Gears of War

[Great Rumbler]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IrL96H2wEVc"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IrL96H2wEVc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[A Black Falcon]

Gears of War? Bah, zero innovation! (according to EA...)

Yeah, that's one of the most ridiculous quotes I've heard in a long time... excepting the things the Republicans were saying during the campaign this fall, that is. :)

EA talking about creativity, though, is so completely absurd... :D

[Dark Jaguar]

The current gen of entertainment, all 4 of them!

<img src="http://www.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2006/11/ps3_wii_cat.jpg">

You see, that BEAST is why I fully intend on setting all my video game systems horizontally. I mean, sure my PC tower is vertical, but the only reason I abide that is that in it's current position it is protected from a fall by both a wedge between a board and a moniter and it's far larger base area, plus the fact that I can't use the disk drives while it is on it's side, plus the fact that if it wasn't extremely stable as it is (due to it's size), I would prefer a horizontal PC setup as well (it's just I have a hard time finding horizontal cases for sale).

Anyway, yeah that picture. Do they not SEE? That's just begging for trouble! Well, further looking confirms there are no cables and all of it is blocking a TV. It's likely that's not their normal setup.

[TheBiggah]

I still think the N64 is the coolest looking game system. GIVE ME CURVES!!!!

[Dark Jaguar]

I prefer no curves. I like sleek box shapes with rounded edges and corners (to prevent stabbing). It's for the practical purpose of being able to sit them all next to each other and get a lot more fit into a smaller space than those with those odd curved shapes.

And the PS3 is curved.

[A Black Falcon]

I still think the N64 is the coolest looking game system. GIVE ME CURVES!!!!

I agree, the N64 looks great... while it is true that the X360 is curved (inward) and the PS3 is too (outwards), neither one looks as good as the N64. For one, they both are supposed to be vertical, while the best way to keep a console is horizontal, where the X360 particularly doesn't look so good... and as for the PS3, not only is it really big but... well... it's Sony... :D (really, the PS3 does look okay, but as good as the N64? No. Still though, it's got better style than the Wii... sorry, but I prefer its curved design to the straight lines of the Wii... just like how the N64 is better than the GC or Wii for the same reason...)

The N64 also has the best controller, but that's a different question. :)

[Great Rumbler]

Gears of War? Bah, zero innovation! (according to EA...)

I'd say that in some ways that person from EA is right, although the fact that the statement came from within EA makes it absolutely ridiculous.

The gameplay is essentially a copy of GRAW's over-the-shoulder third-person view-point and it relies heavily on using cover. The difference is that it focuses much more on action than avoiding detection.

The story borrows from the Starship Troopers-esque space marine archetype, that was in everything from Halo to Alien, and the Half-Life 2's alien-overun-of-Earth style of story. The presentation of the story is more in line with movies about modern warfare than Halo, which is at time little more than space opera. I'd say the story is a cross between a gritty Half-Life 2 and Starship Troopers without all the philosophy.

So, yeah, it's not innovative as it borrows from pre-existing games/movies/books. However, what EA fails to realise is that there is a big difference between having a lack of innovation and being completely unorginal; and GoW is most certainly not unorginal. And for that matter, not having innovation has almost nothing to do with whether a game is fun. And GoW is most certainly anything but not fun. Did people hate Super Mario Bros. 3 because it was only an evolution of the SMB format perfected by the first game? Of course not!

In other words, GoW is awesome and EA is stupid.

Note: All references to Starship Troopers refer only to the book and not that awful movie by Paul Verhoeven.

[Dark Jaguar]

Aren't the enemy things mole people instead of aliens though? I was under the impression they were an advance society hidden deep within the CENTER OF THE EARTH, who intend on emerging and giving the filthy surface dwellers their comeuppance!

ABF, I disagree. I thought the look of the N64 was "interesting" but now I see it more as "silly". I much prefer sleek lines now, like the Gamecube. For that matter, I MUCH prefer the look of my (totally free) DS Lite to the look of the original, partly because of it's "totally ripped off apple" aesthetic of a box but with rounded edges. I also love the GBASP in contrast to the shape of the original model (and the micro in fact). As for the curve of the PS3, I hate it. If I ever get one, it's basically forced itself to be the "top" system on whatever stack I make. With the 360, the only curve is the very slight curve of the front (which actually I don't like that much, and aside from a nice overall shape I don't like the look of the 360), so I can stack whatever I want, within weight and cooling considerations. The Wii is a tiny router sized and shaped box, only more square. I have no intention of using that little stand as it distorts the perfect harmony of a rectangular angular perfection, or some buddhist nonsense like that, but really it's because it wouldn't do any good in it's horizontal configuration and it makes it easier to stick in places.

So yeah, flat all around makes it the very easiest to make room for it and stack it wherever you need. Function before form, but Apple found a way to make box shapes look frickin' sweet anyway, just by rounding the edges and eliminating all that silly decorative stuff on there (like different colored parts and rubber bits and "radical" flames and stuff for decoration) excepting perhaps a logo. Nintendo totally copied it, and I'm glad they did. Also the transparent plastic over opaque plastic is a nice touch (though I must note the GBA SP still looks sweet even without that).

[Great Rumbler]

Aren't the enemy things mole people instead of aliens though? I was under the impression they were an advance society hidden deep within the CENTER OF THE EARTH, who intend on emerging and giving the filthy surface dwellers their comeuppance!

Yes, that's the case. GoW has "aliens" that burrow up from under the ground and eventually conquered much the Earth, while Half-Life 2 has aliens that came to Earth from another dimension and eventually conquered it. So, it's really little more than a cosmetic difference, at least at this point.

[Dark Jaguar]

They aren't aliens, at least not extraterrestrials (intraterrestrials?), if they are FROM our world.

[A Black Falcon]

ABF, I disagree. I thought the look of the N64 was "interesting" but now I see it more as "silly". I much prefer sleek lines now, like the Gamecube. For that matter, I MUCH prefer the look of my (totally free) DS Lite to the look of the original, partly because of it's "totally ripped off apple" aesthetic of a box but with rounded edges. I also love the GBASP in contrast to the shape of the original model (and the micro in fact). As for the curve of the PS3, I hate it. If I ever get one, it's basically forced itself to be the "top" system on whatever stack I make. With the 360, the only curve is the very slight curve of the front (which actually I don't like that much, and aside from a nice overall shape I don't like the look of the 360), so I can stack whatever I want, within weight and cooling considerations. The Wii is a tiny router sized and shaped box, only more square. I have no intention of using that little stand as it distorts the perfect harmony of a rectangular angular perfection, or some buddhist nonsense like that, but really it's because it wouldn't do any good in it's horizontal configuration and it makes it easier to stick in places.

See, that's one problem I have with the DS Lite and Wii... I don't like Apple designs. :) Apple's thing is style above substance, and while Nintendo isn't as bad as them, I don't look at copying Apple's design ideas as a positive thing really... sure, PCs are boring. But at least they work. :)

With the 360, the only curve is the very slight curve of the front (which actually I don't like that much, and aside from a nice overall shape I don't like the look of the 360),

Huh? The system is curved in on the sides (top and bottom if it's horizontal)...

The Wii is a tiny router sized and shaped box, only more square. I have no intention of using that little stand as it distorts the perfect harmony of a rectangular angular perfection, or some buddhist nonsense like that, but really it's because it wouldn't do any good in it's horizontal configuration and it makes it easier to stick in places.

The Wii is interesting because it's small, but it looks cooler with the blue light on... (though I wouldn't want it on all the time) Better design than the GC? Perhaps, yeah. As I said, I just never loved the GC's design all that much... it's not bad, but it's not really great either.

... once you look at it long enough, though, almost any console looks good in some way...

ABF, I disagree. I thought the look of the N64 was "interesting" but now I see it more as "silly".

"Silly" is a word I would never use for the N64's design. The only negative thing I can say about its design is that I liked the original "Ultra 64" name and logo more than "Nintendo 64", but oh well...

[Dark Jaguar]

Personally I think the "64" name was stupid. Nintendo was really selling the graphics on that, and it resulted in a lot of games having very stupid sounding names (thank Nintendo they didn't call the Zelda games "Zelda 64" as was originally rumored). The sad thing is the N64 is a 32 bit system. Sure you can probably dig up the number "64" somewhere in some spec list, but if you're talking about the main processor, and bits always were used to describe that, then it's a 32 bit system. That aside, great fun. (Oh and, aside from the aweful Z button, I prefer the GCN controller to the N64 one by far, but we've already talked about that to death, suffice it to say it would have been nice if they kept the 6 button layout).

As for the 360, I HAVE one. The top and bottom (since I keep it horizontal) are completely flat. I thought it was curved inwards too, from the photos, but that's an optical illusion. The thing that causes it is the bottom and top are closer to you (because the FRONT is what curves inward), which gives the illusion that the closer parts are wider. Not so.

[The Former DMiller]

... sure, PCs are boring. But at least they work.

Hey, I'm typing this on a 7.5-year old Mac G3. Seems like it's working pretty fine to me. And how exactly are Apple's products designed with style before substance? The iPod became popular not just because of what it looked like, but because the scroll wheel was incredibly intuitive and easy-to-use. It's entirely possible to have style and substance at the same time.
*end Mac rant*

[Great Rumbler]

They aren't aliens, at least not extraterrestrials (intraterrestrials?), if they are FROM our world.

The concept is still exactly the same in its execution.

[Dark Jaguar]

I know, that was kinda my point. In fact it's TRANSPARENTLY the same :D. I'm just saying they aren't aliens (well, in a sense they are, but not in the typical "from another planet" sense).

[Dark Jaguar]

Hey, I'm typing this on a 7.5-year old Mac G3. Seems like it's working pretty fine to me. And how exactly are Apple's products designed with style before substance? The iPod became popular not just because of what it looked like, but because the scroll wheel was incredibly intuitive and easy-to-use. It's entirely possible to have style and substance at the same time.
*end Mac rant*

Scroll wheel? I've seen a few iPods at friend's houses and never saw a scroll wheel on the thing. Where's it at, and what would it be doing on an MP3 player?

[A Black Falcon]

Hey, I'm typing this on a 7.5-year old Mac G3. Seems like it's working pretty fine to me. And how exactly are Apple's products designed with style before substance? The iPod became popular not just because of what it looked like, but because the scroll wheel was incredibly intuitive and easy-to-use. It's entirely possible to have style and substance at the same time.
*end Mac rant*

And I'm on a 5.16 year old PC... but I think you know what I meant. :) True, sometimes form and function can both be present, but not always... the iMac is the best example... it had form, but function... no. Same for one-button Mac mice, the lack of removable media drives in those things, etc... I know that Apple has advanced on some of those fronts, but they still just have one button... Nintendo hasn't gone the whole way on the Apple front -- they don't do the "highly overpriced products that make us more money because we know our devoted fans will pay them anyway"; Nintendo does overprice things ($250 for the Wii?), but not as blatantly as Apple where you can get equivilantly powered PCs for a lot less money (and with three button mice... :D). And, of course, Nintendo actually cares about games, in marked contrast to Apple (seven and a half year PC? Yeah, not much gaming power there... I know I'm not much of one to talk, running a five year old PC that can't run most new games, but still, it runs lots of stuff and I like it for it. And when I replace it (by next spring I'm sure) it'll be back up to par. Anyway though...

I guess that part of why I dislike Mac style is because I dislike MacOS and so I say "and I don't like their design either", but I do think that Apple puts too much focus on design and not enough on function... (*recalls old debate about MacOS having fewer features*) ... I know, Apple has devoted fans anyway so they don't need to bother. They're not trying to become #1 in the computer business anymore, they just need to appeal to their base... (the iPod is different; for one, it's Windows XP compatible... :)) and yes, PCs often look pretty boring. They're computers, how stylish do they have to look? (and I think my computer's black and silver design doesn't look half bad. I mean, there's only so many ways you can dress up a mini tower, and no serious computer user would want one of those shrunken form factor iMac/eMac/whatever things Apple (or some PC manufacturers trying to capitalize on the idea, they are just as bad) comes up with... upgradability is very important...

As for the iPod, I have never used a portable music device, so I don't know which ones are good... I know the iPod is popular, but don't know if it's because it's actually better or just because it became popular and so everyone said "I need the popular one"... I'm sure it's good if it's so popular though. I just know that there's a lot of annoying incompatibilities between the various players and the various services that sell music online, but that's a different issue...

Personally I think the "64" name was stupid. Nintendo was really selling the graphics on that, and it resulted in a lot of games having very stupid sounding names (thank Nintendo they didn't call the Zelda games "Zelda 64" as was originally rumored). The sad thing is the N64 is a 32 bit system. Sure you can probably dig up the number "64" somewhere in some spec list, but if you're talking about the main processor, and bits always were used to describe that, then it's a 32 bit system. That aside, great fun. (Oh and, aside from the aweful Z button, I prefer the GCN controller to the N64 one by far, but we've already talked about that to death, suffice it to say it would have been nice if they kept the 6 button layout).

No, you're wrong, the N64 has a 64-bit CPU by all accounts I've heard. The Jaguar did indeed have some 32-bit components, and the TurboGrafx-16 was actually twin 8-bit CPUs, but I'm pretty sure that the N64 was indeed 64 bit in all critical areas, including the CPU. But really, the number of "bits" in the system doesn't matter. The Xbox 360 is a 32-bit system by that measure... :)

GCN controller over the N64 "by far"? I know we've talked about it before, but that's such strong language, and I disagree completely, so I can't ignore it... :) ... I just like the N64 controller more. Better analog stick (degrades faster, but better while it lasts), better face button layout, better trigger (left shoulder button for 3d games)... what's worse about it? Not having a barely-used right analog stick? I still woudn't miss the thing if controllers stopped having those... :)

As for the 360, I HAVE one. The top and bottom (since I keep it horizontal) are completely flat. I thought it was curved inwards too, from the photos, but that's an optical illusion. The thing that causes it is the bottom and top are closer to you (because the FRONT is what curves inward), which gives the illusion that the closer parts are wider. Not so.

Interesting... I have seen one in person, but didn't look that closely I guess...

[Dark Jaguar]

You disagree that I prefer the GCN controller? Because that's what I said, and I DO prefer it. :D I'm not saying it's an absolute better, and I agree that the Z button is terribly placed and that 4 button layout is a nerfed 6 button layout, but other than that, I find the GCN controller way more comfortable, and every button is right there instead of having to switch hand styles to reach the D pad or stick (though the d-pad on the GCN controller isn't as good as the d-pad on the n64, it's placement is fine to me). I also much prefer the sticks, as they have soft rubber grips and are "smoother" to me. They don't dig into my fingers nearly as much. Admittedly, they still aren't the best. I actually think MS got it right with their thumsticks. I have NEVER got a sore thumb from those sticks (and actually, not from the PS2 sticks either), but I got gamer's thumb all the time from the N64 stick, and still occasionally with the GCN stick. Those ridges are pointless! :D

Anyway,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N64

Guess I was wrong. Yep, 64 bit CPU all right. I had been reading 32-bit for the longest time though when I read on it's stats.

[A Black Falcon]

You disagree that I prefer the GCN controller? Because that's what I said, and I DO prefer it. I'm not saying it's an absolute better, and I agree that the Z button is terribly placed and that 4 button layout is a nerfed 6 button layout, but other than that, I find the GCN controller way more comfortable, and every button is right there instead of having to switch hand styles to reach the D pad or stick (though the d-pad on the GCN controller isn't as good as the d-pad on the n64, it's placement is fine to me). I also much prefer the sticks, as they have soft rubber grips and are "smoother" to me. They don't dig into my fingers nearly as much. Admittedly, they still aren't the best. I actually think MS got it right with their thumsticks. I have NEVER got a sore thumb from those sticks (and actually, not from the PS2 sticks either), but I got gamer's thumb all the time from the N64 stick, and still occasionally with the GCN stick. Those ridges are pointless!

And the number of N64 games that use both the analog stick and d-pad is... erm, do any for any function you ever need to use? L or the d-pad once in a while get mapped to "turn on/off map" (Zelda) or "horn" (some racing game I think) but that's about it, so I don't see the point of that complaint... as for comfort, I'd say the N64 one is more comfortable. On the left side your hand is always right on the controls, no need to switch between a lower d-pad (the location of which I've gotten somewhat used to but still find worse than the normal upper location) and upper analog stick, and no big fat shoulder buttons you need to press far in to get to register in many games; simply hit the trigger button under your second finger. On the right? The R buttons are equal I guess (N64 easier to press, GC slightly better placed); Z in the GC is awful of course; and the GC has a better face button layout. No contest, N64 wins... and it wins in design too. I definitely prefer its design and style to the GC one by far.

your main point is the analog stick one, obviously. Hmm... I guess N64 analog sticks are less "rubbery", but I think that's what I like about them. Sure, they might be slightly less comfortable for long play sessions, but I really liked the feel of using them, and there's no other controller out there that's like it. Everything else tries to be like the Dual Shock to varying degrees, and that's too bad... I really do prefer the feel and design of the N64 analog stick to the Dualshock. Sore thumb? Maybe once in a while from the N64, but the benefits are worth it, and it's no worse than any d-pad controller.

Oh yeah, and the ridges do have a point: to help your grip. PSX analog sticks have no ridges so they're slipprier... Nintendo has the better idea overall.

[Dark Jaguar]

MY THUMB WAS FILLED WITH PUSS!

And I've never just totally "lost all grip" on the other two controllers. Merely having a rough rubber covering is more than enough.

[Great Rumbler]

Does anyone here even have an Xbox360? No? Alright, carry on your completely random discussion then.

[Great Rumbler]

For your consideration:



Hmm...

[Dark Jaguar]

I do.

And by the way, that photo of yours is STILL misleading :D. That book's shadow looks like a gap, though if you look closely it's clear that it's not a gap but just the book in shadow and it is still "flush with the system".

Try taking a picture from an angle, because the illusion is still present there.

[Great Rumbler]

There's no illusion present, unless it's so good that it can cause a measuring tape to display incorrect measurements. And it's clear to me that a space exists between the book and the system even when they are closely pressed together. I've tested this in the middle of the system as well and it still holds true.

[Dark Jaguar]

So your's does have an inward curve? I'd be surprised by that. Mine's completely flat on both sides. I sit my Gamecube on top of it.

[The Former DMiller]

Same for one-button Mac mice, the lack of removable media drives in those things, etc... I know that Apple has advanced on some of those fronts, but they still just have one button...

I agree the one-button mice were terrible, but they have been shipping with multi-button mice for a while now. As for the iMac, it is really meant for a different market than the computer user who upgrades their system every few years. If someone has very little computer knowledge they can get an iMac cheaply and forget about it. It's still a quality product, though, as we have an iMac in the family that's going on 6 years old now.

Nintendo hasn't gone the whole way on the Apple front -- they don't do the "highly overpriced products that make us more money because we know our devoted fans will pay them anyway"; Nintendo does overprice things ($250 for the Wii?), but not as blatantly as Apple where you can get equivilantly powered PCs for a lot less money (and with three button mice... :D).

Macs have never been much more expensive than PCs when you compare system to system, but this myth propagates because there are no bargain-basement Macs, and you can't really build your own Mac out of random parts like you can with PCs. Macs nowadays are no more expensive than PCs if you compare their features.

And, of course, Nintendo actually cares about games, in marked contrast to Apple (seven and a half year PC? Yeah, not much gaming power there... I know I'm not much of one to talk, running a five year old PC that can't run most new games, but still, it runs lots of stuff and I like it for it. And when I replace it (by next spring I'm sure) it'll be back up to par. Anyway though...

I can't argue the games thing because it's true, and one of the drawbacks of owning a Mac. The next version of the Mac OS had pretty solid Windows emulation, though, so playing games meant for PCs will be pretty easy in the future. (Technically it's not emulation, but I won't get into the specifics.)

I guess that part of why I dislike Mac style is because I dislike MacOS and so I say "and I don't like their design either", but I do think that Apple puts too much focus on design and not enough on function... (*recalls old debate about MacOS having fewer features*) ...

I know you don't want to have that old debate again, and I'm not going to convince you that OS X is better than Windows since it's a matter of opinion, but now that I use PCs everyday at work it has convinced me that the Mac OS is better. The most recent frustration I had was trying to take a screenshot in Windows. I wanted just a portion of the screen, which in the Mac OS can be done by pressing a key combination and then dragging the cursor over the section of the screen you want. In Windows I have to press Alt-Print Screen to take a picture of the window and then paste the picture into Microsoft Word so I can crop the section I want. Then I can save it in the format I want it. That's just one example of how something that is simple to do on a Mac takes extra steps on a PC.

As for the iPod, I have never used a portable music device, so I don't know which ones are good... I know the iPod is popular, but don't know if it's because it's actually better or just because it became popular and so everyone said "I need the popular one"... I'm sure it's good if it's so popular though. I just know that there's a lot of annoying incompatibilities between the various players and the various services that sell music online, but that's a different issue...

The iPod is a pretty good product. I bought one not because it was from Apple, but because it was the first small MP3 player with a decent capacity. Before the iPod if you wanted a player that stored 5 GB you needed to carry around a brick. And the scroll wheel I mentioned was not the scroll wheel you see on mice, DJ, and the newer iPods don't have the scroll wheel anymore.

[Great Rumbler]

So your's does have an inward curve? I'd be surprised by that. Mine's completely flat on both sides. I sit my Gamecube on top of it.

I can set my GC on mine as well, but that doesn't mean it's completely flat. The top and the bottom [from a vertical perspective] curve very slightly inward at an equal rate, meaning that some flat can be placed on it with no difficulty because its "feet" are setting at exactly the same height [from a horizontal perspective].

From what I'm seeing here, the Xbox360 is ever so slighlty narrower in the middle than it is on the ends.

[Dark Jaguar]

I just looked at it with careful measuring like you suggest, and you're right. It does curve, ever so very slightly. Not nearly as much as that illusion might lead one to believe though.

[A Black Falcon]

I agree the one-button mice were terrible, but they have been shipping with multi-button mice for a while now. As for the iMac, it is really meant for a different market than the computer user who upgrades their system every few years. If someone has very little computer knowledge they can get an iMac cheaply and forget about it. It's still a quality product, though, as we have an iMac in the family that's going on 6 years old now.

They still have fewer buttons though; PCs have been shipping with three-button (clickable mousewheel) mice for a long time now, while Mac mousewheels aren't buttons. And yes, the iMac was for people who don't like computers, but I wouldn't say that that doesn't mean it shouldn't be criticized for its problems...

Macs have never been much more expensive than PCs when you compare system to system, but this myth propagates because there are no bargain-basement Macs, and you can't really build your own Mac out of random parts like you can with PCs. Macs nowadays are no more expensive than PCs if you compare their features.

I find this very hard to believe... but even so, you say it yourself: since you cannot make a Mac yourself and must buy one from Apple, prices ARE higher. PCs, unlike macs, are an open platform (and that's a good thing). :)

I can't argue the games thing because it's true, and one of the drawbacks of owning a Mac. The next version of the Mac OS had pretty solid Windows emulation, though, so playing games meant for PCs will be pretty easy in the future. (Technically it's not emulation, but I won't get into the specifics.)

Is that actually fast enough for gaming though? The "Windows in a Mac" thing...

I know you don't want to have that old debate again, and I'm not going to convince you that OS X is better than Windows since it's a matter of opinion, but now that I use PCs everyday at work it has convinced me that the Mac OS is better. The most recent frustration I had was trying to take a screenshot in Windows. I wanted just a portion of the screen, which in the Mac OS can be done by pressing a key combination and then dragging the cursor over the section of the screen you want. In Windows I have to press Alt-Print Screen to take a picture of the window and then paste the picture into Microsoft Word so I can crop the section I want. Then I can save it in the format I want it. That's just one example of how something that is simple to do on a Mac takes extra steps on a PC.

Hmm... hit key combo and then select part of screen, or hit key and then paste into image editor and select (cut out) part of screen (and resave)... doesn't seem THAT much more complex...

... wait, using Word as an image editor? Huh? Even MS Paint is better at that!

[Dark Jaguar]

That fake Windows that was emulated? Nowhere near fast enough. However, the new setup is not that. Since new Macs use x86 architecture, they can flat out RUN Windows at full speed. One just needs to install it, and Apple provided a special bootloader software so that when one starts the computer they can select which OS to use.

That said, just gaining existing functionality doesn't justify the cost of buying a whole new computer for me.

[Great Rumbler]

There's really only one thing I can complain about with Gears of War and that is that the game is VERY VERY SHORT. I think my total run time on easy mode 7-8 hours. And it really felt like that was a lot more to the story that what was in the game, as in a lot of things that could have been elaborated on but weren't in favor of leaving that for the inevitable sequel.

There's always the higher difficulty modes, I suppose...

[Dark Jaguar]

So are they doing the whole "cliffhanger" dynamic?

[Great Rumbler]

It's not really a cliffhanger per se, but it definitely leaves room for a sequel. And the main character's backstory is only hinted at through the course of the game and never really mentioned in any kind of detail. It just feels like there's a lot more going on than what is presented in the game.

[Paco]

There's really only one thing I can complain about with Gears of War and that is that the game is VERY VERY SHORT. I think my total run time on easy mode 7-8 hours. And it really felt like that was a lot more to the story that what was in the game, as in a lot of things that could have been elaborated on but weren't in favor of leaving that for the inevitable sequel.

There's always the higher difficulty modes, I suppose...

I haven't played very many games when the easy mode lasted more than 10 hours. Makes sense afterall considering the AI is dumbed down, its purpose to allow those to go through the game with the least amount of hassle. I don't know what the satisfaction is in that other than to say you finished it.

[Captain_Rush]

Just wow, big debate over a system I dindt think was all too great, computers and a game....cool. So, Gears Of War didnt interest me cause I didnt really like the style of gameplay going on in it, I mean the third person thing is cool and all but just didnt catch my interest. Now, ehh a computer that does what I want it to do or can do what I want it to do is all good with me, I'm quite happy with my 2 year old lappy. And now the N64, it was enjoyable when it came out and by the time camecube rolled around I was pretty much finshed with ye old 64, it had its perks and its few fun awesome games but I agree with DJ I prefer the Gamecube controller over the 64's, much more comfortable and easy to use in my opinion, nice and easy feel to it as I played through most of my games, it was rare I said "Damn, this is starting to hurt my hand" while playing with the Gamecube controller while with the 64 it was quite often I said that line, which made it undesirable to play when I was bored.

Theres my two bits.

[Great Rumbler]

I haven't played very many games when the easy mode lasted more than 10 hours.

Half-Life 2 is between 15-20 hours.

Really the only thing that would make it longer is that I would probably have to do certain parts a few more times because I get killed more easily. With Half-Life 2, it's the content that gives the game lenght, not the difficulty. For the most part though, FPSs aren't all that long, but I really expected a bit more than 8 hours on my first play through.

[A Black Falcon]

That fake Windows that was emulated? Nowhere near fast enough. However, the new setup is not that. Since new Macs use x86 architecture, they can flat out RUN Windows at full speed. One just needs to install it, and Apple provided a special bootloader software so that when one starts the computer they can select which OS to use.

Macs still usually have worse graphics cards and stuff than PC, and I'm pretty sure you definitely pay more for Macs than equally powered PCs (comparing CPU speeds?), so just having Windows won't solve all your problems... Also, aren't there some issues with Boot Camp (just remembered the name of the thing)?

There's really only one thing I can complain about with Gears of War and that is that the game is VERY VERY SHORT. I think my total run time on easy mode 7-8 hours. And it really felt like that was a lot more to the story that what was in the game, as in a lot of things that could have been elaborated on but weren't in favor of leaving that for the inevitable sequel.

In recent years FPSes are usually short, for some reason...

[Dark Jaguar]

Hey I didn't say Macs were the perfect solution to all of life's problems (that's Steve Jobs), I'm just saying it can run Windows well now. :D

[Paco]

Half-Life 2 is between 15-20 hours.

Really the only thing that would make it longer is that I would probably have to do certain parts a few more times because I get killed more easily. With Half-Life 2, it's the content that gives the game lenght, not the difficulty. For the most part though, FPSs aren't all that long, but I really expected a bit more than 8 hours on my first play through.

Yeah, Half-Life 2 was the only game that came to mind that's longer than average, that's why I said most FPS...

[Great Rumbler]

Half-Life 2, Metroid Prime 1 and 2, Halo, Resident Evil 4, Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfight. All those games take well over eight hours, and that's being very generous with my GoW play-through time [i.e it was probably closer to 6-7 hours].

[Dark Jaguar]

Halo cheated though, using the power of redundancy.

[Great Rumbler]

That doesn't negate my point.

[Dark Jaguar]

I wasn't trying to negate it (sheesh). I was just pointing out that Halo's an unfair example. It's not always "with you or against you" ya know!

[A Black Falcon]

Just wow, big debate over a system I dindt think was all too great, computers and a game....cool. So, Gears Of War didnt interest me cause I didnt really like the style of gameplay going on in it, I mean the third person thing is cool and all but just didnt catch my interest.

I wouldn't want Gears either, even if I had a 360... I don't like dual-analog gamepads for FPSes at all...

And now the N64, it was enjoyable when it came out and by the time camecube rolled around I was pretty much finshed with ye old 64, it had its perks and its few fun awesome games but I agree with DJ I prefer the Gamecube controller over the 64's, much more comfortable and easy to use in my opinion, nice and easy feel to it as I played through most of my games, it was rare I said "Damn, this is starting to hurt my hand" while playing with the Gamecube controller while with the 64 it was quite often I said that line, which made it undesirable to play when I was bored.

As you can guess I disagree quite a bit, as I said earlier... :)

I don't really get the "N64 controller is less comfortable" thing, though. I've never felt that it was in any way more or less uncomfortable than any other gamepad, and with its superior button layout and controls, it's better in so many others...

[The Former DMiller]

They still have fewer buttons though; PCs have been shipping with three-button (clickable mousewheel) mice for a long time now, while Mac mousewheels aren't buttons. And yes, the iMac was for people who don't like computers, but I wouldn't say that that doesn't mean it shouldn't be criticized for its problems...

The Mac mouse does have a clickable mousewheel. On top of that the mousewheel can scroll in any of the compass directions as opposed to just vertically like standard PC mice.

I find this very hard to believe... but even so, you say it yourself: since you cannot make a Mac yourself and must buy one from Apple, prices ARE higher. PCs, unlike macs, are an open platform (and that's a good thing).

Although you do have to buy your computer from Apple, you can buy a barebones computer and then add parts from 3rd party manufacturers. Pretty much everything sans the motherboard can be replaced. I might even be wrong about the motherboard not being replaceable, but I've never looked into it so I could be wrong.

Hmm... hit key combo and then select part of screen, or hit key and then paste into image editor and select (cut out) part of screen (and resave)... doesn't seem THAT much more complex...

... wait, using Word as an image editor? Huh? Even MS Paint is better at that!

Using Word is the way someone told me how to do it. I tried to use Paint but there is no crop tool in Paint so it was pretty useless.

That fake Windows that was emulated? Nowhere near fast enough. However, the new setup is not that. Since new Macs use x86 architecture, they can flat out RUN Windows at full speed. One just needs to install it, and Apple provided a special bootloader software so that when one starts the computer they can select which OS to use.

Exactly. It isn't emulation anymore, which was a huge problem with the old Virtual PC program. I was able to play games in Virtual PC, but they didn't run all that well. Apple switching to Intel solved a lot of problems, including comparing processor speeds. Now you can pretty much say that a 3GHz PC processor is that same speed as a 3GHz Mac processor if the PC uses the Core Duo.

[A Black Falcon]

Using Word is the way someone told me how to do it. I tried to use Paint but there is no crop tool in Paint so it was pretty useless.

Crop? What would that do? If what you want is part of the screen, assuming it's a square isn't all you have to do is, in Paint, select the part of the image you want to keep, copy/cut it out, paste it into a new paint window, and save?

The Mac mouse does have a clickable mousewheel. On top of that the mousewheel can scroll in any of the compass directions as opposed to just vertically like standard PC mice.

I used it once, didn't notice the button... did notice how small it was, though. The four-direction scrolling is kind of nice, but it's weird... I want the buttons to be visible, it's a bit disorienting with a mouse with multiple buttons but without actual easily visible buttons to click... :)

Although you do have to buy your computer from Apple, you can buy a barebones computer and then add parts from 3rd party manufacturers. Pretty much everything sans the motherboard can be replaced. I might even be wrong about the motherboard not being replaceable, but I've never looked into it so I could be wrong.

For even more money? :)

(remember, Microsoft isn't Apple's enemy, it's what Apple wishes it was... :))

Exactly. It isn't emulation anymore, which was a huge problem with the old Virtual PC program. I was able to play games in Virtual PC, but they didn't run all that well. Apple switching to Intel solved a lot of problems, including comparing processor speeds. Now you can pretty much say that a 3GHz PC processor is that same speed as a 3GHz Mac processor if the PC uses the Core Duo.

I know I've heard Boot Camp has some issues, but yeah, I'm sure it's better than Virtual PC by far... doesn't fully help with the hardware issues that is (that is, you need Mac-compatible stuff, and that limits your options in some ways for sure)...

[Dark Jaguar]

Vista is a pretty big drop of features. The main feature being, well, the support for the replacement for BIOS. Mac OS supports it now, and I love the idea of drivers stored on the devices themselves and an architecture that removes the need to get OS specific drivers. Hopefully MS will release a major update to Vista to add in that support.

But here's another thing. I'm wanting superior ways to get updates for all my stuff. I think drivers, programs, whatever, they should all be designed with some as to be defined "update standard". That is, they all have some basic data in common that can be loaded into a single program, ported to various OSes, so that I can just run a single program and get all my updates from that.

[Great Rumbler]

I wouldn't want Gears either, even if I had a 360... I don't like dual-analog gamepads for FPSes at all...

You guys are crazy, the gameplay in Gears of War is awesome. And it's not an FPS, it's a third-person shooter like Resident Evil 4 and Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter.

[A Black Falcon]

The controls for console FPSes and third-person action games like those are identical, so that really doesn't matter.

Maybe if I played one more (read: actually owned one) I'd get used to it eventually, but as it is the only console FPSes I have are Perfect Dark, Turok Rage Wars, and Metroid Prime, and the N64 games have digital movement, not analog, and Metroid of course has its own system... but really, why should I when FPS controls are so much better on PCs?

[Dark Jaguar]

Because controls aside, where else are you going to get this game?