To be honest, I don't even remember that many games that did not let you save anywhere you wanted to, and I've been playing computer games since Adventure and Wizardry 1. When I first saw a game that only let you save at save-points I thought it was crazy.
I see people talking abou the good old days of games realize that they're talking about 1995 or 2000 and that they've never actually seen a game that's not on a console that wasn't solitaire or minesweeper.
There are indeed a lot of players who do want a big open world game that isn't over once the short 40 hour main quest is done. A lot of people used to story driven games that don't give you a choice don't get this. A lot of new games are just slightly interactive movies.
I dunno, when I first played video games, other than the arcade ones, you didn't need that much in the way of motor skills for anything except action games. They didn't have the atrocities of "action RPG" or "RTS" games invented yet.
I would like to play it, since I like open world games like Fallout, but it's not on PC. I wonder if console users have become so used to games that are tightly on the rails that they're uncertain how to deal with open world games or games with more RPG than action. Having a store in a game is a bad thing, but I gather that this is pretty common in modern games.
For "most other purchases" I also need to see the item before I will buy it. The internet is a terrible way to sell things to be honest. I want to know if clothes will fit, I want to compare items nearby, see how heavy they are, and so forth. My friends who say they shop online also say they send back a lot of the stuff they get if it turns out to not fit or otherwise not what they wanted, but that seems amazingly wasteful.
Back then, like today, programming was often ad-hoc. Everyone wanted to be a programmer in the 80s, it was promised as the best way to make money and college computer departments were overloaded. So ya, a lot of people programmed in a very dumb way, back then and today. But the few good programs did stand out. It seems rarer today though with everyone praising how awesome Microsoft Office 365 is despite it being worse in every say than the desktop versions.
To be fair though, financial software is always a mess. Every year the tax code changes and you need to make rapid changes to the code without a lot of leftover time to try to actually make maintenance easier. Back when I was at a defense contractor in the 80s, there was an entire department devoted to maintaining and modifying the payroll and payment processing software. Today this stuff is all outsourced anyway.
Look at some of today's software, it's still crap, it's still the old style of software that looks like a giant ball make by sticking used chewing gum together. It's just got a fancy veneer on top. I use software today for management purposes that is abysmal, it is no better than the crappy SAP/R3 style of stuff from a couple of decades ago, a database with some two-bit scripting on top written by self-taught business programmers. And it's all done that way for the same reason most crappy software is done - get the job done fast and on time because you're not being paid for quality.
No problem, those sorts of systems still exist today. The GUI can be a layer on top, it doesn't need to be integrated at all levels like many of today's paradigms do. I mean, Javascript is barely a language and yet no one seems to care that it's unsuited for the purpose it's being used for, because people just don't know anymore that programming isn't just snapping lego parts together.
Today, few people even TRY to understand the whole stack (if there is a stack, not everything is web). I see way too many programmers who treat the whole thing like black magic, from the electronics to the libraries and even the algorithms.
You can read that as some people just are dumb, criticizing governments for spending money in the first place and then simultaneously criticizing governments for not spending money to upgrade old systems. This is an age old problem that if you get the budget once you can spend it to buy useful stuff and then you have to deal with the same thing for years or decades before you'll get budget to properly improve or maintain it. The fact that slashdotters are still surprised and amazed that governments use outdated equipment and software just proves that they've been stuck too long in the basement and need to get out more.
I say dump VC companies in general. They're terrible at it and basically are throwing money at people with zero business and technical experience and not caring if they get anything back. We already are glutted with social media companies we don't need more startups thinking that they know how to make another one. Let's get to doing things the old fashioned way, working hard to make something of value that can potentialy return a profit based on something more than inflated stock expectations (trust dividends and not speculation).
I liked the Ghostbusters remake. It wasn't as good as the original, sure, but it wasn't the crime against humanity that so many made it out to be. I laughed at it, just like any other average comedy, and there were some bits that I really liked.
This is part of the flaw with anyone deciding to be an amateur critic. When you're personally invested in a film and have strong emotional feelings about it, then you're probably going to do a terrible job at writing the critique. Especially if someone is writing in an anti-sjw fueled rage then the writing is just dumb; you can earn your Iron Will club badges in other ways.
Professional critics for the most part, whether you agree with them or not, will write in a much better style as if these were actually professionals doing professional work, they understand the language, the spelling, and the grammar, and can sometimes pull off some witty writing or some interesting observations. The self-style critic sitting in Mom's basement doesn't match any of this, it's obvious in the first or second sentence that they struggled in English class despite it being their native language, and their writing style makes fan-fic authors look good.
If you want to rate a film then just rate the film. Writing an incoherent review doesn't add any value.
I'd rather than XBox and Playstation just get rid of their idiotic "exclusive" games. Publishers shoudln't be bribed to make sure their new games only run on one platform.
You're assuming this is the cause, however it can be measured if statistics are kept (ie, are minorities applying for housing loans in some areas but being rejected). Science should be able to trump gut-feelings.
There are lots of types of racism, and it's a tug of war. We have seen how a hands-off approach most definitely causes racial disparities in many instances, neighborhoods segregate, schools segregate, and so forth. Yet any action taken to solve these problems is seen as racist. In fact there are many people who think that there is no actual problem in the first place or that it shouldn't be solved or that segregation is desirable.
Collection of statistics is necessary, for example, if you need to determine if this segregation is happening because of discrimination or self selection.
The asterisk implies this may have been a required field... Other things are odd, such as the additionally linked job requirements posting for an "intern" that required 1 year experience in a lot of things you don't get in school (ie, somewhere between entry level and junior).
Slashdot Mirror
Fallout: New Vegas is pretty much a western in many ways.
To be honest, I don't even remember that many games that did not let you save anywhere you wanted to, and I've been playing computer games since Adventure and Wizardry 1. When I first saw a game that only let you save at save-points I thought it was crazy.
I see people talking abou the good old days of games realize that they're talking about 1995 or 2000 and that they've never actually seen a game that's not on a console that wasn't solitaire or minesweeper.
There are indeed a lot of players who do want a big open world game that isn't over once the short 40 hour main quest is done. A lot of people used to story driven games that don't give you a choice don't get this. A lot of new games are just slightly interactive movies.
I dunno, when I first played video games, other than the arcade ones, you didn't need that much in the way of motor skills for anything except action games. They didn't have the atrocities of "action RPG" or "RTS" games invented yet.
I would like to play it, since I like open world games like Fallout, but it's not on PC. I wonder if console users have become so used to games that are tightly on the rails that they're uncertain how to deal with open world games or games with more RPG than action. Having a store in a game is a bad thing, but I gather that this is pretty common in modern games.
For "most other purchases" I also need to see the item before I will buy it. The internet is a terrible way to sell things to be honest. I want to know if clothes will fit, I want to compare items nearby, see how heavy they are, and so forth. My friends who say they shop online also say they send back a lot of the stuff they get if it turns out to not fit or otherwise not what they wanted, but that seems amazingly wasteful.
We go back to the 70s and rivers start catching fire again?
When you drain the swamp then the swamp monsters have no where to go except government agencies.
Back then, like today, programming was often ad-hoc. Everyone wanted to be a programmer in the 80s, it was promised as the best way to make money and college computer departments were overloaded. So ya, a lot of people programmed in a very dumb way, back then and today. But the few good programs did stand out. It seems rarer today though with everyone praising how awesome Microsoft Office 365 is despite it being worse in every say than the desktop versions.
To be fair though, financial software is always a mess. Every year the tax code changes and you need to make rapid changes to the code without a lot of leftover time to try to actually make maintenance easier. Back when I was at a defense contractor in the 80s, there was an entire department devoted to maintaining and modifying the payroll and payment processing software. Today this stuff is all outsourced anyway.
Look at some of today's software, it's still crap, it's still the old style of software that looks like a giant ball make by sticking used chewing gum together. It's just got a fancy veneer on top. I use software today for management purposes that is abysmal, it is no better than the crappy SAP/R3 style of stuff from a couple of decades ago, a database with some two-bit scripting on top written by self-taught business programmers. And it's all done that way for the same reason most crappy software is done - get the job done fast and on time because you're not being paid for quality.
No problem, those sorts of systems still exist today. The GUI can be a layer on top, it doesn't need to be integrated at all levels like many of today's paradigms do. I mean, Javascript is barely a language and yet no one seems to care that it's unsuited for the purpose it's being used for, because people just don't know anymore that programming isn't just snapping lego parts together.
Today, few people even TRY to understand the whole stack (if there is a stack, not everything is web). I see way too many programmers who treat the whole thing like black magic, from the electronics to the libraries and even the algorithms.
You can read that as some people just are dumb, criticizing governments for spending money in the first place and then simultaneously criticizing governments for not spending money to upgrade old systems. This is an age old problem that if you get the budget once you can spend it to buy useful stuff and then you have to deal with the same thing for years or decades before you'll get budget to properly improve or maintain it. The fact that slashdotters are still surprised and amazed that governments use outdated equipment and software just proves that they've been stuck too long in the basement and need to get out more.
I say dump VC companies in general. They're terrible at it and basically are throwing money at people with zero business and technical experience and not caring if they get anything back. We already are glutted with social media companies we don't need more startups thinking that they know how to make another one. Let's get to doing things the old fashioned way, working hard to make something of value that can potentialy return a profit based on something more than inflated stock expectations (trust dividends and not speculation).
I liked the Ghostbusters remake. It wasn't as good as the original, sure, but it wasn't the crime against humanity that so many made it out to be. I laughed at it, just like any other average comedy, and there were some bits that I really liked.
This is part of the flaw with anyone deciding to be an amateur critic. When you're personally invested in a film and have strong emotional feelings about it, then you're probably going to do a terrible job at writing the critique. Especially if someone is writing in an anti-sjw fueled rage then the writing is just dumb; you can earn your Iron Will club badges in other ways.
Professional critics for the most part, whether you agree with them or not, will write in a much better style as if these were actually professionals doing professional work, they understand the language, the spelling, and the grammar, and can sometimes pull off some witty writing or some interesting observations. The self-style critic sitting in Mom's basement doesn't match any of this, it's obvious in the first or second sentence that they struggled in English class despite it being their native language, and their writing style makes fan-fic authors look good.
If you want to rate a film then just rate the film. Writing an incoherent review doesn't add any value.
I think the person who said that was searching for funding.
I'd rather than XBox and Playstation just get rid of their idiotic "exclusive" games. Publishers shoudln't be bribed to make sure their new games only run on one platform.
You're assuming this is the cause, however it can be measured if statistics are kept (ie, are minorities applying for housing loans in some areas but being rejected). Science should be able to trump gut-feelings.
People make stuff up and as long as it's on the internet someone will believe it -- Calvin Coolidge
There are lots of types of racism, and it's a tug of war. We have seen how a hands-off approach most definitely causes racial disparities in many instances, neighborhoods segregate, schools segregate, and so forth. Yet any action taken to solve these problems is seen as racist. In fact there are many people who think that there is no actual problem in the first place or that it shouldn't be solved or that segregation is desirable.
Collection of statistics is necessary, for example, if you need to determine if this segregation is happening because of discrimination or self selection.
The asterisk implies this may have been a required field... Other things are odd, such as the additionally linked job requirements posting for an "intern" that required 1 year experience in a lot of things you don't get in school (ie, somewhere between entry level and junior).
To be more precise, hostility to the *government* of Israel is not the same as hostility to Israel, Israelis, or Jews.
Maybe they're automating the layoff process?
Lying is a requirement to get appointed or elected.
I walk into a room with only one other person in it and declare that half the room are idiots. And the other guy agrees with me!