|
|
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22768 |  Keilun (20) May 20, 2010 - 05:52 am » Edited on May 20, 2010 - 05:53 am
| I'd guess that part of that is just lost in translation/media hype and is more that its difficult to manage a studio across language barriers. I've been working with Japanese game developers and Capcom is one that is very weak when it comes to English competency.
I'm not saying that language barriers are the reason those games failed, but I'm sure they contributed to the result. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22725 | Keilun (20) Apr 22, 2010 - 01:33 pm » Edited on Apr 22, 2010 - 01:33 pm
| » Sounds legally fishy...
Granted that we don't know the contracts signed, it sounds like they're dangling this bonus money that the IW devs were entitled to in the first place and using it as leverage to reduce turnover. That doesn't sound right... It sure is a great way to show respect for the devs that you employ though... Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22558 | Keilun (20) Feb 18, 2010 - 10:08 am
| I don't understand the reasoning behind the always online bit. I mean seriously, what is wrong with a on startup check.
If you're going to have periodic checks, at the very least make those checks at reasonable points (AKA right after a check/save point), but even then that would really upset me. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22507 | Keilun (20) Feb 02, 2010 - 12:45 pm » Edited on Feb 02, 2010 - 12:46 pm
| Definitely worth it to start from ME1. It's sad that you can't pick your choices when starting fresh from ME2, because all the choices that they make for you if you're starting anew in ME2 are lame. Basically you f'ed everything up in ME1, and killed off characters that you would have otherwise probably enjoyed in ME2... But maybe some people prefer those choices.
From the sounds of it, Bioware's internal test version had the interface to allow you to pick your choices, but it was removed for the release version. :/ Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22479 | Keilun (20) Jan 21, 2010 - 12:00 pm » Edited on Jan 21, 2010 - 12:03 pm
| » Steam activation limit was an error
The 5 machine activation limit that appeared on the Steam purchase page for Bioshock 2 was an error. This is clarified on the 2K forums:
(had to remove link as it would not let me post otherwise) - See BluesNews for the posting.
The Steam page has since been corrected and no longer even shows SecuROM on the install. SecuROM is only being used for the retail copy as a disc check. So this is good news!
The activation check is done through GFWL though unfortunately. And unfortunately there is a 15 machine activation limit for GFWL per key........
Why any games company would opt for GFWL over Steam is beyond me... Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22479 | Keilun (20) Jan 20, 2010 - 01:48 pm » Edited on Jan 20, 2010 - 01:49 pm
| » Steam says 5 machine activation limit...
Using the same link in the article, it states there is still a 5 machine activation limit. Whether this is an error on Steam's end or in the article, that's disturbing...
I may have to pass as well. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22004 | Keilun (20) Aug 10, 2009 - 01:32 pm
| I'm more concerned with how Intel is bringing Larrabee to market. Currently it's going to be slated as a separate PCI-E expansion card. That means they'll be starting with a market-share of 0.
In turn this means that unless they provide some facility to run DX/OGL games on top of Larrabee (which currently is not planned from the SIGGRAPH pres.), then game developers will be hard pressed to provide support for it up front. If any, it will have a slow adoption rate.
That's another issue to tackle apart from the technical details of providing a compelling reason to go Larrabee vs. today's GPUs. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21580 | Keilun (20) Apr 29, 2009 - 04:14 pm
| Yep. I've been wanting a Flash based PSP. Expandable memory would be great.
I'm more concerned about the previous PSP interviews where just 6 months ago they said that UMD was here to stay as it's a significant part of their business. I guess everything here is speculation for now, but I sure hope they don't try to limit it's potential. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21549 | Keilun (20) Apr 24, 2009 - 12:35 pm » Edited on Apr 24, 2009 - 12:36 pm
| I don't totally agree with this. I own a PSP and I buy the games. However, given the price of those games ($30-40 CAD) and the amount of playtime I get from those games, it's hard to justify my purchases when compared to say a PC game or a console game.
I'm probably a different target market. I love the long involved games like Jeanne D'arc and Final Fantasy Tactics. I even enjoyed God of War: Chains of Olympus. The only issue I have is that the games often are too short. Add to that the fact that some of these games are now out of print...
My biggest reluctance to buying more PSP games is that I feel the platform is dying. Not just because of the game selection, but also because of the hardware. The UMD format is just bulky and outdated. I would be all over a new PSP if it was solely flash based.
Of course they wouldn't do that since it's a tremendous overhaul of the way they structured their PSP business. The only reason I visit my PSP now is to play movies on the road. I convert my DVDs to PSP format and load it onto my MemoryStick and keep myself entertained.
The rest of it is just fluff to me. If an amazing game comes out, I'll consider it, but anything short of that and it's tough to warrant a purchase. That's my issue. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21247 | Keilun (20) Feb 03, 2009 - 12:49 pm
| » Do I still have to constantly resize my explorer window?
Title says it all. Beyond UAC, this is by far the most annoying bug in Vista. I'm still shocked that it hasn't been fixed.
Yes I've read tons of posts on how to "fix" it. NONE of them are permanent solutions. It works for a few days, then it reverts back to the default (ridiculously puny) explorer size. I sure hope this has been resolved in 7. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20722 | Keilun (20) Aug 05, 2008 - 01:43 pm
| There are still issues beyond what that article covers. That article actually links to a student that implemented a Ray-traced Quake 4 running at about 16fps.
He shows his findings upon which that article is partly based, but then sums it up with a number of issues that still need to be researched fully in order to truly run at interactive speeds. Namely:
- Spatial indexing of dynamic objects.
In games today, you can interact with more and more of the environment, which makes it that much more difficult. Generating the spatial indexing structures is time-intensive to run per frame.
That said, there is active research going on in the area that looks promising. Still nothing >16fps for moderately populated scenes. We're talking about interactive frame rates for a moving character.
As much as I'd love to see interactive raytraced games, there's still some more work to be done before it's able to run scenes in today's games at interactive speeds. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=13098 | Keilun (20) Nov 07, 2006 - 06:16 am
| The patch notes are right on the page (history.txt link):
Version 1.13:
1. Fixed - Sometimes the TCP/IP Host would not send the first turn game file to the players.
2. Fixed - Planet structure points were too high.
3. Fixed - "Propulsion Experts" racial trait was giving movement to bases.
4. Fixed - Some designs would lose racial trait effects on load of game.
5. Fixed - Text was overruning the side of the Set Construction Queue lists.
6. Fixed - A ship constructing a vehicle cannot retreat from combat.
7. Added - Whether a vehicle can retreat from combat to the Combat Piece Report.
8. Fixed - Repulser beams will not knock a ship past the retreat border.
9. Fixed - A ship cannot retreat into a blocked sector (such as a star).
10. Fixed - If all retreat locations are blocked, no retreat is possible.
11. Fixed - In the Construction Queues window, the On Hold and Repeat filters were switched.
12. Fixed - "Upgrade Facilities" action on the Construction Queues window would not work correctly
if upgrades were already present in the queue.
13. Changed - Some weapon balancing.
14. Fixed - More than one Emergency Resupply or Emergency Reordnance pod could be put on a ship.
15. Fixed - AI was sending multiple colonizers to the same planet.
16. Fixed - AI was trying to retrofit ships that had cargo.
17. Fixed - Sometimes ships which could drop troops or capture ships would just sit still.
18. Fixed - Crew were too strong in defense of a ship during ship capture.
19. Added - "Space Combat Crew Boarding Strength" in Settings.txt which sets the base race combat strength.
20. Fixed - Sometimes finding ruins would cause a crash. Flag this | Edit this post |
|
|
|
|
