The survey shows 1280x960 as the most common primary display resolution. In other words, what most people use as their desktop setting. When you're playing a game, you don't always use your desktop resolution. My desktop resolution is 1280x1024 but that's my absolute minimum resolution when it comes to games. I consider 1600x1200 or above to be high resolution, as it's higher than my minimum and far more desirable.

Regardless, 1280x720 definitely isn't a high resolution by PC standards, especially if 1280x960 is the regular resolution for most gamers.

As to the article, he seemed to be implying that old Nintendo gamers were 'hard-core', so although he understands the essence he doesn't get the big picture.

Eff that low res jaggy console crap.

Pieces make more sense simply because bigger developers like square have more than one person doing their share of the game, after all those credits are long for a reason...

Actually, the article clearly states that they have a fully functional PC build of the game. I know this is possible because we have a fully functional PC build of the console game being made where I work. This helps with testing because you don't need a dev kit to test non-platform specific bugs.

Oh well, the original article was a bit confusing. For example, what's this meant to mean: "Now that we're developing on a PC base, the pace is going a bit faster". Surely all games are developed on PC anyway, making that statement all the more peculiar.

I'm preety sure that some testing goes on in the PC stage - devs probably have a computer that microsoft gave them that has xbox hardware and a xbox sdk with xbox code that can simulate certain pieces on the real xbox.

I'm not creating anything. I'm just stating the facts. Publishers have the power to change these facts but they have no real incentive to.

Exactly, and so Microsoft will have to create these games and sell them and have zillions of people online for them to justify users having to pay anything extra.

And if they provided that for 10 or 20 popular games with thousands of players on at any one time, then it might make sense

It didn't have the strict deadlines, ridiculously short dev cycles and creative stifling that actual tie-ins do.

Spawn camping is so 1990's. I thought games have evolved beyond that?

heh. Since I put my e-mail on my profile, my spam has increased 100 fold. Big whoop. Spam filters are so good now, 1 in 10,000 gets through. SO a BIG to fuck you whoever is trying to get me.

I've lived in cities with fantastic recycling programs - they took cans, bottles, glass, newspaper, chipboard, cardboard, clippings, etc. Currently, I live in a city that doesn't recycle a damn thing.

re Red Faction - RF1 wasn't exactly a highly detailed game either. The fact is any kind of destructible terrain etc eats up lots of memory. hence you'll see sparse environments and character models that are slightly less detailed than most games have nowadays. Thats something i can deal with since detsroying buildings is just too much fun.

I still don't quite grasp the concept of Live matches. So there are no dedicated servers and no server lists? Do players host matches on their own machines? Or do they start matches, which are then hosted by Microsoft servers?