Where did anyone talk about the weight of a shotgun? Weight is no consideration in a game where you can carry a cannon that fires 5 meter diameter cannonballs. What Zonk was complaining about was that the sounds are weak and don't suggest much firepower. IMO that was an issue with the first two Sam games as well.
Except this game review says the game sucks and as such wouldn't be an effective advertisement.
Re:Sorry, I quit FPSs when they wanted me to jump
on
Review: Serious Sam II
·
· Score: 1
If you don't want to wait for the respawn you can play FEAR in deathmatch. Overall the mode is pretty weak because the weapons are too strong and you usually die before you even notice they're shooting at you but I suppose it's the closest thing to "Counterstrike without waiting forever to respawn" that you can get.
That's not an attempt to circumvent a copyprotection, that's computer crime (15 years of jail and 250k$ fine!) plus wilful damage to property (having to reinstall Windows constitutes damage). He should call the police on Sony because wilfully spreading viruses is a felony. An additional class-action lawsuit for damages caused by the program is optional.
It's internal precision so it's not visible on screenshots. It allows for simulating the iris adjusting to the brightness level because it stores the brightness information in more than 256 shades (or 1024 in most modern engines, two overbright bits, AFAIK) so there won't be any artifacts from making stuff brighter or darker.
I find it hard to be scared by FEAR. Maybe it begins later on but as long as those things you see are harmless they are more like a tourist attraction than anything scary. Especially since they decided to make your enemies soldiers. Soldiers are there, they die when you shoot them, they don't come out of a wall and rip you to pieces or disappear just to appear somewhere nearby a few seconds after. As long as you know where the enemy is and what his limits are it's not scary. When you're the unstoppable superhuman that goes around wiping out entire platoons singlehandedly nothing is scary anymore. They aren't treats anymore, they become prey. You are the only thing people have to be afraid of 'round here. I wish you could exploit that a bit more, scare them by luring off one of 'em and dropping his mutilated corpse at his teammates, causing noise that makes them become nervous, having them panic because you sneaked up on them and wiped out half the platoon in one burst, etc.
The camera is just like aiming a gun, the difference is that you have to keep aiming until the thing is charged and wait for the ghost to attack if you want to do as much damage as possible. It's almost a game of chicken.
I only played the first one but I got to say it's the only scary game I ever played. Sure, I missed out on System Shock but modern "scary" games like Doom 3, Eternal Darkness, Resident Evil or FEAR don't even seem mildly creepy to me. I guess it's rather hard to be afraid when you are the one holding the BFG. Hearing noises and stuff isn't creepy, in a game it's normal to have a monster right around the corner and most of it is ambient noise anyway. Project Zero/Fatal Frame is the only game I know of that makes the enemies themselves frightening instead of merely relying on darkness and cheap scares. In PZ the ghosts that appear can hurt you and they are hard to track so there's always uncertainity to combat. There's no uncertainity when you're blowing away soldiers or demons with machineguns, rocketlaunchers and BFGs. There's also the difference between seeing the walls turn to blood or some nasty scene because in a game that just happens and those harmless ghosts in Project Zero because they aren't easy to tell apart from the harmful ones.
Having hallucinations, visions, apparitions in games doesn't mean jack if those things don't hurt the player. While finding yourself wading through blood and seeing screaming faces coming out of the wall will freak you out in real life, in a game it's just part of the level design and isn't surprising for the same reason you aren't surprised when you hear that shy girl you've been travelling with in jRPG #311 is the key to saving the world or when you encounter an unknown alien race on a simple scout mission.
Well, isn't it good that stores are taking the ratings seriously? After all, they're doing it out of their own free will so it's not really censorship.
we have observed living things to behave much differently than nonliving things. saying this distinction is only in our heads and to be disgregarded implies glossing over many other observations.
Some time ago it was believed that organic and inorganic matter could not be turned into each other. Since there is no sign of living and nonliving matter not being able to turn into each other there's no reason to assume there is such a barrier. Assuming a limit means a new natural law, assuming no limit means we just don't know about it yet.
the first three are a matter of belief, and the fourth lies in how you interpret the fossil records.
That sounds like the theory has holes with an "insert preferred explaination" sticker on them. The theory is supposed to explain, not to ask.
.edu doesn't allow porn..mobi doesn't allow websites that won't display on mobiles. Since displaying on mobiles is the purpose of anything attached to that domain it makes sense to make sure it does.
As said above, otherwise nothing is stopping people from putting normal websites on.mobi and mobile users won't be sure whether a.mobi page is actually compatible with mobile phones or just some idiot looking for a new domain to put his porn site/goatse redirector/blog onto.
Look at the normal internet. All those stupid IE-only pages that are incompatible because of ignorant people deciding everyone has IE. By allowing only standards compliant material you avoid browser-specific sites and prevent browser companies from fragmenting the market. Since the mobile browsers are still developing and cross-platform compatibility on mobiles is difficult it makes sense to enforce the standards and allow browser writers to implement only the standards without stupid failsafe code that's needed because some popular browser implemented it once and noone bothers to check those parts of the code. So therefore, if "this page does not render correctly in Opera" that's the fault of Opera, not because the webmaster decided that everyone uses "IE" (I know, on mobiles the distribution is different) and he can get away with wrong HTML that IE renders the way he likes it.
Obviously that's an idiotic programming. Program its neural network so the highest form of happyness is caused by obedience and they won't even desire to disobey you.
The problem is that while you could add gases to form an atmosphere to just about every planet or moon, it has to be fairly large to produce enough gravity to hold onto it and produce an atmospheric pressure that allows you to run around without an oxygen mask. At a few kilometers height (e.g. on top of Mount Everest) the Earth's atmosphere becomes too thin to breathe. On something the size of the moon the atmospheric density would be lower than that at ground level. Add to that the solar wind blowing away the atmosphere and you can see where the problems lie. The terraformed planets would need a mass that doesn't deviate much from the Earth's mass (maybe +-10-20%).
A large flood would cause different sediments and fossils (e.g. fish). That's how paleontologists can theorize which parts of the world were flooded in the past.
where did the initial matter come from?
Either it was always there (law of conservation of energy, energy is not created or destroyed) or it came to be when some strange 21 dimensional things caused this bubble we call "universe" to be. Don't ask me about that latter theory, someone like Stephen Hawking will more likely be able to explain that.
can life come from nonliving things?
That makes the assumption of life being something different. The distinction between living and dead matter is only in our heads, life is merely a set of physical and chemical processes.
can organisms really cross between families, orders, classes, and kingdoms?
Can animals cross national borders? These distinctions were arbitrarily placed by humans to group animals by physical traits. Nature itself does not know about them.
has the earth really had life-sustaining conditions for billions of years?
Apparently. Does it have life-sustaining conditions now? Life can adapt to changing conditions so the range of possible life-sustaining conditions can be very large.
where is the evidence to support all of this?
The fossil records suggest that this theory has merit.
some branches of ID do not predict any rule change, but instead predict that the rules don't change and the designer is always around.
What data suggests that? That an intelligent designer is around, I mean?
Now for some questions about ID:
What is that designer? Where is he? How does he function? Why would he want to fake fossil records to suggest a different history?
And why should we assume there is some omnipotent being that has existed before the universe, can create the universe, hides from us and wants us not to believe in it when we can give a more useful explaination with much simpler theories?
Have you heard of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism? It disagrees with even basic scientific ideas claiming the FSM is doing it and is just as valid as any other Religion that challenges science.
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad, a patent on delaying games would be too nice.
They sold two licenses of the original Serious Engine IIRC, not exactly their main business.
Where did anyone talk about the weight of a shotgun? Weight is no consideration in a game where you can carry a cannon that fires 5 meter diameter cannonballs. What Zonk was complaining about was that the sounds are weak and don't suggest much firepower. IMO that was an issue with the first two Sam games as well.
It was created (by Apogee, I think) with the Wolf 3D engine while Wolf 3D was still in development.
Nice game, I liked it.
Except this game review says the game sucks and as such wouldn't be an effective advertisement.
If you don't want to wait for the respawn you can play FEAR in deathmatch. Overall the mode is pretty weak because the weapons are too strong and you usually die before you even notice they're shooting at you but I suppose it's the closest thing to "Counterstrike without waiting forever to respawn" that you can get.
They didn't call Second Encounter Sam 2 because it wasn't really a full sequel, it was a stand-alone expansion.
That's not an attempt to circumvent a copyprotection, that's computer crime (15 years of jail and 250k$ fine!) plus wilful damage to property (having to reinstall Windows constitutes damage). He should call the police on Sony because wilfully spreading viruses is a felony. An additional class-action lawsuit for damages caused by the program is optional.
Can I consider the people who made it "related documentation"?
It's internal precision so it's not visible on screenshots. It allows for simulating the iris adjusting to the brightness level because it stores the brightness information in more than 256 shades (or 1024 in most modern engines, two overbright bits, AFAIK) so there won't be any artifacts from making stuff brighter or darker.
While it's not necessarily illegal, companies are sue happy so even the suspicion that you might have copied their code can already trigger a lawsuit.
Apparently Microsoft is in their current position and on the receiving end of antitrust lawsuits because they ignored exactly that rule.
I think Tyrael makes it clear that noone really knows what exactly will happen but they know that something will happen.
I find it hard to be scared by FEAR. Maybe it begins later on but as long as those things you see are harmless they are more like a tourist attraction than anything scary. Especially since they decided to make your enemies soldiers. Soldiers are there, they die when you shoot them, they don't come out of a wall and rip you to pieces or disappear just to appear somewhere nearby a few seconds after. As long as you know where the enemy is and what his limits are it's not scary. When you're the unstoppable superhuman that goes around wiping out entire platoons singlehandedly nothing is scary anymore. They aren't treats anymore, they become prey. You are the only thing people have to be afraid of 'round here. I wish you could exploit that a bit more, scare them by luring off one of 'em and dropping his mutilated corpse at his teammates, causing noise that makes them become nervous, having them panic because you sneaked up on them and wiped out half the platoon in one burst, etc.
The camera is just like aiming a gun, the difference is that you have to keep aiming until the thing is charged and wait for the ghost to attack if you want to do as much damage as possible. It's almost a game of chicken.
I only played the first one but I got to say it's the only scary game I ever played. Sure, I missed out on System Shock but modern "scary" games like Doom 3, Eternal Darkness, Resident Evil or FEAR don't even seem mildly creepy to me. I guess it's rather hard to be afraid when you are the one holding the BFG. Hearing noises and stuff isn't creepy, in a game it's normal to have a monster right around the corner and most of it is ambient noise anyway. Project Zero/Fatal Frame is the only game I know of that makes the enemies themselves frightening instead of merely relying on darkness and cheap scares. In PZ the ghosts that appear can hurt you and they are hard to track so there's always uncertainity to combat. There's no uncertainity when you're blowing away soldiers or demons with machineguns, rocketlaunchers and BFGs. There's also the difference between seeing the walls turn to blood or some nasty scene because in a game that just happens and those harmless ghosts in Project Zero because they aren't easy to tell apart from the harmful ones.
Having hallucinations, visions, apparitions in games doesn't mean jack if those things don't hurt the player. While finding yourself wading through blood and seeing screaming faces coming out of the wall will freak you out in real life, in a game it's just part of the level design and isn't surprising for the same reason you aren't surprised when you hear that shy girl you've been travelling with in jRPG #311 is the key to saving the world or when you encounter an unknown alien race on a simple scout mission.
Well, isn't it good that stores are taking the ratings seriously? After all, they're doing it out of their own free will so it's not really censorship.
we have observed living things to behave much differently than nonliving things. saying this distinction is only in our heads and to be disgregarded implies glossing over many other observations.
Some time ago it was believed that organic and inorganic matter could not be turned into each other. Since there is no sign of living and nonliving matter not being able to turn into each other there's no reason to assume there is such a barrier. Assuming a limit means a new natural law, assuming no limit means we just don't know about it yet.
the first three are a matter of belief, and the fourth lies in how you interpret the fossil records.
That sounds like the theory has holes with an "insert preferred explaination" sticker on them. The theory is supposed to explain, not to ask.
.edu doesn't allow porn. .mobi doesn't allow websites that won't display on mobiles. Since displaying on mobiles is the purpose of anything attached to that domain it makes sense to make sure it does.
As said above, otherwise nothing is stopping people from putting normal websites on .mobi and mobile users won't be sure whether a .mobi page is actually compatible with mobile phones or just some idiot looking for a new domain to put his porn site/goatse redirector/blog onto.
Look at the normal internet. All those stupid IE-only pages that are incompatible because of ignorant people deciding everyone has IE. By allowing only standards compliant material you avoid browser-specific sites and prevent browser companies from fragmenting the market. Since the mobile browsers are still developing and cross-platform compatibility on mobiles is difficult it makes sense to enforce the standards and allow browser writers to implement only the standards without stupid failsafe code that's needed because some popular browser implemented it once and noone bothers to check those parts of the code. So therefore, if "this page does not render correctly in Opera" that's the fault of Opera, not because the webmaster decided that everyone uses "IE" (I know, on mobiles the distribution is different) and he can get away with wrong HTML that IE renders the way he likes it.
Obviously that's an idiotic programming. Program its neural network so the highest form of happyness is caused by obedience and they won't even desire to disobey you.
The problem is that while you could add gases to form an atmosphere to just about every planet or moon, it has to be fairly large to produce enough gravity to hold onto it and produce an atmospheric pressure that allows you to run around without an oxygen mask. At a few kilometers height (e.g. on top of Mount Everest) the Earth's atmosphere becomes too thin to breathe. On something the size of the moon the atmospheric density would be lower than that at ground level. Add to that the solar wind blowing away the atmosphere and you can see where the problems lie. The terraformed planets would need a mass that doesn't deviate much from the Earth's mass (maybe +-10-20%).
A large flood would cause different sediments and fossils (e.g. fish). That's how paleontologists can theorize which parts of the world were flooded in the past.
where did the initial matter come from?
Either it was always there (law of conservation of energy, energy is not created or destroyed) or it came to be when some strange 21 dimensional things caused this bubble we call "universe" to be. Don't ask me about that latter theory, someone like Stephen Hawking will more likely be able to explain that.
can life come from nonliving things?
That makes the assumption of life being something different. The distinction between living and dead matter is only in our heads, life is merely a set of physical and chemical processes.
can organisms really cross between families, orders, classes, and kingdoms?
Can animals cross national borders? These distinctions were arbitrarily placed by humans to group animals by physical traits. Nature itself does not know about them.
has the earth really had life-sustaining conditions for billions of years?
Apparently. Does it have life-sustaining conditions now? Life can adapt to changing conditions so the range of possible life-sustaining conditions can be very large.
where is the evidence to support all of this?
The fossil records suggest that this theory has merit.
some branches of ID do not predict any rule change, but instead predict that the rules don't change and the designer is always around.
What data suggests that? That an intelligent designer is around, I mean?
Now for some questions about ID:
What is that designer? Where is he? How does he function? Why would he want to fake fossil records to suggest a different history?
And why should we assume there is some omnipotent being that has existed before the universe, can create the universe, hides from us and wants us not to believe in it when we can give a more useful explaination with much simpler theories?
Have you heard of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism? It disagrees with even basic scientific ideas claiming the FSM is doing it and is just as valid as any other Religion that challenges science.