It might make it easier, but it doesn't necessarily make it better, and it certainly doesn't make it good. It's still garbage coming in. MPEG2 motion estimation is not sophisticated enough to ever be good. I can't speak for MPEG4 or BluRay but I would not expect it to be any better, just possibly finer grained.
>But 48fps is simply smoother, and just as they are able to fake up 3D on films that were never shot that way, they will be able to digitally fake up with the extra frames between every 24fps frame and re-release all those old films in Astounding 48 FPS, New and Improved, Digitally Remastered, For a Limited Time Only....
Yeah, my TV did that (interpolated 24fps into 120fps) until I turned it off "motion enhancement". I hated the effect. Somehow the picture seemed artificial and less clear even though the action was arguably smoother. Motion interpolation is much more well understood and easier to implement than faking 3d, but it still produces bad results.
Motion interpolation generally only works well for a very small subset of common visual imagery. Complex motion confuses it, often obliterating the original motion which makes things look subtly unreal, dreamlike, or otherwise confusing to the viewer. Discreet sampling and reconstruction filters, which are guaranteed to be sub-optimal, intensify the problem. When the video source is a DVD or some other video that's been wrung through the motion estimation process at least once already, it can only get worse. Garbage in, garbage out, Chinese whispers, turd polish, and all that rhythm.
Fashion doesn't have IP protection. You should have used a car analogy.
I hope it's not true that mechanical starfield projectors are being phased out for boring video projectors. When I heard about this a week or so ago, I imagined the game being run from such a mechanical device. Disappointed to find this is not the case. Not sure how that would actually work in retrospect, but it was an appealing notion. Making a game for a hemispherical projection would still be an interesting challenge.
Of course you preferred mouse/keyboard, that's the only interface option of the PC version. No amount of controller remapping will ever change that. That's like putting pontoons on your car and expecting to enjoy your drive across the ocean.
The console interface doesn't work anything like the PC interface because it was designed with game pads in mind. The Torchlight developers themselves believe the console interface is superior, but they refused to consider it for PC users because it is apparently too much work for them. Options frighten developers.
That said, there's no reason why both versions can't be good. Torchlight was a Diablo clone made by an indie developer that was praised for the amount of work put into making the console port just as playable as the PC version.
Where they failed is making the PC version as playable as the console port.
Torchlight begs to played with a game pad, but that's not an option on PCs
I'll point out that the name Mincecraft was created by Paul Eres
Sweet, is that the one where you cut up ingredients instead of dig holes?
Yes.
Argh! Hoisted by my own retard!
In the spirit of Slashdot pedantry, I'll point out that the name Mincecraft was created by Paul Eres, who is not part of Mojang.
Your point hits near the mark though. The more descriptive the trademark, the more difficult it is to enforce. Minecraft is pretty descriptive but as a compound word made of words that normally wouldn't be sequenced as such a phrase, it's got a slight edge over Elder Scrolls. Scrolls by itself seems pretty weak when compared to either of the other brands.
This reminds of that time I didn't make a Family Guy reference and people unconsciously thanked me.
the Atari 7800 Impossible Mission fiasco
What part of "impossible mission" don't you understand?
Has GoDaddy ever been anything other than shit?
So why the hate for OnLive
You must be GNU here.
We can only hope.
If you read the letter linked in the summary, the only thing Atari cites are alleged copyright infringements. The letter is a by-the-numbers DMCA takedown notice. Everything that a DMCA takedown notice is supposed to include is included. It's practically boilerplate. The only deviation from the norm is it was apparently not sent to the ISP, it was sent to the site owner. The purpose of a DMCA takedown notice is to force compliance by going to the ISP instead of persuading the site owner to cooperate. It's not clear what Atari's thinking is here but at this stage it looks like intimidation or incompetence.
The rule on staying alive as a program manager is to give 'em a number or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once.
