It is Infrantry you ar thinking of and the community is still going strong (infact it is bigger than it ever was). Also the cost is $7/month not $12. This may not seem like much of a difference but I think it's resonably priced if it is a game you play often. You can also play free as a Guest for 30 minutes at a time I believe to try It out but you cant save stats, money or xp.
Also, they often have in game events and are developing an RPG stlye zone where you really have to work your way up to high levels of xp to get good weapons but it's still an action game. They also have CTF and even a futuristic soccer type game. It's really one of the best 2d action games out there. I may be a little biased though:)
Re:First sign that web based content is unprofitab
on
Webmonkey Closes its Doors
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
IMHO, while they were great for beginners and I loved going there, it seemed they stoped making any significant additions to their content years ago -- and this was part of their downfall. The wired article even mentions how they often reshuffled old content to make it seem new.
I am sure Bin laden will get stuck in walls and will keep jerking back and forth while trying to find me with his 1337 pathfinding abilities. Not only that I hear he's a Lagger. OMG LOL U$A=0nwt!
well those countries don't have to worry about the FCC:)
the case the other poster was reffering to was of the boat where a couple of kids (10-15 I think) used a cell phone and the coverage was poor so all the 911 dispater was able to dicern through the static was that they were in trouble.
I would think it wouldn't be that hard -- just some simple software in the phone itself. I am not a VOIP programmer but i think it would be something along these lines:
if (userDials=="911") { useTraceableProxy } else { useAnonProxy }
the regulation would be just be to ensure that the traceable option is there by default and works reliably in case of emergency. And at the outset there would be kinks in the system I would imagine, but I cant see why over time those can't be worked out.
That's a rediculous argument. How many children or elderly people are going to think back to the Terms of Service of the phone they are calling 911 on? How many times will people call 911 on someone else's phone? Hello???? it's called an EMERGENCY for a reason. I can't for the life of me figure out why you would think that this is someone's fualt and call them lazy/stupid/ignorant. Perhaps you're trolling or maybe you're just that cold but either way I am sure there is a technical solution for you and your untraceable phone. But there is no reason in hell people should suffer just so you can be untraceable. Privacy is a right, but not one that superceeds life.
If you want to be traced, then buy a traceable phone
But how many people would know the difference? That's the real problem. Phones have worked this way for decades. People assume that a 911 call is traceable and right or wrong they rely on it in emergencies. It may not be necessary to have location services but it sure as hell seems like the right thing to do.
I am not a big fan of regulating the hell out of anything but to call this "the first step down the road to regulation..." is just a terrible slippery slope argument.
Aren't most demos released just a month before the game hit's the shelves (if that). It's awfully hard to squash bugs when you've just Fed Ex'd your gold masters to the manufacturer.
I absolutely agree. The article submiter showed true stupidity by making a comment like that. There have ALREADY been cases where people died because cell phones did not have 911 location services.
In court you fight the fights that need fighting that you can win. To do otherwise is pointless.
is it? what about the people filing counter suits against the RIAA? And what about the guy from the EFF who posted a comment just a few down about the DeCSS case?
The fact that Blizzard is not seeking to charge for the use of their servers is irrelevant...
Then why did you bringing up the price of other games that might potentially chage? Obviously price is relevant then. Otherwise your argument is just slippery slope hogwash.
c'mon stop being so pius. This isn't just about the DMCA. Blizzard wants people to connect to bnet and see lots of people playing -- it enhances the play experience for their new users. They think "wow look at all these people playing" yada yada. By removing this feature from the game they are removing value from blizzard's products (which are still for sale). I think the EFF is just using this case to cut off the head of the DMCA which is silly. Nevertheless, it's nice they are helping this person and all because blizzard is being a little retarted but I hope they don't spend to much time on this as I can't see it being applied legally elsewhere. I still think the original poster is right that the EFF is wasting time on this but I think he is absolutely wrong in saying they are worthless (I view them as quite a good org in general).
I would think the way to detect most cheats would be to encrypt as much data as possible and to do regular CRC/checksum/hash checks on it for the server to verify (although I would assume this would slow the FPS).
Can someone explain this better? I am not a programmer (like you couldn't guess that).
Sounds like a bad way to decet a aim bot. I would think a better way to detect most cheats would be to encrypt as much data as possible and to do regular CRC/checksum/hash checks on it to verify. But I am not really a programmer so if someone knows better please post.
just a guess here (I really don't know) but wouldn't all the rubberbanding eat up a lot of the processor? Although, I don't know -- maybe it wouldn't. But either way if you lagging or you have low fps a slideshow is still a slideshow...
The difference is that a policeman would be able to help to stop a crime in progress wheras a camera is just an evidence gathering tool. While they help catch criminals after the fact that camera didn't stop that little girl from being kidnapped in the first place.
the problems with this arise not from situations in which they are obviously beneficial but rater when the data can be used for other purposes. Say a husband and wife are divorcing in a custody battle and somehow the wife got hold of a street camera that shows the husband drunk -- does that make him an alchoholic? Or say the data is sold to private industry and they note that preson X goes to mcdonalds occasionally-- should they be innundated with weight loss advertisments?
These are kind of slippery slope arguments but they show that the camera isn't in itself bad but the sharing of data can be. And with the tendency of data to want to propagate there needs to be strict LAWS to stop it from being used by interested third parties. If they say it's there to make us safe then it needs to ONLY make us safe.
Agreed. It's also hard to imagine anyone's grandmother wanting to finance her grandson's friends' gaming habits. Although, maybe he wants to do this to learn a little about wireless networking and help his friends out in the process -- either way, I wish I lived in his building:)
Yes but what if I don't want you to use my personal info to build your new society.
Why do people think that if nobody has any privacy that it naturally correlates with positive advancements toward open society? Wouldn't a lack of privacy be a boon to criminals and civilized society alike? Isn't this what we are seeing now with the rise of the internet?
I think the point is not whether or not privacy benefits society but whether or not an individual has a right to it. Personally, I like my privacy too a resonable extent because I don't like the idea that there are a bunch of people out there who compile profiles on me. Profiles that serve only a limited few purposes such as:
A) selling me products
B) stealing from me
C) arresting me
D) providing me medical treatment (see A)
While A and C could be good in some situations (ie I am a criminal or I got the right medical treatment because of a profile) I just don't see enough good in a total lack of privacy.
I think there will always be bad people in this world and if the data is out there and allowed to be shared it will be used for malice at some point but I think that's the key. As long as the data has strict sharing guidelines it can be beneficial. Without that, it does the individual AND HENCE the society very little good compared to the potential harm.
This is the key and I am glad you got moderated up for that comment. Sadly too, these kinds of technical details are exactly what the article is lacking -- making it seem slanderous. This will be an intersting one to watch to see if some of these details will come out. Unfortunately, I fear this will fall by the wayside and we wont hear much of it again because the details aren't "sexy" news and then people will selectively remeber whatever they want about the story. Either "MS is evil" or "AI is slanderous"
Isn't that called the havoc engine? They have made some strides in that direction have they not?
The thing game designers and level designers need to focus on is not only these new graphics, but how to INCORPORATE them into the gameplay. For example, in the original deus ex game I remember grabbin a rolling cart and placing a small TNT box on it and rolling on down the hall only to shoot it when it neared my enemies. If only the designs would use all these features then the games could be awesome again. So while graphics may be starting to level out I think the next big thing (if the devs are smart) is to USE all the previous advances.
Like...
-first persont user guided rockets
-true rolling carts
-jedi type powers (ala JKII)
-objects are ALL meant to be picked up
-bullet time
-vehicle driving
Slashdot Mirror
Also, they often have in game events and are developing an RPG stlye zone where you really have to work your way up to high levels of xp to get good weapons but it's still an action game. They also have CTF and even a futuristic soccer type game. It's really one of the best 2d action games out there. I may be a little biased though :)
Here is the link if anyone wants to try it...
http://infantry.station.sony.com/en/
IMHO, while they were great for beginners and I loved going there, it seemed they stoped making any significant additions to their content years ago -- and this was part of their downfall. The wired article even mentions how they often reshuffled old content to make it seem new.
I am sure Bin laden will get stuck in walls and will keep jerking back and forth while trying to find me with his 1337 pathfinding abilities. Not only that I hear he's a Lagger. OMG LOL U$A=0nwt!
the case the other poster was reffering to was of the boat where a couple of kids (10-15 I think) used a cell phone and the coverage was poor so all the 911 dispater was able to dicern through the static was that they were in trouble.
Well I suppose for me it comes down to this: privacy is important but not when you dial 911. Is there not a technical means to make it work both ways?
That's a rediculous argument. How many children or elderly people are going to think back to the Terms of Service of the phone they are calling 911 on? How many times will people call 911 on someone else's phone? Hello???? it's called an EMERGENCY for a reason. I can't for the life of me figure out why you would think that this is someone's fualt and call them lazy/stupid/ignorant. Perhaps you're trolling or maybe you're just that cold but either way I am sure there is a technical solution for you and your untraceable phone. But there is no reason in hell people should suffer just so you can be untraceable. Privacy is a right, but not one that superceeds life.
If you want to be traced, then buy a traceable phone But how many people would know the difference? That's the real problem. Phones have worked this way for decades. People assume that a 911 call is traceable and right or wrong they rely on it in emergencies. It may not be necessary to have location services but it sure as hell seems like the right thing to do. I am not a big fan of regulating the hell out of anything but to call this "the first step down the road to regulation..." is just a terrible slippery slope argument.
While I love demos and think they are good this is a REALLY biased source. Gamespot makes a lot of advertising money from offering downloadable demos.
Aren't most demos released just a month before the game hit's the shelves (if that). It's awfully hard to squash bugs when you've just Fed Ex'd your gold masters to the manufacturer.
is it? what about the people filing counter suits against the RIAA? And what about the guy from the EFF who posted a comment just a few down about the DeCSS case?
The fact that Blizzard is not seeking to charge for the use of their servers is irrelevant ...
Then why did you bringing up the price of other games that might potentially chage? Obviously price is relevant then. Otherwise your argument is just slippery slope hogwash.
c'mon stop being so pius. This isn't just about the DMCA. Blizzard wants people to connect to bnet and see lots of people playing -- it enhances the play experience for their new users. They think "wow look at all these people playing" yada yada. By removing this feature from the game they are removing value from blizzard's products (which are still for sale). I think the EFF is just using this case to cut off the head of the DMCA which is silly. Nevertheless, it's nice they are helping this person and all because blizzard is being a little retarted but I hope they don't spend to much time on this as I can't see it being applied legally elsewhere. I still think the original poster is right that the EFF is wasting time on this but I think he is absolutely wrong in saying they are worthless (I view them as quite a good org in general).
You fight the fights you can win
no
You fight the fights that need fighting
The young hotheads most often got themselves killed while accomplishing nothing.
Yeah but couldn't the reverse also be true?
"The old farts most often starved to death while accomplishing nothing"
More and more game publishers seem to be looking to charge you to play a game after you purchase it to further fill their coffers.
but not in this case. I agree that blizzard is being stupid and wasting their time but so is the EFF.
darn enter key submitted this thing bufore i was done... here is the link: http://www.interactive.org/awards/IAA-7/finalist.a sp
who thinks their logo is a little suggestive?
Yeah -- I am not saying your post is stupid or anything just more informative than insightful is all.
I would think the way to detect most cheats would be to encrypt as much data as possible and to do regular CRC/checksum/hash checks on it for the server to verify (although I would assume this would slow the FPS). Can someone explain this better? I am not a programmer (like you couldn't guess that).
No offense but why are we modding up recounts of peoples experience with PB as +5 insightful?
Sounds like a bad way to decet a aim bot. I would think a better way to detect most cheats would be to encrypt as much data as possible and to do regular CRC/checksum/hash checks on it to verify. But I am not really a programmer so if someone knows better please post.
just a guess here (I really don't know) but wouldn't all the rubberbanding eat up a lot of the processor? Although, I don't know -- maybe it wouldn't. But either way if you lagging or you have low fps a slideshow is still a slideshow...
the problems with this arise not from situations in which they are obviously beneficial but rater when the data can be used for other purposes. Say a husband and wife are divorcing in a custody battle and somehow the wife got hold of a street camera that shows the husband drunk -- does that make him an alchoholic? Or say the data is sold to private industry and they note that preson X goes to mcdonalds occasionally-- should they be innundated with weight loss advertisments?
These are kind of slippery slope arguments but they show that the camera isn't in itself bad but the sharing of data can be. And with the tendency of data to want to propagate there needs to be strict LAWS to stop it from being used by interested third parties. If they say it's there to make us safe then it needs to ONLY make us safe.
Agreed. It's also hard to imagine anyone's grandmother wanting to finance her grandson's friends' gaming habits. Although, maybe he wants to do this to learn a little about wireless networking and help his friends out in the process -- either way, I wish I lived in his building :)
Why do people think that if nobody has any privacy that it naturally correlates with positive advancements toward open society? Wouldn't a lack of privacy be a boon to criminals and civilized society alike? Isn't this what we are seeing now with the rise of the internet?
I think the point is not whether or not privacy benefits society but whether or not an individual has a right to it. Personally, I like my privacy too a resonable extent because I don't like the idea that there are a bunch of people out there who compile profiles on me. Profiles that serve only a limited few purposes such as:
A) selling me products
B) stealing from me
C) arresting me
D) providing me medical treatment (see A)
While A and C could be good in some situations (ie I am a criminal or I got the right medical treatment because of a profile) I just don't see enough good in a total lack of privacy.
I think there will always be bad people in this world and if the data is out there and allowed to be shared it will be used for malice at some point but I think that's the key. As long as the data has strict sharing guidelines it can be beneficial. Without that, it does the individual AND HENCE the society very little good compared to the potential harm.
This is the key and I am glad you got moderated up for that comment. Sadly too, these kinds of technical details are exactly what the article is lacking -- making it seem slanderous. This will be an intersting one to watch to see if some of these details will come out. Unfortunately, I fear this will fall by the wayside and we wont hear much of it again because the details aren't "sexy" news and then people will selectively remeber whatever they want about the story. Either "MS is evil" or "AI is slanderous"
sigh...
The thing game designers and level designers need to focus on is not only these new graphics, but how to INCORPORATE them into the gameplay. For example, in the original deus ex game I remember grabbin a rolling cart and placing a small TNT box on it and rolling on down the hall only to shoot it when it neared my enemies. If only the designs would use all these features then the games could be awesome again. So while graphics may be starting to level out I think the next big thing (if the devs are smart) is to USE all the previous advances.
Like...
-first persont user guided rockets
-true rolling carts
-jedi type powers (ala JKII)
-objects are ALL meant to be picked up
-bullet time
-vehicle driving