User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >
| News Comments > Evening Legal Briefs |
 |
| 10. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Feb 3, 2017, 09:29 |
toranaga |
|
|
For all anyone knows both "I never tried to hide or wipe any evidence" and wiping 92% if his HDD could be true. Maybe he just figured it was best to wipe out his embarrassing porn collection before anyone gets their hands on his computer, which wouldn't be evidence relevant to the case.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Pripyat Calls on DX11 |
|
| 28. |
Re: Pripyat Calls on DX11 |
Sep 11, 2009, 20:09 |
toranaga |
|
|
The original System Shock probably even had more atmosphere than that, too. I truly felt I was on this space station
word! SS oozes atmosphere out of every pore, anyone saying otherwise is a console tard and should get off bluesnews 
(I hope it's painfully obvious that the last part was just a joke) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Star Trek Online Clip |
|
| 8. |
Re: Star Trek Online Clip |
Sep 6, 2009, 18:10 |
toranaga |
|
|
I've already written this one off when they first announced the changed direction (back with the original dev), and everything I've seen/heard since has just cemented the choice further, but I just got annoyed again watching the movie. The guy spouting the everyone wants to be a captain bullshit. That's not true. My first choice would have been engineering, and it was back in TNG/DS9 watching days aswell.
Just because you are for example an engineer doesn't mean you'd be stuck in engineering pushing buttons until you level up to some other position. How often isn't the chief engineer (and all other "classes" for that matter) along on away missions and stuff in the shows, there's plenty of wiggle room there to make a fun game.
Simplifying the gameplay to match your developement capabilities is one thing, but stop trying to cover it up as "but that's what the people want!". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Will Wright & EA Partner Up |
|
| 5. |
Re: Will Wright & EA Partner Up |
Apr 8, 2009, 14:39 |
toranaga |
|
|
Where is ... System Shock 3?
Where it should be, resting in peace. There is neither a game business climate nor a company that would make this game anything but a huge clusterfuck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > OnLive Changing the Game? |
|
| 49. |
Re: OnLive a Game Changer? |
Mar 24, 2009, 18:37 |
toranaga |
|
|
why am I picturing this whole thing as
concept specification,
phantom 2.0:
-------------------
gfx: Glaze3D or Pyramid3D
network: BigFoot Networks' Killer NIC
game service distribution backend: xStream
investors: morons that fulfill criteria 'greed > common sense'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Max Payne 3 Announced |
|
| 14. |
Re: Max Payne 3 Announced |
Mar 23, 2009, 11:56 |
toranaga |
|
|
In the first one they killed off his wife and kid. In the second one they bumped off Mona. Who's gonna get it in this one? His dog? Poor guy.
yes, and the game will end with Max embarking in a new career in country music |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > On Games for Windows |
|
| 23. |
Re: No subject |
Dec 19, 2006, 16:20 |
toranaga |
|
|
and how long before a PC dev has to pay MS for each sold copy (just like console games)
That's an impossibility.
Not only is it an open platform (for developing on,) but the lawsuits over what defines a game and what defines an application would be insanely costly. You'd have devs start bundling basic word processors with their games to get around it.
Furthermore, why would MS be so stupid? They know damn well that every other platform on the market is open to any development. They know the reason why theirs triumphs is the amount of applications available for it. If they start charging people to develop for it they give incentive for people to develop elsewhere, which gives consumers incentive to investigate other markets.
I think you're missing a couple of important details. What I was saying was, if DX and GFW become so big/important, that in order to create a competetive game you need to use those, then you have to pay MS what they want. Right now DX is free so no problem, GFW is not. Since MS owns both, they have every legal right to introduce fees and royalties to any of those components. Which in the long run can mean the scenario I was describing.
Yes, the windows/pc platform is open, so you can still make apps and games without paying MS royalties, but I was talking about doing comptetitive games (meaning once it's at a point where a consumer wouldn't look on any game not having GFW and DX12 stamped on it).
The DX dependcy is especially critical when it comes to 3D HW, we're already witnessing the trend that the new HW generation will have functionality, only accessible through DX10. If that trend continues, at what point is OpenGL no longer feasible, leaving the developer no choices of API/OS/platform, again if they want to stay competetive. (also even when doing GL games today it's pretty usual to use some of the non-3D parts of DX.)
I'm not saying this necessary will happen, and it's not some anti-MS rant. I'm just being cautious about the whole thing, I don't like the fact that one and the same company (not that it's MS in particular) would be in control of all the crucial components.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > On Games for Windows |
|
| 13. |
Re: Need more info on this |
Dec 19, 2006, 13:19 |
toranaga |
|
|
I also wonder when games will start to be vista only and not playable on xp
Alan Wake comes to mind, sure it's not out yet if that's what you meant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > On Games for Windows |
|
| 7. |
Re: Games For Satan |
Dec 19, 2006, 12:11 |
toranaga |
|
|
To get GFW certification you have to comply with MS's draconian specs. Besides MS approving the content, this includes purchasing a key so that your game will appear in MS's game browser. MS also wants to use this to get gamers shackled to Live Anywhere.
and how long before a PC dev has to pay MS for each sold copy (just like console games), and how long before MS makes DX not-free unless you participate in GFW.
This comment was edited on Dec 19, 12:12. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Evening Q&As |
|
| 3. |
No subject |
Mar 10, 2006, 10:02 |
toranaga |
|
|
booo! if they can't even get the corridors to look correct like a Galaxy class ship then I don't have many hopes 
You can't just go adding 3 feet to the height, and between the gray panel pieces should be a gap (just some black stripe there would do) not make it look like one big piece.
I may be anal, but what the heck is the point to say you're building a specific type of existing ship when you don't stick to the looks, might aswell do something new then. I already swallowed that they are doing a new deck layout, but they should stick to the correct visualy dammit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Carmack on Game Patents |
|
| 21. |
Re: Been Bitten Before |
Jun 2, 2005, 19:25 |
toranaga |
|
|
In all fairness Carmack has voiced his anti-patent opinion long before the "Creative indcident" afaik.
<rant>
I must say I'm deeply disappointed in Gamasutra, for giving those slime sucking scumbags a forum to spread their cancer inducing vomit. Gamasutra should be _for_ developers, not help spread the propaganda (that works against developers) of some asshats that are better off as shark bait.
Am I upset? hell yeah, as a software/game developer, the whole broken software patent situation makes my blood boil every time I get reminded of it. When even Carmack/id with their amount of money had to fold to one of the most dubious patents, some small dev is so royally screwed it ain't even funny.
</rant>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Ion Storm Closed |
|
| 42. |
Re: No subject |
Feb 10, 2005, 23:49 |
toranaga |
|
|
You do realize that Romero has nothing to do with ION Austin (which was the only part of ION that was left). Romero's ION Dallas office was closed down years ago and he went on with Monkeystone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Ion Storm Closed |
|
| 31. |
Re: Be concerned, be VERY concerned. |
Feb 10, 2005, 22:01 |
toranaga |
|
|
it's not easy for them since they basically have to finance it themselves, publishers aren't interested so they can't turn to them for funding (otherwise the publisher will want to have a say on the game and mainstreamify it)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > 3D Game Lawsuit |
|
| 39. |
No subject |
Nov 2, 2004, 07:48 |
toranaga |
|
|
I just browsed through the patent for two minutes, but it appears to me it affects third person games mainly. The spherical panning described doesn't sound like a first person camera but a typical third person camera.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Thief 3 Q&A |
|
| 8. |
Re: w00t! |
Jun 6, 2003, 20:27 |
toranaga |
|
|
Actually it's not a bad thing. I've seen ppl say "I never tried Game X 2 because I never player Game X 1", even though the sequel can be played just fine without having played the original.
I didn't believe that ppl are that narrow minded, but after I've seen comments like that I think it's a smart move to use a more neutral name.
If it gets more ppl playing it I'm all for it, as long as the content of the game is a worthy sequel for those of us that played the first games.
A title is just a title, not that big of a deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
21 Comments. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older > |
|
Twitter 
