The "PC Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This thread has been linked to the game 'Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas'.
Is now available!!!! I've heard about a pirate version being circulated around. Ages before its release. And unlike the pirate version of Halflife 2, it apparently works quite well.
I'll post a review if I get my grubby mits on a copy.
I'll post a review if I get my grubby mits on a copy.
Page:
Garin wrote:
> Just one question...
>
> What is it you're arguing about exactly? :)
I'm not too sure to be honest. I lost sight of that half way through. ;)
> Just one question...
>
> What is it you're arguing about exactly? :)
I'm not too sure to be honest. I lost sight of that half way through. ;)
Just one question...
What is it you're arguing about exactly? :)
What is it you're arguing about exactly? :)
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> Priceless. You should go on Judge Judy or something as the miraculous
> leaps of logic and total BS that flows so freely from that keyboard
> of yours really diserves a bigger audience.
Thankyou. Nice to know someone appreciates it.
> I didn't give "playable" a new meaning, I defined which
> meaning I was using as it is a RELATIVE term, there isn't an absolute
> meaning. You're seeing this in black and white, which you can't do
> with a term that means different things to different people/contexts.
> Looking at the context here, we're talking about a supposed pirated
> copy of a game that's been launched on the web. That requires far
> more than you're requiring by the use of "playable", which
> seems to be to be synomous with interactive and is really pushing the
> boundaries of how relative the word is.
Rather than go to all that length to explain to me how right you are, if truth be told, it was simply different interpretations of the same word by us. We are both right, and yet both wrong.
> What most tickles my fancy is after that "I'M DOING AN UT2003
> MOD, I OBVIOUSLY KNOW EVERYTHING" comment, suddenly when I've
> done a Half-Life mod we have to forget about those as its about as
> related to real world game development as buttering toast is to
> running a four star restaurant. Glad to see you're learning
> something ;P Ditto brushing coding suddenly under the carpet.
Actually as you will have known from your Half Life mod, it is remarkably similar. Some basic mods just utilise the same tools and graphic sets, but the more complex mods that create a diametrically opposed dynamic require a whole new creation process. Making a mod is extremely similar to making a game, in fact certain famed mod makers have been hired to create games by impressed publishers. Having made a Half Life mod, you must surely be aware of that. Your ignorance is frankly painful.
> And clap, clap, every game is developed differently. Now lets look
> at a huge title that'll attract a publisher without any need for any
> sort of demo whatsoever. Lets look at a developer who have highly
> sophisticated middleware not simply because there working with Sony's
> libraries, but also because this is the third title in a
> this-generation series. Lets look at a developer who has pushed the
> boundaries further with each title in the series. Lets look at a
> developer who basically doesn't have a deadline to work to, nor
> stepped bonus payments to worry about. Lets look at a developer
> who'll have hundereds of people working to create a consistant
> atmosphere through everything, from in-game music to print adverts.
You are once again narrowing things down. Game developers come in all different shapes and sizes, so to take just one as an example is an exercise in futility, and displays great ignorance.
> You think that cohesion comes about by running in and letting the
> code monkeys tweak where and whatever they want?
If you cannot see how illogical that assumption is then I truly pity you.
> Look, lets be honest here, you jumped into the discussion halfway
> through to pick up on a minor point burried away and loosely related
> to the subject you wanted to talk about - your awsomeness. Well
> done, have 38 Gonzo points, you've worked with computers and are
> very, very special.
If you want to know the real reason I jumped in, it was to rescue Bob_the_Moose from an inaccurate and unjustified attack from you. I don't blow my own trumpet, I simply used my experience as evidence against you, as what you were saying was complete toss.
> Well then, lets see which bit of that you'll home in on, take out of
> context, totally ignore the meaning of, make bizzare inferences from
> and proclaim your amazingness based upon
I'm just laughing at how you totally ignored all the criticisms I lowered at you earlier. In my last post I gave you genuine examples of developers that work against the way you are dictating, and genres that necessitate such a difference, yet still you find it necessary to skip that damning proof and witter on about how naughty I am. Naturally your pride has taken you past the point of no return, so there is little hope that you have the guts to back down now. I suppose I will just have to keep replying to your desperate attempts at vindication, although I will treat them with the contempt they thoroughly deserve.
> Priceless. You should go on Judge Judy or something as the miraculous
> leaps of logic and total BS that flows so freely from that keyboard
> of yours really diserves a bigger audience.
Thankyou. Nice to know someone appreciates it.
> I didn't give "playable" a new meaning, I defined which
> meaning I was using as it is a RELATIVE term, there isn't an absolute
> meaning. You're seeing this in black and white, which you can't do
> with a term that means different things to different people/contexts.
> Looking at the context here, we're talking about a supposed pirated
> copy of a game that's been launched on the web. That requires far
> more than you're requiring by the use of "playable", which
> seems to be to be synomous with interactive and is really pushing the
> boundaries of how relative the word is.
Rather than go to all that length to explain to me how right you are, if truth be told, it was simply different interpretations of the same word by us. We are both right, and yet both wrong.
> What most tickles my fancy is after that "I'M DOING AN UT2003
> MOD, I OBVIOUSLY KNOW EVERYTHING" comment, suddenly when I've
> done a Half-Life mod we have to forget about those as its about as
> related to real world game development as buttering toast is to
> running a four star restaurant. Glad to see you're learning
> something ;P Ditto brushing coding suddenly under the carpet.
Actually as you will have known from your Half Life mod, it is remarkably similar. Some basic mods just utilise the same tools and graphic sets, but the more complex mods that create a diametrically opposed dynamic require a whole new creation process. Making a mod is extremely similar to making a game, in fact certain famed mod makers have been hired to create games by impressed publishers. Having made a Half Life mod, you must surely be aware of that. Your ignorance is frankly painful.
> And clap, clap, every game is developed differently. Now lets look
> at a huge title that'll attract a publisher without any need for any
> sort of demo whatsoever. Lets look at a developer who have highly
> sophisticated middleware not simply because there working with Sony's
> libraries, but also because this is the third title in a
> this-generation series. Lets look at a developer who has pushed the
> boundaries further with each title in the series. Lets look at a
> developer who basically doesn't have a deadline to work to, nor
> stepped bonus payments to worry about. Lets look at a developer
> who'll have hundereds of people working to create a consistant
> atmosphere through everything, from in-game music to print adverts.
You are once again narrowing things down. Game developers come in all different shapes and sizes, so to take just one as an example is an exercise in futility, and displays great ignorance.
> You think that cohesion comes about by running in and letting the
> code monkeys tweak where and whatever they want?
If you cannot see how illogical that assumption is then I truly pity you.
> Look, lets be honest here, you jumped into the discussion halfway
> through to pick up on a minor point burried away and loosely related
> to the subject you wanted to talk about - your awsomeness. Well
> done, have 38 Gonzo points, you've worked with computers and are
> very, very special.
If you want to know the real reason I jumped in, it was to rescue Bob_the_Moose from an inaccurate and unjustified attack from you. I don't blow my own trumpet, I simply used my experience as evidence against you, as what you were saying was complete toss.
> Well then, lets see which bit of that you'll home in on, take out of
> context, totally ignore the meaning of, make bizzare inferences from
> and proclaim your amazingness based upon
I'm just laughing at how you totally ignored all the criticisms I lowered at you earlier. In my last post I gave you genuine examples of developers that work against the way you are dictating, and genres that necessitate such a difference, yet still you find it necessary to skip that damning proof and witter on about how naughty I am. Naturally your pride has taken you past the point of no return, so there is little hope that you have the guts to back down now. I suppose I will just have to keep replying to your desperate attempts at vindication, although I will treat them with the contempt they thoroughly deserve.
Priceless. You should go on Judge Judy or something as the miraculous leaps of logic and total BS that flows so freely from that keyboard of yours really diserves a bigger audience.
I didn't give "playable" a new meaning, I defined which meaning I was using as it is a RELATIVE term, there isn't an absolute meaning. You're seeing this in black and white, which you can't do with a term that means different things to different people/contexts. Looking at the context here, we're talking about a supposed pirated copy of a game that's been launched on the web. That requires far more than you're requiring by the use of "playable", which seems to be to be synomous with interactive and is really pushing the boundaries of how relative the word is.
But, hey, if you can't understand that... blah blah blah...
What most tickles my fancy is after that "I'M DOING AN UT2003 MOD, I OBVIOUSLY KNOW EVERYTHING" comment, suddenly when I've done a Half-Life mod we have to forget about those as its about as related to real world game development as buttering toast is to running a four star restaurant. Glad to see you're learning something ;P Ditto brushing coding suddenly under the carpet.
And clap, clap, every game is developed differently. Now lets look at a huge title that'll attract a publisher without any need for any sort of demo whatsoever. Lets look at a developer who have highly sophisticated middleware not simply because there working with Sony's libraries, but also because this is the third title in a this-generation series. Lets look at a developer who has pushed the boundaries further with each title in the series. Lets look at a developer who basically doesn't have a deadline to work to, nor stepped bonus payments to worry about. Lets look at a developer who'll have hundereds of people working to create a consistant atmosphere through everything, from in-game music to print adverts. You think that cohesion comes about by running in and letting the code monkeys tweak where and whatever they want?
Look, lets be honest here, you jumped into the discussion halfway through to pick up on a minor point burried away and loosely related to the subject you wanted to talk about - your awsomeness. Well done, have 38 Gonzo points, you've worked with computers and are very, very special.
Well then, lets see which bit of that you'll home in on, take out of context, totally ignore the meaning of, make bizzare inferences from and proclaim your amazingness based upon
I didn't give "playable" a new meaning, I defined which meaning I was using as it is a RELATIVE term, there isn't an absolute meaning. You're seeing this in black and white, which you can't do with a term that means different things to different people/contexts. Looking at the context here, we're talking about a supposed pirated copy of a game that's been launched on the web. That requires far more than you're requiring by the use of "playable", which seems to be to be synomous with interactive and is really pushing the boundaries of how relative the word is.
But, hey, if you can't understand that... blah blah blah...
What most tickles my fancy is after that "I'M DOING AN UT2003 MOD, I OBVIOUSLY KNOW EVERYTHING" comment, suddenly when I've done a Half-Life mod we have to forget about those as its about as related to real world game development as buttering toast is to running a four star restaurant. Glad to see you're learning something ;P Ditto brushing coding suddenly under the carpet.
And clap, clap, every game is developed differently. Now lets look at a huge title that'll attract a publisher without any need for any sort of demo whatsoever. Lets look at a developer who have highly sophisticated middleware not simply because there working with Sony's libraries, but also because this is the third title in a this-generation series. Lets look at a developer who has pushed the boundaries further with each title in the series. Lets look at a developer who basically doesn't have a deadline to work to, nor stepped bonus payments to worry about. Lets look at a developer who'll have hundereds of people working to create a consistant atmosphere through everything, from in-game music to print adverts. You think that cohesion comes about by running in and letting the code monkeys tweak where and whatever they want?
Look, lets be honest here, you jumped into the discussion halfway through to pick up on a minor point burried away and loosely related to the subject you wanted to talk about - your awsomeness. Well done, have 38 Gonzo points, you've worked with computers and are very, very special.
Well then, lets see which bit of that you'll home in on, take out of context, totally ignore the meaning of, make bizzare inferences from and proclaim your amazingness based upon
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> You practically repeated what I said you fool
Heh, correct. And as such, your last post that accused me of not listening does not really stand up does it!! Contradicting yourself does little for the credibility of the rest of your argument.
> though I noted I was
> classing it as a tech demo, which considering the context this all
> started in is a perfectly fine thing to do. You are talking about a
> "playable" demo, I'm talking about a playable demo.
If you choose to define your own meanings for words then you deserve everything you get. Instead find a word that actually bears some semblance to what you mean. 'Enjoyable' would have done the trick nicely.
> HILARIOUS. You are every 13 year-old internet troll. Huge leaps of
> logic... check. Not actually responding to whats said... check.
> Resporting to critising spelling and "you may as well give up
> now" style comments... check. Acting like Mr. Experience as
> you've done some mildy related... check. Hey, I know all about
> driving an F1 car as I once had a ride in a taxi!!! Come on, a UT
> 2003 mod - every internet geek has tried something along those lines.
> I did it for Half-Life... though I'm not stupid enough for a moment
> to compare that to coding a real game. And a university project,
> well hush my mouth Mr. Minter.
As the saying goes, 'Insults are the last resort of desperation'. Changing the subject at the same time; genius. If you don't understand what I have been saying in my posts that's fine, just stop crying about it and accept the simple fact that I happen to know more about this subject than you. You made a mistake, so there is no point weeping over the milk lost, just get on with life.
> I don't have an major real world coding experience - I've done bits
> and bobs with Java and BASIC, but then, again, most internet geeks
> have too. I even tried to learn Cobol (spelling?) when I heard
> there'd be loads of cash to be made in updating POS systems in the
> Y2K hysteria... but that got boring after a few hours. However, I
> did have a conversation that ran very similar to this with an old
> housemate after he left uni and joined the team developing Malice for
> the Xbox. The game was well under way, I wondered was their much
> left for him to be doing, he told me what happens.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The truth finally comes out. Your knowledge is based upon a conversation with a friend. No proper coding knowledge, no experience in game design, no experience in game creation. Nope, just a chat with a friend. That really is laughable. I cannot believe you have argued this far based on such a tenuous shred of insight.
Right, shall I cut the out the dribble here, and let you in on the biggest factor of all that doomed your argument from day one?
Quite simply the fact that every game is produced differently.
Every single developer adds their code at varying times throughout development. Titles such as Masters of Orion, and even more pointedly, Airborne Assault, are so coding intensive that the entire development process is taken up with coding. With the latter mentioned game, graphics took less than a month to implement, the rest was sheer coding.
The fact is, in some cases you can be almost correct. In the occasional graphics intensive title, they may not give priority to the coding, and get the rest put together first. But I took this up against you merely because of your sheer lack of accurate knowledge, your insufficient grasp of the larger picture, and now even more so due to your proud and doggedly narrow-minded refusal to give in.
I don't have anything against you personally Gonzo, but surely by now any intelligent individual can see the truth in what I am saying. Do the manly thing huh, and stop arguing what is effectively a dead point.
> You practically repeated what I said you fool
Heh, correct. And as such, your last post that accused me of not listening does not really stand up does it!! Contradicting yourself does little for the credibility of the rest of your argument.
> though I noted I was
> classing it as a tech demo, which considering the context this all
> started in is a perfectly fine thing to do. You are talking about a
> "playable" demo, I'm talking about a playable demo.
If you choose to define your own meanings for words then you deserve everything you get. Instead find a word that actually bears some semblance to what you mean. 'Enjoyable' would have done the trick nicely.
> HILARIOUS. You are every 13 year-old internet troll. Huge leaps of
> logic... check. Not actually responding to whats said... check.
> Resporting to critising spelling and "you may as well give up
> now" style comments... check. Acting like Mr. Experience as
> you've done some mildy related... check. Hey, I know all about
> driving an F1 car as I once had a ride in a taxi!!! Come on, a UT
> 2003 mod - every internet geek has tried something along those lines.
> I did it for Half-Life... though I'm not stupid enough for a moment
> to compare that to coding a real game. And a university project,
> well hush my mouth Mr. Minter.
As the saying goes, 'Insults are the last resort of desperation'. Changing the subject at the same time; genius. If you don't understand what I have been saying in my posts that's fine, just stop crying about it and accept the simple fact that I happen to know more about this subject than you. You made a mistake, so there is no point weeping over the milk lost, just get on with life.
> I don't have an major real world coding experience - I've done bits
> and bobs with Java and BASIC, but then, again, most internet geeks
> have too. I even tried to learn Cobol (spelling?) when I heard
> there'd be loads of cash to be made in updating POS systems in the
> Y2K hysteria... but that got boring after a few hours. However, I
> did have a conversation that ran very similar to this with an old
> housemate after he left uni and joined the team developing Malice for
> the Xbox. The game was well under way, I wondered was their much
> left for him to be doing, he told me what happens.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The truth finally comes out. Your knowledge is based upon a conversation with a friend. No proper coding knowledge, no experience in game design, no experience in game creation. Nope, just a chat with a friend. That really is laughable. I cannot believe you have argued this far based on such a tenuous shred of insight.
Right, shall I cut the out the dribble here, and let you in on the biggest factor of all that doomed your argument from day one?
Quite simply the fact that every game is produced differently.
Every single developer adds their code at varying times throughout development. Titles such as Masters of Orion, and even more pointedly, Airborne Assault, are so coding intensive that the entire development process is taken up with coding. With the latter mentioned game, graphics took less than a month to implement, the rest was sheer coding.
The fact is, in some cases you can be almost correct. In the occasional graphics intensive title, they may not give priority to the coding, and get the rest put together first. But I took this up against you merely because of your sheer lack of accurate knowledge, your insufficient grasp of the larger picture, and now even more so due to your proud and doggedly narrow-minded refusal to give in.
I don't have anything against you personally Gonzo, but surely by now any intelligent individual can see the truth in what I am saying. Do the manly thing huh, and stop arguing what is effectively a dead point.
Little Hobbo wrote:
> Dr Gonzo wrote:
>
> Which is why I defined for you what playable really means. You
> didn't understand? That's OK.
You practically repeated what I said you fool, though I noted I was classing it as a tech demo, which considering the context this all started in is a perfectly fine thing to do. You are talking about a "playable" demo, I'm talking about a playable demo. The fact you can interact with something has zero to do with it's playability... but then I've said all this at least twice now and you still seem intent on disagreeing with me so you can carry on talking about your "huge" experience.
> And I strongly suspect the only reason you ever replied was to say
> "I know some code - aren't I l337!!!1". You've picked up
> on one small point, totally missed the meaning, and ran off on one.
>
> Ah, you admit that really have no idea what you are talking about
> then. Good on you.
???
> As for me, I have the right to speak as I have
> genuine game programming experience. As a matter of fact I am soon
> starting work on a UT 2003 mod. May I ask for your credentials?
HILARIOUS. You are every 13 year-old internet troll. Huge leaps of logic... check. Not actually responding to whats said... check. Resporting to critising spelling and "you may as well give up now" style comments... check. Acting like Mr. Experience as you've done some mildy related... check. Hey, I know all about driving an F1 car as I once had a ride in a taxi!!! Come on, a UT 2003 mod - every internet geek has tried something along those lines. I did it for Half-Life... though I'm not stupid enough for a moment to compare that to coding a real game. And a university project, well hush my mouth Mr. Minter.
I don't have an major real world coding experience - I've done bits and bobs with Java and BASIC, but then, again, most internet geeks have too. I even tried to learn Cobol (spelling?) when I heard there'd be loads of cash to be made in updating POS systems in the Y2K hysteria... but that got boring after a few hours. However, I did have a conversation that ran very similar to this with an old housemate after he left uni and joined the team developing Malice for the Xbox. The game was well under way, I wondered was their much left for him to be doing, he told me what happens. More than that, years of bits and bobs picked up reading about computing and bob's your uncle. By no means an expert, but not clueless enough to miss a troll when I see one.
> Dr Gonzo wrote:
>
> Which is why I defined for you what playable really means. You
> didn't understand? That's OK.
You practically repeated what I said you fool, though I noted I was classing it as a tech demo, which considering the context this all started in is a perfectly fine thing to do. You are talking about a "playable" demo, I'm talking about a playable demo. The fact you can interact with something has zero to do with it's playability... but then I've said all this at least twice now and you still seem intent on disagreeing with me so you can carry on talking about your "huge" experience.
> And I strongly suspect the only reason you ever replied was to say
> "I know some code - aren't I l337!!!1". You've picked up
> on one small point, totally missed the meaning, and ran off on one.
>
> Ah, you admit that really have no idea what you are talking about
> then. Good on you.
???
> As for me, I have the right to speak as I have
> genuine game programming experience. As a matter of fact I am soon
> starting work on a UT 2003 mod. May I ask for your credentials?
HILARIOUS. You are every 13 year-old internet troll. Huge leaps of logic... check. Not actually responding to whats said... check. Resporting to critising spelling and "you may as well give up now" style comments... check. Acting like Mr. Experience as you've done some mildy related... check. Hey, I know all about driving an F1 car as I once had a ride in a taxi!!! Come on, a UT 2003 mod - every internet geek has tried something along those lines. I did it for Half-Life... though I'm not stupid enough for a moment to compare that to coding a real game. And a university project, well hush my mouth Mr. Minter.
I don't have an major real world coding experience - I've done bits and bobs with Java and BASIC, but then, again, most internet geeks have too. I even tried to learn Cobol (spelling?) when I heard there'd be loads of cash to be made in updating POS systems in the Y2K hysteria... but that got boring after a few hours. However, I did have a conversation that ran very similar to this with an old housemate after he left uni and joined the team developing Malice for the Xbox. The game was well under way, I wondered was their much left for him to be doing, he told me what happens. More than that, years of bits and bobs picked up reading about computing and bob's your uncle. By no means an expert, but not clueless enough to miss a troll when I see one.
Lipe wrote:
> A bridge dissapearing?
That happens a lot more often now on my PS2 Vice City.. weird. Probably because it's scratched :( The roads and bridges disappear for at least 5 seconds..!
> A bridge dissapearing?
That happens a lot more often now on my PS2 Vice City.. weird. Probably because it's scratched :( The roads and bridges disappear for at least 5 seconds..!
Bob_The_Moose wrote:
> I can safely say I've never had that happen to me. Um, he's not
> smoking anything is he?
Don't think he is, but he drank a lot during late night shopping in Dorking last week. :)
Basically, what happened was he was chasing that dude who has a machine gun on the back of his car, and went over a bridge. The car just fell into water whilst in the MIDDLE of the bridge.
> I can safely say I've never had that happen to me. Um, he's not
> smoking anything is he?
Don't think he is, but he drank a lot during late night shopping in Dorking last week. :)
Basically, what happened was he was chasing that dude who has a machine gun on the back of his car, and went over a bridge. The car just fell into water whilst in the MIDDLE of the bridge.
you defined for him what playable was?
That's funny, because I've yet to play a "playable" version of any GTA game, much less one still in development =P
That's funny, because I've yet to play a "playable" version of any GTA game, much less one still in development =P
Lipe wrote:
> *sheesh* LH is always getting into arguments...
Bread and butter fella.
> *sheesh* LH is always getting into arguments...
Bread and butter fella.
Page: