Both D3 and P3 are good games. They have both have pros & cons.
If you unable to appreciate someone being open and honest about both games strengths and weaknesses then I humbly suggest you go back to fantasy land where negative facts are ignored.
Windows 95: 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
I've found Path of Exile to be the spiritual successor to Diablo 2.
Diablo 3 is more polished, has way better art style (aka "Blizzard" style), and is meant for casual playing. * http://gdcvault.com/play/10153...
However the game play is way better in Path of Exile (barring the desync, and single-threaded game) TONS of build diversity, named and colored stash tabs, way better end-game system (maps). Plus you can't beat the price.:-)
D3 on the consoles is getting better -- definitely will be checking out RoS to see in Blizzard _finally_ understands Itemization.
Not sure why you got down voted. I'm a big Tim Minchin fan -- great video!
However that video trivializes the weakness of any applied philosophy -- knowing its limitations, its strengths AND its weaknesses. There are things that Science will NEVER understand because they are outside its domain i.e. What happened "before" the "Big Bang." There is NO experiment that can be done to lend new knowledge. The proper solution is to augment the linear Scientific process with the non-linear Intuitive process.
For example, Scientists have (yet) to (re)discover the 6 fundamental forces, white holes, the bi-nature of time, what happens to your consciousness before you were born, what happens to your consciousness after you die, the true nature of the subconsciousness (sic.), etc. But just because Science -today- is unable to find answers does NOT imply that you can't know those answers BEFORE hand. ALL OBJECTIVE TRUTH IS BUILT UPON THE SUBJECTIVE.
Feynman called it "Cargo Cult" Science -- to _assume_ that there is only _one_ way to have answers.
Proof of this will come in 2024 when your POV (point of view) will be turned upside down. See my.sig for details
-- (Public) First Contact is coming 2024. Are you prepared to have your perspective shifted?
On the same device
* Needs a powerful GPU that can render 2x amount of work across 2 different monitors. 2Kp (aka 4K) is rendering 4x amount of detail !
Across multiple devices
* Needs to handle input latency
* Needs to make the rendering stays relatively in sync across varying framerates
And then when you have scalability issues you are wondering what the hell went wrong.
Only an idiot manager would ignore the _years_ of programming experience why a good developer would resist change. Too often they have seem the pattern...
You seem to be married to the idea that "All change is good" which is clearly a fallacy. There are called "Rules of Thumb" for a GOOD reason. Change for the sake of change is just overhead and busy work. Change is sometimes _sold_ as a "magical" Silver Bullets -- whether it be a new process / widget -- often times they DO work fantastic in the context of certain problems, but falls hard outside it.
* The strength of age is that is is predictable and consistent. Its weakness is inflexibility. * The strength of change is that it is adaptable and flexible to new problems.
The hard part is knowing WHEN to and when NOT to change. When to USE a new library, and when NOT to use it.
What are the trade-offs WRT to compile-time, link-time, run-time performance?
I 100% agree with you. Many people assume older programmers are against "libraries" & "frameworks". We are not. We understand the rapid prototyping they bring. We are leery of the compile-time and run-time overhead costs.
The one of the key differences between a novice and experience programmer:
They know when TO use and when NOT to use a framework.
The novices just want to shove more code at a problem until it "works" without really understanding the data flow. *facepalm*
Spot on! That's one of the things I've noticed as I get older.
* Less reliance on libraries / frameworks. * Simpler data * Simpler code
> serves 100kb of files but somehow manages to take up 300mbytes of disk space and 600mbytes of ram...
God that is so funny it hurts because it is so true!! I blame that on a few things...
* Programmers who started on 8-bit CPUs are the last "good" breed of programmers IMHO who know how to manage TINSTAAFL. These days every 21-day programmers take Virtual Memory for granted, don't understand the speed hit of abstraction, don't understand "null rendering", "null IO", budgets such as run-time & memory, etc. * C++, Java, and other "bloated" languages that tend to encourage to make _excessive_ use of libraries. While they make it trivial to get something up and running (good) also has a high memory overhead (bad). * Badly designed & bloated data formats like XML instead of something simple like JSON * Poor algorithm choice. C++ STL' & Boost vector are great except when it is not. No one cares that it chews up MB of RAM. Well except the console guys. See this excellent white paper:
The bigger problem is the (almost) no one cares about taking pride in being a _excellent_ programmer.
* Don't use more resources then necessary * Know the difference if your app is CPU, IO, or Memory bound.
The other problem is due to management. They want something that worked last week, but are not willing to invest the time into doing it right. Like Murphy's Law says
"There is never time to do it right, but there is always time to do it over!
-- Murphy's Computer Laws
This story reminds of the wisdom of this cliche...
"Those that forget the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat the same mistakes"
I see this "latest-is-greatest" fallacious attitude all the time. New version adds new features, fixes bugs, but introduces new bugs or rose redesigns the UI. i.e. WinAmp 3, TeamSpeak 3, etc.
The problem is that there is no good solution. What is the developer supposed to do when...
* Older version has major security issues * Newer version has a fracked up UI, bloatware, etc.
Now what is the customer supposed to do?
I agree though, that in the majority of cases, a "Bill of Software Rights" would be good:
* Users have the right to _rollback_
This whole we-are-always-right started with Microsoft and IE. GOD forbid you actually _need_ to run _multiple_ different versions for testing!
Slashdot Mirror
... for companies to get their shit together about their lax security policies.
It is too bad temp credit cards (1-time use, 3-time use) aren't more practical.
You're obviously not using float64 (or even need it.)
FP64 Titan Z: 1/3 FP32
FP64 GTX 780: 1/24 FP32
For gaming, yes 780 SLI is cheaper and better ROI.
For gpgpu computing and you _require_ 64-bit float precision, the TITAN or TITAN Z, is far faster.
Reference:
* http://www.anandtech.com/show/...
Both D3 and P3 are good games. They have both have pros & cons.
If you unable to appreciate someone being open and honest about both games strengths and weaknesses then I humbly suggest you go back to fantasy land where negative facts are ignored.
/Oblg.
No Such Thing as Bad Publicity
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmw...
aka "Any News is Free Advertising / Marketing"
Wow. Thanks for the heads up.
nice .sig! Imaginary Property = tyranny over the mind of man Indeed!
/Oblg. M$ joke
Windows 95: 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
I've found Path of Exile to be the spiritual successor to Diablo 2.
Diablo 3 is more polished, has way better art style (aka "Blizzard" style), and is meant for casual playing.
* http://gdcvault.com/play/10153...
However the game play is way better in Path of Exile (barring the desync, and single-threaded game) TONS of build diversity, named and colored stash tabs, way better end-game system (maps). Plus you can't beat the price. :-)
D3 on the consoles is getting better -- definitely will be checking out RoS to see in Blizzard _finally_ understands Itemization.
* http://i.imgur.com/EHEKduL.jpg
In 10 years you will be proven wrong ...
Not sure why you got down voted. I'm a big Tim Minchin fan -- great video!
However that video trivializes the weakness of any applied philosophy -- knowing its limitations, its strengths AND its weaknesses. There are things that Science will NEVER understand because they are outside its domain i.e. What happened "before" the "Big Bang." There is NO experiment that can be done to lend new knowledge. The proper solution is to augment the linear Scientific process with the non-linear Intuitive process.
For example, Scientists have (yet) to (re)discover the 6 fundamental forces, white holes, the bi-nature of time, what happens to your consciousness before you were born, what happens to your consciousness after you die, the true nature of the subconsciousness (sic.), etc. But just because Science -today- is unable to find answers does NOT imply that you can't know those answers BEFORE hand. ALL OBJECTIVE TRUTH IS BUILT UPON THE SUBJECTIVE.
Feynman called it "Cargo Cult" Science -- to _assume_ that there is only _one_ way to have answers.
Proof of this will come in 2024 when your POV (point of view) will be turned upside down. See my .sig for details
--
(Public) First Contact is coming 2024. Are you prepared to have your perspective shifted?
There are a few problems with split screen:
On the same device
* Needs a powerful GPU that can render 2x amount of work across 2 different monitors. 2Kp (aka 4K) is rendering 4x amount of detail !
Across multiple devices
* Needs to handle input latency
* Needs to make the rendering stays relatively in sync across varying framerates
Bragging rights.
i.e.
CryTek Crysis
Symantec is the definition of bloatware -- no way I would touch them with a 10 foot pole. They are OK on OSX but on Windows -- a total clusterfuck.
Does anyone under 25 even know who Peter Norton is/was?
Silicon tops out at ~ 5 GHz.
Germanium X tops out at ~500 GHz.
The average consumer doesn't give a rats ass about GHz, which means that you will never see cheap 10 GHz CPUs anytime soon.
Hell, we're STILL waiting for Knights Corner / Landing 48+ core CPU to ship to the general public.
> We still live in this era of Single threaded games,
That hasn't been true since the PS3 and Xbox 360 days.
Yes, a lot of (PC) indie games are single-threaded, but any game that ships on consoles is multi-threaded.
Touchee :-)
/cynical Shhh those who carry of the Dogma of Scientific Faith don't want to hear that a) everyone has Faith, b) it is arbitrary :-)
--
"By 2024 the Fermi Paradox will be shown to be incomplete."
> Isn't the speed of gravity a meaningless concept since it has a constant effect?
That's assuming it is constant ...
/sarcasm Such words of wisdom! We all bow down to your programming skill ... oh wait.
Pro-Tip: Focus on the message and instead of the messenger.
tlambert gave some very good advice. The only thing I would add is the the 80 / 20 rule for frameworks:
* 80% If they do what you need then great!
* 20% But if they don't, god help you to augment / work around their limitations.
And then when you have scalability issues you are wondering what the hell went wrong.
Only an idiot manager would ignore the _years_ of programming experience why a good developer would resist change. Too often they have seem the pattern ...
You seem to be married to the idea that "All change is good" which is clearly a fallacy. There are called "Rules of Thumb" for a GOOD reason. Change for the sake of change is just overhead and busy work. Change is sometimes _sold_ as a "magical" Silver Bullets -- whether it be a new process / widget -- often times they DO work fantastic in the context of certain problems, but falls hard outside it.
* The strength of age is that is is predictable and consistent. Its weakness is inflexibility.
* The strength of change is that it is adaptable and flexible to new problems.
The hard part is knowing WHEN to and when NOT to change.
When to USE a new library, and when NOT to use it.
What are the trade-offs WRT to compile-time, link-time, run-time performance?
I 100% agree with you. Many people assume older programmers are against "libraries" & "frameworks". We are not. We understand the rapid prototyping they bring. We are leery of the compile-time and run-time overhead costs.
The one of the key differences between a novice and experience programmer:
They know when TO use and when NOT to use a framework.
The novices just want to shove more code at a problem until it "works" without really understanding the data flow. *facepalm*
Spot on! That's one of the things I've noticed as I get older.
* Less reliance on libraries / frameworks.
* Simpler data
* Simpler code
> serves 100kb of files but somehow manages to take up 300mbytes of disk space and 600mbytes of ram...
God that is so funny it hurts because it is so true!! I blame that on a few things ...
* Programmers who started on 8-bit CPUs are the last "good" breed of programmers IMHO who know how to manage TINSTAAFL. These days every 21-day programmers take Virtual Memory for granted, don't understand the speed hit of abstraction, don't understand "null rendering", "null IO", budgets such as run-time & memory, etc.
* C++, Java, and other "bloated" languages that tend to encourage to make _excessive_ use of libraries. While they make it trivial to get something up and running (good) also has a high memory overhead (bad).
* Badly designed & bloated data formats like XML instead of something simple like JSON
* Poor algorithm choice. C++ STL' & Boost vector are great except when it is not. No one cares that it chews up MB of RAM. Well except the console guys. See this excellent white paper:
"EASTL -- Electronic Arts Standard Template Library"
* http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/s...
The bigger problem is the (almost) no one cares about taking pride in being a _excellent_ programmer.
* Don't use more resources then necessary
* Know the difference if your app is CPU, IO, or Memory bound.
The other problem is due to management. They want something that worked last week, but are not willing to invest the time into doing it right. Like Murphy's Law says
"There is never time to do it right,
but there is always time to do it over!
-- Murphy's Computer Laws
--
Only cowards censor.
This story reminds of the wisdom of this cliche ...
"Those that forget the lessons of the past
are condemned to repeat the same mistakes"
I see this "latest-is-greatest" fallacious attitude all the time. New version adds new features, fixes bugs, but introduces new bugs or rose redesigns the UI. i.e. WinAmp 3, TeamSpeak 3, etc.
The problem is that there is no good solution. What is the developer supposed to do when ...
* Older version has major security issues
* Newer version has a fracked up UI, bloatware, etc.
Now what is the customer supposed to do?
I agree though, that in the majority of cases, a "Bill of Software Rights" would be good:
* Users have the right to _rollback_
This whole we-are-always-right started with Microsoft and IE. GOD forbid you actually _need_ to run _multiple_ different versions for testing!
Immortality is NOT the pinnacle of evolution.
Agreed.
--
Only cowards censor.
I'll probably get down-voted but you know the old cliche ...
- There is his side of the story,
- There is her side of the story,
- And the truth probably lies somewhat in the middle