JasonGW

Not true at all, Windows 2000 can run any game XP can. Given the same level of patches they are virtually the same. Windows XP makes it slightly easier with retro games with it's enhanced compatibility options but that's about it. As for VMWare, Virtual PC also has some level of DirectX capability though I'm not sure exactly what this is.Windows 2000 compatibility is enabled through the use of a shortcut to the .exe you wish to run. If the comp ability tab doesn't show for the properties of a shortcut you need to register slayerui.dll. Often you'll find that it's possible to get something running with the aid of official (or otherwise) patches, compatibility settings and running as an Admin. However, nothing is for certain Entries in the db at www.ntcompatible.com is often a useful indication on what does/doesn't work. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually there are a fair number of games that *won't* run on 2000 at all. Also, pretty much anything that makes significant use of DirectX will run *better* on XP than 2000. While there are certainly a few stragglers who hold onto the myth that 2000 is "the same as" or "better than" XP, the truth is that XP Professional is superior in every way, particularly now at SP2 level. While it's also true that with some hacking/tweaking/fiddling you can get a lot of stuff that isn't *supposed* to run on 2000 to do so, one should ask: Why bother? It's not worth the hassle. VMWare, as far as I'm aware, offers little to no DirectX compatibility. I haven't used VirtualPC, so I can't comment Jason

what are you smokin crack? Tell us why you didn't like it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have to agree, the dude is smoking crack. I admit, I wish the choppers flew more like the ones in Desert Combat (at least they're a closer match than, say, BF: Vietnam was) but overall I like it a lot. It's got LOADS of replay value, and I'm getting better with the helicopter every time I play. The animation, the texture work, etc. is downright awesome. If I have one major gripe it's that playing online not many folks are making use of the voice communication system to organize strikes and whatnot. It's pretty chaotic out there right now. I hope that people will begin to utilize this awesome system soon, though, and then we'll see some amazing battles Jason

I agree with the above. If it won't run on XP it's even LESS likely it will run on 2000. Compatibility mode in XP is your best shot. Alternatively, if his system is fast enough, run VMWare and build a virtual Windows 98 machine that he can play the games on (although if they use direct3D at all he'll have to run them in software emulation mode...) Jason

Sony's big mistake is EXACTLY in trying to make PS3 an "all in one" device. The trouble, historically, with all in one's is that they do *everything* in a very mediocre way. Just look at developer's discussing the CELL: They call it a disappointment. Apple reviewed the CELL before choosing Intel, and Job's himself called it "lackluster", "a disappointment", and said that it would "not even perform as well as existing G5 CPU's". In other words, CELL is marketing hype, nothing more, just like the so-called "Emotion Engine", which as we all saw, was a JOKE. They've sold well due to excellent marketing, pure and simple. The PS2 was inferior to both gamecube and XBox from a hardware perspective. They do NOT, on the whole, have better games, not by a long shot. In 100% of cases where the same game is on multiple platforms, the gamecube and XBox versions are clearly superior. What Sony's had going for them, however, were a lot of developers doing exclusive content. In the upcoming war, they've already lost a HUGE number of key exclusive developers, including Square, Konami and Rockstar, who will all be making games for XBox 360. Actually, the DS *is* online capable "out of the box". The GC is not, that's true. Of course, neither is the PS2 (or rather, it wasn't during the first FOUR YEARS of it's life). If you'll recall, Sony claimed, during Dreamcast's day, that there was no market for online gaming. They derided Sega's built-in online gaming capabilities and claimed their (faux) hardware superiority. In the end, we have seen clearly that PS2 was no more capable than Dreamcast, and in fact the few games that both consoles got early on *still* look better than their PS2 equivelents. While I wouldn't toss my PS (there are a number of good games), neither would I toss my GC. There are numerous excellent games for GC, including Zelda: The Wind Waker (you won't find a better animated game on ANY console), Metroid Prime 1 and 2, Animal Crossing (my GF loves it), Tales of Symphonia and many others. In fact, it's very fare to say that Nintendo has a MUCH higher percentage of good games than Sony has. Whereas probably 80% of Nintendo's library is worth owning and keeping, only maybe 30-40% of Sony's library is worth the plastic it's burned on. Don't get me wrong, there are some very good games (Final Fantasys, though PS2 has *sorely* underdelivered on that series; Metal Gear Solid, etc.) but as a whole, most of the PS2 library is mediocre. No, single company developers are who make games. The games don't usually get farmed out all over the place, at least not in the case of major studios. The point is, though, that Sony's not owned the market based on *it's* games, they've owned it based on third party support from the likes of Square, Konami and Rockstar. In a bit of bad news for Sony in the upcoming generation, all three of these companies have announced support for XBox 360. With these major players--and many others--now going multiplatform, Sony's advantage has dropped dramatically. Actually the touch screen is *very* responsive and it *doesn't* eat batteries. You may not know this, but the DS's battery runs the system for 3-4 times longer than the PSP will run on its batteries. The PSP DOES have a nicer screen (though touch would be preferable) but the software sucks a**. It's nothing but a bunch of ports of PS2 games. Pathetic, really. Take into account that the PSP is sold as a 333Mhz machine and yet it's currently hardware locked at 222Mhz to conserve battery life, and you'll see even more of why PSP is a disappointment. It's also fun to go into a store 4 MONTHS after the PSP launch and see that they are *still* trying to sell those initial 1 million units. Of course, when you're so incredibly out of touch with the market that you demand $300+ out of consumers just to get out of the store with the system and ONE game, which you have to buy separately, it's no wonder the PSP has limp sale and the DS continues to outsell it worldwide. No, specs don't prove much (though don't tell that to the drooling PS3 fans who are still jerking off to Sony's misleading hype about Cell), games do. And in 100% of cases where a game exists on all three platforms, PS2's version looks the worst. THAT proves a lot. LOL, ok so you really like your buddy Nintendo, big deal! I really like PC games. But just because someone pokes fun of a system, title or what not, you say; dude you need some anger managment L8- <{POST_SNAPBACK}> All in all, it's not productive or helpful to be a FANBOY, and you guys need to get grips. Sony sells a lot of consoles, but that's not because of superior hardware or software, it's because of superior *marketing*. Emotion Engine is a JOKE, and everyone except the fanboys and Ken Kutaragi get that. We can tell just by looking at the games that never, ever looked *anything* like Toy Story in spite of Sony's lies. MS and Nintendo have brought a LOT of quality and innovation to this generation that would not have been there if Sony were in charge of the whole market. From the looks of things, their market share is about to get a whole lot smaller, too. Jason

I will try it out when I get home tonight! I've got one up and running as well, but haven't publisehd the IP yet, though I do want to so I can play it more. It's really good, though I think that the helicopters in Desert Combat are still *vastly* superior. Jason

I *still* use DVD shrink 3.2, and I have no trouble with it. It's sad to see development stop, but at the same time, guys, the project already got to a *great* level of quality, so it's still *highly* useable. Jason

The quests don't tell a story, what in the world are you talking about? WoW has NO STORY at all. Yeah, each character who gives you a quest has his little sob story about why you should go and collect 40 Courser Eyes for him, but that hardly constitutes *variety* in the questing. Collecting courser eyes, collecting rocket car parts, collecting pages...it's STILL just running around and collecting junk. Killing x number of mini tigers is no different than killing x number of giant tortoises, except the tortoises are higher level. Yay. I do agree that it will take more than 1 good MMORPG on 360 (or any platform, really) to kill WoW or any other MMORPG. People buy WoW because it has two names attached to it: Warcraft and Blizzard. It's not the most graphically gorgeous game ever (though it does look pretty good), and it sure doesn't have a wide variety of quests. Now that we have Guild Wars out (which looks MUCH better than WoW from a graphics standpoint) I think the point is also well made that even an MMO without a monthly fee isn't enough to kill the pay-to-play variety, for whatever reason. No odubt, there's a market for WoW, but it's not the market of discerning gamers who want an entertaining experience. WoW is fun when you're playing with friends, otherwise it's dull, frustrating and leaves a lot to be desired. Jason

True, you could play on a PvE server. However, the quests are STILL boring and repetitive. Not to mention that some class quests are STILL unfinished by Blizzard, 9 MONTHS after the game has released. A prime example is the Shaman Wind Totem quest. There simply is *no quest*, you go visit the guy and POOF, he gives you the totem. LAME. I'm gonna stay fast: This game is NOT worth $14.99 a month. I'm going to consider City of Villains (gonna try the City of Heroes 14 day trial in a bit here) and possibly Guild Wars. Even at Beta GW had nicer graphics and animation than WoW, but I'd like to see how the gameplay ends up being. Jason

I've been playing it since March, when I bought it and 6 months prepaid service. In the beginning it was a lot of fun, but now, as I'm in the level 40 range, it's incredibly *boring*. WoW's quests are stale, dull and repetitive. There appear to be three kinds in the game: 1. Run and fetch! 2. Kill X number of Monster Y 3. Find the pages of book X and bring them to character Y And...that's pretty much it. I'm doing the same quests at level 40 as I was doing at level 1. It's a complete JOKE, and the only thing tougher about these quests is that the monsters are higher level and/or you have to kill even MORE of them. It's boring enough when you have to run out and kill 5 monsters, but when you have to go out and kill THIRTY of them it gets pretty **** tedious. The new "Honor" system is a disgrace. Other players get Honor Points for killing you in PVP combat. That's all well and good except that the Alliance side outnumbers the horde, in some servers by 3 to 1. What this means from a practical standpoint is that sometimes there are so many alliance out ganking that the game becomes *unplayable*. A few weeks ago when I got to level 30 I went over to Desolace to do some questing. As soon as I crossed the border I got jumped by FIVE level 60 alliance pricks, who, of course, killed me. I made the LONG trek back to my body from teh graveyard, resurrected, and they killed me again. This happened 3 times (spawn camping sucks!) so I said screw it and decided to take the Rez penalty and raise up at the graveyard. Well that was a good idea, except that they had another group of THREE level 60's waiting there to kill me. So for about an hour I tried to come back to life so I could just play the damned game and these bastards killed me again and again and again. As if a single level 60 character couldn't have killed me himself, they had to have EIGHT total there to cover bother bases and make sure I stayed dead. Suffice to say, I ended up logging out and didn't play for a few days. Other players who are dicks make the game at times UNPLAYABLE. Battlegrounds has been hyped a lot lately, and I'll tell you this: It's fun, but it's nothing special. It's capture the flag, pure and simple. I'm not impressed, I've been playing CTF for YEARS in much better games than this. What's GOOD about battlegrounds is that right now everyone is so busy playing or WAITING to play the **** thing that many areas that were previously unplayable are finally available to you without getting constantly ganked. I can actually finish all my desolace quests *finally*. Anyway, I paid 6 months in advance, and I regret it. I will NOT be renewing my subscription to WoW and I recommend to others to avoid this game. It's buggy, it crashes often, the patching system is INCREDIBLY slow (you're better off visiting another site and downloading the patch than waiting for Blizzard's p***-poor patching system to download the thing) and many of the players are complete pricks. The imbalance of horde to alliance means that a lot of alliance people are running around bored and will repeatedly kill you and then spawn camp you just for the sake of doing it. This, among many other factors, make World of Warcraft a very POOR QUALITY game. Jason

Say what? The Saturn's controller was almost exactly the same as the Genesis controller, man! There wasn't anything wrong with it! As an aside, game quality was NOT the Saturn's problem. As a matter of fact, Saturn in its short lifespan had a LOT of very good, very high quality games, including several from Working Designs that were just *awesome*. Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the PSX was an *inferior* product to Saturn AND to N64 in terms of raw processing power. What it had going for it was the new CD format and it was apparently a lot easier to program for than the Saturn, which if you'll recall had EIGHT processors under the hood. For its time, it was a *seriously* beefy machine. I'm afraid there's no getting around it: Nintendo and Sega both *screwed up*. They made products that didn't meet the needs of the market or of developers or *both*, whereas Sony correctly assessed both sets of needs and coupled that with a huge marketing blitz that rocketed PSX to the top. The most powerful product does NOT always win, and if the PSX showed one thing only it's that sometimes it's the most *well rounded* product that wins. Jason

You can get it at GoGamer.com for $2.90. Buy it if you want it, it's not gonna break the bank. Jason

Maybe they didn't screw up. Maybe Sony just surpassed what was capable of both. If you have multiple employees and one excels and the others just do their job, do the ones that just do their job become screwups? Mind telling me a little about your marketing knowledge that makes you a candidate to make such a bold statement that you are willing to guarantee. What do you guarantee it with? Who are you? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sega screwed up by *silently* releasing Saturn, and doing so at a price point that was much more than anyone was willing to pay (As I recall, around $450). Nintendo screwed up by releasing the N64 as a *cartridge* based system, making them unable to compete effectively with lower priced CD games from Sony's playstation in spite of the fact that the N64 was a vastly superior machine. A CD based N64 would very likely have kicked the Playstation's a**. As for my guarantee that Sony will lose the top spot, for goodness sakes man, just look at HISTORY. No one *EVER* stays in the top spot forever. No one *ever* has. 25 years ago people said that KMART would never be knocked out of the #1 retailer spot, and where are they now? A third rate bottom of the barrel. EVERYONE screws up, EVERYONE miscalculates, EVERYONE takes a hit sometimes, and especially when you're #1, everyone is gunning for you. It's not a question of IF Sony will lose the top spot, it's a question of WHEN. It obviously wasn't this generation, it may not be the next or even the next--but it WILL happen, and anyone who's ever stepped into a history class and actually PAID ATTENTION knows it. Jason

I wish I knew. I've got a sealed copy of Suikoden II I've been dying to play, but there is no way in hell I am going to open it up, so I found an ISO of the game. However, I don't really want to MOD my PS2 if i don't have to, nor do I want to mod the PS1 if I end up *having* to mod something. Jason

I can see it now: Mom: "Bobby, are you vacuuming your room?!" Bobby: "No, mom, just playing Tekken 6!" Jason

I understood what you meant, and appreciate the poll. I'm sure you understand, as most reasonable folks do, that calling "winners" and "losers" now, 6 months to a year before these machines even *start* selling, is absurdity at its finest. Regards, Jason

I would bet too much heat and too low of yields. Slashdot had a link to IBM's unveiling of their Cell based blade server the other day, and the pictures of it were fear-striking. The heatsinks and fans on the CPU's must have been 90-120mm or so (hard to tell from the pic) and they were only running at 2.4Ghz. Whatever else we can say about Cell, it's gonna run *Hot*. Jason

Holy s***!!! You twist things to your liking don't you! Look up the thread a little bit. what I actually said was: If you're gonna quote, at least quote right! What you claim I said was absolute. What I said was partial. Get your arguments straight. Have someone else read this thread and tell you what you've been saying. Anyone with a level head will tell you that you've been arguing the XBox>PS2 line all along. I had a longer reply here, but I cut the flood control just too close and ended up loosing it... Here's one more person you've officially p***ed off...Congratulations for winning King of the Thread, with no-one else trying to get to the top. EDIT: And one more thing... take a closer look at the question above the actual poll.... "what is the best game console for you?" @Mods - Sorry for getting heated. I just hate it when people put words in my mouth. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You put the words in your own mouth, buddy, I just paraphrased it. The end result was the same: You claimed something "without exception" and then offered an *EXCEPTION*. Pick one, for chrissakes. Oh, and regarding your "p***ed off" state of mind, let me tell you buddy: boo-frickin'-hoo. Jason

That's why I'm not "getting over it". I post my opinion the way I see it, but I do it in a way that doesn't make the other person feel like a loser. If you think that, then leave. I'm gonna stand up for my right to participate here without feeling oppressed. I always have and always will. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm going to put this simply so you understand it: Your feelings are YOUR responsibility. If YOU feel like a loser, that's YOUR fault and YOUR problem. If you run into a situation where a MOD or someone with the capability to edit out your posts, ban you, etc., is doing so in order to keep your opinion silenced, then feel free to feel "oppressed". Since I, as simply a member, have no such authority or opportunity (and wouldn't take such opportunity even if presented with it) to do anything of the sort, your feelings about being "oppressed" are just so much drivel. I don't care if you like it or not: I have every right to state what I see and think, and it makes NO DIFFERENCE if you feel offended or get your poor little feelings hurt. Grow up, be an ADULT and take responsibility for your own **** feelings. Your sense of inadequacy is YOUR fault, not mine. Jason

How can you claim something like this? I didn't *claim* anything, I said I *suspect* that it will surpass PS3 sales, at least in teh first 1 to 2 years. What, do you think PS3 will step onto the scene 6 months after 360 and take the lead in its first few days? I'm not making any predictions as to the *finality* of the race (if a console "war" can be said to have finality, LOL) I'm simply observing that the 360 will have a significant lead time over the PS3, and like it or not Microsoft *is* very good at marketing products. Um... see point above. Isn't that what you just did? No, see above. I offered *speculation*, nothing more, concerning sales numbers during the first 1 to 2 years. In no way, shape or form did I proclaim anyone a winner or a loser of the upcoming round of console "wars". ...while your ahead Jason, I am not trying to say you don't know what you are talking about, but it does seem like you are a little of a "fanboi" yourself. Let's wait until fight night to determine a winner? And isn't the winner the fans who have two fantastic systems to choose from? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, I'm not even close to being a fanboy. All I want are *good games*, period. As a matter of simple ideology I admit I DO want Sony to get b***h slapped in the console arena this time around. By the same token, I'd love for Microsoft to get smacked around in the Operating System arena, too. It's never a good thing for one company to remain the dominant player without significant challenge to their success, and I think history can surely attest to that as fact. It will also attest to the fact that *no one* stays on top forever. 15 years ago you'd have never thought that Sega and Nintendo would be eating the dust of the games industry they pretty much created, yet here we stand . Right now would be a very good time for Sony to lose their position, and if they fail to price their system right or maintain enough exclusive content, that is very possible. As an example of Sony's arrogance, look at PSP. They claimed it would be the end-all, be-all of portable gaming, that they would sell through their million units of bundle packs in the first couple of days. Did it happen? No. Why? Everyone sees different reasons, but I'd offer up the fact that they misrepresented the machine (they claimed 333Mhz, then gave you a clock locked at 222Mhz until they get around to selling you a better (undoubtedly expensive) battery addon down the road) then overpriced it like mad and offered a lame bundle. As a result the Nintendo DS *continues* to outsell PSP like crazy all over the world. The point here is, Sony is not immune from self-inflicted screwups, and if the PS3 turns out to be as expensive as many analysts predict and Sony has to match price with 360 to make sales, they could find themselves *hemmoraging* cash or, alternatively, not moving as many units as they need to keep publishers happy. In short, there's a LOT that can go right or wrong in the upcoming generation, and it's far, *far* too early to have anyone be claimed a "winner". You won't reasonably be able to make such a claim for a good 5 years (you know, when the *next* next generation starts). Jason

Yes, you have every right to determine what you think is that long list of what one could simplify down to stupidity, but that does not give you the right to point rude and ugly fingers at the rest of us. Read the rest in the other thread... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's a public forum, get over it. I have every right to state my judgment of the scenario as I see it, just as you do. It's whiny people like you who are a danger to concepts such as freedom of speech. Of course I am sure that in your mind it's entirely different when YOU post your opinion, right? Of course it is. Instead of trying to derail the topic and statt a bunch of name calling crap, why don't you actually ADDRESS the topic and the issues it's raised? If you don't have anything productive to add, why do you bother posting at all? Jason

Odd. It would make more sense if the PSP has a touch screen so you could use it like a PDA, but with just the controller nubs, what's the point? Jason

As I said above, I think GT is a boring series but, yes, with bias: I don't like straight racing games. I find driving, racing or not, to be immeasurably BORING. That's hardly the point. What I was saying, and you apparently didn't get it, is that PS2 was, as a matter of FACT, not opinion, overhyped and overrated. It has *not* lived up to the claims Sony made about it. Yes, there are lots of good games and I've said that repeatedly, though you choose to ignore that fact. As a matter again of FACT, not opinion, the XBox is far more powerful than the PS2, as is, in fact, the Gamecube. Once again, however, that isn't the point. The point is that on Sony's console anyone and everyone publishes anything they can get to a reasonable state of completion, regardless of whether it's any good. I have not witnessed that to be the case on either of the other two consoles (though as I said above, there ARE a few stinkers on XBox). You might want to be a little more precise with your words in future posts. It's rather contradictory to say that "without exception XBox's big hitters have been third party." and then go on to give an exception. Also, PS2 does *not* natively support high definition. Yes, you can put it in 16x9 mode (just like XBox or Gamecube) but the games look like crap, for the most part. There are some exceptions, of course, but not many. (As an interesting aside: On day 1 of E3 all PS2 games were running on widescreen hdtv monitors, and the majority of them looked awful [possibly excepting Jak Racing, Akami and Dragon Quest VIII]. Come day two and what did we see? About half the PS2 games were now running in 4:3 mode on the same monitors. How's that for HD support?) In spite of your attempt to twist what I've said to be some sort of reverie about XBox over PS2, that's not what I've been saying. Read it again if you care to, and if you don't, well, I don't really care. And I've been saying the same thing to the PS3 FanBois over in another thread. You know the kind, the 133t g@m3rZ who like to claim the next gen race over before it's even begun? Yeah, those guys. Try telling THEM that the hardware is only part of the puzzle. They're happy to tell you that's true when talking about XBox or GameCube vs PS2, but they sure as hell change their tunes in a hurry when you get to the XBox 360/PS3/Revolution discussion, when all of a sudden nothing matters but the *theoretical* performance of hardware that doesn't even exist yet. Thanks, and have a peachy day! Jason

Oops, repost.

Absolutely true! KOTOR I and II are both *awesome* games (though you can get them both for PC as well, I actually prefer the controller for these games as opposed to KB and mouse, which is pretty weird). I'm working on Jade Empire now, and I have to say that it's just *awesome* so far, with an incredibly deep combat/control system and a really engrossing story. Like the MGS series on PS2, Jade Empire alone makes the system worth owning. Jason

I can say that because I was there, I spoke to the MS representative myself, I ASKED about the Dev Kits. In other words, I got it straight from the horse's mouth whereas you seem to want to pull it out of your a**. As for who am I to determine what is blatant, obvious BS, dishonesty and simple idiocy, I'm just me, and I have EVERY right to make such observations particularly given that I've PERSONALLY witnessed the games in action on the Dev kits and PERSONALLY witnessed Sony's no-show Vaporware presentation. How depressing that MSFN has become the place where people like you come to blow your nonsense brand-a**-kissing over every thread around you while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge facts, calculations, experience, history, etc. What a joke. Jason