IE 8 is not outdated by any stretch of the imagination. I'd give you bloated, except you said that Gecko isn't bloated, and IE isn't what we'd call that far off from Firefox in terms of bloat. They're both weighty browsers, it's not like comparing a midget to a cow.
Did you RTFA, or just TFS? Because I RTFA'd, and the article specifically says that there's no reason for Firefox to switch engines. TFS is full of it, basically, so I could understand if you got the wrong idea from that.
I don't know about you, but I'll take stable over lightweight any day. The only word that suffices to describe Firefox's lack of threaded tabs is "shameful". There is no excuse for a modern browser to not have this, especially in light of the fact that their main competitor (IE) is developing it.
Re:Can you change the world in MMO's?
on
Quests
·
· Score: 1
The problem is that you can't screw over the new players, even though you want to let the players change the world. So, you're stuck keeping a static world.
The only workable solution to this problem is to have a world which appears different depending on where in the quest chain you are. WotLK is making steps in this direction, the Death Knight starting quests use this technique. Whether they can make it work in the wider world (instead of a 3-level starter zone for one class) remains to be seen, but it's the only way, so I hope they get it to work.
Re:Are Quests in MMOGs doable?
on
Quests
·
· Score: 1
In WoW there is absolutely no attachment to any NPC in that game unless you went through Warcraft 1,2,and 3.
I disagree. I have played 2 and 3, but there are some NPCs I've run into in WoW who are meaningful and special, even though they weren't introduced until WoW. Tirion Fordring, Bolvar Fordragon, guys like that.
WoW lore is an experience where you basically get out what you put in. If you think the game is just a big grind, and approach it with that mindset, never reading quests, etc, you won't get anything from the story. On the other hand, if you invest effort into finding and participating in the story, you will probably find it a very enriching experience (I certainly do!).
Damn! You figured me out! It's true, I've been secretly working for Cookie Monster, trying to get his cookie message out to the people. How did you know?
That's not ignorant, that merely displays having observed politics for any reasonable amount of time, and watching both parties screw us over. When one guy is shooting you, and the other is stabbing you, both are the same as far as you're concerned. You're just as dead.
Just because one thing gets reviewed, doesn't mean all things must be. Hell, the new Civ doesn't even necessarily belong getting reviewed here, since this is a fairly PC-centric site.
This "review" is very unusual and suspect at the least.
No it isn't.
It's very positive (without talking about actual gameplay)
There's nothing wrong with being positive, and it does talk about the gameplay.
while being critical of interface and mechanisms from other games most readers are familiar with.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
All in all a template review.
Not in the slightest. It isn't even a wholly positive review, for God's sake. It specifically says that the individual parts of the game are weak on their own merits.
Delusional is a strong word and you should do your research before throwing it about.
It's a highly accurate word. I did do my research, I have played the game, read the review, and for extra credit, I read this site every day, and have seen several reviews. This is not out of the ordinary in any way, shape, or form. I will say it again: saying that this positive review was "bought" is purely delusional.
Spot on, mate. The/. crowd is insanely paranoid about astroturfing, past the point of all rational thought on the subject. It's not like this is the first game review in years, or something. This is a highly anticipated game that a lot of people will enjoy. Saying that this positive review was "bought" is purely delusional.
With how short and different from each other the first two stages are, wouldn't the logical thing to do be to play until the fifth stage, knowing stages 3 and 4 are very likely to be different from 1&2, and very short?
Just because you didn't find it fun doesn't mean he won't. I hate the Sims, for example. I think it's a pathetic excuse for a game masquerading as a real game, and should never have been made. But damned if lots and lots of people don't see something in it.
And I, for one, find Spore to be pretty fun. So there it is again, diversity of opinion. It's just the damnedest thing!
There's nothing evolution-like in there, unless you believe in Intelligent Design
No shit. Do you have any freakin' clue how frustrating it would be to play a game where you can't control what happens to your creation? And this is beside the point, anyway. It's certainly evolution, just not evolution driven by random chance.
It's basically a series of mini games, starting with packman, each of which has been done better before.
That's kind of the point. It isn't meant to be the best at any area. Furthermore, afaik, the space stage of the game isn't something that's been done before.
The science is terrible...
Who the hell cares? Well, you, I guess, but no one should care. It's a game, the science isn't required to be anything resembling good.
...and the visual style is more kindergarden than Vista.
Whether this is good or bad is a completely subjective call. I'm neither excited nor put off by the game's style, but if you think that many people won't love it to death, you're only kidding yourself.
I'm sorry you didn't like the game. I enjoy it, it's reasonably fun, if not very deep until the end (when the game really does take off), and toying with making a creature is plenty of fun. But again, you're only kidding yourself if you think people are going to be put off by this game.
I strongly doubt that these game designers considered even a second going with proper inertia/thrusting (unlike what you think there's not much gravity involved in this setting)
The game has proper physics, "noob" physics is an option you toggle. You'd be wrong.
or proper sound propagation.
Of course they didn't! They didn't because it'd be fuckin' boring! It doesn't even require a second of thought to realize that.
Of all the science-fiction movies I've seen, 2001 was the most realistic one, with regard to sound, vacuum, distances, etc..
2001 was also the worst (non B-movie) science fiction movie I've ever seen. That's hardly a great model.
Realism isn't the enemy of fun, it can even enhance it.
Realism is not the enemy of fun, but blindly applying realism is. I cringe every time someone cries that something in a game isn't realistic. It's not supposed to be realistic, it's a game. It's supposed to maximize fun, not realism.
Not that Linux is the end all-be all, but if you want open source apps, go run the open source OS.
Most of your points are spot-on, but this is ridiculous. There's plenty of open source software on every platform, not just open source ones. I can go get all sorts of open source apps for Windows, or even OS X, neither of which is open source. "Open source" is not a platform, it's a development philosophy which can be executed anywhere.
They have joystick control, but I'm a bit fuzzy after seeing the demo as to how it's going to work. It better not be anything like the mouse control we saw in that video, that's for sure. That would be horrendous.
Causality chain. Trace the chain of events all the way back to the beginning, and you eventually reach a point where you say, "It just came out of nowhere!". I realize that's the best we have at the moment, but it isn't exactly very scientific.
I'm replying to you. You said he's been lied to, and you seemed to be implying that claiming the existence of a god is a lie. Obviously, this would be untrue. If that's not what you were saying, then carry on.
My point is that complaining about Sarah Palin is meaningless, because we're going to a) get fucked in the ass by McCain, or b) get fucked in the ass by Obama. Either way, our anus will be stretched wider than the goatse guy's, why quibble about the VP, of all things?
While what you say is true, I think one thing here needs to be looked into more closely: the advertising. It would probably be very hard to lock down a definition for what is reasonable to advertise, but I think we can safely say that it is unreasonable to advertise that you provide service internationally without very clearly saying that it costs more than any average person could afford. The advertisement is deliberately misleading, and that isn't acceptable.
Again, though, actually trying to make up a law for this sort of situation would be hard, and I'm not sure how it could be done.
Wrong. Compulsory education at the primary level is a basic human right, as defined by the U.N.
Either you, or the UN, is using a word in a way fundamentally compatible with its meaning. If something is compulsory, it isn't a "right". Having education may be a right (and I would agree that it is), but nothing compulsory is ever a right.
And, for that matter, my classification of the society I want to live in just so happens to be the one derived from law.
No law guarantees you the right not to live in a society of retards. Thank you for playing.
And no part of that amendment addresses what you quoted. While the separation of church and state is a sound principle, it is not required by the constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
IE 8 is not outdated by any stretch of the imagination. I'd give you bloated, except you said that Gecko isn't bloated, and IE isn't what we'd call that far off from Firefox in terms of bloat. They're both weighty browsers, it's not like comparing a midget to a cow.
Did you RTFA, or just TFS? Because I RTFA'd, and the article specifically says that there's no reason for Firefox to switch engines. TFS is full of it, basically, so I could understand if you got the wrong idea from that.
I don't know about you, but I'll take stable over lightweight any day. The only word that suffices to describe Firefox's lack of threaded tabs is "shameful". There is no excuse for a modern browser to not have this, especially in light of the fact that their main competitor (IE) is developing it.
The problem is that you can't screw over the new players, even though you want to let the players change the world. So, you're stuck keeping a static world.
The only workable solution to this problem is to have a world which appears different depending on where in the quest chain you are. WotLK is making steps in this direction, the Death Knight starting quests use this technique. Whether they can make it work in the wider world (instead of a 3-level starter zone for one class) remains to be seen, but it's the only way, so I hope they get it to work.
In WoW there is absolutely no attachment to any NPC in that game unless you went through Warcraft 1,2,and 3.
I disagree. I have played 2 and 3, but there are some NPCs I've run into in WoW who are meaningful and special, even though they weren't introduced until WoW. Tirion Fordring, Bolvar Fordragon, guys like that.
WoW lore is an experience where you basically get out what you put in. If you think the game is just a big grind, and approach it with that mindset, never reading quests, etc, you won't get anything from the story. On the other hand, if you invest effort into finding and participating in the story, you will probably find it a very enriching experience (I certainly do!).
Damn! You figured me out! It's true, I've been secretly working for Cookie Monster, trying to get his cookie message out to the people. How did you know?
That's not ignorant, that merely displays having observed politics for any reasonable amount of time, and watching both parties screw us over. When one guy is shooting you, and the other is stabbing you, both are the same as far as you're concerned. You're just as dead.
You know that, and I know that, but unfortunately, people are too swindled by his smooth talk to see him for what he really is.
Just because one thing gets reviewed, doesn't mean all things must be. Hell, the new Civ doesn't even necessarily belong getting reviewed here, since this is a fairly PC-centric site.
This "review" is very unusual and suspect at the least.
No it isn't.
It's very positive (without talking about actual gameplay)
There's nothing wrong with being positive, and it does talk about the gameplay.
while being critical of interface and mechanisms from other games most readers are familiar with.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
All in all a template review.
Not in the slightest. It isn't even a wholly positive review, for God's sake. It specifically says that the individual parts of the game are weak on their own merits.
Delusional is a strong word and you should do your research before throwing it about.
It's a highly accurate word. I did do my research, I have played the game, read the review, and for extra credit, I read this site every day, and have seen several reviews. This is not out of the ordinary in any way, shape, or form. I will say it again: saying that this positive review was "bought" is purely delusional.
Spot on, mate. The /. crowd is insanely paranoid about astroturfing, past the point of all rational thought on the subject. It's not like this is the first game review in years, or something. This is a highly anticipated game that a lot of people will enjoy. Saying that this positive review was "bought" is purely delusional.
With how short and different from each other the first two stages are, wouldn't the logical thing to do be to play until the fifth stage, knowing stages 3 and 4 are very likely to be different from 1&2, and very short?
Just because you didn't find it fun doesn't mean he won't. I hate the Sims, for example. I think it's a pathetic excuse for a game masquerading as a real game, and should never have been made. But damned if lots and lots of people don't see something in it.
And I, for one, find Spore to be pretty fun. So there it is again, diversity of opinion. It's just the damnedest thing!
There's nothing evolution-like in there, unless you believe in Intelligent Design
No shit. Do you have any freakin' clue how frustrating it would be to play a game where you can't control what happens to your creation? And this is beside the point, anyway. It's certainly evolution, just not evolution driven by random chance.
It's basically a series of mini games, starting with packman, each of which has been done better before.
That's kind of the point. It isn't meant to be the best at any area. Furthermore, afaik, the space stage of the game isn't something that's been done before.
The science is terrible...
Who the hell cares? Well, you, I guess, but no one should care. It's a game, the science isn't required to be anything resembling good.
...and the visual style is more kindergarden than Vista.
Whether this is good or bad is a completely subjective call. I'm neither excited nor put off by the game's style, but if you think that many people won't love it to death, you're only kidding yourself.
I'm sorry you didn't like the game. I enjoy it, it's reasonably fun, if not very deep until the end (when the game really does take off), and toying with making a creature is plenty of fun. But again, you're only kidding yourself if you think people are going to be put off by this game.
How, exactly, is that supposed to be a bad thing? Freespace was amazing, a MMORPG version is a great thing.
I strongly doubt that these game designers considered even a second going with proper inertia/thrusting (unlike what you think there's not much gravity involved in this setting)
The game has proper physics, "noob" physics is an option you toggle. You'd be wrong.
or proper sound propagation.
Of course they didn't! They didn't because it'd be fuckin' boring! It doesn't even require a second of thought to realize that.
Of all the science-fiction movies I've seen, 2001 was the most realistic one, with regard to sound, vacuum, distances, etc..
2001 was also the worst (non B-movie) science fiction movie I've ever seen. That's hardly a great model.
Why would it necessarily be a bad thing?
Because it would sound boring as hell.
Realism isn't the enemy of fun, it can even enhance it.
Realism is not the enemy of fun, but blindly applying realism is. I cringe every time someone cries that something in a game isn't realistic. It's not supposed to be realistic, it's a game. It's supposed to maximize fun, not realism.
Not that Linux is the end all-be all, but if you want open source apps, go run the open source OS.
Most of your points are spot-on, but this is ridiculous. There's plenty of open source software on every platform, not just open source ones. I can go get all sorts of open source apps for Windows, or even OS X, neither of which is open source. "Open source" is not a platform, it's a development philosophy which can be executed anywhere.
They have joystick control, but I'm a bit fuzzy after seeing the demo as to how it's going to work. It better not be anything like the mouse control we saw in that video, that's for sure. That would be horrendous.
Causality chain. Trace the chain of events all the way back to the beginning, and you eventually reach a point where you say, "It just came out of nowhere!". I realize that's the best we have at the moment, but it isn't exactly very scientific.
I'm replying to you. You said he's been lied to, and you seemed to be implying that claiming the existence of a god is a lie. Obviously, this would be untrue. If that's not what you were saying, then carry on.
My point is that complaining about Sarah Palin is meaningless, because we're going to a) get fucked in the ass by McCain, or b) get fucked in the ass by Obama. Either way, our anus will be stretched wider than the goatse guy's, why quibble about the VP, of all things?
While what you say is true, I think one thing here needs to be looked into more closely: the advertising. It would probably be very hard to lock down a definition for what is reasonable to advertise, but I think we can safely say that it is unreasonable to advertise that you provide service internationally without very clearly saying that it costs more than any average person could afford. The advertisement is deliberately misleading, and that isn't acceptable.
Again, though, actually trying to make up a law for this sort of situation would be hard, and I'm not sure how it could be done.
Wrong. Compulsory education at the primary level is a basic human right, as defined by the U.N.
Either you, or the UN, is using a word in a way fundamentally compatible with its meaning. If something is compulsory, it isn't a "right". Having education may be a right (and I would agree that it is), but nothing compulsory is ever a right.
And, for that matter, my classification of the society I want to live in just so happens to be the one derived from law.
No law guarantees you the right not to live in a society of retards. Thank you for playing.
Huh? He very clearly said that a belief in creationism would not be required in his scenario. You're tilting at windmills.
And no part of that amendment addresses what you quoted. While the separation of church and state is a sound principle, it is not required by the constitution.