(I'm having trouble arranging my thoughts today..)
I agree.. partially. As I said in my original comment, 3D _does_ have its place in video games. But it seems as though once N64 and PSX hit the market, every game is in 3D and, frankly, a lot less fun. Sure, there are some great games (Mario64, Zelda:OOT, MGS:TS, Paper Mario [is that even 3D?], and that's just on the Nintendo side of things), but they were all... well, easy. I want a challenge, and it seems that these games don't provide that challenge. And I think 3D is at least partially to blame.
I agree that it would be nice for 2D and 3D developers to co-exist and get the amount of attention they deserve.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that 2D games still provide fun things and that not all games need to be 3D as seems to be thought by game developers. Bringing back 2D games may help revive the industry of creativity that seems to have run dry.
I've actually been playing Cave Story for a few weeks (beat it [for real] for the first time last night) and absolutely love it. Great game, I reccomend it to anyone who reads this =D
I'll check out the article, too.
Personally, I think that the creation of 3D games was really the downfall of the industry. It seems to me that the requirement for games to be 3D has stifled industry creativity.
Being something of a game developer myself, I've found that 3D games are _much_ harder to be creative with, and also make the games _easier_. It may seem odd to the outsider that the one little additional dimension makes that much of a difference, but once you've tried making both types of games, you can really tell. I think the games industry would be much better off if we dropped most of this 3D nonsense and went back to good ol' 2D games.
Here's an example of where 3D makes games "easier." Let's say you're standing in a cave in a 2D game. Enemy in front of you shoots at you. You have to time your jump correctly so that you don't get nailed by his projectile. Now you're standing in the same cave, but in a 3D world. Enemy in front of you shoots at you. Simply sidestep to the left once and you're done. There's no timing, no skill, no fun. In this case, 2D is vastly superior from a gaming standpoint.
That's not to say that 3D doesn't have its place. FPS games would be absolute crap in a 2D environment -- hell, would they even be possible? Other games such as Myst require a level of detail that is only possible with 3D graphics. But for the vast majority of games, especially on console, I think that 2D helps invoke creativity, brings down prices, and takes _much_ less time to develop.
I am. My friend and I are developing a PC game that plays like a console -- an XBox controller (or maybe just a USB adapter) will be included with each copy of the game and is required if you want to play the game. We would have developed for the console itself, but PC development is much easier for your first game.
Our game (thus far untitled) will be similar in style to Mario 64 in that you have to collect 'goals' (Stars in M64), 'coins', and so on. However, it will include a full level and object creation system and documentation. People can create their own 3D platformer! We're also building a website that customers can use to upload their creations or download others' creations.
I'm wary to post the URL to our project's website here, as it's hosted on my own FuitadNET webspace, and I really don't feel like going over the bandwidth limit on the first day of the month. If you're interested, you can see what we have so far (note that the website is incomplete and screenshots are several months old) at bright night games.com (remove spaces, obviously).
We plan to be finished by late October or early November.
Who the flying frosted fuck modded you Insightful five times? Sorry, you fail.
When I stuck in the CDROM and whatever I clicked on, nothing happened.
What, you mean the initial blue install screen? Yeah, the mouse doesn't work there. Instead you have to use that silly "keyboard" thing. Of course, ignore the fact that Linux also requires you to hit enter a few times before you can use the mouse -- well, so long as you don't have a serial mouse. Those don't work with modern Linux distros -- except for that distro over there.
Well, as it turned out, you actually have to make some weird sorta room for it on the harddisk, since it cannot be installed from an ordinary RPM.
What the fuck is this supposed to be? I can't even tell what this is supposed to be ripping on. RPMs don't take any room on your hard drive? News to me. Are you trying to make a shot at partitioning? What the hell is this?
...there where hardly any software for it. All it had was a simple pixeldrawing program, a webbrowser and very plain text editor.
As opposed to Linux which has everything installed from the start. That is, if you can figure out how to run it. Oooh, right, open a terminal, type "/usr/bin/xinetd restart" if you're on RedHat. Or type "/usr/sbin/xinetd restart" on Suse. Or "/etc/bin/xinetd restart" on Gentoo. Err-- but that's only if you have it installed. Do you have it installed? You can find out by typing "dpkg -xinetd" on RedHat. Or "apt ?xinetd" on Gentoo. Or "ejfao xinetd" on Suse. And if it gives you ErrorX you're missing some depencencies. And those depencies can be obtained from XXXXXX.org. Or dpkg. Or apt-get. And if you can't find an RPM for your distro, you have to compile it from source. If you can get the source, that is. And once you've (maybe) obtained the source, simply run./configure (if it runs into depency problems simply recurse through these steps again), make, make install. But then again if you didn't install GCC or some other compiler when you first installed Linux... well, you're fucked. Reinstall the whole system and don't forget GCC this time.
IT'S SO FUCKING EASY, EVEN A THIRD GRADER COULD DO IT!
Tylenol is nasty shit - I prefer taking aspirin for my headaches. Apart from the small risk of stomach problems, it's actually a lot less toxic than Tylenol.
Personally, I don't take any meds unless I absolutely need to. If I have a headache or stomachache, I just live with it. If I have a cold or stuffed up nose, I just wait it out. I don't feel like shoving all these drugs through my system.
I also hate it when people fill themselves with drugs for the littlest things. I had a girlfriend a while ago who would take 6 tylenol whenever she had the slightest headache.
Not at all. It's just that many people who make these "jokes" don't know that they're scientifically innacurrate and honestly believe that I was a fat, sugar eating kid - quite far from the truth and very frustrating.
That's exactly how I, having TypeI diabetes, feel every time someone makes a lame joke about me eating too much candy as a kid. It pisses me off. As far as medical science can tell (it may have been proven, I don't know), diabetes is a genetic disorder and has nothing to do with diet or living conditions. I like to think I have a relatively healthy lifestyle, and it's very annoying to hear people tell me I had an unhealthy childhood when they clearly know nothing about TypeI diabetes. You don't tell a blind person that they spent too much time looking into the sun as a kid, do you?
I can understand, though, how one could get TypeI and TypeII diabetes confused. The two diseases are completely unrelated aside from the symptoms and, in my opinion, one of them needs to be renamed to eliminate this confusion. For those that don't know, TypeII diabetes can (though not always) be caused by an unhealthy diet or lifestyle.
Excuse me, I have to go stab myself with a hypodermic needle after drinking this glass of orange juice.
I sure as hell thought you were talking about me, mostly because you said you were. I fall under the "teenagers" category, and looking at your subject, I felt the need to defend myself against your "shortsighted twit" accusation, which I found rather offensive. Take your half-assed generalisations elsewhere, please.
Holy shit, you're a fucking retard. I use IM almost exclusively to talk to my friends. However, that doesn't mean that I can't write in proper english. In my IM messages, I don't use "u" and "y." In fact, I completely bitch out those who do. I have lost friends because I bitched at their language skills so much. I've been doing this since I was fourteen (I'm almost 18 now).
The teenagers who you are talking about will not rule the world in 20 years when people like you finally leave the Earth (thank heaven). The poeple you are talking about will have low-paying blue collar jobs. Those people are morons, and that is why they type shittily. It has nothing to do with their age.
The teenagers that you mistakenly group with those retards are the ones who will inherit the earth. We are simply a less vocal minority, mostly because we don't have our heads up our asses like they and you do.
[K]ids in the US, as a whole, are far from "all right" these days. If you don't see that, you're not taking an honest look at the state of today's younger generation.
Oh fuck you, grandpa. The only problem with "kids these days" is you assholes saying we have a problem. There is no "problem." It's just dumbshits like you who think they know everything. Youth violence is down in the U.S. Hell, that alone should be amazing enough considering how much violence is shoved down our throats. T.V., video games, high school sports, magazine ads, books (holy shit, did he say books??), everything has violence in it, yet the rate of youth violence is down.
Furthermore, get off your fucking moral high ground. I know you're all going to rag on me for using so many curse words (holy shit, he said a word that is arbitrarily declared to be bad! run for the hills), but take a look at our society. Which is worse: slavery or a couple sylables? Our society has improved and I say that, as a whole, our morals have as well. We no longer have slavery. We have lower drug use. We have lower youth violence. Look at what has improved and then compare it to what has degraded. So we say a few sylables that we weren't "allowed" to before. So we enjoy making pixels move on a T.V. screen. Whoop-dee-fucking-doo.
So shut the fuck up with your moral bullshit. "Kids these days" are not any worse than when you were a kid - in fact, we may even be better.
Slashdot Mirror
(I'm having trouble arranging my thoughts today..)
... well, easy. I want a challenge, and it seems that these games don't provide that challenge. And I think 3D is at least partially to blame.
I agree.. partially. As I said in my original comment, 3D _does_ have its place in video games. But it seems as though once N64 and PSX hit the market, every game is in 3D and, frankly, a lot less fun. Sure, there are some great games (Mario64, Zelda:OOT, MGS:TS, Paper Mario [is that even 3D?], and that's just on the Nintendo side of things), but they were all
I agree that it would be nice for 2D and 3D developers to co-exist and get the amount of attention they deserve.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that 2D games still provide fun things and that not all games need to be 3D as seems to be thought by game developers. Bringing back 2D games may help revive the industry of creativity that seems to have run dry.
I've actually been playing Cave Story for a few weeks (beat it [for real] for the first time last night) and absolutely love it. Great game, I reccomend it to anyone who reads this =D I'll check out the article, too.
(This post is a little scatter-brained. Sorry)
Personally, I think that the creation of 3D games was really the downfall of the industry. It seems to me that the requirement for games to be 3D has stifled industry creativity.
Being something of a game developer myself, I've found that 3D games are _much_ harder to be creative with, and also make the games _easier_. It may seem odd to the outsider that the one little additional dimension makes that much of a difference, but once you've tried making both types of games, you can really tell. I think the games industry would be much better off if we dropped most of this 3D nonsense and went back to good ol' 2D games.
Here's an example of where 3D makes games "easier." Let's say you're standing in a cave in a 2D game. Enemy in front of you shoots at you. You have to time your jump correctly so that you don't get nailed by his projectile. Now you're standing in the same cave, but in a 3D world. Enemy in front of you shoots at you. Simply sidestep to the left once and you're done. There's no timing, no skill, no fun. In this case, 2D is vastly superior from a gaming standpoint.
That's not to say that 3D doesn't have its place. FPS games would be absolute crap in a 2D environment -- hell, would they even be possible? Other games such as Myst require a level of detail that is only possible with 3D graphics. But for the vast majority of games, especially on console, I think that 2D helps invoke creativity, brings down prices, and takes _much_ less time to develop.
I am. My friend and I are developing a PC game that plays like a console -- an XBox controller (or maybe just a USB adapter) will be included with each copy of the game and is required if you want to play the game. We would have developed for the console itself, but PC development is much easier for your first game.
Our game (thus far untitled) will be similar in style to Mario 64 in that you have to collect 'goals' (Stars in M64), 'coins', and so on. However, it will include a full level and object creation system and documentation. People can create their own 3D platformer! We're also building a website that customers can use to upload their creations or download others' creations.
I'm wary to post the URL to our project's website here, as it's hosted on my own FuitadNET webspace, and I really don't feel like going over the bandwidth limit on the first day of the month. If you're interested, you can see what we have so far (note that the website is incomplete and screenshots are several months old) at bright night games.com (remove spaces, obviously).
We plan to be finished by late October or early November.
Who the flying frosted fuck modded you Insightful five times? Sorry, you fail.
...there where hardly any software for it. All it had was a simple pixeldrawing program, a webbrowser and very plain text editor.
./configure (if it runs into depency problems simply recurse through these steps again), make, make install. But then again if you didn't install GCC or some other compiler when you first installed Linux... well, you're fucked. Reinstall the whole system and don't forget GCC this time.
When I stuck in the CDROM and whatever I clicked on, nothing happened.
What, you mean the initial blue install screen? Yeah, the mouse doesn't work there. Instead you have to use that silly "keyboard" thing. Of course, ignore the fact that Linux also requires you to hit enter a few times before you can use the mouse -- well, so long as you don't have a serial mouse. Those don't work with modern Linux distros -- except for that distro over there.
Well, as it turned out, you actually have to make some weird sorta room for it on the harddisk, since it cannot be installed from an ordinary RPM.
What the fuck is this supposed to be? I can't even tell what this is supposed to be ripping on. RPMs don't take any room on your hard drive? News to me. Are you trying to make a shot at partitioning? What the hell is this?
As opposed to Linux which has everything installed from the start. That is, if you can figure out how to run it. Oooh, right, open a terminal, type "/usr/bin/xinetd restart" if you're on RedHat. Or type "/usr/sbin/xinetd restart" on Suse. Or "/etc/bin/xinetd restart" on Gentoo. Err-- but that's only if you have it installed. Do you have it installed? You can find out by typing "dpkg -xinetd" on RedHat. Or "apt ?xinetd" on Gentoo. Or "ejfao xinetd" on Suse. And if it gives you ErrorX you're missing some depencencies. And those depencies can be obtained from XXXXXX.org. Or dpkg. Or apt-get. And if you can't find an RPM for your distro, you have to compile it from source. If you can get the source, that is. And once you've (maybe) obtained the source, simply run
IT'S SO FUCKING EASY, EVEN A THIRD GRADER COULD DO IT!
But I'll get modded troll for this.
I love how this got modded Insightful.
/.
Only on
Tylenol is nasty shit - I prefer taking aspirin for my headaches. Apart from the small risk of stomach problems, it's actually a lot less toxic than Tylenol.
Personally, I don't take any meds unless I absolutely need to. If I have a headache or stomachache, I just live with it. If I have a cold or stuffed up nose, I just wait it out. I don't feel like shoving all these drugs through my system.
I also hate it when people fill themselves with drugs for the littlest things. I had a girlfriend a while ago who would take 6 tylenol whenever she had the slightest headache.
Not at all. It's just that many people who make these "jokes" don't know that they're scientifically innacurrate and honestly believe that I was a fat, sugar eating kid - quite far from the truth and very frustrating.
That's exactly how I, having TypeI diabetes, feel every time someone makes a lame joke about me eating too much candy as a kid. It pisses me off. As far as medical science can tell (it may have been proven, I don't know), diabetes is a genetic disorder and has nothing to do with diet or living conditions. I like to think I have a relatively healthy lifestyle, and it's very annoying to hear people tell me I had an unhealthy childhood when they clearly know nothing about TypeI diabetes. You don't tell a blind person that they spent too much time looking into the sun as a kid, do you?
I can understand, though, how one could get TypeI and TypeII diabetes confused. The two diseases are completely unrelated aside from the symptoms and, in my opinion, one of them needs to be renamed to eliminate this confusion. For those that don't know, TypeII diabetes can (though not always) be caused by an unhealthy diet or lifestyle.
Excuse me, I have to go stab myself with a hypodermic needle after drinking this glass of orange juice.
Free-flowing beer
So I guess Google really is free as in beer.
I sure as hell thought you were talking about me, mostly because you said you were. I fall under the "teenagers" category, and looking at your subject, I felt the need to defend myself against your "shortsighted twit" accusation, which I found rather offensive. Take your half-assed generalisations elsewhere, please.
Holy shit, you're a fucking retard. I use IM almost exclusively to talk to my friends. However, that doesn't mean that I can't write in proper english. In my IM messages, I don't use "u" and "y." In fact, I completely bitch out those who do. I have lost friends because I bitched at their language skills so much. I've been doing this since I was fourteen (I'm almost 18 now).
The teenagers who you are talking about will not rule the world in 20 years when people like you finally leave the Earth (thank heaven). The poeple you are talking about will have low-paying blue collar jobs. Those people are morons, and that is why they type shittily. It has nothing to do with their age.
The teenagers that you mistakenly group with those retards are the ones who will inherit the earth. We are simply a less vocal minority, mostly because we don't have our heads up our asses like they and you do.
TLDR: Fuck off, grandpa.
Wow, I hope I don't have have stuff like that coming out of my ass when I get old.
[K]ids in the US, as a whole, are far from "all right" these days. If you don't see that, you're not taking an honest look at the state of today's younger generation. Oh fuck you, grandpa. The only problem with "kids these days" is you assholes saying we have a problem. There is no "problem." It's just dumbshits like you who think they know everything. Youth violence is down in the U.S. Hell, that alone should be amazing enough considering how much violence is shoved down our throats. T.V., video games, high school sports, magazine ads, books (holy shit, did he say books??), everything has violence in it, yet the rate of youth violence is down. Furthermore, get off your fucking moral high ground. I know you're all going to rag on me for using so many curse words (holy shit, he said a word that is arbitrarily declared to be bad! run for the hills), but take a look at our society. Which is worse: slavery or a couple sylables? Our society has improved and I say that, as a whole, our morals have as well. We no longer have slavery. We have lower drug use. We have lower youth violence. Look at what has improved and then compare it to what has degraded. So we say a few sylables that we weren't "allowed" to before. So we enjoy making pixels move on a T.V. screen. Whoop-dee-fucking-doo. So shut the fuck up with your moral bullshit. "Kids these days" are not any worse than when you were a kid - in fact, we may even be better.