Will they be at E3 this year on the 12th of july I think it starts.

"The next E3 is currently set for July 15-17, 2008." -Wikipedia

T17 certainly aren't on the exhibitor list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E3#E3_2008_Exhibitor_List) anyway.


(side note: What the heck? MTV actually has their own games company?)

MTV Games published Rock Band, remember?

First time for a few years we're not at E3. Actually we'll be in the states elsewhere, up in Seattle.

Plenty of stuff going on, can't discuss it now. There will be some excitement later in the year.

Plenty of stuff going on, can't discuss it now. There will be some excitement later in the year.
pax, by any chance?

Plenty of stuff going on, can't discuss it now. There will be some excitement later in the year.
Hopefully a 2D Worms Game made by people who've worked in MicroProse.

Hopefully a 2D Worms Game made by people who've worked in MicroProse.

I... you're... my anti-idiocy circuitry is melting.

Hopefully a 2D Worms Game made by people who've worked in MicroProse.

SIGH.... That just broke my fail-o-meter. It was INDUSTRY GRADE damnit!

Hopefully a 2D Worms Game made by people who've worked in MicroProse.

hahahahhahahahahahhahahahahah

but seriously, get out

There will be some excitement later in the year.

a multi-dimentional worms game(a half in 2d and a half in 3d,available for ps3) without donkeys and sheeps ,with a 3d map editor ,downloadable though steam, with vehicles,with sharks in the sea that can eat ur worm,fully moddable and with a unlimited arsenal....to get everyone happy XD.

to make everyone happy they just need to make a game that's really fun to play. doesn't matter in how many dimensions it is. everyone who says worms needs to be exclusively in 2d would not have been saying that if w3d was as fun as wa. it wasn't. so people complained. and if t17 would have made a game in 2d, which didn't measure up to wa, people would say its because t17 is stuck in the past with 2d and they should have made a 3d worms game.

the things that most people "want", they don't really want at all. they just think they do, because they haven't thought it through. if a good game comes out and they enjoy it, they'll realize that it is exactly what they have been wanting all along. they'll even claim that's what they asked for, even if they asked for something entirely opposite. so t17 doesn't need to listen to anyone's requests, and just make a good game.

now, whether they can deliver on that or not is a different question on which i have a rather unpopular opinion, and so i'll keep it to myself.

to make everyone happy they just need to make a game that's really fun to play.
Great Muppetty Odin, it's so simple! Why didn't we think of that? Bugger me, that's brilliant. Clearly Quakers, you are the One Eyed Man in the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Blind.

to make everyone happy they just need to make a game that's really fun to play.
i know, I was joking XD,i just want a new worms game for pc i dont care about the dimensions/guns/modes i just want to see a new worms game for the PC plataform.

Great Muppetty Odin, it's so simple! Why didn't we think of that? Bugger me, that's brilliant. Clearly Quakers, you are the One Eyed Man in the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Blind.
might be trivial to you, but a lot of people around here aren't grasping that idea. yeah, i don't get why, either.

for some reason or other, a lot of people think that the next worms game will be great if, and only if, some feature-x is included. some of these features really can be fun, but not a single one of these will be capable of saving a game that is bad to begin with. and if the game is solid, it will be great fun even without any one of these.

i'm also starting to think that some of these people somehow managed to make it into the development team.
i just want a new worms game for pc
as long as its a pc game that is developed as one, i second. ports of certain console games to pc platform are welcomed, but being able to run on pc doesn't make them pc games.

might be trivial to you, but a lot of people around here aren't grasping that idea. yeah, i don't get why, either.

for some reason or other, a lot of people think that the next worms game will be great if, and only if, some feature-x is included. some of these features really can be fun, but not a single one of these will be capable of saving a game that is bad to begin with. and if the game is solid, it will be great fun even without any one of these.

i'm also starting to think that some of these people somehow managed to make it into the development team.
Yup. Mmhm. Totally. Yeah. And that's why W:OW1 was a chart-busting game, and why nobody ever felt the need to make updates for W:A. Sure.

Yup. Mmhm. Totally. Yeah. And that's why W:OW1 was a chart-busting game, and why nobody ever felt the need to make updates for W:A. Sure.

You, my good sir, have won a Monocle Point! (tm)

Yup. Mmhm. Totally. Yeah. And that's why W:OW1 was a chart-busting game, and why nobody ever felt the need to make updates for W:A. Sure.
worms through worms armageddon were made flawlessly, at least conceptually. worms started out as a basic game which had only the things you need for gameplay, and then was upgraded with things that don't interfere with it. that's how it is supposed to be done. get the core running, then make it shiny.

and wow, et cetera, are still good games, but they are nowhere near the quality of wdc and wa, despite all the bells and whistles. and i think that's precisely because someone in t17 thinks that what fans need are these bells and these whistles, and that's what makes the game. it doesn't.

the animated 3d backgrounds are great. i like them. but i'd rather see devs spend more time debugging the game and making sure certain weapons worked as supposed to in wow than work on putting the backgrounds in.

worms through worms armageddon were made flawlessly, at least conceptually.

http://stuff.benpaddon.co.uk/shadowmoon.png

Worms 2 isn't without its flaws. It's probably the most imbalanced of the PC 2D games in terms of the weapons available, and the options settings are incredibly fiddly and require a degree in Rocket Surgery before you can properly bugger about with it.

w2 had tools that let you balance a weapon set to whatever kind of match you want to play. the fact that the default weapon sets were not as well balanced bleaks in comparison.

the concept was great. in many ways better than wa with its fixed weapon parameters. the fact that a lot of people found it difficult to use, speaks more about these people than about the game.

besides, you think building a computer is difficult, when a lot of people in the w2 days had to build and configure their own from scratch. the game matched the audience perfectly. it is only now, with the advance of the console games, that the average gamer is dumber than a cork, and w2 seems like it was too complex.

Oh yes, I'd forgotten that companies like Gateway, Tiny, HP, Dell, Acer, Fujitsu, IBM, TIME, et al. didn't exist in 1997. People had to build computers themselves out of wood and spit.

in 97 a lot of people still didn't run w95, and w98 was only being put on the market. virtually every gamer in 97 knew what magic numbers to fill into the irq, dma, and base address fields for a game. many knew what these meant. ans sure, there were a lot of companies that built computers, but these were new machines. a lot of people were keeping their old, pre-w95 486 and early pentium machines up to speed by upgrading memory, sound boards, even processors.

again, its true that not everyone needed that. by 97 there was already a whole lot of people who simply bought a new machine with w95 pre-installed and pre-tweaked by someone who knew what they were doing. but back then, these were not yet a majority.

computer gaming was very different in '97. i suppose, you might not remember a whole lot of that, since you clearly needed someone else to take care of your machine, or maybe you only played your nintendo, but i was taking care of my 486 and even writing some simple games of my own for it. so yeah, w2 was the right game for the right period in gaming history.

virtually every gamer in 97 knew what magic numbers to fill into the irq, dma, and base address fields for a game.I have no idea what any of that means, and I doubt I did in 1997 either. As far as I and my friends were concerned back then, you were computer literate if you knew the right-click-on-the-X trick to get to the root directory and find Meteors and MineHunt.

http://computers.douglasthrift.net/winxpfaq/ladf_sound.png
You didn't have to know what it meant, just what numbers they were (and they were usually the same) to get any DOS game running with sound. :p

Oh, is that why I could never get any sound on my DOS games with Windows 95?

Oh, is that why I could never get any sound on my DOS games with Windows 95?
precisely. dos games communicate with audio hardware directly, using interrupts and in/out instructions. these operations are protected under w95 and later os, so they have to be emulated for dos programs.

the dma and irq are primary numbers that depend on your hardware configuration. base address gives you an offset to find the address of your audio hardware so that you can send instructions to it. for sound blaster, base address is almost universally 220, so that was always the easy part. irq and dma you had to know for your particular machine, either from manuals, or by trial and error.

these really seem like magic numbers until you try actually writing dos code to work with sound blaster. then they make perfect sense.

Hmm.

Okay, does anyone have a time machine that can take me back to 1997?

Crudbuckets! If I had known that, I could've played the origional Lemmings with sound!

And without a Mouse too. So I guess I'd just be playing Lemmings 95 anyway.

The Amiga version is better. Lemmings MS-DOS and Lemmings 95 had missing levels.

I was lucky enough to always have SB-compatible audio devices, so the numbers 220, 5 and 1 stuck in my head.
Also, I had a nice generic mouse.com mouse driver, which I could nicely call up in my Win95 batch files.

That worked flawlessly for most DOS games in Win95 for.
Only few exceptions required me to activate that auto-shut-down-to-DOS and back to Windows function.
Duke3D is the one I remember best.

i now keep a separate 486 for these kinds of things. yes, i know that dosbox works pretty well. i like it too. but there is just something about knowing that you are running these classic games on hardware they were written for.

(...) the fact that a lot of people found it difficult to use, speaks more about these people than about the game.
(...)it is only now, with the advance of the console games, that the average gamer is dumber than a cork, and w2 seems like it was too complex.
You know while I, as always, read what you say with great interest, I kind of took those coments for myself, and I don't understand why you have to bee so arogant.
Does living in a house you wouldn't be able to build, or driving a car you wouldn't be able to repair makes you dumb? Thx god, everything doesn't work like computers, otherwise you'de be as sorry as me. I'm a 31 years old gamer, am computer illiterate to your standards, but I'm far from dumb thank you.
No offence taken or intended ;)

personally, i like to know how everything i use works. and for the most part, i do, down to fairly fine detail. i tend to fix most of these things myself, and if i find some difficulty in fixing it, i tend to try to figure out what is the proper way of doing it, and fixing it anyways. there are a few situations when i'm going to take my car to a mechanic, but it really is a time thing more than anything.

but yeah, it's just me, and this really isn't necessary in today's world. nor does the fact that you don't want to bother with these things make you any dumber. that's not what i was trying to say.

what i was mostly saying, is a converse statement. people with poor education (be it formal or not) and low level of mental development, tend to have hard time learning these things. it used to create a nice barrier from the certain sort of people you run into on-line today. if you can set up your machine, you probably have some reasonable level of intelligence. yes, it also kept out some people who just didn't have the time or didn't want to bother, but that is entirely beside the point. the fact is, average pc gamer was smarter before windows came about.

the state of gaming industry today has its bright points. there are more interesting people playing. there is more money in the industry. some nice things are being achieved because all of that.

but with this, you also get people who don't know how to do anything else. they are the ones that complain if there are a few extra config options in the game, if it takes some amount of time or skill to master it, and if there are no extra features X, Y, and Z, which are completely unnecessary, but "that other game" has them. once these people became the most vocal group, the decline in gaming has begun, and we see its consequences.