User information for toranaga

Real Name
toranaga
Nickname
None given.
Email
Concealed by request - Send Mail
Description
Homepage
None given.

Supporter

Signed On
June 4, 2003
Total Posts
28 (Suspect)
User ID
17342
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
28 Comments. 2 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
7.
 
Re: Games For Satan
Dec 19, 2006, 12:11
7.
Re: Games For Satan Dec 19, 2006, 12:11
Dec 19, 2006, 12:11
 
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.
3.
 
No subject
Mar 10, 2006, 10:02
3.
No subject Mar 10, 2006, 10:02
Mar 10, 2006, 10:02
 
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.


21.
 
Re: Been Bitten Before
Jun 2, 2005, 19:25
21.
Re: Been Bitten Before Jun 2, 2005, 19:25
Jun 2, 2005, 19:25
 
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>


42.
 
Re: No subject
Feb 10, 2005, 23:49
42.
Re: No subject Feb 10, 2005, 23:49
Feb 10, 2005, 23:49
 
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.


31.
 
Re: Be concerned, be VERY concerned.
Feb 10, 2005, 22:01
31.
Re: Be concerned, be VERY concerned. Feb 10, 2005, 22:01
Feb 10, 2005, 22:01
 
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)


39.
 
No subject
Nov 2, 2004, 07:48
39.
No subject Nov 2, 2004, 07:48
Nov 2, 2004, 07:48
 
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.


8.
 
Re: w00t!
Jun 6, 2003, 20:27
8.
Re: w00t! Jun 6, 2003, 20:27
Jun 6, 2003, 20:27
 
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.


23.
 
Re: Slanderous
Jun 3, 2003, 23:16
23.
Re: Slanderous Jun 3, 2003, 23:16
Jun 3, 2003, 23:16
 
I'd check this out for details:

http://www.futuremark.com/companyinfo/3dmark03_audit_report.pdf


It's painfully obvious that they _were_ cheating. There's no room for interpretation here. It seems ATI did a bit of cheating too, that part is quite toned down (hmm, wonder if it has anything to do with ATI being in their beta program).

In any case I couldn't care less about 3dmark (or any other benchmark for that matter). A company creating a benchmark, that earns a good chunk of money from one or more of the "target" companies just reeks IMO.

It doesn't matter if they actually do anything wrong or not in the end, for me their credibility (the tiny fraction that was there to begin with) is straight out the window.


28 Comments. 2 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older