I don't disagree. Storyline is often what makes good games into great games. I just think that story isn't the most important thing to a game's quality, and if your top priority is a good story, games may not do that best.
No reason. I'm not narrowly defining what a game is. I'm saying that without good gameplay, even a good story won't make a game, but a game can be good with no story at all. Shitty gameplay will just get in the way of a good story, whereas great gameplay will render a good story unnecessary. I generally prefer games with good stories too, but the thing that keeps me coming back is the gameplay. If all you're after is a good story, then you're not after a game. If you're after a good story with some degree of interactivity, then you're after a game with a good story and good gameplay -- which may be as simple as some decision making, in this case. Still, it's not just the story you're after, it's the gameplay. If you didn't want the gameplay then you would read a book.
I have to agree. If you want storyline, you're probably after a book or movie and not a game at all. Gameplay is what games are about, and while storyline is great as icing, it won't make a game.
Did you think you made sense? Geeks do not have a president. There is no country called "Geek". Maybe you were thinking of Greece? I don't know much about their politics, so I can't comment on that. Regardless, I'm not sure what politics have to do with funny songs about programmers.
P.S. I had to re-read your post several times and make sure there was no parent post whose context would bring it all into focus. That's how incoherent you are.
What we should have done from the start is to use real-world units like inches and let the renderer figure out how many pixels that is. While it's true that those would be way to big for a phone's display, so is any graphic meant for a PC screen. At least when real-world units are used, small devices will have an accurate description of what they were meant to display, and can choose to scale and/or scroll from an informed standpoint.
That's pretty lame. What you want is to scale your image but preserve the aspect ratio, right? Putting black bars on the left and right? I asked because my setup does support that, and I figured you might have just missed the option.
No one but the manufacturer should be in control of the dpi setting. Dpi is a physical property of your monitor (although changing the resolution can can alter it). It's not to be fucked with, because not knowing if it's accurate would just add more confusion. What you (and I) want is a zoom setting on top of dpi. A way to say, "I know this was intended to be exactly an inch tall, but I would prefer it if everything were scaled to half it's specified size."
No that's why you want everything to scale. A 10 pixel tall font at that size would be a 60th of an inch tall! Plus a line of text that long would be unreadable. Much better would be crisp, properly sized fonts specified in real-world units. Like db48x says, we already do this in the print world. It needs to come to the onscreen world too.
Your're missing a couple important points. First, a 200 dpi display can render text and images twice as clearly as a 100 dpi display at the same size. Although you clearly like tiny text and interface elements, many of us do not (or at least don't want them all the time), and would prefer to use all the pixels that our hardware supports for something we do want: extra crispness. And second, although monitors mostly stop at the resolutions you mentioned, most user's don't make use of them, and a lot of use would like to, even if we don't want the extra screen space.
That's ludicrous. Who on earth came up with the idea of basing onscreen units on an unmeasureable quantity? And who would want everything on their screen to shrink as they moved their head closer? When you looked at your screen from across the room, you'd get three foot letters!
The issue here is that while it's easy to just tell people to click on "Display" and select "Large Fonts", actual support for high dpi settings is fucked. "Large Fonts" shouldn't even affect the dpi on a proper system, it should change the font size (no shit), while the dpi stays set to what it actually is. In Windows, everything will end up out of place (it's better on Linux). Many web pages won't actually scale with your dpi selection because some moron web designer thought he had a better idea of my dpi than I do and selected a font that's 8px high. If you enlarge a page then it never looks right, since all the wonderful developer's carefully specified (in pixels!) regions start to overlap. And images don't scale at all, of course (even SVGs in Firefox don't -- what the fuck?). No, proper scaling doesn't mean we're going back to font size=2, it means we're going forward to properly rendering 12pt fonts as 1/6th of an inch tall. Everywhere, no matter what the resolution is. If you run at 320x240, it will be that tall, and if your run at a 4 billion x 80, it will be that tall, because your system will know the physical dimensions of your screen and use the proper number of pixels. That would be a godsend for web developers, because the very thing they're after with all this pixel bullshit is pages that look the same everywhere. On top of that, it would be easy as pie to add a customizable scaling setting to render everything at a fixed fraction of its real size to keep you happy.
Yeah, but wouldn't both be nicest? There's no reason not to like high-dpi displays at real-world sizes even if you would also like proper colors. I suppose size is not such an issue when working with photos, since any software worth its salt can display using the proper dpi anyway, but why in the world wouldn't you want this too?
I'm an idiot because I want high DPI for crisp text? People who assume that a high DPI monitor has to show everything at a tiny size are idiots! I suppose you print everything on a 300dpi printer using a tiny font? I didn't think so. Ideally, a user should be able to set their monitor's dpi and actual size system-wide so that everything could be scaled to the proper size in real world units. Additionally, there should be a system-wide zoom selector that will adjust the scaling for everything. That way we can all be happy.
Slashdot Mirror
"A vein on their forehead that they can pulse on command."
Surely I'm not the only one that thinks that would be pretty cool.
I don't disagree. Storyline is often what makes good games into great games. I just think that story isn't the most important thing to a game's quality, and if your top priority is a good story, games may not do that best.
No reason. I'm not narrowly defining what a game is. I'm saying that without good gameplay, even a good story won't make a game, but a game can be good with no story at all. Shitty gameplay will just get in the way of a good story, whereas great gameplay will render a good story unnecessary. I generally prefer games with good stories too, but the thing that keeps me coming back is the gameplay. If all you're after is a good story, then you're not after a game. If you're after a good story with some degree of interactivity, then you're after a game with a good story and good gameplay -- which may be as simple as some decision making, in this case. Still, it's not just the story you're after, it's the gameplay. If you didn't want the gameplay then you would read a book.
No, there are 103 pix/in == 10.14 sqrt(pix)/in. It's the square root of the number of pixels per plain old inch.
I have to agree. If you want storyline, you're probably after a book or movie and not a game at all. Gameplay is what games are about, and while storyline is great as icing, it won't make a game.
Something about the non-scrolling background was my guess.
Did you think you made sense? Geeks do not have a president. There is no country called "Geek". Maybe you were thinking of Greece? I don't know much about their politics, so I can't comment on that. Regardless, I'm not sure what politics have to do with funny songs about programmers.
P.S. I had to re-read your post several times and make sure there was no parent post whose context would bring it all into focus. That's how incoherent you are.
That web page puts my CPU usage near 100% when I scroll it!
It lines up if the person saying it lives in the Southern Hemisphere.
What we should have done from the start is to use real-world units like inches and let the renderer figure out how many pixels that is. While it's true that those would be way to big for a phone's display, so is any graphic meant for a PC screen. At least when real-world units are used, small devices will have an accurate description of what they were meant to display, and can choose to scale and/or scroll from an informed standpoint.
That's pretty lame. What you want is to scale your image but preserve the aspect ratio, right? Putting black bars on the left and right? I asked because my setup does support that, and I figured you might have just missed the option.
You've got it.
No one but the manufacturer should be in control of the dpi setting. Dpi is a physical property of your monitor (although changing the resolution can can alter it). It's not to be fucked with, because not knowing if it's accurate would just add more confusion. What you (and I) want is a zoom setting on top of dpi. A way to say, "I know this was intended to be exactly an inch tall, but I would prefer it if everything were scaled to half it's specified size."
No that's why you want everything to scale. A 10 pixel tall font at that size would be a 60th of an inch tall! Plus a line of text that long would be unreadable. Much better would be crisp, properly sized fonts specified in real-world units. Like db48x says, we already do this in the print world. It needs to come to the onscreen world too.
Your're missing a couple important points. First, a 200 dpi display can render text and images twice as clearly as a 100 dpi display at the same size. Although you clearly like tiny text and interface elements, many of us do not (or at least don't want them all the time), and would prefer to use all the pixels that our hardware supports for something we do want: extra crispness. And second, although monitors mostly stop at the resolutions you mentioned, most user's don't make use of them, and a lot of use would like to, even if we don't want the extra screen space.
Ironically, this would be good for low dpi screens as well, since pages could be rendered at the proper size, albeit with low detail.
That's ludicrous. Who on earth came up with the idea of basing onscreen units on an unmeasureable quantity? And who would want everything on their screen to shrink as they moved their head closer? When you looked at your screen from across the room, you'd get three foot letters!
My monitor is approximately 10.14sqrt(p)pi.
vectorvectorvector Or so one would hope.
The issue here is that while it's easy to just tell people to click on "Display" and select "Large Fonts", actual support for high dpi settings is fucked. "Large Fonts" shouldn't even affect the dpi on a proper system, it should change the font size (no shit), while the dpi stays set to what it actually is. In Windows, everything will end up out of place (it's better on Linux). Many web pages won't actually scale with your dpi selection because some moron web designer thought he had a better idea of my dpi than I do and selected a font that's 8px high. If you enlarge a page then it never looks right, since all the wonderful developer's carefully specified (in pixels!) regions start to overlap. And images don't scale at all, of course (even SVGs in Firefox don't -- what the fuck?). No, proper scaling doesn't mean we're going back to font size=2, it means we're going forward to properly rendering 12pt fonts as 1/6th of an inch tall. Everywhere, no matter what the resolution is. If you run at 320x240, it will be that tall, and if your run at a 4 billion x 80, it will be that tall, because your system will know the physical dimensions of your screen and use the proper number of pixels. That would be a godsend for web developers, because the very thing they're after with all this pixel bullshit is pages that look the same everywhere. On top of that, it would be easy as pie to add a customizable scaling setting to render everything at a fixed fraction of its real size to keep you happy.
Yeah, but wouldn't both be nicest? There's no reason not to like high-dpi displays at real-world sizes even if you would also like proper colors. I suppose size is not such an issue when working with photos, since any software worth its salt can display using the proper dpi anyway, but why in the world wouldn't you want this too?
I'm an idiot because I want high DPI for crisp text? People who assume that a high DPI monitor has to show everything at a tiny size are idiots! I suppose you print everything on a 300dpi printer using a tiny font? I didn't think so. Ideally, a user should be able to set their monitor's dpi and actual size system-wide so that everything could be scaled to the proper size in real world units. Additionally, there should be a system-wide zoom selector that will adjust the scaling for everything. That way we can all be happy.
You're sure you don't have a way to select either aspect-correct scaling or none at all? That seems a little odd to me.
Or maybe it's not at all about child porn, and more about being able do spy on citizens as much as they want.
No, I'm responding to a post recommending DirectX over OpenGL. I disagree with it because DirectX is Windows only, and OpenGL is not.