Mostly, they do it by limiting the way tools and parts can interact. Your portal gun, for instance, can not place portals on any surface, only specific surfaces. You can only jump so high, and so far. The game was also playtested enormously, and when places were found where people could go off the beaten path, they were mercilessly removed.
Gran Turismo has very realistic physics, too, and plenty of interaction, but again, there is basically one way through each track. Maybe you can shave a few seconds off your best time, but you aren't suddenly going to find a way through that takes minutes less.
No, one of the absolutely beautiful things about portal is that ALL such interactions have been documented, if they are left in the game, they are intended to be there. I am basing this on the developers' commentary tracks, included with the game, They explain one particular shortcut, and why they left it in when taking out almost all the others.
That was one of the only levels where there is really more than one way through the level. Pretty much, the game leads you straight down a garden path. It explains, "see this thing, all lit up and shiny and jumping out at you? This is what this is for. See this other thing? That is what that is for. Now, let me explain how you can combine those two things. Okay, now here is another level, I'm not going to tell you how to do it, but remember what you just did? You might want to try that."
Portal is a puzzle game. The aim is to solve the puzzles, in the exact way and on the exact time-line that the developer intended you to do it. It is a lovingly hand crafted game in that regard, everything has a place and a purpose. Rougelikes, on the other hand, take a "Throw everything against the w2all and see what sticks" approach. Nothing his hand crafted. There may not be ANY way to get through a level, there may be one way, or there may be many. It's all random. But nobody sat down for each level and thought, "okay, how are we going to make the player realize they need to do exactly this one particular thing right now?"
Hmm, portal 2 has four liquids, buttons, boxes, portals, light bridges, vortex tubes, and turrets. These elements are set up in carefully controlled levels where there are, at most, a few right ways to complete the level. Portal 2 presents you with a very predictable toolkit and simple, limited interactions. Not to mention, it walks you through exactly how and when to use each of these tools before forcing you to use them on your own.
Nethack, for example, has hundreds of random monsters, from hydras to Keystone Kops, fountains, water, magma, dozens of random potions, wands, spells, armor, and weapons. It has intelligent, trainable companions. It has random stores to buy things on. It even has kitchen sinks. Every thing in the game can interact with every other thing. Portal 2 doesn't come close to the complexity or unpredictability of a rougelike. It's a great game, don't get me wrong,
What was the last version you played? Toady One has been mostly working on adventure mode stuff for the last six months or so. There is quite a bit more to do as an adventurer now, but the next release will be an even bigger adventure mode improvement, with full randomly generated cities including keep, workshops and stores, sewers, and catacombs.
Awww, issum sad little troll? Please, trollio, tell us how I support Microsoft in my post above. Saying the term "Windows" is not generic is not supporting Microsoft, you fucking twit. You need to get a new hobby, one that doesn't involve you looking like an ass.
For the record, Microsoft sucks. Windows sucks. Why must I reboot you to install a fucking PDF reader, Windows? Twitter is an idiot. You are an idiot. And your mother grunts like a donkey when she's taking it up the ass. Just FYI, that is the noise you hear when you are masturbating in her basement: me, sticking it to her good.
So I decided to check on that. Turns out you are right, on the first page of results is commonapp.org, a common application for over 400 colleges and universities. Also on the first page, The Association of Professional Piercers, the Asbury Park Press, and APP pharmaceuticals. But most of the results were for application type apps, of course. Still, I wouldn't say "app" is like "windows."
No, "Windows," as applied to computing, is not generic at all. "App" can only be applied to computing, and in that context, it is quite generic. A better example would be if Microsoft had named Windows, "Operating System."
In each case, the apostrophe's signifying a contraction trumps its signifying possession.
Not exactly. We do not use the apostrophe for its, their and your for the same reason we do not write hi's and her's.We use an apostrophe-s to change a non-possessive to a possessive. Its, their, your, his, and hers are already possessives, without the need for an apostrophe.
However. I agree that the Federal Government uses the commerce clause to overreach at times, like using it to bust growers in California who sell only to other Californians, legally. But on the flip side, it is also what enabled desegregation and civil rights. Still, nothing was voided or negated, it was just how it was interpreted. And interpretation of the law IS the job of the Supreme Court.
This is the kind of hysteria we see on the nuclear debate - the opponents point out that nuclear power means the end of the world, the proponents start providing facts and figures, and are ignored.
Ah, no. But if you want the public to keep distrusting nuclear power, that is the exact right attitude to take. Keep insinuating they are all morons for doubting you fact based arguments. As I keep saying, The problem is not the public, it is people like you. It is the rabidly pro nuclear folks who do the most damage to their cause.
I'd say the only hysteria is from the pro nuclear side. Where are your facts and figures? Nowhere to be seen, you just KNOW that smoke from burning radioactive forests can't possibly make it to England from Chernobyl. Like all human beings, your sense of certainty stems not from logic and reason, but from gut feelings. I provided facts, links to a story with quotes from actual scientists. You provided your gut feeling that everything will be okay if people like me and those traitorous. lying, anti-nuclear scientists would just shut up.
You have also pre-judged me as being anti-nuclear, an "enemy" of your belief system. I am not. I am on your side. I am trying to help you be a better advocate for your cause. But you can not listen to reason. You are too emotionally invested in the issue. Please, reread your post and look at the over the top emotional language you use. You are angry that I posted something that casts doubt on your position that nuclear power is perfectly safe. You don't want the truth to come out, you want to suppress the truth, you would rather no one had ever seen that article.
That is not the way to get people on your side. People like you are SO effective at alienating others, I would almost have to guess you were working for the anti-nuke side.
Who says mercury isn't susceptible? Do you doubt that fires can spread radioactive contamination? Nobody said they felt tingling sensation when within a non-burning radioactive area, they said they felt it when fighting fires on contaminated ground. Are your only rebuttals simply misunderstandings?
Look, just claiming, "Oh, that isn't a problem" is NOT going to get the public to trust nuclear power. A better tack is, "Yes, that could be a problem. Luckily, with newer, safer reactors, that won't happen." Why not try that, instead of simply dismissing people's concerns?
I actually want safe, clean nuclear power, but I think people like you are out to destroy any trust normal people might have in the nuclear industry. By continually downplaying any dangers, you make yourself sound like a shrill shill.
Just wait until the next major forest fire, when all the radiation the trees and ground have absorbed will be lofted into the air again, to land who knows where, depending on the wind at the time.
When you said yellow cake, I was picturing, you know, lemon or maybe butter flavored. This is definitely not lemon or butter flavored. It tastes like burning.
Are you asking me where my moral absolutes come from? Who said I had any moral absolutes? There ARE no absolutes, or if there are, we have NO way of knowing what they are, or even if they are. That is the nature of infinity, it can not have an external framework by which to measure it. All measuring sticks are created in and by the very reality they measure. There may be absolute measures for any particular finite subset of reality, say "all humans" or "all sentient beings."
I wasn't saying there is anything wrong with moral relativism, I was saying (again) that DigiShaman is an utter hypocrite.
It's funny how different people have different interpretations about what does and does not constitute "ignoring the constitution." Thankfully, the constitution itself spells out who gets to decide, and that is the branch known as the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court says it is constitutional, then it is constitutional, according to the constitution itself. The constitution isn't dead, according to the constitution itself, the constitution has been followed and is still very much alive.
But sadly for you, the constitution doesn't mean what you want it to mean. You aren't on the Supreme Court, your opinion about what is or isn't constitutional means as much as my dog's opinion. So go cry in your cereal, you lost, we won, the constitution means what we say it means, not you.
Oh, but you DO believe in moral relativism. You are the poster child for moral relativism. For example, torture: okay, or not okay? Or is it... relative? I know you think it is relative, meaning, okay when done for the right reasons, by the right people, and wrong when done for the wrong reasons, or by the wrong people.
FYI, I have put my life on the line to stop attempted murder, too. I have risked arrest standing up for what I believe in. I have put my beliefs first, and my comforts second. And I continue to do so, working hard to make our country better. But no, it's not any of your business how.
Since you did not answer my question, I will just assume you were agreeing with me about everything, and admitting your entire life up until now has been a lie.
Which evil men do I not stop from doing what evil deeds? You use that phrase like it means something to anyone else but you. Have you even tried to stop any evil in the world, ever? I suppose that since you have the massive responsibility for deciding what is evil and what is not, you shouldn't be expected to stop it as well.
I'm curious, though, what exactly do you agree with me about?
How do we know anyone in Gitmo is actually a member of Al Queda? It sure as hell isn't based on evidence, so I'm guessing it is wishful thinking.
Here's the thing, you can keep bringing up points like this, saying, "But what about blah blah bah?" And I will keep saying the same thing, "How do we KNOW blah blah blah?" Without a trial, we don't. Like I said, most of these guys were not caught in the act, so how do we know they did anything wrong? Wishful thinking. We wish that they did something wrong, because if they didn't, then we are just as evil as the people we are fighting. That is why there are innocents in Gitmo.
What would you say to someone like the fellow who was held in Gitmo his entire adult life based on a mistaken identity? "Ooops, sorry, but you've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet." How is that any different from saying, "You've got to blow up a few world trade centers to throw off American Imperialism?" When you throw out the rule of law, you leave yourself open to others throwing out the rule of law, too. You have no moral high ground to stand on to justify your actions, and you are no better than your worst enemies.
While I understand that you would like us to believe it is "real simple," it is not. Not everyone in Gitmo was captured in combat. Many were taken from their own homes, turned in by neighbors with a grudge for a cash reward. An American citizen was detained in Gitmo. The people in Gitmo are not POWs. If they were, we would be breaking the Geneva Convention, we have agreed not to treat POWs that way. Even prisoners of war have the right to a trial.
Where in the Constitution does it say that those who want to destroy America don't deserve its protection? Who determines whether someone wants to destroy America? There is a reason the rule of law must apply to everyone equally, because prior to a fair trial, we simply do not know whether someone is guilty or not. It sounds like you've gone further than just spitting on the Constitution, you are spitting on the rule of law itself. You are advocating punishing people indefinitely on the mere suspicion they may be guilty, without any trial at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Mostly, they do it by limiting the way tools and parts can interact. Your portal gun, for instance, can not place portals on any surface, only specific surfaces. You can only jump so high, and so far. The game was also playtested enormously, and when places were found where people could go off the beaten path, they were mercilessly removed.
Gran Turismo has very realistic physics, too, and plenty of interaction, but again, there is basically one way through each track. Maybe you can shave a few seconds off your best time, but you aren't suddenly going to find a way through that takes minutes less.
No, one of the absolutely beautiful things about portal is that ALL such interactions have been documented, if they are left in the game, they are intended to be there. I am basing this on the developers' commentary tracks, included with the game, They explain one particular shortcut, and why they left it in when taking out almost all the others.
That was one of the only levels where there is really more than one way through the level. Pretty much, the game leads you straight down a garden path. It explains, "see this thing, all lit up and shiny and jumping out at you? This is what this is for. See this other thing? That is what that is for. Now, let me explain how you can combine those two things. Okay, now here is another level, I'm not going to tell you how to do it, but remember what you just did? You might want to try that."
Portal is a puzzle game. The aim is to solve the puzzles, in the exact way and on the exact time-line that the developer intended you to do it. It is a lovingly hand crafted game in that regard, everything has a place and a purpose. Rougelikes, on the other hand, take a "Throw everything against the w2all and see what sticks" approach. Nothing his hand crafted. There may not be ANY way to get through a level, there may be one way, or there may be many. It's all random. But nobody sat down for each level and thought, "okay, how are we going to make the player realize they need to do exactly this one particular thing right now?"
Hmm, portal 2 has four liquids, buttons, boxes, portals, light bridges, vortex tubes, and turrets. These elements are set up in carefully controlled levels where there are, at most, a few right ways to complete the level. Portal 2 presents you with a very predictable toolkit and simple, limited interactions. Not to mention, it walks you through exactly how and when to use each of these tools before forcing you to use them on your own.
Nethack, for example, has hundreds of random monsters, from hydras to Keystone Kops, fountains, water, magma, dozens of random potions, wands, spells, armor, and weapons. It has intelligent, trainable companions. It has random stores to buy things on. It even has kitchen sinks. Every thing in the game can interact with every other thing. Portal 2 doesn't come close to the complexity or unpredictability of a rougelike. It's a great game, don't get me wrong,
What was the last version you played? Toady One has been mostly working on adventure mode stuff for the last six months or so. There is quite a bit more to do as an adventurer now, but the next release will be an even bigger adventure mode improvement, with full randomly generated cities including keep, workshops and stores, sewers, and catacombs.
Awww, issum sad little troll? Please, trollio, tell us how I support Microsoft in my post above. Saying the term "Windows" is not generic is not supporting Microsoft, you fucking twit. You need to get a new hobby, one that doesn't involve you looking like an ass.
For the record, Microsoft sucks. Windows sucks. Why must I reboot you to install a fucking PDF reader, Windows? Twitter is an idiot. You are an idiot. And your mother grunts like a donkey when she's taking it up the ass. Just FYI, that is the noise you hear when you are masturbating in her basement: me, sticking it to her good.
So I decided to check on that. Turns out you are right, on the first page of results is commonapp.org, a common application for over 400 colleges and universities. Also on the first page, The Association of Professional Piercers, the Asbury Park Press, and APP pharmaceuticals. But most of the results were for application type apps, of course. Still, I wouldn't say "app" is like "windows."
No, "Windows," as applied to computing, is not generic at all. "App" can only be applied to computing, and in that context, it is quite generic. A better example would be if Microsoft had named Windows, "Operating System."
In each case, the apostrophe's signifying a contraction trumps its signifying possession.
Not exactly. We do not use the apostrophe for its, their and your for the same reason we do not write hi's and her's.We use an apostrophe-s to change a non-possessive to a possessive. Its, their, your, his, and hers are already possessives, without the need for an apostrophe.
Okay, you're right about that. Most of humanity does seem to be on the verge of hysteria over one thing or another.
The Supreme Court hasn't voided any laws.
However. I agree that the Federal Government uses the commerce clause to overreach at times, like using it to bust growers in California who sell only to other Californians, legally. But on the flip side, it is also what enabled desegregation and civil rights. Still, nothing was voided or negated, it was just how it was interpreted. And interpretation of the law IS the job of the Supreme Court.
This is the kind of hysteria we see on the nuclear debate - the opponents point out that nuclear power means the end of the world, the proponents start providing facts and figures, and are ignored.
Ah, no. But if you want the public to keep distrusting nuclear power, that is the exact right attitude to take. Keep insinuating they are all morons for doubting you fact based arguments. As I keep saying, The problem is not the public, it is people like you. It is the rabidly pro nuclear folks who do the most damage to their cause.
I'd say the only hysteria is from the pro nuclear side. Where are your facts and figures? Nowhere to be seen, you just KNOW that smoke from burning radioactive forests can't possibly make it to England from Chernobyl. Like all human beings, your sense of certainty stems not from logic and reason, but from gut feelings. I provided facts, links to a story with quotes from actual scientists. You provided your gut feeling that everything will be okay if people like me and those traitorous. lying, anti-nuclear scientists would just shut up.
You have also pre-judged me as being anti-nuclear, an "enemy" of your belief system. I am not. I am on your side. I am trying to help you be a better advocate for your cause. But you can not listen to reason. You are too emotionally invested in the issue. Please, reread your post and look at the over the top emotional language you use. You are angry that I posted something that casts doubt on your position that nuclear power is perfectly safe. You don't want the truth to come out, you want to suppress the truth, you would rather no one had ever seen that article.
That is not the way to get people on your side. People like you are SO effective at alienating others, I would almost have to guess you were working for the anti-nuke side.
Damn Slashdot and its imperfectly nesting comments.
Who says mercury isn't susceptible? Do you doubt that fires can spread radioactive contamination? Nobody said they felt tingling sensation when within a non-burning radioactive area, they said they felt it when fighting fires on contaminated ground. Are your only rebuttals simply misunderstandings?
Look, just claiming, "Oh, that isn't a problem" is NOT going to get the public to trust nuclear power. A better tack is, "Yes, that could be a problem. Luckily, with newer, safer reactors, that won't happen." Why not try that, instead of simply dismissing people's concerns?
You don't know how it works, and you guessed wrong.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/26/chernobyl-radioactive-fires-global-danger
I actually want safe, clean nuclear power, but I think people like you are out to destroy any trust normal people might have in the nuclear industry. By continually downplaying any dangers, you make yourself sound like a shrill shill.
Just wait until the next major forest fire, when all the radiation the trees and ground have absorbed will be lofted into the air again, to land who knows where, depending on the wind at the time.
This is a great example of a troll of the "I'm an idiot, please call me such and angrily correct me" type.
Because we all chiropractic is not where it is at. High colonics are where it is at. Remember, the key to life is to have a healthy colon.
Who wants some cake?
When you said yellow cake, I was picturing, you know, lemon or maybe butter flavored. This is definitely not lemon or butter flavored. It tastes like burning.
Are you asking me where my moral absolutes come from? Who said I had any moral absolutes? There ARE no absolutes, or if there are, we have NO way of knowing what they are, or even if they are. That is the nature of infinity, it can not have an external framework by which to measure it. All measuring sticks are created in and by the very reality they measure. There may be absolute measures for any particular finite subset of reality, say "all humans" or "all sentient beings."
I wasn't saying there is anything wrong with moral relativism, I was saying (again) that DigiShaman is an utter hypocrite.
It's funny how different people have different interpretations about what does and does not constitute "ignoring the constitution." Thankfully, the constitution itself spells out who gets to decide, and that is the branch known as the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court says it is constitutional, then it is constitutional, according to the constitution itself. The constitution isn't dead, according to the constitution itself, the constitution has been followed and is still very much alive.
But sadly for you, the constitution doesn't mean what you want it to mean. You aren't on the Supreme Court, your opinion about what is or isn't constitutional means as much as my dog's opinion. So go cry in your cereal, you lost, we won, the constitution means what we say it means, not you.
Answer the question, how do you feel about torture? Is it okay, or not okay?
Oh, but you DO believe in moral relativism. You are the poster child for moral relativism. For example, torture: okay, or not okay? Or is it... relative? I know you think it is relative, meaning, okay when done for the right reasons, by the right people, and wrong when done for the wrong reasons, or by the wrong people.
FYI, I have put my life on the line to stop attempted murder, too. I have risked arrest standing up for what I believe in. I have put my beliefs first, and my comforts second. And I continue to do so, working hard to make our country better. But no, it's not any of your business how.
Since you did not answer my question, I will just assume you were agreeing with me about everything, and admitting your entire life up until now has been a lie.
Which evil men do I not stop from doing what evil deeds? You use that phrase like it means something to anyone else but you. Have you even tried to stop any evil in the world, ever? I suppose that since you have the massive responsibility for deciding what is evil and what is not, you shouldn't be expected to stop it as well.
I'm curious, though, what exactly do you agree with me about?
How do we know anyone in Gitmo is actually a member of Al Queda? It sure as hell isn't based on evidence, so I'm guessing it is wishful thinking.
Here's the thing, you can keep bringing up points like this, saying, "But what about blah blah bah?" And I will keep saying the same thing, "How do we KNOW blah blah blah?" Without a trial, we don't. Like I said, most of these guys were not caught in the act, so how do we know they did anything wrong? Wishful thinking. We wish that they did something wrong, because if they didn't, then we are just as evil as the people we are fighting. That is why there are innocents in Gitmo.
What would you say to someone like the fellow who was held in Gitmo his entire adult life based on a mistaken identity? "Ooops, sorry, but you've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet." How is that any different from saying, "You've got to blow up a few world trade centers to throw off American Imperialism?" When you throw out the rule of law, you leave yourself open to others throwing out the rule of law, too. You have no moral high ground to stand on to justify your actions, and you are no better than your worst enemies.
While I understand that you would like us to believe it is "real simple," it is not. Not everyone in Gitmo was captured in combat. Many were taken from their own homes, turned in by neighbors with a grudge for a cash reward. An American citizen was detained in Gitmo. The people in Gitmo are not POWs. If they were, we would be breaking the Geneva Convention, we have agreed not to treat POWs that way. Even prisoners of war have the right to a trial.
Where in the Constitution does it say that those who want to destroy America don't deserve its protection? Who determines whether someone wants to destroy America? There is a reason the rule of law must apply to everyone equally, because prior to a fair trial, we simply do not know whether someone is guilty or not. It sounds like you've gone further than just spitting on the Constitution, you are spitting on the rule of law itself. You are advocating punishing people indefinitely on the mere suspicion they may be guilty, without any trial at all.