Jump to content

ledzep's Photo

ledzep

Member Since 15 Feb 2010
OFFLINE Last Active Today, 3:13 AM

#2121106 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:14 AM

It's a ridiculous argument. Analog is better for analog and digital is better for digital. Who cares which one is better from a programming standpoint if you're arguing about control? As for flight sims or driving games, when's the last time you saw a plane or car that allowed you to steer with buttons that said Left, Right, Up or Down? Flight yokes and steering wheels have partial positions. Infinite partial positions. Just like analog sticks. So what if it's hard to figure out where exactly an analog stick is in a sim. It's called feedback and everyone who has ever learned to drive a car or fly a plane has figured that out. Agreed, analog sticks are infuriating when dealing with a game like Pac-Man. But then so are paddles. Nothing sucks worse than having to use a digital joystick or a trackball in joystick mode when playing a native trackball game. It's just the way it is. The Atari 5200 should definitely come out with a digital joystick at some point but then games that were trackball or analog joystick arcade games (Missile Command, Tail Gunner) suffer when converted to digital joysticks.


#2106566 New Atari PC Computer?

Posted by ledzep on Sat Oct 2, 2010 4:47 AM

I'd go with the original Atari 800 case (which isn't a poll option but whatever) and have anything that couldn't fit inside that case be connected to it externally with a faux 850 style expansion case or, even better, an expansion case made to look like one of those hex-shaped cases like the 810 disk drive, you could even call it something new like the 890 Bus Expansion. That way you could upgrade with extra hard drives, card readers, graphics cards, ports, etc. The original Atari 800 (and to a lesser extent, the 400) is, to me, the greatest iconic design that Atari ever had. And I'd try to recreate the feel of those old, classic advertisements, too.


#2081354 Developers view old used games as similar to piracy

Posted by ledzep on Fri Aug 27, 2010 2:59 AM

Well, the first peeved software house the article mentions is THQ. Makers of 10 out of 10 material such as "Bratz: Super Babyz"

I feel sad for the guy who had to pay full price for that.

Joking aside the heart of a game company is the actual artists and code monkeys. Creative Director sounds like an uncreative management job to me. Out of the loop and into their own world.

UPDATE: Looks like they noticed their customers were less than pleased..
http://www.gonintend...y.php?id=134143


"Creative Director" is an uncreative management job, though not as bad as "Producer". But come on. "Then it gets really squishy."? Did he really say that? Is he in the 3rd grade? "Aw shucks, guys, can't you all just pay full price and let me buy a new Ferrari? I wanna hang out with Bill Gates!!" What a lame rebuttal. He wants to punish people who buy used games but he's not man enough to admit it. He acts like buying used media is a recent trend or something. Has he heard of eBay yet? Must have been a shock to the core of his being when he found out such an evil entity exists. "People... buy things used?!? You mean like this guy Craig Slist?"


#2081196 Developers view old used games as similar to piracy

Posted by ledzep on Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:17 PM

Those developers who actually hold this view are retarded. Actually they're lazy, greedy and retarded. If they're not making enough money fast enough through video game sales then they should try something else, like pro sports or pop music or selling crack. Someone in that article asked the naive and dumb question "What other customers expect a used product be be identical to a new product?" People who buy used CDs and DVDs, of course.

The basic problem is that video game makers believe that it is their right to get paid every time something happens with their games. Nice belief system, too bad nobody else agrees with it. There is no difference between 1) me buying a game new and then selling it used and someone else buying it used, 2) me buying a game new and giving it to someone else as a gift and 3) me buying a game new and handing it down to my little brother later when I'm done with it. In all three cases the game is bought once, the developer only sees one instance of profit yet more than one person ends up eventually owning it. Yet somehow option 1 is worse to them. Simply because new money changed hands and they never saw any of it. Boo hoo. I suppose those greedy clowns think that if I buy a game and then take it to a friend's house to play that I owe them money, too.

It's a similar stupid philosophy in the world of autographs. I've gotten some of my Playboy mags' centerfolds (gasp!) signed by Playmates. I bought the magazine and brought it with me. Typically the Playmate charges nothing or charges $10 or so to sign it (she is there all day and many times pays to have a table at that convention so she has to recoup her expenses somehow). I'm cool with that. What I'm not cool with is the occasional model or actress or whatever who sees that some collectors resell the autographed items on their websites or on eBay for a lot of money. Let's say $50 each. "What!?!?!? That's my money! I signed that magazine, it wouldn't be worth squat without my signature!" So, what happens is some of those celebs assume that everyone is selling their autographs for huge profits and...? Right, they jack up their autograph fees. So instead of $10 or $15 for an autograph it's now $40 or more, even if it's on your own copy you brought with you and you have no intention of reselling the autographed thing. You know, because he/she is "owed". There's nothing to stop that celeb from doing the same thing the resellers do and offer the signed thing online for the same prices. Yet somehow those who think that way are indignant, they see it as some sort of thievery or scam against them. It's ridiculous.

And I agree about the prices, too. It was one thing when games and consoles didn't cost that much. How could they, when they were 8-bit and the games looked like animated LEGOs? Still, they weren't cheap. But now many developers think their games are movies or something, they spend so much money on 3D graphics, texturing, animation, camera moves and now they need to recoup all that expense with massive sales. All for a bunch of games that typically look great but aren't all that fun compared to the hype. If the game is really good then everyone will want it, nobody will be able to wait even a week to get it. But the problem is that too many gamers have been burned by over-hyped expensive games that aren't worth it. Used is a better way to avoid that happening again if you don't mind waiting.


#2056139 CX-52L controllers

Posted by ledzep on Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:41 AM

I suppose this is an obvious, stupid question but are there spring-loaded pots out there that could be retrofitted to the current controllers or is that something that Atari would have had to get purpose-built for this new controller? I have to believe there is no such thing otherwise Best Electronics or somebody else would have offered an upgrade kit by now (sort of like paddle conversions).


#2025855 Imperium Galactum

Posted by ledzep on Fri Jun 4, 2010 5:28 PM

That brings back memories, for sure. I remember really liking that game. I was always a fan of the old Traveller role-playing game so Imperium Galactum felt similar in style to that game.