Gas Powered Games - Chris Taylor Interview @ CVG

How can the PC be branded when they are made of parts from 300 different companies and be interchanged by anyone with a screwdriver set?

Tell us intresting stories. Take us worlds which we don't know. Create an AI which can simulate real feelings. That would be a good start Gameplay will follow if the setting is somethung totally amazing. Most devs stress too much about features when they should be thinking how they could make storyline, AI and gameworld better.

I just wish more developers would make their games work in natively in Linux, so I can get rid of Windows forever.

Originally Posted by User Name
Are you shitting me? Your 'so-called' pc brand will be nothing more than console-pc combined monstrosity.

Your deep, profound insight sheds much light on my glaring igornance. Thank you. What would this forum do without such sage knowledge from you?

Originally Posted by Reyla
How can the PC be branded when they are made of parts from 300 different companies and be interchanged by anyone with a screwdriver set?

The PC is already 'branded' in that any game that lists some version of 'Windows' requires that the game be installed under such version of 'Windows.'

Microsoft wants to replace 'Requires Windows Version X" with the the 'Games For Windows' moniker. Nothing is really changing here as the same PC's that might have thousands of different parts, all interchangeable via a screwdriver, will run these games. It's just a cohesive marketing tool being employed to firm up the 'PC' as a branded gaming platform in the minds of consumers.

I find it all interesting. From everything I've read so far, I find that I'm on the side of the fence that hopes it will succeed.

Ah, the 3rd side of the fence; always the best one to choose!!

Chris Taylor always spoke as if he was the second coming in the gaming world.

This interview is actually one of the most modest I've seen him do.

The guy did Total Annihilation, and that was pretty innovative and groundbreaking at the time. Whether or not it was accidental, I can't say, but since that time I've seen nothing impressive originating from him. Supreme Commander should be called Supreme Clone. Of course, he's cloning his own game, but doing that and talking about innovation at the same time takes a particularly conceited mind.

I don't have a problem with Vista or the approach MS is taking with games. I don't think they want to kill PC gaming, nor do I think they'll do it with this Games for Windows thing. I don't know how succesful it will be, but I'm sure it won't hurt any.

My instincts tell me it will be a moderately succesful enterprise which will pave the way for further restoration of the once reigning platform of gaming.

What I actually don't like at all is that "customer binding" they try to do. Develop great games to bind gamers to MY platform !

It began with directx, which put the race between OS/2 (remembery, anyone ? It's called eComStation nowadays) and Windows to an end - in terms of gaming.

The thought is clear yet effective : Gamers are the first people buying hardware they need - and the more demanding a game is, the more they are going to buy !

So … directx bings both programmer and customer to the platform : The programmer by offering him an really easy way to program things (well, at least in SOME respect), anf gamers because they actually NEED directx as a run-time or they simply won't be able to run the game !

It's like giving drugs for free : The fisrt shots are free, but then the need arises.

Microsoft gives away directx to programmers to build great games with great features (not to forget great graphics), and these games ussing directx actually force the gamer to use windows as the preferred platform, because neither Linux nor OS/2 have directx, or something similar.

It's nothing else as a really long-term marketing decision to bing both customers and priogrammers, and in the end mostly customers.

Having started gaming in the early 80s, I know what it means to be a gamer in a multiplatform era. Let me tell you, it's not advantageous to the passionate gamer.

I would much rather have a single unified platform to game on, than I would want to split it up between multiple operating systems, not to mention hardware platforms.

Sure, Windows used to be a pretty crappy OS, and indeed I consider XP the first reasonable system they put out. But fans of Linux, OS/2, Mac OS, are blinded by old hatreds they can't shed. Sure, certain features are present in those that aren't in Windows, and the same can be said in reverse. If you think demonstrating bugs in an OS is hard, perhaps you should consider the context. Windows is run by so many people, the amount of bugs found is greater naturally. I have no emotional investment in an OS, believe me. But I still managed to crash two version of Linux without even trying, and running a shell-based system with minimal software with stability isn't too impressive, really.

Windows is the only choice for gamers, and it will only help us get the most games with the least hassle. It could have been any OS, and I wouldn't give a crap, but it just happens to be the system of choice for developers. Fighting it based on inept observations and emotional investment will only hurt gamers in the end.

Yep, Windoze is pretty crap, but it's currently the best crap we have for gaming!! Personally, I liked DOS!!

Of all those I've tried in my time, and there are A LOT of those, AmigaDOS remains my all time favorite OS.