother arguing the point when you will all (especially Eep2) come back at me with random shit like 'I don't know anything about hardware, but the PC is better coz I say so' and refuse to accept there are other, better alternatives out there at a cheaper monetary outlay?

Funny how you address a post to me yet refer to be in the 1st- AND 3rd-person, Nick. You're an odd one indeed. Anyway, my arguments aren't flawed for the simple fact that PC versions of consoles games (at least PS2 anyway) are better: faster and visually/graphically. Just look at Grand Theft Auto 3 for an example. Oh and the PS2 bus is only 128-bit, not 2560-bit (odd amount anyway), according to http://www.pcvsconsole.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=448 (which is a good explanation of the differnences between the PS2 and Xbox. Besides FSB (frontside bus) speeds are up to, what, 533MHz now? That's plenty fast to easily compete with the PS2. While the PS2 MAY have a lot of potential to beat PCs and the Xbox, until developers truly take advantage of it and understand HOW to harness that potential, the PS2 will be a lame duck while the "brute force" mentality of PCs (but not the Xbox since it's hardware is locked) will advance beyond what the PS2 can do. Me, I'm sticking with hardware I have control over and can upgrade at will whenever I want. I am in COMPLETE control of my gaming experience; consolers are not. Nick wrote:

Quoted text (52 lines)

> Your arguments are flawed. It is understandable that people prefer one type > of system over another - it creates a friendly rivalry. But when somebody > blindly refuses to accept that their beloved system is in any way inferior > to another one, even when it is, there is cause for concern. If you actually > looked at the hardware side of the PS2 (and probably GC as well, although I > don't know very much about it) and compared it to a PC or xbox, then you > would realise just how bad PCs really are. They are dark ages machines, > built under the paradigm of 'anything you can do, I can brute-force'. The > entire architecture of a PC is fatally flawed. Each and every bit may have > nice big numbers to fool the average moron on the street (I include Eep2 in > this), but there are so many bottlenecks that a PC can only compare to a > real gaming console (ie not an xbox) if it has at least four times the > power. I am not saying that a PS2 is better than a PC/xbox, all I am saying > is that the hardware is beautiful, rather than clunky, slow and illogical. > > The PS2 graphics chip has a huge bus (2,560 bits) running to a simple 4Mb > cache. The PC has a tiny bus (which was 'upgraded' minimally to the AGP > standard), running to 64Mb/128Mb Video RAM. What is the difference, you > might ask. Well, here is an analogy I read somewhere which sounds really > weird, but illustrates the principle perfectly: > > Imagine you have 2 buckets of water (barrels of water for animals to drink) > which are serving elephants. To keep these full, you have a pipe which pumps > more water into the buckets. The pipes are the graphics buses, and the > buckets are video memory. The PS2 has a huge pipe and a tiny bucket, so when > the elephant (which symbolises the output to the screen) comes and drinks > the water, it sucks it up really quickly - but the pipe is big enough to > pump more water than the elephant drinks, so the elephant can keep sucking > all year and the bucket will never run dry of water (data). On the other > hand, the PC has a huge bucket and a tiny pipe, so while the elephant will > take a while to empty the bucket, the pipe cannot replenish the water fast > enough so eventually it will run dry. Thus, the PS2 graphic synthesizer can > keep the throughput much higher than the PC. Yes, even if you have a GeForce > 9 with 72 Gigs of Video Memory. At least until buses are improved > dramatically on the PC. It doesn't matter how many cars can leave town A per > minute, or how many can enter town B per minute, if the road between them is > a single-carriageway, but if it is a six-lane motorway then it is using its > full potential. > > Of course, it is harder to program the PS2 to take advantage of this > properly, but then why spend your time making decent, fast code when you can > just throw some shit code at a PC and bump up the minimum specs? Why spend > all that time and effort making a properly integrated machine when you can > just bump up the clock speeds and brute force it? Why spend your time making > a lean, perfectly balanced and fast Lotus Elise with a modest power plant > when you can stick a Formula 1 engine in a knackered Volvo and get the same > top speed? > > Why bother arguing the point when you will all (especially Eep2) come back > at me with random shit like 'I don't know anything about hardware, but the > PC is better coz I say so' and refuse to accept there are other, better > alternatives out there at a cheaper monetary outlay?

It's funny you like games like Tresspasser or Tomb Raider, yet your are badmouthing consoles. You are more likely to find those type of games (platformer and action/adventure) on a console. PC games for the next year or so (except maybe for Deus Ex 2) are going to not be your cup of tea, mostly they are going to be rehashes of yet another shooter with plenty of floating powerups. The sad part is, you are missing out some good console games, but it's your loss, not ours. "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Funny how you address a post to me yet refer to be in the 1st- AND3rd-person, Nick. You're an odd one indeed. > > Anyway, my arguments aren't flawed for the simple fact that PC versions ofconsoles games (at least PS2 anyway) are better: faster and visually/graphically. Just look at Grand Theft Auto 3 for an example. > > Oh and the PS2 bus is only 128-bit, not 2560-bit (odd amount anyway),according to http://www.pcvsconsole.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=448 (which is a good explanation of the differnences between the PS2 and Xbox. Besides FSB (frontside bus) speeds are up to, what, 533MHz now? That's plenty fast to easily compete with the PS2. > > While the PS2 MAY have a lot of potential to beat PCs and the Xbox, untildevelopers truly take advantage of it and understand HOW to harness that potential, the PS2 will be a lame duck while the "brute force" mentality of PCs (but not the Xbox since it's hardware is locked) will advance beyond what the PS2 can do. > > Me, I'm sticking with hardware I have control over and can upgrade at willwhenever I want. I am in COMPLETE control of my gaming experience; consolers are not. > > Nick wrote: > > > Your arguments are flawed. It is understandable that people prefer onetype > > of system over another - it creates a friendly rivalry. But whensomebody > > blindly refuses to accept that their beloved system is in any wayinferior > > to another one, even when it is, there is cause for concern. If youactually > > looked at the hardware side of the PS2 (and probably GC as well,although I > > don't know very much about it) and compared it to a PC or xbox, then you > > would realise just how bad PCs really are. They are dark ages machines, > > built under the paradigm of 'anything you can do, I can brute-force'.The > > entire architecture of a PC is fatally flawed. Each and every bit mayhave > > nice big numbers to fool the average moron on the street (I include Eep2in > > this), but there are so many bottlenecks that a PC can only compare to a > > real gaming console (ie not an xbox) if it has at least four times the > > power. I am not saying that a PS2 is better than a PC/xbox, all I amsaying > > is that the hardware is beautiful, rather than clunky, slow andillogical. > > > > The PS2 graphics chip has a huge bus (2,560 bits) running to a simple4Mb > > cache. The PC has a tiny bus (which was 'upgraded' minimally to the AGP > > standard), running to 64Mb/128Mb Video RAM. What is the difference, you > > might ask. Well, here is an analogy I read somewhere which sounds really > > weird, but illustrates the principle perfectly: > > > > Imagine you have 2 buckets of water (barrels of water for animals todrink) > > which are serving elephants. To keep these full, you have a pipe whichpumps > > more water into the buckets. The pipes are the graphics buses, and the > > buckets are video memory. The PS2 has a huge pipe and a tiny bucket, sowhen > > the elephant (which symbolises the output to the screen) comes anddrinks > > the water, it sucks it up really quickly - but the pipe is big enough to > > pump more water than the elephant drinks, so the elephant can keepsucking > > all year and the bucket will never run dry of water (data). On the other > > hand, the PC has a huge bucket and a tiny pipe, so while the elephantwill > > take a while to empty the bucket, the pipe cannot replenish the waterfast > > enough so eventually it will run dry. Thus, the PS2 graphic synthesizercan > > keep the throughput much higher than the PC. Yes, even if you have aGeForce > > 9 with 72 Gigs of Video Memory. At least until buses are improved > > dramatically on the PC. It doesn't matter how many cars can leave town Aper > > minute, or how many can enter town B per minute, if the road betweenthem is > > a single-carriageway, but if it is a six-lane motorway then it is usingits > > full potential. > > > > Of course, it is harder to program the PS2 to take advantage of this > > properly, but then why spend your time making decent, fast code when youcan > > just throw some shit code at a PC and bump up the minimum specs? Whyspend > > all that time and effort making a properly integrated machine when youcan > > just bump up the clock speeds and brute force it? Why spend your timemaking > > a lean, perfectly balanced and fast Lotus Elise with a modest powerplant > > when you can stick a Formula 1 engine in a knackered Volvo and get thesame > > top speed? > > > > Why bother arguing the point when you will all (especially Eep2) comeback > > at me with random shit like 'I don't know anything about hardware, butthe > > PC is better coz I say so' and refuse to accept there are other, better > > alternatives out there at a cheaper monetary outlay? >

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in > Why bother arguing the point when you will all (especially Eep2) come > back at me with random shit like 'I don't know anything about > hardware, but the PC is better coz I say so' and refuse to accept > there are other, better alternatives out there at a cheaper monetary > outlay? > Nick, just want to say that everything you've said is spot on the money. I know some people won't listen to the FACTS when they're read to them, but at the end of the day, some no-name usenet poster's opinion means nothing to anyone. For the record, I play games on my PC, I don't own a PS2 or an XBox, nor am I going to. I know that there are some damn good games available for them, but I'm content with my racing sims and simple RPG games (Dungeon Siege) on the PC, so I'll live with it now. I didn't buy it for games originally, but that's what the upgrade money went on. I do a fair bit of programming and graphics work, and never got the chance at a net yaroze ;o) So while I'm a PC gamer, I never disrespect consoles, except the XBox, because if it wasn't for it, I'd be able to play HALO on my PC :o) I still read Edge magazine every other month or so, to keep up with developments in consoles, I'm still waiting for the next quantum leap games machine though. cheers John

Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Funny how you address a post to me yet refer to be in the 1st- AND > 3rd-person, Nick. You're an odd one indeed. > > Anyway, my arguments aren't flawed for the simple fact that PC > versions of consoles games (at least PS2 anyway) are better: faster > and visually/graphically. Just look at Grand Theft Auto 3 for an > example. >

I don't know about that- with "only" 256mb of RAM under win98se, my 1.4 tbird system chugs with disc access driving through the second island. Is the PS2 version similarly jerky and slow? It's not the graphics (only GF2 I admit, but well up to the job of 800x600x16) it's the memory. The PC version still features the same quirks that GTA original did on my PSX- cars and pedestrians wink out of existence almost as soon as you turn you back, only about 6 different vehicle types ever in existence at any one time. I'm enjoying GTA3 on my PC, but I also enjoyed GTA and GTA london on my PSX. I can't see the PS2 version of GTA3 being inferior to the PC version running on �800 worth of PC. cheers John

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Your arguments are flawed. It is understandable that people prefer onetype <huge snip> Whilst all that you say about PC, Xbox and PS2 hardware may well be true your arguments do not address the real reason why the vast majority of people on this newsgroup prefer PC's over the PS2. To put it simply, the PC platform is the only one that offers high quality racing simulations together with high quality controllers. If there was a console version of GPL or NR2002, and if there was support for online racing and if the console could support wheels of the quality of the TSW or BRD ones then I'm sure more of us would consider it as a serious simming platform. As it stands the PS2 does not offer any of these. It therefore has to play second fiddle to the PC. It is important to remember that the software is far more important than the hardware it runs on. Phil --- Racesim Central Administrator http://www.racesimcentral.com

> Is >the PS2 version similarly jerky and slow? No maybe of hadful of time I've seen a slight drop in frame rate but other wise perfectly smooth

"Phil Lee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:adssbv$1nqed$[email hidden]... > To put it simply, the PC platform is the only one that offers high quality > racing simulations together with high quality controllers. If there was a > console version of GPL or NR2002, and if there was support for onlineracing > and if the console could support wheels of the quality of the TSW or BRD > ones then I'm sure more of us would consider it as a serious simming > platform. As it stands the PS2 does not offer any of these. It thereforehas > to play second fiddle to the PC. Indeed, that is all true. I have been a PC gamer for many, many years, and still play racing sims and FPSs mostly on the PC. But nobody is looking likely to make a real racing sim on a console, because the market there is even more restricted than it is on the PC. By the way, the consoles do support online gaming - I have been playing Tony Hawk 3 online using my current 56k connection for a while now.

"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Oh and the PS2 bus is only 128-bit, not 2560-bit (odd amount anyway),according to http://www.pcvsconsole.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=448 (which is a good explanation of the differnences between the PS2 and Xbox. Besides FSB (frontside bus) speeds are up to, what, 533MHz now? That's plenty fast to easily compete with the PS2. The 128bit bus is inside the actual processing units, for example - there is a 128bit bus connecting the main processing unit and one vector unit (unlike the xbox/PC which has different bus speeds all over the place - the biggest I think is 32bit but I might be wrong). 533 FSB connects the RAM to the processor through the North bridge (that is a frontside bus). BUT the bus was concerning the graphics chip/card, which in a PS2 is a dedicated 2,560bit bus, whereas in a PC is is a tiny AGP bus (or an even smaller PCI bus - which is shared between a number of slots).

"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Me, I'm sticking with hardware I have control over and can upgrade at willwhenever I want. I am in COMPLETE control of my gaming experience; consolers are not. By the way, you sound like a control freak, so why not take the next step and make your own gaming machine? Somebody who wants 'COMPLETE control' of their gaming experience must get right pissed off with hard disk caching, blue screens of death, random framerates and even sitting at a desk or table during your mammoth 'gaming experiences'. You might either A) Come up with something that blows PCs and consoles away, or B) realise just how ugly the PC design really is. I bet at least your system would have a RISC processor (if you know what that is, of course).

The PS2 is certainly a capable machine, but you are forgetting a couple of things. First, the PC and Xbox do not have the same architecture. They share many components and technologies, but they are not the same. The closest you can get on a PC would be with the nForce chipset, but even that is a generation behind what is in the Xbox. Without going into detail, just consider the fact that the Xbox manages to do all the things it does with only 64 meg of RAM total. You couldn't do that on a PC. (Yes I know the PS2 manages with less, but the PS2 has an unfair advantage here - it can't use high res textures so it doesn't need as much RAM). If you really look at the Xbox system design, it too is a thing of beauty, IMO. Secondly, it is an easily verifiable fact that many games that have been ported from the PS2 to the Xbox have had graphics features added. Also with many games that are simultaneously being developed for both both platforms the Xbox version has added graphics effects. At the very least, as previously mentioned the PS2 is incapable of using texture resolutions as high as the Xbox. But on top of that the Xbox shaders are allowing effects that have never been done in games before anywhere. Animals with "real" fur. Individual blades of grass on the ground. Self-shadowing models. Depth of field effects. Developers are only just beginning to figure out what to do with all of this power. The latest Xbox game previews I have seen are starting to look like real time CGI. Games that are just now coming to market are already an order of magnitude better than most of the games that were available at the Xbox's introduction. I used to think Project Gotham Racing looked incredible, then I bought Rallisport Challenge. Now I can't look at Project Gotham Racing. And it is continuing to get better. The Xbox version of Pro Race Driver will probably blow both of those away, at least graphically. I know I probably shouldn't get involved in these kind of arguments, because they tend to get as heated and emotional as a religious argument. I have nothing against you, I'm glad you are happy with your PS2, and I agree it is good hardware. But I don't think you are very well informed about what the Xbox really is or what it is capable of, so I felt compelled to comment. "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Your arguments are flawed. It is understandable that people prefer onetype > of system over another - it creates a friendly rivalry. But whensomebody > blindly refuses to accept that their beloved system is in any wayinferior > to another one, even when it is, there is cause for concern. If youactually > looked at the hardware side of the PS2 (and probably GC as well,although I > don't know very much about it) and compared it to a PC or xbox, thenyou > would realise just how bad PCs really are. They are dark agesmachines, > built under the paradigm of 'anything you can do, I can brute-force'.The > entire architecture of a PC is fatally flawed. Each and every bit mayhave > nice big numbers to fool the average moron on the street (I includeEep2 in > this), but there are so many bottlenecks that a PC can only compare toa > real gaming console (ie not an xbox) if it has at least four times the > power. I am not saying that a PS2 is better than a PC/xbox, all I amsaying > is that the hardware is beautiful, rather than clunky, slow andillogical. > > The PS2 graphics chip has a huge bus (2,560 bits) running to a simple4Mb > cache. The PC has a tiny bus (which was 'upgraded' minimally to theAGP > standard), running to 64Mb/128Mb Video RAM. What is the difference,you > might ask. Well, here is an analogy I read somewhere which soundsreally > weird, but illustrates the principle perfectly: > > Imagine you have 2 buckets of water (barrels of water for animals todrink) > which are serving elephants. To keep these full, you have a pipe whichpumps > more water into the buckets. The pipes are the graphics buses, and the > buckets are video memory. The PS2 has a huge pipe and a tiny bucket,so when > the elephant (which symbolises the output to the screen) comes anddrinks > the water, it sucks it up really quickly - but the pipe is big enoughto > pump more water than the elephant drinks, so the elephant can keepsucking > all year and the bucket will never run dry of water (data). On theother > hand, the PC has a huge bucket and a tiny pipe, so while the elephantwill > take a while to empty the bucket, the pipe cannot replenish the waterfast > enough so eventually it will run dry. Thus, the PS2 graphicsynthesizer can > keep the throughput much higher than the PC. Yes, even if you have aGeForce > 9 with 72 Gigs of Video Memory. At least until buses are improved > dramatically on the PC. It doesn't matter how many cars can leave townA per > minute, or how many can enter town B per minute, if the road betweenthem is > a single-carriageway, but if it is a six-lane motorway then it isusing its > full potential. > > Of course, it is harder to program the PS2 to take advantage of this > properly, but then why spend your time making decent, fast code whenyou can > just throw some shit code at a PC and bump up the minimum specs? Whyspend > all that time and effort making a properly integrated machine when youcan > just bump up the clock speeds and brute force it? Why spend your timemaking > a lean, perfectly balanced and fast Lotus Elise with a modest powerplant > when you can stick a Formula 1 engine in a knackered Volvo and get thesame > top speed? > > Why bother arguing the point when you will all (especially Eep2) comeback > at me with random shit like 'I don't know anything about hardware, butthe > PC is better coz I say so' and refuse to accept there are other,better > alternatives out there at a cheaper monetary outlay? > >

"PS2 is number 1" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Is > >the PS2 version similarly jerky and slow? > > No maybe of hadful of time I've seen a slight drop in frame rate but otherwise > perfectly smooth Absolute nonsense. I have a PS2 and GTA3, it is far from "perfectly smooth". Generally under 30fps most of the time. The PC version is definitely superior.

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Your arguments are flawed. Of course - it's Eep. Unfortunately, your arguments are not exactly spotless either, and demonstrate you have a lack of understanding of both the PS2 and PC's architecture. > The PS2 graphics chip has a huge bus (2,560 bits) running to a simple 4Mb > cache. The PC has a tiny bus (which was 'upgraded' minimally to the AGP > standard), running to 64Mb/128Mb Video RAM. What is the difference, you > might ask. Well, here is an analogy I read somewhere which sounds really > weird, but illustrates the principle perfectly: Since when is bus speed (and internal only at that) the sole measure of graphics power? Yes, the PS2 has a very wide graphics bus to a _very_ small segment of internal ram, which is one of the reasons many games for it display washed out, blurry textures. You may hold the systems graphics prowess in high regard, but the fact is in most games available for the console, I'm not seeing this wizardry translate itself onto the screen. It's also interesting you would lament the PC's "brute force" approach, when the PS2's graphics unit is the very definition of "brute force". Frankly, the PS2's graphics synthesizer is an incredibly _dumb_ chip. No mipmapping. No anti-aliasing. No multitexturing (!). Cripes, it takes two passes just to apply bilinear filtering! It's like an incredibly fast Voodoo1 in many aspects, the very definition of "brute force". Techniques that other consoles and PC graphics cards can do in one pass require several on the PS2 as the underlying feature set of the graphics chip is so feeble, assuming the techniques can be accomplished with multipass rendering at all (Dot3 bumpmapping anyone)? So of course the internal bus bandwidth is fantastic, it *has* to be as the PS2 has to resort to such "brute-force" tactics. Nothing is free here, the PS2 takes a different approach that will help in some cases, but be a detriment in others. No doubt you chose to focus on the very wide internal bus, but that speed absolutely plummets when it has to go outside the chip for streaming textures, which it has to do considering how small that internal memory bank is. Graphics prowess is dependent on many factors, including the capabilities of the graphics chip themselves, the bandwidth that connects the components, and even the CPU to keep the frame rate high when you have to process AI from many enemies (and AI that is expected to be more and more complex by a more demanding gaming public). While it's hard to directly compare titles on both platforms, the PC versions of two PS2-originated games (GTA3 and Starfighter), the PC versions are undoubtedly smoother and with superior graphics, although they're limited by the PS2's source art. It serves no purpose to just mimic Eep's zealotry with some of your own.

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote on 08 Jun 2002: <big snip> > Why bother arguing the point when you will all (especially Eep2) > come back at me with random shit like 'I don't know anything about > hardware, but the PC is better coz I say so' and refuse to accept > there are other, better alternatives out there at a cheaper > monetary outlay? This is the first post I've seen in this thread (I'm in rec.autos.simulators), so maybe I've missed summat. But it seems to me this is yet another "my system's better than your system, nah nah nah-nah naaahh!" arguments that get no-one anywhere. I have a PC because it's the best all-round machine - by which I mean that games aren't all it can do - and because there is no equivalent to Grand Prix Legends on any console. (Incidentally, are there any really good force feedback wheels - say up to MSFF standard - available for consoles? It's a big plus if so.) It all boils down to this: if all you want to do is play the type of games at which consoles excel - arcadey ones, basically - then it's silly buying a PC costing five times as much. But if you want ot be able to do other things, including non-gamey ones, then you'll need a computer anyway, and if a big range of games is something you need it'll be a PC. Simple, really. -- England 1 Argentina 0! Yyyyeeeessssss! :-D

Uh, hardly. I'm looking forward to quite a few upcoming PC titles: Deus Ex 2, Thief 3, Hitman 2, Tomb Raider 6 (begrudgingly anyway), NOLF 2, Gothic 2, Arx Fatalis, IGI 2, Neverwinter Nights, SimCity 4, Simsville, etc. Lots of variety in these games...variety consoles can't even BEGIN to touch. Magnulus wrote:

Quoted text (32 lines)

> It's funny you like games like Tresspasser or Tomb Raider, yet your are > badmouthing consoles. You are more likely to find those type of games > (platformer and action/adventure) on a console. PC games for the next year > or so (except maybe for Deus Ex 2) are going to not be your cup of tea, > mostly they are going to be rehashes of yet another shooter with plenty of > floating powerups. The sad part is, you are missing out some good console > games, but it's your loss, not ours. > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Funny how you address a post to me yet refer to be in the 1st- AND > 3rd-person, Nick. You're an odd one indeed. > > > > Anyway, my arguments aren't flawed for the simple fact that PC versions of > consoles games (at least PS2 anyway) are better: faster and > visually/graphically. Just look at Grand Theft Auto 3 for an example. > > > > Oh and the PS2 bus is only 128-bit, not 2560-bit (odd amount anyway), > according to http://www.pcvsconsole.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=448 (which > is a good explanation of the differnences between the PS2 and Xbox. Besides > FSB (frontside bus) speeds are up to, what, 533MHz now? That's plenty fast > to easily compete with the PS2. > > > > While the PS2 MAY have a lot of potential to beat PCs and the Xbox, until > developers truly take advantage of it and understand HOW to harness that > potential, the PS2 will be a lame duck while the "brute force" mentality of > PCs (but not the Xbox since it's hardware is locked) will advance beyond > what the PS2 can do. > > > > Me, I'm sticking with hardware I have control over and can upgrade at will > whenever I want. I am in COMPLETE control of my gaming experience; consolers > are not.

PC versions of consoles games (at least PSX/PS2 anyway) are often (if not always) "enhanced": higher resolution textures, more polys, more detail, higher quality sounds/music, etc. http://www.rockstargames.com/grandtheftauto3/pc/main.html to see how the PC Grand Theft Auto 3 is better than the PS2 version. JM wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]: > > > Funny how you address a post to me yet refer to be in the 1st- AND > > 3rd-person, Nick. You're an odd one indeed. > > > > Anyway, my arguments aren't flawed for the simple fact that PC > > versions of consoles games (at least PS2 anyway) are better: faster > > and visually/graphically. Just look at Grand Theft Auto 3 for an > > example. > > I don't know about that- with "only" 256mb of RAM under win98se, my 1.4 > tbird system chugs with disc access driving through the second island. Is > the PS2 version similarly jerky and slow? It's not the graphics (only GF2 I > admit, but well up to the job of 800x600x16) it's the memory. The PC > version still features the same quirks that GTA original did on my PSX- > cars and pedestrians wink out of existence almost as soon as you turn you > back, only about 6 different vehicle types ever in existence at any one > time. I'm enjoying GTA3 on my PC, but I also enjoyed GTA and GTA london on > my PSX. I can't see the PS2 version of GTA3 being inferior to the PC > version running on �800 worth of PC.

BlaBlaBlaBlaBla, Instead of arguing which is better why don't you all just go out and buy both a PS2/X-box and a decent pc, I did. The bottom line here is they all have their advantages, ehm if you have a decent setup with your PS2 like my self 46" Sony TV 5.1 digital receiver, an old Sony ES receiver 2x110watts running my 10" passive dual voicecoil sub, GT3 is pretty cool, + PS2/X-Box is a dedicated gaming console which doubles as a DVD player, My pc consist of a athlon xp1700 64mb geforce2 mx/400, 60gig IBM HD, SB Live 5.1 w/ creative 5300 series speakers and sub, and a 19" LG Flatron 915FT plus, So not the top of the line system's but decent, well you all know the advantages of pc's you can do so much more than just gaming, and as far as online play well we'll just have to wait and see how well the PS2/X-box stacks up when it becomes available, Just my cents, and please do not take it the wrong way wouldn't want to step on anybody's toes your all entitled to your own opinion's although opinions don't change fact's and here's a little secret for some of you: A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still!! Just a little something I learned :o) "none" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Imagine you have 2 buckets of water (barrels of water for animals todrink) > >which are serving elephants. To keep these full, you have a pipe whichpumps > >more water into the buckets. The pipes are the graphics buses, and the > >buckets are video memory. The PS2 has a huge pipe and a tiny bucket, sowhen > >the elephant (which symbolises the output to the screen) comes and drinks > >the water, it sucks it up really quickly - but the pipe is big enough to > >pump more water than the elephant drinks, so the elephant can keepsucking > >all year and the bucket will never run dry of water (data). On the other > >hand, the PC has a huge bucket and a tiny pipe, so while the elephantwill > >take a while to empty the bucket, the pipe cannot replenish the waterfast > >enough so eventually it will run dry. Thus, the PS2 graphic synthesizercan > >keep the throughput much higher than the PC. Yes, even if you have aGeForce > >9 with 72 Gigs of Video Memory. At least until buses are improved > >dramatically on the PC. It doesn't matter how many cars can leave town Aper > >minute, or how many can enter town B per minute, if the road between themis > >a single-carriageway, but if it is a six-lane motorway then it is usingits > >full potential. > > > >Of course, it is harder to program the PS2 to take advantage of this > >properly, but then why spend your time making decent, fast code when youcan > >just throw some shit code at a PC and bump up the minimum specs? Whyspend > >all that time and effort making a properly integrated machine when youcan > >just bump up the clock speeds and brute force it? Why spend your timemaking

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > Ahem. Nick, you are being illogical here. First going on how great PS2 > is with its big bandwidth, and then complaining PC architecture is > based on "brute force"? Come again? > > Like someone else already pointed out, PS2 architecture is not > "beautiful" nor really that advanced. There's a reason why Carmack was > not terribly excited about the graphics prowess of PS2. > > About the best thing you can say about PS2 architecture is that it is > different, but that's about it. >

That's probably the most sensible thing that's been said in this thread :) -- Ian P <email invalid due to spam> "Hans Jensen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:C8DM8.209057$[email hidden]... > BlaBlaBlaBlaBla, Instead of arguing which is better why don't you all just > go out and buy both a PS2/X-box and a decent pc, I did. The bottom line here > is they all have their advantages,......<snipped>

"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Uh, hardly. I'm looking forward to quite a few upcoming PC titles: Deus Ex2, Thief 3, Hitman 2, Tomb Raider 6 (begrudgingly anyway), NOLF 2, Gothic 2, Arx Fatalis, IGI 2, Neverwinter Nights, SimCity 4, Simsville, etc. Lots of variety in these games...variety consoles can't even BEGIN to touch. Variety? Let me see: we have two and a half #1s, five #2s, one #3, one #4, and one #6. Yup, variety it is! You should well enjoy Crash Bandicoot 3 - it has a number in it... LOL -- Ph7 Don't mind your makeup, Make your mind up! (Frank Zappa)

"ph7" <[email hidden]> wrote: > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote: > news:[email hidden]... > > Uh, hardly. I'm looking forward to quite a few upcoming PC titles: DeusEx > 2, Thief 3, Hitman 2, Tomb Raider 6 (begrudgingly anyway), NOLF 2, Gothic2,

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Arx Fatalis, IGI 2, Neverwinter Nights, SimCity 4, Simsville, etc. Lots of > variety in these games...variety consoles can't even BEGIN to touch. > > > Variety? Let me see: we have two and a half #1s, five #2s, one #3, one #4, > and one #6. Yup, variety it is! > > You should well enjoy Crash Bandicoot 3 - it has a number in it... > LOL

LOL!! Eep hasn't played many console games. PC games market is muddled with sequels after sequels and pure classics like Planescape Torment are very few and far between. Oh and Eep hasn't played that either. He's missing out on all the best games PC has to offer, but he thinks he's qualified to defend pc games. Idiocy. What's he gonna do when his parents pass away and unable to support himself financially? he's too stupid to be a game developer, too close-minded to be a researcher, too uncreative to be an artist, too unfit to be a labor worker, too unfocused to be a writer, too clumsy to be a criminal, too unfriendly to be a beggar, and too boring to be a celebrity. He's human garbage.

I am not going to argue with you at all, you are on my side anyway. BTW I hope by 'individual blades of grass' you don't mean that pathetic Halo effect which blurs into obscurity at about 10 feet from the camera :-)

Feel free to miss the point entirely... The graphics unit is mated up to vu1 (one of the powerful vector processor units) which does all the effects you mention, except you have to write them yourself instead of the graphics board doing them entirely. Remember when writing a 3D engine involved huge amounts of complex math and structures to hold matrices which you had to do yourself? Now you just say 'here you go OpenGL, draw me a triangle'. The first one is a PS2, the second is a PC. I feel inclined to say PS2 programmers are better than PC programmers, even though I am a PC developer.... "Nitz Walsh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:MFpM8.254298$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Your arguments are flawed. > > Of course - it's Eep. Unfortunately, your arguments are not exactly > spotless either, and demonstrate you have a lack of understanding of both > the PS2 and PC's architecture. > > > The PS2 graphics chip has a huge bus (2,560 bits) running to a simple

4Mb

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > cache. The PC has a tiny bus (which was 'upgraded' minimally to the AGP > > standard), running to 64Mb/128Mb Video RAM. What is the difference, you > > might ask. Well, here is an analogy I read somewhere which sounds really > > weird, but illustrates the principle perfectly: > > Since when is bus speed (and internal only at that) the sole measure of > graphics power? Yes, the PS2 has a very wide graphics bus to a _very_

small > segment of internal ram, which is one of the reasons many games for it > display washed out, blurry textures. You may hold the systems graphics > prowess in high regard, but the fact is in most games available for the > console, I'm not seeing this wizardry translate itself onto the screen. > > It's also interesting you would lament the PC's "brute force" approach,when > the PS2's graphics unit is the very definition of "brute force". Frankly, > the PS2's graphics synthesizer is an incredibly _dumb_ chip. Nomipmapping. > No anti-aliasing. No multitexturing (!). Cripes, it takes two passesjust > to apply bilinear filtering! It's like an incredibly fast Voodoo1 in many > aspects, the very definition of "brute force". Techniques that other > consoles and PC graphics cards can do in one pass require several on thePS2 > as the underlying feature set of the graphics chip is so feeble, assuming > the techniques can be accomplished with multipass rendering at all (Dot3 > bumpmapping anyone)? > > So of course the internal bus bandwidth is fantastic, it *has* to be asthe > PS2 has to resort to such "brute-force" tactics. Nothing is free here,the > PS2 takes a different approach that will help in some cases, but be a > detriment in others. No doubt you chose to focus on the very wideinternal > bus, but that speed absolutely plummets when it has to go outside the chip > for streaming textures, which it has to do considering how small that > internal memory bank is. Graphics prowess is dependent on many factors, > including the capabilities of the graphics chip themselves, the bandwidth > that connects the components, and even the CPU to keep the frame rate high > when you have to process AI from many enemies (and AI that is expected tobe > more and more complex by a more demanding gaming public). While it'shard > to directly compare titles on both platforms, the PC versions of two > PS2-originated games (GTA3 and Starfighter), the PC versions areundoubtedly > smoother and with superior graphics, although they're limited by the PS2's > source art. > > It serves no purpose to just mimic Eep's zealotry with some of your own. > >

"David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > It all boils down to this: if all you want to do is play the type of > games at which consoles excel - arcadey ones, basically - then it's > silly buying a PC costing five times as much. But if you want ot be > able to do other things, including non-gamey ones, then you'll need a > computer anyway, and if a big range of games is something you need > it'll be a PC. Simple, really. I have both, I am just trying to stop Eep2 refusing to believe consoles can do *anything*, so my points are naturally console sided. > -- > England 1 Argentina 0! Yyyyeeeessssss! :-D What a game! I am still coming down from the high I got after that one.... <g>

"Hans Jensen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:C8DM8.209057$[email hidden]... > BlaBlaBlaBlaBla, Instead of arguing which is better why don't you all just > go out and buy both a PS2/X-box and a decent pc, I did. The bottom linehere > is they all have their advantages, ehm if you have a decent setup withyour > PS2 like my self 46" Sony TV 5.1 digital receiver, an old Sony ES receiver > 2x110watts running my 10" passive dual voicecoil sub, GT3 is pretty cool,+ > PS2/X-Box is a dedicated gaming console which doubles as a DVD player, Mypc

Quoted text (10 lines)

> consist of a athlon xp1700 64mb geforce2 mx/400, 60gig IBM HD, SB Live 5.1 > w/ creative 5300 series speakers and sub, and a 19" LG Flatron 915FT plus, > So not the top of the line system's but decent, well you all know the > advantages of pc's you can do so much more than just gaming, and as far as > online play well we'll just have to wait and see how well the PS2/X-box > stacks up when it becomes available, Just my cents, and please do not take > it the wrong way wouldn't want to step on anybody's toes your all entitled > to your own opinion's although opinions don't change fact's and here's a > little secret for some of you: A man convinced against his will is of the > same opinion still!! Just a little something I learned :o)

Perfectly said - I reiterate that I am trying to get people to realise this, so my arguments are naturally pro-console as I am arguing against a bunch of PC people. But that is a good way to end this once and for all...

Nope, not that one. Although you gotta figure that at the typical console resolution of 640x480 just about everything blurs into obscurity pretty quickly. What I was referring to was in a demo I played of some BMX game on the Xbox, and it had honest-to-God individual blades of grass on the lawns. The bike sunk into them, and they did not fade out with distance. They are done as a pixel shader effect, therefore apparently not requiring the overhead that polygons or sprites would require. The same effect is being used to add fur to animals in some other games. "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I am not going to argue with you at all, you are on my side anyway.BTW I > hope by 'individual blades of grass' you don't mean that pathetic Halo > effect which blurs into obscurity at about 10 feet from the camera :-) > >

"none" <[email hidden]> wrote: news:[email hidden]... > "Joe N" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >"ph7" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> news:[email hidden]... > >> > Uh, hardly. I'm looking forward to quite a few upcoming PC titles:Deus > >Ex > >> 2, Thief 3, Hitman 2, Tomb Raider 6 (begrudgingly anyway), NOLF 2,Gothic > >2, > >> Arx Fatalis, IGI 2, Neverwinter Nights, SimCity 4, Simsville, etc. Lotsof > >> variety in these games...variety consoles can't even BEGIN to touch. > >> > >> > >> Variety? Let me see: we have two and a half #1s, five #2s, one #3, one#4,

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >> and one #6. Yup, variety it is! > >> > >> You should well enjoy Crash Bandicoot 3 - it has a number in it... > >> LOL > > > >LOL!! > >Eep hasn't played many console games. > >PC games market is muddled with sequels after sequels and pure classics

like > > Is console market much different from that? What were the most awaited > PS2 games? GT3, GTA3, MGS2 (aka MG5), SH2, Tekken4/5, VF4 etc. Any > non-sequels there? > I suppose you're right about that. I stand corrected.

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Feel free to miss the point entirely... Your defended your "point" with misleading information. To object to such correction on the misinformation you posted reeks of purposeful diversion. Sorry, your post, and all the ignorance contained within, stands. >The graphics unit is mated up to vu1 > (one of the powerful vector processor units) which does all the effectsyou > mention, No, it doesn't. The PS2's vector processors can not entirely compensate for the faults of the GS, as any PS2 developer will tell you. The point was, you lament the PC's "brute force" approach, when that is exactly the approach the PS2 takes - incredibly brain-dead graphics chip, with the hopes that certain ingenious developers will be able to get around its limitations (and some cannot be gotten around, no matter how ingenious the developer is). It's interesting to hear of how wonderfully flexible the PS2's hardware is, and all the "potential" there is, but it never seems to be translated onto the screen. Xbox and Gamecube have presented games in their first generation which are obviously graphically superior to anything the PS2 has put out, the "incredible" flexibility of the vector processors notwithstanding. > first one is a PS2, the second is a PC. I feel inclined to say PS2 > programmers are better than PC programmers, even though I am a PC > developer.... What, in visual basic? If you truly had any understanding of how games are developed, you wouldn't embarrass yourself with these last two posts.

Hence, "upcoming" titles, zippy. These are tried and proven series (the sequels, of course), for the most part. Crash Bandicot et al is yet another mindless platformer. ph7 wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Uh, hardly. I'm looking forward to quite a few upcoming PC titles: Deus Ex > 2, Thief 3, Hitman 2, Tomb Raider 6 (begrudgingly anyway), NOLF 2, Gothic 2, > Arx Fatalis, IGI 2, Neverwinter Nights, SimCity 4, Simsville, etc. Lots of > variety in these games...variety consoles can't even BEGIN to touch. > > Variety? Let me see: we have two and a half #1s, five #2s, one #3, one #4, > and one #6. Yup, variety it is! > > You should well enjoy Crash Bandicoot 3 - it has a number in it... > LOL

In article <[email hidden]>, "Nick" <[email hidden]> writes: >> England 1 Argentina 0! Yyyyeeeessssss! :-D > >What a game! I am still coming down from the high I got after that one.... ><g> I'm happy with the Red Wings/Hurricanes game from last night. I could use your exact same statment to describe THAT one...<g> Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Thanks to those of you who made a donation for breast cancer research. The walkathon is over, but donations are still being accepted. Details on my webpage. Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Hey, consoles can do stuff! They make great, er, doorjams, for instance. ;) They also explode in lots of pieces nicely when dropped from high places. <snicker> Nick wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> "David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > It all boils down to this: if all you want to do is play the type of > > games at which consoles excel - arcadey ones, basically - then it's > > silly buying a PC costing five times as much. But if you want ot be > > able to do other things, including non-gamey ones, then you'll need a > > computer anyway, and if a big range of games is something you need > > it'll be a PC. Simple, really. > > I have both, I am just trying to stop Eep2 refusing to believe consoles can > do *anything*, so my points are naturally console sided.

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Feel free to miss the point entirely... The graphics unit is mated up tovu1 > (one of the powerful vector processor units) which does all the effectsyou > mention, except you have to write them yourself instead of the graphics > board doing them entirely. Remember when writing a 3D engine involved huge > amounts of complex math and structures to hold matrices which you had todo > yourself? Now you just say 'here you go OpenGL, draw me a triangle'. The > first one is a PS2, the second is a PC. I feel inclined to say PS2 > programmers are better than PC programmers, even though I am a PC > developer.... Have you read any of the nVidia shader documentation? There's more to it than glShadeModel( GL_EASY_PER_PIXEL_LIGHTING_OMG_NV ); The vertex and pixel shader interfaces are low level; you basically write effects in graphics card assembler. The whole point is to give programmers fine-grained control of T&L and if you want the best results from the XBOX you DO write all the effects yourself, do the transformations yourself, implement lighting yourself. If you don't understand this you've missed the entire point of programmable graphics hardware. And regardless of the hardware or API used, 3D engines still require complex math and data structures. Drawing is the icing on the cake. My biggest surprise in learning OpenGL was how little it had to do with the graphics applications I wrote. I thought OpenGL was synonymous with 3D engine programming, but much of the good stuff (scene management, collision detection, physics, AI, etc.) is abstracted away from rendering. That's why you see engines that support OpenGL, Direct3D and a software renderer or engines like NetImmerse that run on XBOX, Gamecube, PS2 and PC. Don't think they write every line of engine code 3-4 times in platform-specific assembler. Nick

"Joe N" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ae074p$kuq$[email hidden]... > "ph7" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Uh, hardly. I'm looking forward to quite a few upcoming PC titles:Deus > Ex > > 2, Thief 3, Hitman 2, Tomb Raider 6 (begrudgingly anyway), NOLF 2,Gothic > 2, > > Arx Fatalis, IGI 2, Neverwinter Nights, SimCity 4, Simsville, etc. Lotsof > > variety in these games...variety consoles can't even BEGIN to touch. > > > > > > Variety? Let me see: we have two and a half #1s, five #2s, one #3, one#4,

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > and one #6. Yup, variety it is! > > > > You should well enjoy Crash Bandicoot 3 - it has a number in it... > > LOL > > LOL!! > Eep hasn't played many console games. > PC games market is muddled with sequels after sequels and pure classics

like > Planescape Torment are very few and far between. Oh and Eep hasn't played > that either. He's missing out on all the best games PC has to offer, buthe > thinks he's qualified to defend pc games. Idiocy. > > What's he gonna do when his parents pass away and unable to supporthimself > financially? he's too stupid to be a game developer, too close-minded tobe > a researcher, too uncreative to be an artist, too unfit to be a labor > worker, too unfocused to be a writer, too clumsy to be a criminal, too > unfriendly to be a beggar, and too boring to be a celebrity. He's human > garbage. > > LOL. Sorry Eep, even if this isn't true, it's still very funny (if you think relatively, that is...) !!! But he can excel at QA ! Although with some of the attitude he's been presenting, only for a very short while... Planescape Torment ??? This isn't a game! How can it be? It's Isometric !!! ;-) -- Ph7 Don't mind your makeup, Make your mind up! (Frank Zappa)

"Joe N" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ae0mdf$s7g$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> "none" <[email hidden]> wrote: > news:[email hidden]... > > "Joe N" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >"ph7" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >> news:[email hidden]... > > >> > Uh, hardly. I'm looking forward to quite a few upcoming PC titles: > Deus > > >Ex > > >> 2, Thief 3, Hitman 2, Tomb Raider 6 (begrudgingly anyway), NOLF 2, > Gothic > > >2, > > >> Arx Fatalis, IGI 2, Neverwinter Nights, SimCity 4, Simsville, etc.

Lots > of > > >> variety in these games...variety consoles can't even BEGIN to touch. > > >> > > >> > > >> Variety? Let me see: we have two and a half #1s, five #2s, one #3,one

Quoted text (19 lines)

> #4, > > >> and one #6. Yup, variety it is! > > >> > > >> You should well enjoy Crash Bandicoot 3 - it has a number in it... > > >> LOL > > > > > >LOL!! > > >Eep hasn't played many console games. > > >PC games market is muddled with sequels after sequels and pure classics > like > > > > Is console market much different from that? What were the most awaited > > PS2 games? GT3, GTA3, MGS2 (aka MG5), SH2, Tekken4/5, VF4 etc. Any > > non-sequels there? > > > > I suppose you're right about that. I stand corrected. > >

Of course he is. Nobody's saying that consoles is the 1st place to for originality in games. Even my example was intentionally a sequel. But saying "variety" and giving all those sequel numbers... Sorry, couldn't resist the temptation... -- Ph7 Don't mind your makeup, Make your mind up! (Frank Zappa)

"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Hence, "upcoming" titles, zippy. These are tried and proven series (thesequels, of course), for the most part. Crash Bandicot et al is yet another mindless platformer. > Chill, Sunshine Superman! Crash is also tried and proven. So is the "upcoming" Tekken 732 (you just wait and see ;-) ). -- Ph7 Don't mind your makeup, Make your mind up! (Frank Zappa)

"Nick" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Feel free to miss the point entirely... The graphics unit is mated up to vu1 > (one of the powerful vector processor units) which does all the effects you > mention, except you have to write them yourself instead of the graphics > board doing them entirely. Remember when writing a 3D engine involved huge > amounts of complex math and structures to hold matrices which you had to do > yourself? Now you just say 'here you go OpenGL, draw me a triangle'. The > first one is a PS2, the second is a PC. I feel inclined to say PS2 > programmers are better than PC programmers, even though I am a PC > developer....

afaik; many developers use OpenGL on the PS2 these days. renderware is also quite popular, I think. -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 to err is human -- to forgive is bovine.

Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Funny how you address a post to me yet refer to be in the 1st- AND3rd-person, Nick. You're an odd one indeed. > > Anyway, my arguments aren't flawed for the simple fact that PC versions ofconsoles games (at least PS2 anyway) are better: faster and visually/graphically. Just look at Grand Theft Auto 3 for an example. > > Oh and the PS2 bus is only 128-bit, not 2560-bit (odd amount anyway),according to http://www.pcvsconsole.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=448 (which is a good explanation of the differnences between the PS2 and Xbox. That "explanation" is full of crap i'm afraid.

3rd-person, Nick. You're an odd one indeed. consoles games (at least PS2 anyway) are better: faster and visually/graphically. Just look at Grand Theft Auto 3 for an example. according to http://www.cnn.com/(which is a good explanation of the differnences between the PS2 and Xbox. That "explanation" is full of ***i'm afraid.

Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> Hence, "upcoming" titles, zippy. These are tried and proven series (the sequels, of course), for the most part. Crash Bandicot et al is yet another mindless platformer. > > ph7 wrote: > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Uh, hardly. I'm looking forward to quite a few upcoming PC titles: Deus Ex > > 2, Thief 3, Hitman 2, Tomb Raider 6 (begrudgingly anyway), NOLF 2, Gothic 2, > > Arx Fatalis, IGI 2, Neverwinter Nights, SimCity 4, Simsville, etc. Lots of > > variety in these games...variety consoles can't even BEGIN to touch. > > > > Variety? Let me see: we have two and a half #1s, five #2s, one #3, one #4, > > and one #6. Yup, variety it is! > > > > You should well enjoy Crash Bandicoot 3 - it has a number in it... > > LOL

Ugh. The title alone makes my skin crawl... Victor

There are some shots of the new Unreal Tournament (2003?) which has a 'blades of grass' feature and it looks really cool. I have only seen a thumbnail, though. Didn't one of the Delta Force's have a voxel representation of grass which looked pretty nice, too? More games should be trying to make organic objects look realistic, rather than 2 intersecting polygons making a tree... <g> "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ae0m25$2vl44$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Nope, not that one. Although you gotta figure that at the typical > console resolution of 640x480 just about everything blurs into obscurity > pretty quickly. What I was referring to was in a demo I played of some > BMX game on the Xbox, and it had honest-to-God individual blades of > grass on the lawns. The bike sunk into them, and they did not fade out > with distance. They are done as a pixel shader effect, therefore > apparently not requiring the overhead that polygons or sprites would > require. The same effect is being used to add fur to animals in some > other games.

"Nitz Walsh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:QcRM8.235680$[email hidden]... > The point was, you lament the PC's "brute force" approach, when that is > exactly the approach the PS2 takes... No. Brute force is when you have lots of extremely powerful obects which are just pumping out data constantly, such as a 2.4Ghz CPU, not a SIMD principle where there is just one instruction in the processor acting on a stream of data. > What, in visual basic? If you truly had any understanding of how gamesare > developed, you wouldn't embarrass yourself with these last two posts. I will tell the people at my university who gave me a Masters degree in Computer Science / Software Engineering after four years of hard work that they might as well have not bothered. I will also stop working on my commercial car sim and revert to writing a program in VB to open the CD tray. Thank you for showing me the errors of my ways, Nitz Walsh. Nobody really wanted another realistic racing sim, anyway.

"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Hey, consoles can do stuff! They make great, er, doorjams, for instance.;) They also explode in lots of pieces nicely when dropped from high places. <snicker> Yeah, but why didn't you say that PCs explode into MORE pieces? That would seem to sum up your PC > console argument perfectly... <g>

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I will tell the people at my university who gave me a Masters degree in > Computer Science / Software Engineering after four years of hard work that > they might as well have not bothered. For the purpose of understanding the topic at hand, you might as well not have bothered. Your past education is irrelevant to this thread (as you've aptly demonstrated), the weak arguments you've given with respect to how modern architectures of PC and consoles differ (and the demands each respective developer faces) were quite blatant. My initial post detailed my objections to your hardware analysis in detail, in response you stated that I "missed the point entirely", obviously bypassing the rebuttals I made. The only other technical detail you offer was a bumbling explanation of the PS2''s vector units, with which you: 1) Failed to understand how the vector units of the PS2 differ significantly from pixel shaders and multipass rendering techniques, the latter of which are still required for many standard texturing effects. And... 2) In extolling the "flexible" virtues of the vector units, basically eradicated your main argument with regards to the admirable features of the PS2's design, namely it's super-wide bus to its internal 4MB of video memory. Guess what happens when you involve the Emotion Engine to modify on-screen textures? They will have to reside in RDRAM, where it faces the limited 3.2 gb connection from the EE. That quickly becomes quite a bottleneck. Your post was barely indistinguishable from a raving 14year old zealot on the console newsgroups, flashing your credentials simply adds an air of desperation to scramble for whatever respectability you may have left on this topic. I suggest next time you want to flaunt your resume, do so in a locale where you haven't previously demonstrated your ineptitude.

all pc fps are mindless. de2, theif3, nolf2, hitman2, igi2 are all but boring platformer in first person. the rest are pathetic attempt at roleplaying that's nowhere near as immersive and entertaining as pencilnpaper advanced dungeons and dragons. with 3rd edition ruleset dnd is more accessible and popular than ever and is sure to take over both console and pc gaming market. hahaha pc games are no match for human imagination "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Hence, "upcoming" titles, zippy. These are tried and proven series (thesequels, of course), for the most part. Crash Bandicot et al is yet another mindless platformer. > > ph7 wrote: > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Uh, hardly. I'm looking forward to quite a few upcoming PC titles:Deus Ex > > 2, Thief 3, Hitman 2, Tomb Raider 6 (begrudgingly anyway), NOLF 2,Gothic 2, > > Arx Fatalis, IGI 2, Neverwinter Nights, SimCity 4, Simsville, etc. Lotsof > > variety in these games...variety consoles can't even BEGIN to touch. > > > > Variety? Let me see: we have two and a half #1s, five #2s, one #3, one#4, > > and one #6. Yup, variety it is! > > > > You should well enjoy Crash Bandicoot 3 - it has a number in it... > > LOL >

The_Incubator wrote: > You are arguing for what the XBOX (GeForce and any DX8 compatible, > programmable graphics chip) does. RTFM. The instructions in NVASM and > the DX8 shader language are SIMD instructions that operate on all > elements of a 4-component vector simultaneously. It's not a secret. Careful. He went to college.

"JonathanNwelle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ae3lkb$9b6$[email hidden]... > all pc fps are mindless. de2, theif3, nolf2, hitman2, igi2 are all but > boring platformer in first person. the rest are pathetic attempt at > roleplaying that's nowhere near as immersive and entertaining as > pencilnpaper advanced dungeons and dragons. > with 3rd edition ruleset dnd is more accessible and popular than ever andis > sure to take over both console and pc gaming market. hahaha > pc games are no match for human imagination That is so true. One can also argue against "complex" games, as opposed to "simple" games. Some (very few) people think it very complicated if a game has many options, controls, buttons etc. This reminds me of the old "proof" to god's exeistence. Short version: If you found a watch in the middle of nowhere, with no one around, would you think it was created by evolution? Look around you. The world is much more complex than a watch, than it must be created by someone, too. We know it wasn't created by humans, then it must be god, right? <tada> Wrong. Complexity does not prove design. OTC, simplicity does. Simple example: the eye and the camera perform more or less the same task. Yet no human would imagine creating a camera after the eye. The camera is much simpler and does the job very well. True complexity lies in abstractness. Watch classic games, and understand what made them classic. Simplicity, mostly. -- Ph7 Don't mind your makeup, Make your mind up! (Frank Zappa)

Uh, FPSes aren't platformers. Tomb Raider MIGHT be considered a platformer, but even that's stretching it. Regardless, Hitman isn't 1st-person (not sure about Hitman 2) and Thief 3 isn't a shooter, per se; it's a sneaker (stealth). Deus Ex and NOLF also break from the tradition mindless FPS mold (Project: I'm Going In SOMEWHAT does but it's still fairly mindless). As for PC RPGs, sorry, but I've played paper RPGs (AD&D, AD&D2, Cyberpunk, Palladium, Shadowrun) and they PALE in comparison to PC games in terms of immersion, realism, and, of course, graphics. :) The days I use figurines to represent my character is LONG gone! <snicker> JonathanNwelle wrote:

Quoted text (32 lines)

> all pc fps are mindless. de2, theif3, nolf2, hitman2, igi2 are all but > boring platformer in first person. the rest are pathetic attempt at > roleplaying that's nowhere near as immersive and entertaining as > pencilnpaper advanced dungeons and dragons. > with 3rd edition ruleset dnd is more accessible and popular than ever and is > sure to take over both console and pc gaming market. hahaha > pc games are no match for human imagination > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Hence, "upcoming" titles, zippy. These are tried and proven series (the > sequels, of course), for the most part. Crash Bandicot et al is yet another > mindless platformer. > > > > ph7 wrote: > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Uh, hardly. I'm looking forward to quite a few upcoming PC titles: > Deus Ex > > > 2, Thief 3, Hitman 2, Tomb Raider 6 (begrudgingly anyway), NOLF 2, > Gothic 2, > > > Arx Fatalis, IGI 2, Neverwinter Nights, SimCity 4, Simsville, etc. Lots > of > > > variety in these games...variety consoles can't even BEGIN to touch. > > > > > > Variety? Let me see: we have two and a half #1s, five #2s, one #3, one > #4, > > > and one #6. Yup, variety it is! > > > > > > You should well enjoy Crash Bandicoot 3 - it has a number in it... > > > LOL

duuuude, how does that change the fact that you need some heavy dose of laxative? the reason you didn't enjoy pencil-n-paper rpgs is because you didn't have any friends to play it with. duuuh of course it's no fun when you're playing it alone dude and you need some bitchin' good campaigns man . dont' go to the comic book store and grab anything. do yur research and find out which ones have the best background setting and charcters and yeah, imagination is a prerequisite. you gotta have that ability to let yourself go, man, detach yourself from reality and feeeeel the groooove that is fantasy yeah in pencil npaper rpgs anything's possible and can be as interactive and dynamic as you want it to be man. just don't experience it alone dude cuz it's not meant to be ps. i'll call fps platformers as long as there are platforms and you can jump on to them man "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Uh, FPSes aren't platformers. Tomb Raider MIGHT be considered aplatformer, but even that's stretching it. Regardless, Hitman isn't 1st-person (not sure about Hitman 2) and Thief 3 isn't a shooter, per se; it's a sneaker (stealth). Deus Ex and NOLF also break from the tradition mindless FPS mold (Project: I'm Going In SOMEWHAT does but it's still fairly mindless). > > As for PC RPGs, sorry, but I've played paper RPGs (AD&D, AD&D2, Cyberpunk,Palladium, Shadowrun) and they PALE in comparison to PC games in terms of immersion, realism, and, of course, graphics. :) The days I use figurines to represent my character is LONG gone! <snicker>

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > JonathanNwelle wrote: > > > all pc fps are mindless. de2, theif3, nolf2, hitman2, igi2 are all but > > boring platformer in first person. the rest are pathetic attempt at > > roleplaying that's nowhere near as immersive and entertaining as > > pencilnpaper advanced dungeons and dragons. > > with 3rd edition ruleset dnd is more accessible and popular than ever

and is > > sure to take over both console and pc gaming market. hahaha > > pc games are no match for human imagination > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Hence, "upcoming" titles, zippy. These are tried and proven series(the > > sequels, of course), for the most part. Crash Bandicot et al is yetanother

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > mindless platformer. > > > > > > ph7 wrote: > > > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > Uh, hardly. I'm looking forward to quite a few upcoming PC titles: > > Deus Ex > > > > 2, Thief 3, Hitman 2, Tomb Raider 6 (begrudgingly anyway), NOLF 2, > > Gothic 2, > > > > Arx Fatalis, IGI 2, Neverwinter Nights, SimCity 4, Simsville, etc.

Lots > > of > > > > variety in these games...variety consoles can't even BEGIN to touch. > > > > > > > > Variety? Let me see: we have two and a half #1s, five #2s, one #3,one > > #4, > > > > and one #6. Yup, variety it is! > > > > > > > > You should well enjoy Crash Bandicoot 3 - it has a number in it... > > > > LOL >

You're an idiot, Jonathan, "man". FPSes aren't platformers in the arcade platformer sense. Duh. I had plenty of friends when I role-played but the "campaigns" sucked, they took forever to DO anything, and were boring. 3D RPGs are FAR more interesting and fun. JonathanNwelle wrote:

Quoted text (72 lines)

> duuuude, how does that change the fact that you need some heavy dose of > laxative? > the reason you didn't enjoy pencil-n-paper rpgs is because you didn't have > any friends to play it with. duuuh of course it's no fun when you're > playing it alone dude > and you need some bitchin' good campaigns man . dont' go to the comic book > store and grab anything. do yur research and find out which ones have the > best background setting and charcters > and yeah, imagination is a prerequisite. you gotta have that ability to let > yourself go, man, detach yourself from reality and feeeeel the groooove that > is fantasy > > yeah in pencil npaper rpgs anything's possible and can be as interactive and > dynamic as you want it to be man. > just don't experience it alone dude cuz it's not meant to be > > ps. i'll call fps platformers as long as there are platforms and you can > jump on to them man > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Uh, FPSes aren't platformers. Tomb Raider MIGHT be considered a > platformer, but even that's stretching it. Regardless, Hitman isn't > 1st-person (not sure about Hitman 2) and Thief 3 isn't a shooter, per se; > it's a sneaker (stealth). Deus Ex and NOLF also break from the tradition > mindless FPS mold (Project: I'm Going In SOMEWHAT does but it's still fairly > mindless). > > > > As for PC RPGs, sorry, but I've played paper RPGs (AD&D, AD&D2, Cyberpunk, > Palladium, Shadowrun) and they PALE in comparison to PC games in terms of > immersion, realism, and, of course, graphics. :) The days I use figurines to > represent my character is LONG gone! <snicker> > > > > JonathanNwelle wrote: > > > > > all pc fps are mindless. de2, theif3, nolf2, hitman2, igi2 are all but > > > boring platformer in first person. the rest are pathetic attempt at > > > roleplaying that's nowhere near as immersive and entertaining as > > > pencilnpaper advanced dungeons and dragons. > > > with 3rd edition ruleset dnd is more accessible and popular than ever > and is > > > sure to take over both console and pc gaming market. hahaha > > > pc games are no match for human imagination > > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Hence, "upcoming" titles, zippy. These are tried and proven series > (the > > > sequels, of course), for the most part. Crash Bandicot et al is yet > another > > > mindless platformer. > > > > > > > > ph7 wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > Uh, hardly. I'm looking forward to quite a few upcoming PC titles: > > > Deus Ex > > > > > 2, Thief 3, Hitman 2, Tomb Raider 6 (begrudgingly anyway), NOLF 2, > > > Gothic 2, > > > > > Arx Fatalis, IGI 2, Neverwinter Nights, SimCity 4, Simsville, etc. > Lots > > > of > > > > > variety in these games...variety consoles can't even BEGIN to touch. > > > > > > > > > > Variety? Let me see: we have two and a half #1s, five #2s, one #3, > one > > > #4, > > > > > and one #6. Yup, variety it is! > > > > > > > > > > You should well enjoy Crash Bandicoot 3 - it has a number in it... > > > > > LOL

You're an idiot, Jonathan, "man". FPSes aren't platformers in the arcade platformer sense. Duh. I had plenty of friends when I role-played but the "campaigns" sucked, they took forever to DO anything, and were boring. 3D RPGs are FAR more interesting and fun. JonathanNwelle wrote:

Quoted text (72 lines)

> duuuude, how does that change the fact that you need some heavy dose of > laxative? > the reason you didn't enjoy pencil-n-paper rpgs is because you didn't have > any friends to play it with. duuuh of course it's no fun when you're > playing it alone dude > and you need some bitchin' good campaigns man . dont' go to the comic book > store and grab anything. do yur research and find out which ones have the > best background setting and charcters > and yeah, imagination is a prerequisite. you gotta have that ability to let > yourself go, man, detach yourself from reality and feeeeel the groooove that > is fantasy > > yeah in pencil npaper rpgs anything's possible and can be as interactive and > dynamic as you want it to be man. > just don't experience it alone dude cuz it's not meant to be > > ps. i'll call fps platformers as long as there are platforms and you can > jump on to them man > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Uh, FPSes aren't platformers. Tomb Raider MIGHT be considered a > platformer, but even that's stretching it. Regardless, Hitman isn't > 1st-person (not sure about Hitman 2) and Thief 3 isn't a shooter, per se; > it's a sneaker (stealth). Deus Ex and NOLF also break from the tradition > mindless FPS mold (Project: I'm Going In SOMEWHAT does but it's still fairly > mindless). > > > > As for PC RPGs, sorry, but I've played paper RPGs (AD&D, AD&D2, Cyberpunk, > Palladium, Shadowrun) and they PALE in comparison to PC games in terms of > immersion, realism, and, of course, graphics. :) The days I use figurines to > represent my character is LONG gone! <snicker> > > > > JonathanNwelle wrote: > > > > > all pc fps are mindless. de2, theif3, nolf2, hitman2, igi2 are all but > > > boring platformer in first person. the rest are pathetic attempt at > > > roleplaying that's nowhere near as immersive and entertaining as > > > pencilnpaper advanced dungeons and dragons. > > > with 3rd edition ruleset dnd is more accessible and popular than ever > and is > > > sure to take over both console and pc gaming market. hahaha > > > pc games are no match for human imagination > > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Hence, "upcoming" titles, zippy. These are tried and proven series > (the > > > sequels, of course), for the most part. Crash Bandicot et al is yet > another > > > mindless platformer. > > > > > > > > ph7 wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > Uh, hardly. I'm looking forward to quite a few upcoming PC titles: > > > Deus Ex > > > > > 2, Thief 3, Hitman 2, Tomb Raider 6 (begrudgingly anyway), NOLF 2, > > > Gothic 2, > > > > > Arx Fatalis, IGI 2, Neverwinter Nights, SimCity 4, Simsville, etc. > Lots > > > of > > > > > variety in these games...variety consoles can't even BEGIN to touch. > > > > > > > > > > Variety? Let me see: we have two and a half #1s, five #2s, one #3, > one > > > #4, > > > > > and one #6. Yup, variety it is! > > > > > > > > > > You should well enjoy Crash Bandicoot 3 - it has a number in it... > > > > > LOL

You're an idiot, Jonathan, "man". FPSes aren't platformers in the arcade platformer sense. Duh. I had plenty of friends when I role-played but the "campaigns" sucked, they took forever to DO anything, and were boring. 3D RPGs are FAR more interesting and fun. JonathanNwelle wrote:

Quoted text (72 lines)

> duuuude, how does that change the fact that you need some heavy dose of > laxative? > the reason you didn't enjoy pencil-n-paper rpgs is because you didn't have > any friends to play it with. duuuh of course it's no fun when you're > playing it alone dude > and you need some bitchin' good campaigns man . dont' go to the comic book > store and grab anything. do yur research and find out which ones have the > best background setting and charcters > and yeah, imagination is a prerequisite. you gotta have that ability to let > yourself go, man, detach yourself from reality and feeeeel the groooove that > is fantasy > > yeah in pencil npaper rpgs anything's possible and can be as interactive and > dynamic as you want it to be man. > just don't experience it alone dude cuz it's not meant to be > > ps. i'll call fps platformers as long as there are platforms and you can > jump on to them man > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Uh, FPSes aren't platformers. Tomb Raider MIGHT be considered a > platformer, but even that's stretching it. Regardless, Hitman isn't > 1st-person (not sure about Hitman 2) and Thief 3 isn't a shooter, per se; > it's a sneaker (stealth). Deus Ex and NOLF also break from the tradition > mindless FPS mold (Project: I'm Going In SOMEWHAT does but it's still fairly > mindless). > > > > As for PC RPGs, sorry, but I've played paper RPGs (AD&D, AD&D2, Cyberpunk, > Palladium, Shadowrun) and they PALE in comparison to PC games in terms of > immersion, realism, and, of course, graphics. :) The days I use figurines to > represent my character is LONG gone! <snicker> > > > > JonathanNwelle wrote: > > > > > all pc fps are mindless. de2, theif3, nolf2, hitman2, igi2 are all but > > > boring platformer in first person. the rest are pathetic attempt at > > > roleplaying that's nowhere near as immersive and entertaining as > > > pencilnpaper advanced dungeons and dragons. > > > with 3rd edition ruleset dnd is more accessible and popular than ever > and is > > > sure to take over both console and pc gaming market. hahaha > > > pc games are no match for human imagination > > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Hence, "upcoming" titles, zippy. These are tried and proven series > (the > > > sequels, of course), for the most part. Crash Bandicot et al is yet > another > > > mindless platformer. > > > > > > > > ph7 wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > Uh, hardly. I'm looking forward to quite a few upcoming PC titles: > > > Deus Ex > > > > > 2, Thief 3, Hitman 2, Tomb Raider 6 (begrudgingly anyway), NOLF 2, > > > Gothic 2, > > > > > Arx Fatalis, IGI 2, Neverwinter Nights, SimCity 4, Simsville, etc. > Lots > > > of > > > > > variety in these games...variety consoles can't even BEGIN to touch. > > > > > > > > > > Variety? Let me see: we have two and a half #1s, five #2s, one #3, > one > > > #4, > > > > > and one #6. Yup, variety it is! > > > > > > > > > > You should well enjoy Crash Bandicoot 3 - it has a number in it... > > > > > LOL

You're an idiot, Jonathan, "man". FPSes aren't platformers in the arcade platformer sense. Duh. I had plenty of friends when I role-played but the "campaigns" sucked, they took forever to DO anything, and were boring. 3D RPGs are FAR more interesting and fun. JonathanNwelle wrote:

Quoted text (72 lines)

> duuuude, how does that change the fact that you need some heavy dose of > laxative? > the reason you didn't enjoy pencil-n-paper rpgs is because you didn't have > any friends to play it with. duuuh of course it's no fun when you're > playing it alone dude > and you need some bitchin' good campaigns man . dont' go to the comic book > store and grab anything. do yur research and find out which ones have the > best background setting and charcters > and yeah, imagination is a prerequisite. you gotta have that ability to let > yourself go, man, detach yourself from reality and feeeeel the groooove that > is fantasy > > yeah in pencil npaper rpgs anything's possible and can be as interactive and > dynamic as you want it to be man. > just don't experience it alone dude cuz it's not meant to be > > ps. i'll call fps platformers as long as there are platforms and you can > jump on to them man > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Uh, FPSes aren't platformers. Tomb Raider MIGHT be considered a > platformer, but even that's stretching it. Regardless, Hitman isn't > 1st-person (not sure about Hitman 2) and Thief 3 isn't a shooter, per se; > it's a sneaker (stealth). Deus Ex and NOLF also break from the tradition > mindless FPS mold (Project: I'm Going In SOMEWHAT does but it's still fairly > mindless). > > > > As for PC RPGs, sorry, but I've played paper RPGs (AD&D, AD&D2, Cyberpunk, > Palladium, Shadowrun) and they PALE in comparison to PC games in terms of > immersion, realism, and, of course, graphics. :) The days I use figurines to > represent my character is LONG gone! <snicker> > > > > JonathanNwelle wrote: > > > > > all pc fps are mindless. de2, theif3, nolf2, hitman2, igi2 are all but > > > boring platformer in first person. the rest are pathetic attempt at > > > roleplaying that's nowhere near as immersive and entertaining as > > > pencilnpaper advanced dungeons and dragons. > > > with 3rd edition ruleset dnd is more accessible and popular than ever > and is > > > sure to take over both console and pc gaming market. hahaha > > > pc games are no match for human imagination > > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Hence, "upcoming" titles, zippy. These are tried and proven series > (the > > > sequels, of course), for the most part. Crash Bandicot et al is yet > another > > > mindless platformer. > > > > > > > > ph7 wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > Uh, hardly. I'm looking forward to quite a few upcoming PC titles: > > > Deus Ex > > > > > 2, Thief 3, Hitman 2, Tomb Raider 6 (begrudgingly anyway), NOLF 2, > > > Gothic 2, > > > > > Arx Fatalis, IGI 2, Neverwinter Nights, SimCity 4, Simsville, etc. > Lots > > > of > > > > > variety in these games...variety consoles can't even BEGIN to touch. > > > > > > > > > > Variety? Let me see: we have two and a half #1s, five #2s, one #3, > one > > > #4, > > > > > and one #6. Yup, variety it is! > > > > > > > > > > You should well enjoy Crash Bandicoot 3 - it has a number in it... > > > > > LOL

whoooa get a sense of reality there missy, you're triple posting all over the places sorry about calling you a dude i seriously didn't know you were a chick. but hey it's missies like you who grow up to be restraining mothers and never let your children do anything and stuff. just cuz you think 3d pc rpgs are interesting dont make it true for everyone, miss. whatcha gonna do when yur kids grow up and play paper dnd? huh are you gonna kill' em? huh huh fps look like platformers to me and what are you gonna do about it ? that's right you aint no wonderwoman and you cant change my views and yeaah you obviously got no fun campaign some dnd campaign sux and you get an instinct for which one is good and which ones not after playing some of those a while. you gave up dnd too quickly to realise how kaleidoscopic rainbow colurs of joy that is dnd can really change how you enjoy games and stuff no they dont take forever to do stuff/ once uget used to it time goes like water running under ten thousand bridges and all the kewl stuff happens like lightning, missy, give dnd another chance with nonimaginary friends and you;ll be like ""whoooa!!!!!" "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > You're an idiot, Jonathan, "man". FPSes aren't platformers in the arcadeplatformer sense. Duh. I had plenty of friends when I role-played but the "campaigns" sucked, they took forever to DO anything, and were boring. 3D RPGs are FAR more interesting and fun. > > JonathanNwelle wrote: > > > duuuude, how does that change the fact that you need some heavy dose of > > laxative? > > the reason you didn't enjoy pencil-n-paper rpgs is because you didn'thave > > any friends to play it with. duuuh of course it's no fun when you're > > playing it alone dude > > and you need some bitchin' good campaigns man . dont' go to the comicbook > > store and grab anything. do yur research and find out which ones havethe > > best background setting and charcters > > and yeah, imagination is a prerequisite. you gotta have that ability tolet > > yourself go, man, detach yourself from reality and feeeeel the groooovethat > > is fantasy > > > > yeah in pencil npaper rpgs anything's possible and can be as interactiveand

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > dynamic as you want it to be man. > > just don't experience it alone dude cuz it's not meant to be > > > > ps. i'll call fps platformers as long as there are platforms and you can > > jump on to them man > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Uh, FPSes aren't platformers. Tomb Raider MIGHT be considered a > > platformer, but even that's stretching it. Regardless, Hitman isn't > > 1st-person (not sure about Hitman 2) and Thief 3 isn't a shooter, per

se; > > it's a sneaker (stealth). Deus Ex and NOLF also break from the tradition > > mindless FPS mold (Project: I'm Going In SOMEWHAT does but it's stillfairly > > mindless). > > > > > > As for PC RPGs, sorry, but I've played paper RPGs (AD&D, AD&D2,Cyberpunk, > > Palladium, Shadowrun) and they PALE in comparison to PC games in termsof > > immersion, realism, and, of course, graphics. :) The days I usefigurines to > > represent my character is LONG gone! <snicker> > > > > > > JonathanNwelle wrote: > > > > > > > all pc fps are mindless. de2, theif3, nolf2, hitman2, igi2 are allbut > > > > boring platformer in first person. the rest are pathetic attempt at > > > > roleplaying that's nowhere near as immersive and entertaining as > > > > pencilnpaper advanced dungeons and dragons. > > > > with 3rd edition ruleset dnd is more accessible and popular thanever

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > and is > > > > sure to take over both console and pc gaming market. hahaha > > > > pc games are no match for human imagination > > > > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > Hence, "upcoming" titles, zippy. These are tried and proven series > > (the > > > > sequels, of course), for the most part. Crash Bandicot et al is yet > > another > > > > mindless platformer. > > > > > > > > > > ph7 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > Uh, hardly. I'm looking forward to quite a few upcoming PC

titles: > > > > Deus Ex > > > > > > 2, Thief 3, Hitman 2, Tomb Raider 6 (begrudgingly anyway), NOLF2, > > > > Gothic 2, > > > > > > Arx Fatalis, IGI 2, Neverwinter Nights, SimCity 4, Simsville,etc. > > Lots > > > > of > > > > > > variety in these games...variety consoles can't even BEGIN totouch. > > > > > > > > > > > > Variety? Let me see: we have two and a half #1s, five #2s, one#3, > > one > > > > #4, > > > > > > and one #6. Yup, variety it is! > > > > > > > > > > > > You should well enjoy Crash Bandicoot 3 - it has a number init... > > > > > > LOL >

If you think I'm a girl you need to get out more because you couldn't be more off even if you tried, dork. And I didn't give up D&D (and paper RPGs in general) "so quickly" since I played them for at least 5 years. They had PLENTY of time to get better in that period; they simply didn't and I found computer games to be MUCH more immersive. Shit, that's why Neverwinter Nights is being developed, practically: to do what NO paper RPG can even THINK of doing in real-time and with MUCH more immersion. Oh and consider yourself filtered from now on since you haven't learned to evolve yet, kid. JonathanNwelle wrote:

Quoted text (64 lines)

> whoooa get a sense of reality there missy, you're triple posting all over > the places > sorry about calling you a dude i seriously didn't know you were a chick. > but hey it's missies like you who grow up to be restraining mothers and > never let your children do anything and stuff. just cuz you think 3d pc > rpgs are interesting dont make it true for everyone, miss. whatcha gonna do > when yur kids grow up and play paper dnd? huh are you gonna kill' em? huh > huh > fps look like platformers to me and what are you gonna do about it ? that's > right you aint no wonderwoman and you cant change my views > and yeaah you obviously got no fun campaign > some dnd campaign sux and you get an instinct for which one is good and > which ones not after playing some of those a while. you gave up dnd too > quickly to realise how kaleidoscopic rainbow colurs of joy that is dnd can > really change how you enjoy games and stuff no they dont take forever to > do stuff/ once uget used to it time goes like water running under ten > thousand bridges and all the kewl stuff happens like lightning, missy, > give dnd another chance with nonimaginary friends and you;ll be like > ""whoooa!!!!!" > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > You're an idiot, Jonathan, "man". FPSes aren't platformers in the arcade > platformer sense. Duh. I had plenty of friends when I role-played but the > "campaigns" sucked, they took forever to DO anything, and were boring. 3D > RPGs are FAR more interesting and fun. > > > > JonathanNwelle wrote: > > > > > duuuude, how does that change the fact that you need some heavy dose of > > > laxative? > > > the reason you didn't enjoy pencil-n-paper rpgs is because you didn't > have > > > any friends to play it with. duuuh of course it's no fun when you're > > > playing it alone dude > > > and you need some bitchin' good campaigns man . dont' go to the comic > book > > > store and grab anything. do yur research and find out which ones have > the > > > best background setting and charcters > > > and yeah, imagination is a prerequisite. you gotta have that ability to > let > > > yourself go, man, detach yourself from reality and feeeeel the groooove > that > > > is fantasy > > > > > > yeah in pencil npaper rpgs anything's possible and can be as interactive > and > > > dynamic as you want it to be man. > > > just don't experience it alone dude cuz it's not meant to be > > > > > > ps. i'll call fps platformers as long as there are platforms and you can > > > jump on to them man > > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Uh, FPSes aren't platformers. Tomb Raider MIGHT be considered a > > > platformer, but even that's stretching it. Regardless, Hitman isn't > > > 1st-person (not sure about Hitman 2) and Thief 3 isn't a shooter, per > se; > > > it's a sneaker (stealth). Deus Ex and NOLF also break from the tradition > > > mindless FPS mold (Project: I'm Going In SOMEWHAT does but it's still > fairly > > > mindless).

"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > If you think I'm a girl you need to get out more because you couldn't bemore off even if you tried, dork. > > And I didn't give up D&D (and paper RPGs in general) "so quickly" since Iplayed them for at least 5 years. They had PLENTY of time to get better in that period; they simply didn't and I found computer games to be MUCH more immersive. Shit, that's why Neverwinter Nights is being developed, practically: to do what NO paper RPG can even THINK of doing in real-time and with MUCH more immersion. > > Oh and consider yourself filtered from now on since you haven't learned toevolve yet, kid. > if Eep's a dude, who's that woman on his webpage? his mama? LOL Scoresheet (numbers refer to appearance): you need to get out more = 1 you couldn't be more off = 1 dork = 1 consider yourself filtered = 1 you haven't learned to evolve yet = 1 kid = 1 + Bonus for making him say "immersion" again = 6 _____________________ Total: 12 Points Woooo... improving.

Gees quit bickering already you guys It's just talking up unnecessary space an several catch-up's "Joe N" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ae0mdf$s7g$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> "none" <[email hidden]> wrote: > news:[email hidden]... > > "Joe N" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >"ph7" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >> news:[email hidden]... > > >> > Uh, hardly. I'm looking forward to quite a few upcoming PC titles: > Deus > > >Ex > > >> 2, Thief 3, Hitman 2, Tomb Raider 6 (begrudgingly anyway), NOLF 2, > Gothic > > >2, > > >> Arx Fatalis, IGI 2, Neverwinter Nights, SimCity 4, Simsville, etc.

Lots > of > > >> variety in these games...variety consoles can't even BEGIN to touch. > > >> > > >> > > >> Variety? Let me see: we have two and a half #1s, five #2s, one #3,one

Quoted text (19 lines)

> #4, > > >> and one #6. Yup, variety it is! > > >> > > >> You should well enjoy Crash Bandicoot 3 - it has a number in it... > > >> LOL > > > > > >LOL!! > > >Eep hasn't played many console games. > > >PC games market is muddled with sequels after sequels and pure classics > like > > > > Is console market much different from that? What were the most awaited > > PS2 games? GT3, GTA3, MGS2 (aka MG5), SH2, Tekken4/5, VF4 etc. Any > > non-sequels there? > > > > I suppose you're right about that. I stand corrected. > >

"Hans Jensen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:UJAN8.222579$[email hidden]... > Gees quit bickering already you guys It's just talking up unnecessaryspace > an several catch-up's Kill-file the thread. Oh you can't someone keeps changing the subject. :-) -- Morgan. ---- * WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. Mail: [email hidden] Webpage: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/msales

Quoted text (16 lines)

> if Eep's a dude, who's that woman on his webpage? his mama? LOL > > Scoresheet (numbers refer to appearance): > you need to get out more = 1 > you couldn't be more off = 1 > dork = 1 > consider yourself filtered = 1 > you haven't learned to evolve yet = 1 > kid = 1 > + > Bonus for making him say "immersion" again = 6 > _____________________ > Total: 12 Points > > Woooo... improving. >

No no no. consider yourself filtered = 5 ! (It's like the last nail in the coffin, so it's gotta be worth more than just 1 point). So, it's 16 in total. Pretty good! -- Ph7 Don't mind your makeup, Make your mind up! (Frank Zappa)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action ph7 <[email hidden]> wrote: > consider yourself filtered = 5 ! (It's like the last nail in the coffin, so > it's gotta be worth more than just 1 point). How many points is "*adds you to THIS newsgroup's filter too*" ? I've gotten that one five times :)

Eep2 <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > Magnulus wrote: > > > "Eep2" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]...<some snippage> > > Oh please...console strategy games suck. Hell, even their sims suck: I remember when Mechwarrior 3 came out on the PS and its control was pure, unadulterated CRAP compared to the PC version. Really, this is quite ignorant. Ever since real time strategy games (I curse them!) became popular on the PC, strategy games have gone downhill in my opinion. Why? Because I have never played an RTS where someone with fast reflexes (not me usually!) couldn't win by swamping, no matter what 'balancing factors' are supposed to be built in to the game. Where's the strategy in that? At least on consoles, they tend to be 'old-fashioned' turn-based affairs, where you can take your time and work out a strategy. You could argue that console strategy games are simplistic as compared to the PC ones, and there I would tend to agree, but I prefer less micro-management. J-P <snipped the rest>

Nick wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> Hey, consoles can do stuff! They make great, er, doorjams, for >> instance. > ;) They also explode in lots of pieces nicely when dropped from high > places. <snicker> > > Yeah, but why didn't you say that PCs explode into MORE pieces? That > would seem to sum up your PC > console argument perfectly... <g>

You obviously aren't using enough TNT if the consoles aren't yielding the same amount of fragments as the PC is. -- M�T W�����M� www.northwestconcerts.com np: "I hate when lanes end."

>"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> Uh, hardly. I'm looking forward to quite a few upcoming PC titles: Deus Ex >2, Thief 3, Hitman 2, Tomb Raider 6 (begrudgingly anyway), NOLF 2, Gothic 2, >Arx Fatalis, IGI 2, Neverwinter Nights, SimCity 4, Simsville, etc. Lots of >variety in these games...variety consoles can't even BEGIN to touch. I've worked it out. It all makes sense to me now. Eep is now at a stage that if he opens his mind, even one iota, he opens the floodgates to _everything_ he's closed it to in the past and probably causes irreparable brain damage. Cheers Ric

Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > > Tomb Raider 3 was going to have "save game gems" but instead they turned > into "full health powerups" which still looked silly and unrealistic. > When is getting slugged by a dinosaur and having enough stamina to still run away from it real? When is humans and dinosaurs coexisting at the same time real? When is Laura Crofts impossible figure real? Why would you complain about realism in this game?

Do you enjoy being a troll, twit? Suck filter, moron. Ric wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:[email hidden]... > >> Uh, hardly. I'm looking forward to quite a few upcoming PC titles: Deus Ex > >2, Thief 3, Hitman 2, Tomb Raider 6 (begrudgingly anyway), NOLF 2, Gothic 2, > >Arx Fatalis, IGI 2, Neverwinter Nights, SimCity 4, Simsville, etc. Lots of > >variety in these games...variety consoles can't even BEGIN to touch. > > I've worked it out. It all makes sense to me now. Eep is now at a stage that > if he opens his mind, even one iota, he opens the floodgates to _everything_ > he's closed it to in the past and probably causes irreparable brain damage.

Because the floating health powerup gems were MUCH more unrealistic (and new for TR3--and never used again, incidentally) than Lara's (note correct spelling) figure and dinosaurs. Buffy The Cache Coder wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > > > > Tomb Raider 3 was going to have "save game gems" but instead they turned > > into "full health powerups" which still looked silly and unrealistic. > > When is getting slugged by a dinosaur and having enough stamina to still > run away from it real? > > When is humans and dinosaurs coexisting at the same time real? > When is Laura Crofts impossible figure real? > > Why would you complain about realism in this game?

"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Do you enjoy being a troll, twit? Suck filter, moron. I put this post forward as the irony in it's purest form. -- Morgan. ---- * We have been the dreamers, we have been the sufferers, now we are the builders. We enter this campaign at this general election, not merely to get rid of the Tory majority. We want the complete political extinction of the Tory Party. :- Aneurin Bevan Mail: [email hidden] Webpage: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/msales

[email hidden] (Buffy The Cache Coder) writes: > When is Laura Crofts impossible figure real? every night from about 1 am till sometime between 8 and 10 in the morning. -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 myk, trygg og god.

Eep� wrote: > > Because the floating health powerup gems were MUCH more unrealistic (and new for TR3--and never used again, incidentally) than Lara's (note correct spelling) figure and dinosaurs. Please stop cross posting, thank you Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ "A man is only as old as the woman he feels" --Groucho Marx--