Why aren't there more games like Syberia, Myst, The 7th Guest?
There are. Looked at store shelves lately? Everyone and their dog is making adventures like that. Sure, many aren't very good but that happens with all games.
Why not, for example, a space exploration game -- concentrating on the science, economics, and logistics involved, instead of the usual shoot-the-evil-green-aliens theme?
One of the so-called 4X games (Elite and its ilk, these days X3 is popular)? You can do anything you want in those and if you don't want to fight you won't have to (except maybe to fend off the occassional pirate).
Valve regularly rebundles their HL games in order to keep the price of the box at 50, HL1 didn't fall much below that before HL2 was released so the bargain bin didn't really start losing now, it always did.
It's not really quicklaunch, I've removed the original quicklaunch and instead created three folders (applications, links to frequently accessed folders and games) that I told Windows to use as quicklaunch bars (right click->symbol bars->new symbol bar..., select the folder you wish to use).
Access to the desktop? I've got all the programs I need in my three quicklaunch bars. Why does anyone need the desktop? You can have windows overlapping each other and switch between them without ever seeing some of the lower ones.
What I don't get is why they insist on finding a new acronym for every resolution out there. What's wrong with writing 320x240? When I was still playing DOS games that was called VGA or EGA (depending on colour depth). Or mode 0x13. Not Quarter VGA because 320x240x8 was the most a VGA could do (of course it could do 640x480x4 but who wants 16 colours only?).
WinNT has proper process separation, when a process goes down it almost never takes the entire OS with it (unless it's a driver error). Plus the task manager is now an equal application, it doesn't halt your other processes when triggered and it can give out priorities (e.g. when you have a processing intensive task without user interaction and a browser open you can prevent the other task from slowing down the browser). Locking and proper user separation and privileges are another big advantage.
I don't know what's with people and the "inconvenience" of buying a game in a store. I can go to a store ("go" as in "walk"), buy the game, take it home in less than 30 minutes. Compared to the days it takes to download all those gigabytes I wouldn't call that slow. And let's not kid ourselves, the absense of a physical medium won't lower the game prices, the savings will go straight into the publisher's pocket. Even worse, there won't be much of an incentive to have price drops because there is no stock to get rid of. Plus it'll kill importing, if a game isn't officially released in Europe you can just forget about ever getting it here.
And let's not forget ratings enforcement. How are you going to make sure the person downloading the game is old enough? That may not be an issue in the US but here in Germany it's a felony to let anyone download a game he's not old enough for.
It doesn't matter where the force that got it moving came from, if it moves it has kinetic energy. Doubling your speed quadruples your kinetic energy. Since the clock's internal processes don't suddently create more force the energy they add would be the same as if it was standing still. But because the same difference in speed would require more energy, the speed difference that results is lower.
Are they sure that it's really slowed movement through time and not some other effect? Like, say, the energy within the things producing lower speeds due to higher energy requirements for the same speed difference?
Because I don't see how we can move slower through time without falling behind unless we are of infinite size in that time dimension (which would give us infinite mass as well).
Besides, what's slower movement through time? Speed has to be measured on some frame of reference so, yes, we'd need a meta time to say we move at a speed through time. Besides, if we are of infinite size (or exist at each point in time simultaneously, as a lack of any meta-time would necessitate) through time, how would you define each object's "now" in order to define a position in time? Even moreso, how can anything be at a point in time now when there is no now?
And why would a further behind position in time be noticeable to others, wouldn't we only see the object's state it has when it finally reaches our time?
I mean, if we exist at each point in the past we have to exist at each point in the future as well (conservation of mass, lack of meta time in which to create the future) so the entire timeline would be already defined and would have been defined from the "beginning" (though there can be no beginning since it'd be a point on our timeline and that timeline has existed even before that beginning). But why would that timeline follow any rules like causality? What reason does a later point in time have to be connected to any earlier point in time when they have been "created" simultaneously (that is, they have been there forever and even that is the wrong term since we no longer have any time as we understand it to refer to)?
I dunno, the ideas that time is a dimension, that "earlier" points in that dimension will indeed hold the past AND that change can happen are one big contradiction in my mind.
What we use for measuring time involves particles (e.g. electrons) travelling around, that travelling will obviously require more energy than it would when the clock isn't moving (energy use being quadratic and all) so the speed that comes from movement is reduced, it seems to act slower. Wouldn't surprise me if that works in some way on nuclear decay and such.
But when you move through time at different speeds, wouldn't one of you leave the other one behind? I mean, how come people think that you can move slower through time without falling behind the faster movers when that doesn't work for any other dimension?
I fully agree with that article, it was my firm belief even before I read it. The other possibility insead of non-dimensional time is no time at all and the world is really just a still picture and we only believe the past really happened. That'd work pretty well though it'd require intelligent design to really make sense (since there'd no longer be causality there'd be no reason for the world to be as it is) and I think it belongs into philosophy (the kind of questions where the philosopher isn't even sure of his own existence) rather than physics.
Another point would be, if there was indeed a dimension that could be called time, what would happen if you were to move through it? If you moved e.g. into the year 2000? What you'd see could be anything but it sure as hell wouldn't be our universe in the year 2000 because our universe is already in the year 2006. When you pick up a cup and move it somewhere else you won't find the cup at its old location anymore. So we'd have to either assume that the universe creates copies of itself as it moves through time and horribly rapes the conservation of mass (and changing the past wouldn't bother the present as that past would only be an afterimage that doesn't influence the present anymore) or we have to assume that the universe already has copies of itself throughout the entire time dimension that include the past, present and future. So the universe is a graph, completely defined from beginning to end. Of course that'd mean the universe is absolutely static if we just increase the scope of what we call universe by a dimension. So it's just a timeless universe with an additional dimension and perhaps infinite mass.
So it comes down to the philosophical question: Do you think time exists?
Please use the international currency codes if you want to talk about dollars other than US dollars. Noone can guess what country's currency you are referring to there.
The original Duke Nukem is still the one of the best multiplayer shooters out there
Really? I've got the registered version, I beat Dr. Proton but I couldn't find a multiplayer mode. Is that something that doesn't show up when you're using an EGA that's outputting to a 4 colour LED screen? Should I upgrade that 386?
But to be honest the real reason sales are down, is no one wants to spend tons of money for games on a system that is going to be obsolete in a couple of months.
That doesn't make much sense. 1. A system isn't obsolete until there are no new games coming for it and 2. All three sequel consoles (except the XC Core) are backwards compatible. But then again the mainstream market never made sense so it could really be happening...
Slashdot Mirror
"I'll know it when I see it."
Why aren't there more games like Syberia, Myst, The 7th Guest?
There are. Looked at store shelves lately? Everyone and their dog is making adventures like that. Sure, many aren't very good but that happens with all games.
Why not, for example, a space exploration game -- concentrating on the science, economics, and logistics involved, instead of the usual shoot-the-evil-green-aliens theme?
One of the so-called 4X games (Elite and its ilk, these days X3 is popular)? You can do anything you want in those and if you don't want to fight you won't have to (except maybe to fend off the occassional pirate).
Valve regularly rebundles their HL games in order to keep the price of the box at 50, HL1 didn't fall much below that before HL2 was released so the bargain bin didn't really start losing now, it always did.
It's not really quicklaunch, I've removed the original quicklaunch and instead created three folders (applications, links to frequently accessed folders and games) that I told Windows to use as quicklaunch bars (right click->symbol bars->new symbol bar..., select the folder you wish to use).
How is FEAR less of a prettied up revision of Quake than Battlefield is?
You can sell HL2 to someone else. The CDkey can be unregistered (but I think Valve charges for that, damn greedy bastards).
Access to the desktop? I've got all the programs I need in my three quicklaunch bars. Why does anyone need the desktop? You can have windows overlapping each other and switch between them without ever seeing some of the lower ones.
What I don't get is why they insist on finding a new acronym for every resolution out there. What's wrong with writing 320x240? When I was still playing DOS games that was called VGA or EGA (depending on colour depth). Or mode 0x13. Not Quarter VGA because 320x240x8 was the most a VGA could do (of course it could do 640x480x4 but who wants 16 colours only?).
What the hell is QVGA supposed to be? Quadruple Video Graphics Adapter?
WinNT has proper process separation, when a process goes down it almost never takes the entire OS with it (unless it's a driver error). Plus the task manager is now an equal application, it doesn't halt your other processes when triggered and it can give out priorities (e.g. when you have a processing intensive task without user interaction and a browser open you can prevent the other task from slowing down the browser). Locking and proper user separation and privileges are another big advantage.
I suppose you bolded that bit because it sounded too much like the Matrix "human powerplants" to you, too?
Well, if the kids are sufficiently retarded, laughing may be the reaction.
I don't know what's with people and the "inconvenience" of buying a game in a store. I can go to a store ("go" as in "walk"), buy the game, take it home in less than 30 minutes. Compared to the days it takes to download all those gigabytes I wouldn't call that slow. And let's not kid ourselves, the absense of a physical medium won't lower the game prices, the savings will go straight into the publisher's pocket. Even worse, there won't be much of an incentive to have price drops because there is no stock to get rid of. Plus it'll kill importing, if a game isn't officially released in Europe you can just forget about ever getting it here.
And let's not forget ratings enforcement. How are you going to make sure the person downloading the game is old enough? That may not be an issue in the US but here in Germany it's a felony to let anyone download a game he's not old enough for.
They charge the soldiers??? I'd at least expect the army to pay for that.
I am afraid I have to inform you that "sucking" and "blowing", when used colloquially, usually involve more than breathing...
It doesn't matter where the force that got it moving came from, if it moves it has kinetic energy. Doubling your speed quadruples your kinetic energy. Since the clock's internal processes don't suddently create more force the energy they add would be the same as if it was standing still. But because the same difference in speed would require more energy, the speed difference that results is lower.
Are they sure that it's really slowed movement through time and not some other effect? Like, say, the energy within the things producing lower speeds due to higher energy requirements for the same speed difference?
Because I don't see how we can move slower through time without falling behind unless we are of infinite size in that time dimension (which would give us infinite mass as well).
Besides, what's slower movement through time? Speed has to be measured on some frame of reference so, yes, we'd need a meta time to say we move at a speed through time. Besides, if we are of infinite size (or exist at each point in time simultaneously, as a lack of any meta-time would necessitate) through time, how would you define each object's "now" in order to define a position in time? Even moreso, how can anything be at a point in time now when there is no now?
And why would a further behind position in time be noticeable to others, wouldn't we only see the object's state it has when it finally reaches our time?
I mean, if we exist at each point in the past we have to exist at each point in the future as well (conservation of mass, lack of meta time in which to create the future) so the entire timeline would be already defined and would have been defined from the "beginning" (though there can be no beginning since it'd be a point on our timeline and that timeline has existed even before that beginning). But why would that timeline follow any rules like causality? What reason does a later point in time have to be connected to any earlier point in time when they have been "created" simultaneously (that is, they have been there forever and even that is the wrong term since we no longer have any time as we understand it to refer to)?
I dunno, the ideas that time is a dimension, that "earlier" points in that dimension will indeed hold the past AND that change can happen are one big contradiction in my mind.
What we use for measuring time involves particles (e.g. electrons) travelling around, that travelling will obviously require more energy than it would when the clock isn't moving (energy use being quadratic and all) so the speed that comes from movement is reduced, it seems to act slower. Wouldn't surprise me if that works in some way on nuclear decay and such.
But when you move through time at different speeds, wouldn't one of you leave the other one behind? I mean, how come people think that you can move slower through time without falling behind the faster movers when that doesn't work for any other dimension?
I fully agree with that article, it was my firm belief even before I read it. The other possibility insead of non-dimensional time is no time at all and the world is really just a still picture and we only believe the past really happened. That'd work pretty well though it'd require intelligent design to really make sense (since there'd no longer be causality there'd be no reason for the world to be as it is) and I think it belongs into philosophy (the kind of questions where the philosopher isn't even sure of his own existence) rather than physics.
Another point would be, if there was indeed a dimension that could be called time, what would happen if you were to move through it? If you moved e.g. into the year 2000? What you'd see could be anything but it sure as hell wouldn't be our universe in the year 2000 because our universe is already in the year 2006. When you pick up a cup and move it somewhere else you won't find the cup at its old location anymore. So we'd have to either assume that the universe creates copies of itself as it moves through time and horribly rapes the conservation of mass (and changing the past wouldn't bother the present as that past would only be an afterimage that doesn't influence the present anymore) or we have to assume that the universe already has copies of itself throughout the entire time dimension that include the past, present and future. So the universe is a graph, completely defined from beginning to end. Of course that'd mean the universe is absolutely static if we just increase the scope of what we call universe by a dimension. So it's just a timeless universe with an additional dimension and perhaps infinite mass.
So it comes down to the philosophical question: Do you think time exists?
The notch is Nintendo's way of saying "Forget it, that won't work".
Please use the international currency codes if you want to talk about dollars other than US dollars. Noone can guess what country's currency you are referring to there.
The original Duke Nukem is still the one of the best multiplayer shooters out there
Really? I've got the registered version, I beat Dr. Proton but I couldn't find a multiplayer mode. Is that something that doesn't show up when you're using an EGA that's outputting to a 4 colour LED screen? Should I upgrade that 386?
But to be honest the real reason sales are down, is no one wants to spend tons of money for games on a system that is going to be obsolete in a couple of months.
That doesn't make much sense. 1. A system isn't obsolete until there are no new games coming for it and 2. All three sequel consoles (except the XC Core) are backwards compatible. But then again the mainstream market never made sense so it could really be happening...
Well, either it takes up more screen space or it becomes smaller, pixel-wise (which has to be compensated for).