But the player isn't shooting them because they're black but because they want to kill him (and are probably infected with something). That they're black comes mostly because the game takes place in Africa where that's expected.
Arresting won't be possible anyway if the law says there's no evidence to be gathered there. It could only be used for illegal actions, not legal ones.
Ah, that's unexpected considering we have a minister here who wants to implement exactly what the summary claims this is. When the proposal got voted on and rejected the little Führer wanted to change the voting rules. I wonder when the Reichstag will burn again...
I'd be hard pressed to envision a scenario where field validation is logically a -view- function.
High latency or intermittent connection scenarios where you can't check back with the controller all the time and it's better to avoid unnecessary calls if you can tell the user that the input is invalid anyway? Sure, the controller would of course still do validation but that doesn't mean the view can't tell you what's wrong without needing to connect to the controller.
I think the idea is that the view is interchangeable and isn't expected to do anything in order to allow the system to function but it can of course have extra functionality that is not necessary but increases the userfriendliness. The view can validate the user inputs to spare the user some grief but the controller should never expect the view to behave in any way.
Only works when you had online at the time you installed the games though, I was on a university network once (dorm) and they didn't allow using Steam (or anything else except http and email), couldn't install Half-Life 2.
The first part was supporting your point but I think when you said that every algorithm has an iterative counterpart that could very well be wrong as the reasoning that turing complete languages don't all support recursion and therefore recursion is not necessary isn't really correct since any turing complete language can implement recursion in some form even if it's not a native feature. After all, the CPU itself doesn't know recursion, it only knows the stack and conditional jumps to handle that.
Dynamic difficulty and dynamic level layouts are different things to me, obviously any PvE multiplayer game will need dynamic level layouts (how much the level geometry gets randomized and how much it's just placing enemies and spawners differently depends on the game design and how much the developer will/can do).
I have a hunch the conversion could be reduced to the halting problem in some way...
Depending on the algorithm your "iterative" code could very well end up being a custom recursion implementation. If you do a depth search through a tree (or any mesh even) using a stack to remember the path you've taken you're effectively recursing even if you just use a while loop (to the CPU there's no difference anyway). After all a Turing Machine can implement a stack so just because it's computable and your language has no native recursion but is Turing-complete that wouldn't necessarily mean that you won't effectively implement recursion anyway.
I don't know about you but when I lose at a game because the controls suck I get angry, not scared. Bad controls are a design failure. Tension comes from the feeling that you have no margin for errors and must play with all your ability, not the feeling that you have to fight inadequate controls just to do something that seems like it should be a lot easier than it is. Knowing there is an enemy around and knowing that when he pops up and you don't spot him fast enough you lose creates a lot of tension and fear (little is scarier than the unknown, especially in a videogame). What games like RE4 tend to do wrong is make enemies more visible, give the player a lot of firepower and generally widen the margin for errors to the point where you can afford messing up and not noticing an enemy quickly because you can shrug a few hits off anyway rather than losing near instantly when you mess up. They turn you into the hunter instead of the hunted.
Hell, if the enemies are dangerous enough when you don't react fast enough they can just as well go down with one shot and still be damn scary. Having enemies that are hard to spot early and possibly even scattering some "noise" that looks like the early warning for an enemy creates a lot more tension than a huge walking pile of corpses that won't go down before you unload all your ammo into it. Long fights need larger error margins because noone can keep perfect play up for that long and long fights tend to turn into pattern memorization and application so you're fighting a predictable enemy. Predictable isn't scary though it can still be damn hard.
Dynamic difficulty levels aren't really something I like, high difficulties are meant to take lots of tries until the player has improved his play to the level where he can deal with the difficulty, dynamic difficulty would mean instead of requiring the player to get better you just scale the game up or down to the point where the player can just steadily progress without extra work.
Of course if this spying was omnipresent and suddently 1/3rd of the population was on the wrong side of the law it'd increase the chances that someone will take action rather than just hide and hope it goes away.
No danger to the player's life maybe but some games definitely manage to make you feel scared by putting your character into serious danger that you need to pay attention to avoid (or mess up and suffer some serious damage or even die instantly). I don't count games like FEAR or Doom 3 among them though, a gun is a pretty powerful way of eliminating dangers and their threats weren't that dangerous (at least not because you might not pay enough attention, I got annoyed in FEAR by enemies that go melee and have so many hitpoints it's near impossible to kill them before they reach you even if you spot them instantly and keep firing the whole time).
Slashdot Mirror
Science does not work for claims like that. What you've shown is that the idea of afterlife is not worth considering, not that it is false.
For some reason the movie reminded me of Freespace.
Romanticism.
But the player isn't shooting them because they're black but because they want to kill him (and are probably infected with something). That they're black comes mostly because the game takes place in Africa where that's expected.
So noone cared about the Spanish in RE4, eh?
Ring species. A can interbreed with B, B can with C, C can with D but D can't with A. In other words, interbreeding is not transitive.
If we add the porn where terms like "adult" and "child" become meaningless that goes way over 100%.
Arresting won't be possible anyway if the law says there's no evidence to be gathered there. It could only be used for illegal actions, not legal ones.
Ah, that's unexpected considering we have a minister here who wants to implement exactly what the summary claims this is. When the proposal got voted on and rejected the little Führer wanted to change the voting rules. I wonder when the Reichstag will burn again...
I'd be hard pressed to envision a scenario where field validation is logically a -view- function.
High latency or intermittent connection scenarios where you can't check back with the controller all the time and it's better to avoid unnecessary calls if you can tell the user that the input is invalid anyway? Sure, the controller would of course still do validation but that doesn't mean the view can't tell you what's wrong without needing to connect to the controller.
I think the idea is that the view is interchangeable and isn't expected to do anything in order to allow the system to function but it can of course have extra functionality that is not necessary but increases the userfriendliness. The view can validate the user inputs to spare the user some grief but the controller should never expect the view to behave in any way.
Mine worked fine and didn't even get the slowdown that was talked about when I had an SF game installed.
There are C64 game compilations available in stores, most of the games have cracker intros...
Only works when you had online at the time you installed the games though, I was on a university network once (dorm) and they didn't allow using Steam (or anything else except http and email), couldn't install Half-Life 2.
Or maybe Starforce didn't cause problems on his computer?
The first part was supporting your point but I think when you said that every algorithm has an iterative counterpart that could very well be wrong as the reasoning that turing complete languages don't all support recursion and therefore recursion is not necessary isn't really correct since any turing complete language can implement recursion in some form even if it's not a native feature. After all, the CPU itself doesn't know recursion, it only knows the stack and conditional jumps to handle that.
Dynamic difficulty and dynamic level layouts are different things to me, obviously any PvE multiplayer game will need dynamic level layouts (how much the level geometry gets randomized and how much it's just placing enemies and spawners differently depends on the game design and how much the developer will/can do).
I did not know that translated to "make crappy edutainment games instead of popular first person shooters".
What about the transistor, anyway?
I have a hunch the conversion could be reduced to the halting problem in some way...
Depending on the algorithm your "iterative" code could very well end up being a custom recursion implementation. If you do a depth search through a tree (or any mesh even) using a stack to remember the path you've taken you're effectively recursing even if you just use a while loop (to the CPU there's no difference anyway). After all a Turing Machine can implement a stack so just because it's computable and your language has no native recursion but is Turing-complete that wouldn't necessarily mean that you won't effectively implement recursion anyway.
I don't know about you but when I lose at a game because the controls suck I get angry, not scared. Bad controls are a design failure. Tension comes from the feeling that you have no margin for errors and must play with all your ability, not the feeling that you have to fight inadequate controls just to do something that seems like it should be a lot easier than it is. Knowing there is an enemy around and knowing that when he pops up and you don't spot him fast enough you lose creates a lot of tension and fear (little is scarier than the unknown, especially in a videogame). What games like RE4 tend to do wrong is make enemies more visible, give the player a lot of firepower and generally widen the margin for errors to the point where you can afford messing up and not noticing an enemy quickly because you can shrug a few hits off anyway rather than losing near instantly when you mess up. They turn you into the hunter instead of the hunted.
Hell, if the enemies are dangerous enough when you don't react fast enough they can just as well go down with one shot and still be damn scary. Having enemies that are hard to spot early and possibly even scattering some "noise" that looks like the early warning for an enemy creates a lot more tension than a huge walking pile of corpses that won't go down before you unload all your ammo into it. Long fights need larger error margins because noone can keep perfect play up for that long and long fights tend to turn into pattern memorization and application so you're fighting a predictable enemy. Predictable isn't scary though it can still be damn hard.
Dynamic difficulty levels aren't really something I like, high difficulties are meant to take lots of tries until the player has improved his play to the level where he can deal with the difficulty, dynamic difficulty would mean instead of requiring the player to get better you just scale the game up or down to the point where the player can just steadily progress without extra work.
Go buy a Wii and stop whining.
Of course if this spying was omnipresent and suddently 1/3rd of the population was on the wrong side of the law it'd increase the chances that someone will take action rather than just hide and hope it goes away.
No danger to the player's life maybe but some games definitely manage to make you feel scared by putting your character into serious danger that you need to pay attention to avoid (or mess up and suffer some serious damage or even die instantly). I don't count games like FEAR or Doom 3 among them though, a gun is a pretty powerful way of eliminating dangers and their threats weren't that dangerous (at least not because you might not pay enough attention, I got annoyed in FEAR by enemies that go melee and have so many hitpoints it's near impossible to kill them before they reach you even if you spot them instantly and keep firing the whole time).
But does it really affect sales much? Most people just don't care because it works fine for them.