nsps

Note that it is less than two cd trays tall/wide (depending how you look at it). I thought the slim PS2 wasn't that small until I saw it in person.

Well, if it's a bad move to pay $189 for one game, it appears I could get a GeForce FX5200 or FX5700LE. I'm not sure if the LE makes it better or worse, but the FX5600 is the minimum recommended. I could also get a PCI Radeon 9250 or 9200SE, which should fit the requirements. Possible brands include Apollo, Jaton, Prolink, PNY. Sapphire, Powercolor and Infotek for the Radeons. Actually, all those Radeons say DirectX 8, so they're no good anyway.

I only have eyes for Psychonauts.

Good Psychonauts reaction at EB (similar to Chris's, the main difference being the clerk was a dude): Two Xbox copies on the shelf, no PC, clerk tells me that he can't wait to play it. I mention Tim, he says he's never played any of his games but that this one looks really cool. (The rest isn't like Chris's story) Then he tells me I can get a refurbed Xbox and that he has one and they have a better working rate than new ones. Random guy in store tells me he has a refurbed one too, also thinks it's better than normal new one. I cry, say maybe I'll come back and buy and Xbox and play Psychonauts right away, but don't have the money at the moment.

Thanks for your help, everybody. I'm probably gonna end up with an Xbox now, as I'm not sure the cards will work right with my PC. I guess I'll have to sell my PC Psychonauts, keep the shirt and save up.

Is it just me, or is the GeForce naming system incredibly complicated? The Web page I found explaining them didn't mention FX, PCX or ones that just say GeForce but have larger numbers. Or ones that end in TC. I assume GeForce FX is better than 3 since it's in the recommended requirements. But is it better than four? What the hell is going on? I think I may need a PCI slot card. Sorry to drive this further off topic. Maybe it should split into a "getting a graphics card to play psychonauts" thread.

Thanks for the info. I'm trying to find some clocking info online. Anyone have any thoughts on Radeon 9600PRO 128MB vs. Radeon 9600 256MB?

How crappy a company is Saphire? What other brand might be better? Thanks again.

The MX400? Don't the minimum requirements say excluding the MX model? I'm trying to get a video card and have no idea what I'm doing or where to show (US). Any further input would be greatly appreciated. Thinking about the Xbox and Chris's "it just works" philosophy. Thanks. Edit: For example, would a "GeForce4 MX4000 128MB card work if the minumum requirements say 64MB GeForce 3 or higher...(excluding GeForce 4 MX)." If I want the game to look decent, what cards should I check out? Should I consider this doodad?: http://www2.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102295R

Did he mention how many copies they had?

I'd be excited about the art pony, if it had the Doublefine Store PonyCam mounted on it. Damn, I wanna see the shots from that ponycam.

Whoever it was who posted in one Psychonauts thread or another that the announcement might be a soundtrack, by the way, was partly correct. I guess that's what makes the announcement to pants-craptacular--the range of items at the store.

Shit, I was hoping it would involve a pony, perhaps even a ponycam, which would be mounted on the pony. Maybe the Doublefine Store will have a ponycam.

Not to mention the other secret announcement that Tim ensures us isn't just the game.

I did make a brief effort to describe the premise, but they really didn't seem to care how brilliant the concept was. I regret that I was only prepared to tell them how awesome Psychonauts was and not why it was 30 times better than all their other games.

Wow, Chris, your attempts to spread the word of Psychonauts have certainly gone better than mine. I was at a barbecue the other day and there was an 11-year-old boy there who was playing with his toy and then got excited when he found out that the guy hosting the party had "Half Life 2" on his computer. He and his dad were savvy to the super-trendy games. I patiently waited for an opportunity, then when the kid said he had an Xbox, I said, "There's a really cool game coming out for the Xbox, it's called Psychonauts…" "There's a really cool game called Grand Theft Auto San Andreas!" he interrupted. And that pretty much sunk things. He went on to tell me about how you could see naked girls, with the help of the host, who asked what his dad thought of that. He doesn't know, the kid said. Once the dad came in, I tried to plant the idea in his head to buy the game, but I think they were all too hypnotized by the headline games. Oh well.

Since my graphics card is no good, I might get an Xbox, but can't afford one now, so may have to go a few more months without Psychonauts. The demo ran perfectly on my friend's badass computer, and I'm very happy with Tim's trademark attention to writing and detail. I have a Mac, and am quite sure I wouldn't be considering getting an Xbox even though I don't want one if it ran the game. Ron Gilbert wrote about Apple's inability to get serious on the gaming front a while back... Also, why did you have order a copy, Chris? Shouldn't you get a free one as a tester?

I agree that Azureus is a better client. I downloaded the file from Gamespot, and when I try to play it, Windows XP simply shows a timer for a short while, then does nothing. I'm downloading again, this time from Yahoo. Hopefully that'll work. I'm not sure if my video card will work, so it'll be a nice test before the full game arrives.

I skipped through a lot of the show the first time Tim was on, but no spoilers here. And if you want to skip the Area 51 stuff, go about halfway through.

Yes, yes, exactly. It doesn't have to be manufactured to be professional, and I don't think any of the suggestions, unless taken to extremes, would make it like that.

I don't think the suggestions came across correctly. I'm not asking for pre-scripted interviews. I didn't mean to prepare the questions ahead of time, I meant to prepare the game descriptions, introductions, etc. I actually find stuff that has obviously been planned in advance very annoying (late night talk shows with nonsensical transitions on the questions—I prefer The Daily Show, which has no pre-interview). On call-in shows, they have someone screening the calls to find out the questions in advance and avoid two people asking the same question. That's the other planning element I was getting at. I doubt I'm ever going to watch this show again anyway, so I should probably stop worrying.

I believe there has been some constructive criticism of the show, so maybe we should compile it all and send it to them: 1. Don't read a question sent in from a viewer if it has already been asked. Simply skip to the next one and screen for the best questions. (from me) On that same note, have it organized in advance which host will ask these questions. 2. Don't talk so damn fast. (from Netmonkey) 3. Don't ask what words you can say on your own show. [Was that the host, or the designer? Seems weird for the designer to say his own game is kickass.] (from Duncan) 4. Steer the interview (and show) in the best way to maintain smoothness and polish. (from Trep) 5. Practice some broadcast journalism skills [learn to be concise and enunciate, prepare more in advance.] (from amishler) 6. Don't have awkward Q&A sessions in which guests sit there while the hosts answer questions that the guests aren't qualified to answer. Answer those questions during a different part of the show. Alternatively, use close-up camera angles on the hosts while they answer questions that the designers aren't involved in. (from me) 7. Better production value (from Trep, I think) 8. Display more wit and charisma. (from Thrik) 9. It's great to speak at length with a designer about the creative process and their collaborators, as long as that designer is Tim Schafer. (from multiple people) 10. Put more time into planning and organizing the show. Post any additions, and maybe some one can pass these along to the show.

I don't think they're slacking off so much as nervous and inexperienced. They don't know what they're doing, but they do have some knowledge of games and actually want to discuss them with the designers. I have only watched the two episodes with Tim, and have skipped through all the unrelated stuff, so even I didn't "just take anything thrown at me while I wag my tail and drool all over the place." My only point is that it's a free Webcast, put on by people whose primary act clearly isn't producing a show. If you're paying for a Gamespot subscription, you might feel more ripped off. If you were paying for cable and had to watch it (or G4), you might feel more ripped off. My main point is that I find it unlikely that the show will soil the reputation of gamers. Plenty of other things will do that. I didn't intend to insinuate that you should watch the show, as I said it was often "painful to watch" and I don't personally watch the show beyond special circumstances. I merely wanted to point out that while I stand by what I said earlier when making fun of the hosts, the show exists in a certain context. It costs a certain amount of money to make a quality weekly talk show. If more money could be made from something like "On the Spot" right now, I suspect that we'd have some higher quality competitors as alternatives (maybe we do and I don't know it).

While I just made fun of the guys a couple posts ago, I feel obliged to point out, in some agreement with Jake, that this show is a Webcast. The only people watching it are going to be people already interested in gaming. Those with no knowledge of the gaming world aren't going to go through the trouble of loading the show's super-crappy-res video (they're not gamers, so they don't have the paying subscription, just as I don't) to watch a bunch of clowns trying to manage their amateurish TV show. So while the show is painful to watch, i don't know how good we should expect a Webcast-only show with no commercial breaks to be. And how many quality shows would spend that much time talking to Tim?

Well, I remember when the SNES graphics for Mortal Kombat were hands-down better than those of the Genesis, but the Genesis was more fun to play because you didn't have to wait 10 minutes for your character to punch after hitting the button. Also, you could activate the gore, which was the only reason to play the game in the first place, right? So better graphics don't mean better gameplay, yeah, that's the moral of this post. Also, I can't compare since I haven't played the PS2 SC2 (SCII?), but I'm all for a Dreamcast release.