User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ] Older >
| News Comments > Newell: Vista-Only DX10 "A Mistake" |
 |
| 51. |
Re: No subject |
Aug 28, 2007, 21:00 |
WaltC |
|
|
Quit drinking the Kool-Aid, WaltC. They could easily port DX10, or some compatible variant, over to XP. They made giant leaps between DX7 and DX9 on XP. DX9 to DX10 is no different.
Again, you've completely confused the API with the driver model Vista requires that is incompatible with the driver model that XP requires. The API has nothing to do with the driver model required by a given OS.
Microsoft elected to restrict DX10 and beyond support to the driver model required by Vista. That's not an opinion, it is a fact.
Here is some reading for you to do that just scratches the surface:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/11/30/directx10_future_of_pc_gaming/1
http://blogs.msdn.com/greg_schechter/archive/2006/04/02/566767.aspx
You can find an entire array of such articles by simply Googling "DX10 driver model"
Highly recommended.
You see, the issue surrounds what Microsoft elected to do and why. Love it or hate it, it's just the way things are, and no amount of short-sighted grumbling will change anything. Again--I heard exactly the same sort of grumbling when XP was first released--exactly. It's just so predictable and really, so tiring to hear the same thing all over again at the debut of Vista...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it! |
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Newell: Vista-Only DX10 "A Mistake" |
|
| 49. |
Re: No subject |
Aug 28, 2007, 20:42 |
WaltC |
|
|
I'm thinking WaltC is a M$ employee. He see's Dx10.1 as a good thing? *boggles mind*
OK, although I'm quoting Fion, this post is actually in response to what The Advocate said above:
You are absolutely right, Advocate...;)
I wonder how many times you must explain Leggo blocks to kids before they understand what you're telling them??? Heh...;)
I mean, the "DX10 is Eeee-viL" refrain just keeps on refreshing itself matter what information is imparted.
To Fion: No, I do not now and have never worked for Microsoft. Sorry if this disappoints...;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it! |
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Newell: Vista-Only DX10 "A Mistake" |
|
| 45. |
Re: No subject |
Aug 28, 2007, 20:00 |
WaltC |
|
|
It's moot since 10.1 renders all existing DX10 video cards useless.
Completely untrue, as the latest official Microsoft statement on the subject makes clear. All current DX10 cards will run just fine under DX10.1, just as all current DX9 3d cards will run just fine under DX10 in Vista. That's because DX10.1 will be backwards compatible with DX10 *AND* DX9. This rumor is FUD that was started by somebody on the Internet who went to a Microsoft developer conference and completely misinterpreted what was said. What was said is that DX10.1 will introduce new 3d features into the API that current DX10 3d cards don't support--which has absolutely nothing to do whatever with "making current DX10 3d cards useless"--they'll work fine under DX10.1, but simply won't support the newer approaches DX10.1 brings to the table. This is *exactly* like the fact that while current DX9 3d cards will run fine under Vista and DX10, those cards of course will not support the newer features that DX10 brings to the table that were not included in DX9. In fact, this has *always* been true of DX support in general. The newest generation of DX is always backwards compatible with several previous generations. Nothing about that has changed. See my previous post as to why I think it is that Gabe is, again, talking through his hat...;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it! |
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Newell: Vista-Only DX10 "A Mistake" |
|
| 42. |
Re: No subject |
Aug 28, 2007, 19:49 |
WaltC |
|
|
DX10 means a $300 graphics card and a $200+ OS, unless you pirate it, which can be a set of problems in itself.
No, Vista means no such thing. Why is it that people have such a hard time with such a simple concept? You don't need a new graphics card when you buy Vista. Your current DX9-compliant gpu that you used in XP will run just fine under Vista and DX10. I ought to know, I've been doing it for months. I no longer have XP installed anywhere at home--just no reason to use it any longer. I do however have to use XP at work where every day I'm thankful not to have to use it at home anymore. For many reasons. Suffice it to say that if you don't know what's worthwhile about Vista in terms of the properties Vista has that XP doesn't and never will have, you don't know enough about the subject of Vista to argue against it.
People seem to forget that DX10 in Vista is completely backwards compatible with DX9 games--the very same games we all were running in XP prior to Vista's launch. If framerates running DX9 games under Vista are slower than they are when running under XP, the *reason* for that is merely the relative immaturity of the current nVidia and ATi Vista drivers.
Is that something unusual? Absolutely not. People also are quick to forget how long it was after XP was released until the games we'd been running under Win9x were running as fast in terms of framerates as they ran when we ran them under Win9x. After that threshold was reached, it wasn't long before XP performance began to seriously outdistance Win9x gaming performance. The same exact scenario is going to occur with Vista in comparison with XP. It's just a matter of time.
OK, so why do you need different drivers under Vista than you could use under XP, when you are running the same hardware you used under XP? The answer has nothing to do with DX10 in Vista, which as already mentioned, is completely backwards compatible with DX9 games written for Windows. What is is different under Vista, and what requires different drivers for Vista than those we used under XP, is that the *driver model* for Vista is much, much different than the driver model required by XP.
For those who don't know, the "driver model" is the way that the drivers are coded and structured to work within a given OS, and every OS has its own unique "driver model." The driver models are different, hence we need different drivers for XP and Vista even though we are using the same hardware. Just like we needed different drivers for XP than we had used under Win9x if we were going to run XP with the same hardware, etc.
What limiting DX10 *and beyond* to Vista means is actually the reverse of what you've stated here: it means that if you elect to purchase a DX10 compliant graphics card *then* you need to buy Vista to take advantage of the very small number of DX10 titles currently shipping. You do not *have* to purchase a DX10 graphics card to run Vista at all, or to run any DX9 games that you ran under XP--it's simply not a requirement.
The lesson to be absorbed here is that Vista and DX10 are entirely separate things. Why won't DX10 drivers run under XP? Again--it's because the driver model Vista requires is incompatible with XP. That has nothing to do with whether your DX9 games and DX9 gpu will run under Vista--because they certainly will. Bioshock looks and runs great under Vista on my DX9 x1950 Pro AGP 3d card, as do all of the other games I still run that I played under XP. Result: I haven't missed XP for a single day, and I appreciate the way that Vista is built for many reasons, not the least of which is general OS security--which is much better under Vista than it ever was or ever will be under XP, simply because of the code base and structure used by the two OSes.
Can't say it strongly enough: buying Vista does not require you to purchase a DX10-compatible graphics card--it just doesn't. It does require you to use Vista drivers however as XP drivers won't work--which should surprise nobody.
Newell is really waxing hypocritical here since he was one of the earlier champions of DX9 software and hardware years ago at a time when nVidia was having real difficulties in making decent DX9-supporting 3d cards. Newell wasn't at all bashful about supporting DX9 in preference to DX8.1 and earlier at the time.
I have absolutely no idea what his problem is because the same DX9 games Valve writes for XP will run just fine under Vista. I know that, too, because HL2 runs great for me under Vista--just as well as it did under XP. And *if* the current Vista frame rates for HL2 aren't as high as they are in XP, it's only because the relative driver maturity for Vista can't match the driver maturity of XP, which has been shipping for years. But I have absolutely no doubt that the situation is as temporary as it was in the early days of XP, when Win9x framrates were far higher under Win9x than they were under XP.
I think Newell's complaint really revolves around the fact that there's a lot of advanced stuff in Vista that isn't in XP, such as greatly improved multi-core processor support, among many other things, and Newell just doesn't feel like changing the Valve game engines to support newer OSes which are much better at supporting the newer hardware than XP ever will be. Of course he doesn't like it--it means more time and money for Valve. But hey, Gabe, that's progress, bud. Time stands still for no man. If you don't adjust that attitude you are going to be left behind by the other companies who aren't so afraid of rolling up their sleeves and doing the work they need to do to stay current.
Oh, thought I'd mention as well that my Creative x-Fi 5.1 card is running great under Vista, too, with Creative's latest driver set--which now fully supports 5.1 under Vista. The change of driver model required by Vista gave Creative fits, too, for a while, but that company as well seems determined to keep up. I'm very happy with Vista for gaming at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it! |
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > On DirectX 10 Performance |
|
| 28. |
Re: No subject |
Jul 5, 2007, 19:56 |
WaltC |
|
|
This article, I thought, was extremely poor for several reasons:
(1) DX10 in terms of developer support presently is just about exactly where DX9 was when Microsoft first released it. At the time, people were swearing up & down that DX8.1 was "great" and wondering what all of the fuss about DX9 really meant. Then we saw the protracted "shader model wars" in which nVidia kept defending pre-SM2.0 modes while ATi's 9700 Pro pushed nVidia all the way back to the drawing boards, as its SM2.0 support, specific to DX9, created both image quality and performance that it took nVidia a couple of years to catch.
AnandTech did indeed mention almost in passing that DX10 was still early yet, and that much would undoubtedly improve dramatically in the coming months, but I think that unfortunately AT created the impression that DX10 and DX9 were exactly *alike* except for the fact that DX10 framerates were about half as fast on average as DX9 framerates. A cardinal sin of omission, no doubt about it, because...
(2) DX10 is primarily if not exclusively about improvements in Image Quality. It is *not* about maintaining DX9-levels of IQ while outperforming DX9. It is about creating DX10 levels of Image Quality--period. AnandTech does not seem to understand this at all.
(3)First lesson in Image Quality analysis that even newbies can readily understand is this: if the performance is not where you want it, but the IQ is where you want it, then you do the following to improve performance *without* sacrificing Image Quality (This is a lesson that AnandTech truly seems to have completely forgotten):
Instead of talking about how sorry the performance was in DX10 titles (those very few early attempts that AT looked at), AT should have seen what AT could have done to increase performance while maintaining DX10-levels of Image Quality. That is, AT should have *lowered* test resolutions and raised the level of FSAA employed to get the best balance of Image quality and performance. AnandTech did not even try to do this--which in my view is inexcusable and fairly unforgivable. It is a very bad mistake. I'm sorry--but many, many people, including me, do not use 1280x1024 *exclusively* while playing 3d games. My DX9 resolution of choice is 1152x864, for instance.
The point to be made about DX10 is *not* frame rates locked in at 1280x1024. Sorry AT--you really screwed the pooch on this one. The whole point of DX10 is *better image quality* which everyone who ever graduated from the 3d-school-of-hard-knocks is *supposed* to know!
So, just what does a bunch of *bar charts* detailing absolutely nothing except frame rates tell us about DX10? Not much, if anything at all. Gee, it does tell us that with the reduced image quality that DX9 is capable of providing contrasted with DX10, that DX9 runs faster in terms of frames per second on DX10 hardware! Gosh, who might ever have guessed....<sarcasm>
IMO, the fact that DX10 software even early on is running slower than DX9 on DX10-compliant hardware tells *me* nothing except that DX10 is demanding a lot more work out of the hardware than DX9, which means that we can expect the Image Quality of DX10 to be much better than DX9. These early games that AT tested with are merely the tip of the iceburg of what is to come. AnandTech really blew this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it! |
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > New NVIDIA ForceWare Drivers |
|
| 8. |
Re: vi$ta is it folks... were screwed. |
Apr 27, 2007, 06:58 |
WaltC |
|
|
...it looks like microsoft has abandoned all non vi$ta people, and I see this as Nvidia's excuse to stop making drivers for those who dont buy into the 8800 scheme.
XP will be officially supported by Microsoft until 2008, at least, according to Microsoft. Besides, Vista runs absolutely wonderfully well with so-called "DX9" 3d cards--so a "DX10" card is not a requirement for running Vista in the first place.
Your problem has nothing to do with Microsoft, but everything to do with nVidia's driver support for its products. nVidia's responsible for that--not Microsoft.
I'm probably going to start using a mac!
Great idea--that way you can remain "obsolete" forever...;)
It's funny to me personally. I just bought my new system a few months ago when the 7950 GX2 was the biggest and baddest. Dual core 6700, 2 gigs of ram, ASUS mobo... It was the absolute best you could buy, with the exception of more RAM. I had maxed out everything, and because of nvidia's decision, I am already obsolete!
Funny, you don't sound like you think it's funny...;)
In the first place--you're all screwed up about "DX10" games. It's your understanding here that's obsolete. When games ship that support DX10 features, those same games will also support DX9-class 3d cards--not to mention that they'll run fine under WinXP as well. Contrary to your opinion, we won't see any "DX10 & Vista-required" games--meaning you *have* to have a DX10 3d card installed to play the game--for several years--if we *ever* see such games released at all.
Try to keep in mind that DX10 support in games and Vista support in general are two separate things. I'm running lots of DX9 and below 3d games on my DX9-class 3d card inside Vista right now--and I have no problems doing so. I'm running an ATi x1950 Pro and have no complaint with ATi's Vista drivers to make.
If you have a problem here, as far as I can see, it's with nVidia's driver-release schedule. Far cheaper than buying a Mac--which will pretty much guarantee your permanent hardware and software obsolesence for years to come--you might consider picking up an ATi 3d card, for instance. It would be *a lot* cheaper to do that...;) Compared to ATi, nVidia's official driver release schedule well in advance of the G8x cards has been very spotty and slow for the past several years.
Last, I don't know where you are getting your info, but much of it sounds suspiciously like the kind of poor information that routinely appears on Mac-oriented blogs and web sites. Take it from me, most Mac oriented web sites scarcely understand the Mac itself, and the opinions I've seen expressed there about how "Windows works" and so on are just horribly wrong, most of the time...;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it! |
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Taking the Piss Out of Vista |
|
| 12. |
Why is it... |
Jan 12, 2007, 13:08 |
WaltC |
|
|
...that every two-bit Internet website writer wants to "leverage Windows" by inanely criticizing it in order to draw attention to himself? Not only that, but why is it that some people will believe every word that comes out of the mouths of such unknown, faceless Internet critics while turning a deaf ear to almost everything Microsoft has to say publicly about its own operating systems? You tell me, because I sure can't figure it out.
Happy to say that it's true that Vista isn't by, for, and about 3d gaming developers. Microsoft has much bigger fish to fry, but I would think that would be obvious. According to Microsoft the big deal about Vista isn't 3d gaming--it's *security*--which has become the most often used buzzword on the Internet today. I'm an avid gamer myself and even I know that. So what is the excuse the numskulls that write this kind of crap have for not knowing that? Beats me.
Yea, you heard it here...;) Vista isn't about 3d gaming, it is about *security* from the kernel on up. In that regard everything about Vista is massively different than in XP.
Having said that, though, does this mean that Microsoft is going to abandon the 3d-gaming developer community? Even the person who wrote this little ditty about Vista knows that Microsoft has already announced its intentions for supporting gaming in Vista as "...a commitment to its revival, describing an 18-month drive to build a Games for Windows program." [quote/unquote]
So, what's this guy's real angst? It's that he might have to--*gasp*--buy a copy of Vista--oh, horrors. But apparently spending hundreds of dollars per year on the latest games doesn't bother him a bit, for some strange reason. And I guess it also didn't bother him that he had to buy XP after Win95/2k, either, because all he's talking about is how utterly wonderful WinXP is for gaming.
But when XP was first released, just like when Win95 was first released, and now when Vista is set for release in a few days--XP was criticized roundly almost everywhere on the Internet by the same....old....dreary people who just can't stand to see anything new come along. The fact that it might be *better* than what they've become used to apparently doesn't enter their skinny little noggins...:D Oh, no--to these people "different" cannot possibly ever mean "better." That's sad, I think (for them.)
People often forget that John Carmack is a games developer. He is not tasked with writing and selling computer OSes around the world that will be used for many, many more things besides running 3d-games. Nope, Carmack's exclusive focus is on 3d games, and only on 3d games, and specifically only on the 3d games that id Software writes. Carmack's concerns about "security" on the Internet extend no farther than Punkbuster, far as I can see. When Carmack speaks he is only telling you how the picture looks from his point view, and to give him his due credit, he never pretends to be speaking for anyone else. I remember all too well Carmack complaining years ago about AMD's Athlon simply because optimizing for it presented him personally with more work than he'd have to do if he only had to worry about Intel processors and nothing else. Likewise, Carmack also doesn't like the move to dual-core processors and for exactly the same reason--it's just more work for him--as he sees it. So, I think it is entirely predictable that he'd complain about having to change some things where Vista is concerned, because doing it the XP way has for him become as comfortable as an old shoe.
But this in no way means that Carmack is a "bad" fellow. Not even close, of course. It just means that people who read Carmack's comments must themselves learn how to put them into perspective before they can truly appreciate them, let alone understand them. Last but not least, it must never be forgotten that Carmack is not a god of any kind and I have absolutely no doubt that were you to ask him he'd tell you exactly that right to your face...;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it! |
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > New ATI Drivers |
|
| 4. |
Re: No subject |
Dec 14, 2006, 20:49 |
WaltC |
|
|
The only problem I've ever had with a CCC install was caused by my software firewall. Turning it off just for the install solved the problem. Otherwise, never had a problem with the CCC and use it regularly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it! |
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Ships Ahoy - The Elder Scrolls: Knights of the Nine |
|
| 32. |
Re: No subject |
Dec 6, 2006, 21:38 |
WaltC |
|
|
You assume people wont then replay a stella 10hr game? A great, tightly designed game is like a great movie, you can play it again and continue to appreciate it. I'll play a game the first time through on medium, but may then replay on hard. Games like Deus Ex, Max Payne and Half Life all stand up to multiple play throughs.
I've never seen or played a "stellar" 10-hour game, myself...;) All of the games you list above took me considerably more than 10 hours to play--but that's probably because I was in absolutely no hurry to finish any of them...;) That's the way it is for me--when I buy a game and I enjoy the game and become immersed in it, I really don't want it to end, so I'll explore every possibility the game offers for extending my enjoyment of it as long as possible. Whenever I play a game that really involves and interests me, I feel a certain melancholy when I finish it. But that's just me, of course...;) I'm often the same way with good books. The idea of "speed-playing" a game interests me no more than "speed-reading" a good book. I prefer to draw out the experience and to savor it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it! |
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Ships Ahoy - The Elder Scrolls: Knights of the Nine |
|
| 28. |
No subject |
Dec 6, 2006, 21:06 |
WaltC |
|
|
I personally have a big problem with ~20-hour games that cost $39-$49. I vastly prefer 100+-hour games for the same amount of cashola, myself.
I'm perplexed by people who love to boast, "I beat game X in ten hours!" as if the accomplishment merits something more than a dunce cap. I mean, I can only guess at the scads and scads of game content these people *miss,* content that they *paid for,* while they're rushing through to the end with cheat codes and plot guides and hint books and Internet FAQs. I see it as bragging about having picked your own pocket, more or less...;)
Perhaps, though, the real problem here with such illogical sentiment is that these people never actually *paid for* anything, and are rushing through these games disdainfully to assuage a guilty conscience. You know, "Well, I didn't like it enough to play it enough to enjoy it, so I wouldn't have bought it anyway, which means it was OK for me to bootlegg it in the first place," etc.
Such people really do cheat themselves, because when you buy a game (as opposed to filching it) there's a certain dynamic inherent in the experience of trying to enjoy it by immersing yourself in it. People who don't buy their games really do cheat themselves, imo. Because their games cost them nothing they have little to no expectations about them, one way or another. Mindless criticisms often come easy.
For example, is it really believable that someone who professes not to like "100-hour computer games" would run out and buy a highly publicized 100-hour + game like Oblivion? Nah--I don't think it is believable, any more than I could believe that someone who didn't like computer Football games would run out and spend $50 on a computer football game...;)
Personally, I wish public criticisms of games could be restricted to those who buy them, as I think such criticisms are much more likely to be objective and thoughtful, as opposed to childish and spiteful. But since we cannot restrict comments in that fashion I guess it is enough just to be able to recognize the bogus comments that are made when we see them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it! |
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > The IRS Sword of Taxation (+2) |
|
| 25. |
Re: No subject |
Dec 4, 2006, 19:33 |
WaltC |
|
|
This has got be a joke...;)
Uh, I hate to let them in on this little secret, but "taxing" virtual worlds and virtual assets is exactly like trying to tax people on their virtual earnings accrued while playing Monopoly and earning virtual monopoly dollars...;) There's no question for me that this is--has to be--a big joke in search of gullible minds who might actually believe it. Heh...;)
The term "virtual" in the context of computer games and "assets," means exactly what it means in terms of accruing a "fortune" in Monopoly money while playing Monopoly--let's don't even mention the concept of virtual real estate obtained in Monopoly. "Virtual" means "fake" or "imaginary" or "not real." Simply put, virtual assets are simply not real assets. Hence, they cannot be taxed.
Another way of looking at it is like this: if virtual assets were indeed real enough to be taxed, then not only would winning Monopoly players receive 1099's at the end of the year, but the FBI would *have to be* hot on their trails for *counterfeiting*, wouldn't they? Because if it isn't real money you cannot tax it, and if you do tax it then that is the same as to say it is real and not virtual at all. Thus, monopoly money would devolve from "play money" into "real money"--which has just got to be the product of virtual thinking...;)
So, when I see the IRS talking about taxing Monopoly players, then I might believe they are serious about taxing virtual assets after all. But if that happens, then I have a feeling that the next taxpayer revolution is right around the corner...;) (The Boston Tea Party was, thankfully, conducted over real assets as opposed to virtual assets.)
Somebody has definitely got a screwed up set of priorities here...;) As a joke, this would be kind of funny. As a matter for serious contemplation it seems only fodder for idiots and lunatics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it! |
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Out of the Blue |
|
| 39. |
Re: Bond is definitely back... |
Nov 18, 2006, 19:26 |
WaltC |
|
|
Which is EXACTLY what IAN FLEMING (edit : d'oh) wanted James Bond to be : a bedside story. Lots of over the top junk and hot women getting nailed by the hero.
I don't mind them reinventing Bond, but blaming Bond for being what he was intended to be seems kinda odd?
If you want to know what Ian Fleming wanted Bond to be in the movies, just watch Dr. No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, and, I believe, Thunderball. Fleming was literally on the set when these movies were made and died either during or shortly after Thunderball--IIRC (Forgive any mistake here--it's been a long time.) Connery was hand-picked picked by Fleming, as I recall, for the role of Bond, but the studio preferred Roger Moore, who was, fortunately for Connery, too busy doing "The Saint" stuff at the time to think much of the offer. At any rate, physically, Connery was the closest match to the Bond Fleming wrote about--no question about it.
After Fleming died the Bond movies really got ridiculous and far out--including technology Fleming had never mentioned or involved in his stories. Even in Goldfinger an industrial laser is featured where a buzz saw was employed in the book. Later on, glitzy tech toys would completely overshadow everything in the Bond movies, imo--which certainly was not what Fleming intended. It got most ridiculous with Brosnan, of course, but I think that was because the movies veered off onto a glitzy "tech-toy" tangent which Fleming never intended. In all of his books, it was the people and their personalities and their stories that featured far more prominently than the technology he included. In the Bond books the technology served as background enhancing the atmosphere--it never, ever usurped the characters--most especially Bond himself.
Watch those early movies again if you want to see how Fleming envisioned Bond in the movies. IIRC, Fleming demanded to be on the movie sets and to make certain decisions as part of the deal in selling the movie studios the rights to make the Bond films. In the early movies there is a whole lot of dialog that comes right out of the books, too, verbatim--so it's pretty easy to spot Fleming's hand in those films. When Fleming died, the movies changed drastically, and it's fairly easy to spot the differences and the shifts in content and emphasis the longer we move forward in time from Fleming's death.
So, I do not think that Casino Royale is "reinventing" Bond nearly as much as I think it is reinvigorating the original Bond that Fleming had in mind. Clearly, Craig doesn't physically resemble Fleming's Bond at all--any more than Moore. But intellectually and spiritually, Craig's characterization is probably the closest to what I recall of the books that I have ever seen in film, including Connery, and I think that's just because Craig is a much better actor than Connery was when he played Bond. Obviously, we disagree about this...;) The stars of Casino Royale were Bond and the people that crossed his path--everything else played second fiddle, including technology--and I think that's just what Fleming intended.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it! |
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Out of the Blue |
|
| 35. |
Bond is definitely back... |
Nov 17, 2006, 18:17 |
WaltC |
|
|
I've seen all of the films and read the books, too, and this Bond film I think is probably the very best by far. Craig does Bond a justice the movie character has never had--he isn't prissy, he doesn't make it through the entire film with nary a hair out of place (like Brosnan managed a couple of times), and best of all he's a good actor who actually brings some depth and dimension to the role--instead of someone attempting a bad Connery imitation.
Certainly--he's not Sean Connery--but then I don't think Connery could have ever played the Bond that Craig portrays. This is the first Bond film I've ever seen from which I walked away *liking* Bond himself as a character (never disliked Bond, of course, just never remember liking him), and Craig achieves his likability as a real "man's man" instead of a sissified gigolo surrounded by high-tech toys and muppet support staff. M was great and Q-branch was thankfully absent altogether.
The movie will keep you riveted to your seat for the full duration, and the fact that it manages to do that with nary a gratuitous sex scene or strings of gratuitous cuss words stands as a reminder of what quality films can be like. I was so entertained and enthralled by the movie that it wasn't until the drive home that it hit me that I hadn't even noticed the lack of T&A or people saying "*uck" this and "*uck" that...;) I'd give it five stars--Casino Royale is a class act. Craig is off to great start. The best Bond films may be yet to come.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it! |
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Evening Legal Briefs |
|
| 4. |
Re: Morals? |
Oct 4, 2006, 07:59 |
WaltC |
|
|
It's funny how legislators and the president toss around morals when talking about gambling and stem cell research, yet they pass a bill allowing torture. WTF?
I guess you'd prefer it if your government rolled out the red carpet to captured terrorists known to have participated in the murder of Americans--and maybe bought them steak dinners and otherwise treated them like the best of pals? I guess you'd prefer it if all of these non-American citizens who have openly sworn irrational hatred and murder towards American citizens, all of these people who were caught red-handed in various acts of terrorism and espionage against the United States inside the US and in various war zones around the world--I guess you'd prefer it if we treated them as if they were Americans themselves going to court for minor traffic violations?
More importantly, I guess you'd gladly trade the lives of your friends, relatives and associates lost in a terrorist attack so that you could feel good about your morals in opposing the torture of enemy combatants even if it is done to safeguard the lives of the people you care about? Oh, sure.
I'll bet, for instance, that if confronted with a domestic child rapist and killer the likes of twelve-year-old Polly Klass's murderer a few years ago, that you'd have no qualms about seeing someone like that tortured intensively and for a long, long time. What it is that makes people think that cold-blooded, murdering terrorists are any better or more deserving of civility than animals like Polly Klass's killer is beyond me.
Last, don't forget that prior to 9/11 the US wasn't in Afghanistan or Iraq and this "torture" issue wasn't even on the table--and, wow, 9/11 happened *anyway* didn't it? What you are basically saying is that if people or governments go to extraordinary lengths to murder American citizens and destroy their property that we as Americans are not entitled to take extraordinary steps to defend our lives and property. If you can find something "moral" about that then by all means enlighten me. Treating these people with civility and restraint for decades paid off for us with 9/11, or is there something about 9/11 you still don't understand?
As well, hopefully you'll realize that stem cells and online gambling houses are not terrorists, and I surely hope you believe that nobody in the government is interested in torturing stem cells or gamblers.
Actually, I agree with you about the gambling bill as it is highly hypocritical to try and stamp out online gambling when *the state* legalizes gambling with the various lotteries that are run and advertised--but if you can point to a time when Congress was not populated by hypocrites I'd like to know when that was. But I have no sympathy for your own hypocrisy which equates the nation's self-defense against terrorism of the 9/11 kind with mere controversies like stem-cell research and online gambling. Your thinking is somewhat muddled here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it! |
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Steam Fix |
|
| 25. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 3, 2006, 06:32 |
WaltC |
|
|
because Steam wouldn't let them choose offline mode
There's a very simple way to force steam to let you play in offline singleplayer at any time. Simply go to the Device Manager and disable your ethernet (network) controller there. Then run your game normally. Steam will detect a non-Internet machine and default to allowing only offline single-player mode.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it! |
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Prey-Loads |
|
| 78. |
Re: Sham |
Jul 4, 2006, 09:04 |
WaltC |
|
|
Surely you understand that to produce a high-end title to today’s standards requires double-digit millions? And surely you’ve noticed that the price of a new game has most certainly not gone up in proportion to the inflated cost of production?
Yes, and that's a phenomenon known as economies of scale. It's actually a rather common economic principle and we see it on display in the electronics industry, the computer industry, and in the automobile industry, just to name a few. The more you sell and produce of a given item in order to meet demand, the cheaper the per unit item becomes. When demand is high, the fewer units you produce the higher the per-unit MSRP becomes.
Just talking about computer hardware, for instance...Today it costs much less to build a powerful home computer than it did ten years ago, but today's machines are hundreds of times more powerful. The price of a computer per MIPs/storage capacity/ram has fallen dramatically over the years even while average MIPs/storage/ram delivered per unit has skyrocketed. Economies of scale mean you get a whole lot more for a whole lot less, basically.
I think that the closest parallel to the entertainment software industry is the movie industry, without a doubt. I can buy a ticket to see a $300M dollar movie like Superman Returns for under ten dollars. Later, when it's released on DVD, I'll be able to walk into a WalMart and buy the movie on DVD for $15-$20. That's for an IP product that costs the movie company $300M to make.
OK...now, what's the excuse of software companies to hold the MSRP's of their products to per copy level of $50 regardless of demand for their products? Software developers and publishers seem to be stuck in a perpetual loop of holding the same ASPs per copy for their software that they held 10-15 years ago, at a time when the entire market for a computer game was literally between ten and twenty times smaller than is true today. Around 1990 or so the total worldwide annual production of home computers was something like 6-10M boxes; today it is running at around 200M or more!
I think that by religiously sticking to $50 MSRPs the publishers and developers are shooting themselves in the feet, and that they are artificially restricting the number of copies that they sell of each game they publish. Additionally, of course, they also are stimulating piracy of their software--the higher the price the more it will be illegally copied, etc.
You'd think at some point they'd figure out that it's better to sell 3 million copies at $29.95 than it is to sell 1 million copies at $49.95, wouldn't you? These are not idle numbers, either--the best selling computer games in terms of volume are games like "The Sims" which I have never seen on a supermarket shelf priced higher than $30. The $50 games don't come close in terms of volume.
My belief is that if the computer game publishers like Atari and developers like Valve are going to realize their potential and drive their products into ever larger markets they are going to have to lower their MSRP's substantially. Frankly, until the Internet distribution channels like Steam deliver substantially lower per-copy costs of full games (not talking about the little 6-hour minigames that seem to be the rage these days), they are never going to realize their full potential.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it! |
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Op Ed |
|
| 10. |
Oh boy.... |
Jul 3, 2006, 06:20 |
WaltC |
|
|
Once more I get to read an article about how Bill Gates has failed, and once more it's written by someone hoping to succeed. Lucky me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it! |
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Rumor Control |
|
| 3. |
My opinion is that any game... |
Jun 8, 2006, 10:13 |
WaltC |
|
|
...which elevates the mundane activites of sleeping and eating to the level of life and death in the game is going to fail miserably. These are *games*, remember, not real-life sims (boring in the extreme!) Everybody already has to eat and sleep to survive in real life--having to also do that to survive inside a game world strikes me as horribly, awfully boring--and a *big* distraction from the game itself.
I really like Oblivion, btw, and think it is a masterpiece. And thankfully the only time in Oblivion I have to sleep is when I'm ready to level advance--never for survival. And eating inside the game world is totally an option and is not required. Resting, by hitting the T key, is all I ever need to do to restore lost health--unless I want to expend health potions or health-restore spells to do so, or to eat certain meats--and takes mere seconds. The game gives me the choice of eating and sleeping and even advancing in level--all are optional. That's the way I think a truly good game should be,imo.
As to Stalker itself, its amusing to see how long game web sites have been stalking this elusive title. How about no more news about Stalker until it goes gold? Just a suggestion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it! |
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > New ATI RADEON Drivers |
|
| 4. |
Re: Mobility |
May 25, 2006, 06:38 |
WaltC |
|
|
No need to worry about them screwing our mobile chips, they dont support them much anyway
They seem to now...
https://support.ati.com/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=894&task=knowledge&folderID=27
...and take a look at the WinXP driver listings
Oh wait , im the one screwing YOU because I voted with my wallet Ahhh that warm fuzzy feeling of fcuking a company
Yes, and just imagine how warm and fuzzy the company who sold you your laptop feels after screwing you...;) (I loathe laptops--always have--too much $$$ for far too little.) But, that's just me...;)
This comment was edited on May 25, 06:40. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it! |
|
|
|
|
| |
310 Comments. 16 pages. Viewing page 11.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ] Older > |
|
Twitter 
