I have no qualms with criticizing a developer's ability to deliver. I just find it meaningless to make a generic "X, Y, Z didn't do something to my expectations, so why should I believe W will?" without making even a modicum of actual research into who you're criticizing. There's nothing substantial about what he said. It amounts to little more than "Target, J.C. Penny, and Walmart make cheap products that don't live up to my expectations, so why should I believe Macy's is going to be any better?"
He could do some actual research into who these people are, and form an actual opinion on whether he thinks they deserve his charity or not, not some broad nonsense that doesn't really contribute anything into the discussion.
All he has done is outline the general problem with Kickstarter: often times it doesn't pan out. Everyone already knows that, or should know that, if they use the site and fund projects.
I mostly agree; I don't think adding to it detracts from being Road Rash-like. However, I do have personal reservations with the use of guns. I definitely think the whole catch up and attack in gameplay is a bit more interesting because the guns put perhaps too much advantage into people behind you with no real way to defend yourself aside from driving spastically. If you add too much stuff like this, driving the race becomes less and less practical and becomes more about simply killing everyone until there is no one left.
Also a bit concerned about decapitations. Does that end your run? No matter what happened to you in the original games, you could get back on your bike. Game over in one swing seems a bit much.
Welcome to responsibility! No one expects you to blindly donate to something you don't believe will succeed. If you don't think they can succeed then you don't donate. It's as simple as that.
I've never written to the API, but from a user persepective the only thing I found annoying about DirectX was every game on the planet wanted to distribute its own copy/version of it. Which I never did understand, as far as I can tell its the one API that M$ took great pains to keep backward compatible, so why couldn't all these games simply use the version that was installed (unless it was too old.)
1) Not everyone is up to date, and that's why they supply their own version, which leads into 2): 2) There are various files per each SDK version that differ from each other version and are incompatible with each other. The D3DX libraries in from DirectX9 was one of the big ones. To this day you can see people complaining about "Where is d3dx9_xx.dll" because the developers didn't include the redist package for the SDK they compiled against.
Since you're not allowed to just distribute these files individually as per Microsoft's license agreement, the only way to install them is to supply the redist package for that particular SDK version.
But there will surely be a Direct3D 12 inside the Windows Platform SDK.
Microsoft is basically removing the individual "DirectX" brand and absorbing it into the platform SDK. Now Direct3D is just another Windows component like GDI. The idea that there will never be an update beyond what we have now is positively absurd and I feel he was either misunderstood or the translation is inaccurate.
Yes, because of a few fluff features that weren't often used being disabled, the Wii is a boat anchor.
Sure.
Right.
It was already doorstop if you didn't care about the games that were on it, which is the primary point of the damn thing. This doesn't change anything.
Then why in gods name are we paying for her education if we're going to kick her out? That's the ridiculous part of this argument if you take the original post at face value. If the US government truly did fund most of her education, then why are we wasting our dollars educating these people and then sending them back? Was there not a big discussion not long ago questioning this very practice?
It amazes me how often I hear this as an excuse to do something that shouldn't be done. Apparently to the US Government, you never have any reasonable expectation of privacy as long as there is a computer involved, despite in modern times, a huge portion of our life and financial information being chronicled there.
How can we not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for our email any less than snail mail? We don't expect the people running the servers delivering or receiving our e-mail actually reading it, just like we don't expect postal workers opening our letters and reading it. People would be outraged if they learned that server admins were literally reading their email. We do have a reasonable expectation of privacy, here.
It doesn't. It just so happened that when this bug or error or whatever the hell it was happened, it only posted to Twitter. They have a rather indepth system for informing the population of threats.
Man, that brings me back... I remember back in the mid 90s putting small sprite animated gifs of running characters into marquee tags so it would look like one character was chasing the other in forum sigs...
I agree; I've been frustrated by slashdot submissions a number of times in the past, needing to look to the sourced articles to figure out what year it was written in. Omitting the year of a date is pointless and only serves to frustrate those who actually need or want to know just as other instances of fuzzy time.
Sorry if you feel my rage misplaced. If you wish, I'll toss oppression a bone here and there.
Slashdot Mirror
You're just as trollish as the first guy. 99.9% of people don't need Ultimate with MSDN subscription. But thanks for playing.
I have no qualms with criticizing a developer's ability to deliver. I just find it meaningless to make a generic "X, Y, Z didn't do something to my expectations, so why should I believe W will?" without making even a modicum of actual research into who you're criticizing. There's nothing substantial about what he said. It amounts to little more than "Target, J.C. Penny, and Walmart make cheap products that don't live up to my expectations, so why should I believe Macy's is going to be any better?"
He could do some actual research into who these people are, and form an actual opinion on whether he thinks they deserve his charity or not, not some broad nonsense that doesn't really contribute anything into the discussion.
All he has done is outline the general problem with Kickstarter: often times it doesn't pan out. Everyone already knows that, or should know that, if they use the site and fund projects.
I mostly agree; I don't think adding to it detracts from being Road Rash-like. However, I do have personal reservations with the use of guns. I definitely think the whole catch up and attack in gameplay is a bit more interesting because the guns put perhaps too much advantage into people behind you with no real way to defend yourself aside from driving spastically. If you add too much stuff like this, driving the race becomes less and less practical and becomes more about simply killing everyone until there is no one left.
Also a bit concerned about decapitations. Does that end your run? No matter what happened to you in the original games, you could get back on your bike. Game over in one swing seems a bit much.
Welcome to responsibility! No one expects you to blindly donate to something you don't believe will succeed. If you don't think they can succeed then you don't donate. It's as simple as that.
This being modded so high is typical slashdot. Sounds insightful until you realize half his post is actually bullshit.
I've never written to the API, but from a user persepective the only thing I found annoying about DirectX was every game on the planet wanted to distribute its own copy/version of it. Which I never did understand, as far as I can tell its the one API that M$ took great pains to keep backward compatible, so why couldn't all these games simply use the version that was installed (unless it was too old.)
1) Not everyone is up to date, and that's why they supply their own version, which leads into 2):
2) There are various files per each SDK version that differ from each other version and are incompatible with each other. The D3DX libraries in from DirectX9 was one of the big ones. To this day you can see people complaining about "Where is d3dx9_xx.dll" because the developers didn't include the redist package for the SDK they compiled against.
Since you're not allowed to just distribute these files individually as per Microsoft's license agreement, the only way to install them is to supply the redist package for that particular SDK version.
But there will surely be a Direct3D 12 inside the Windows Platform SDK.
Microsoft is basically removing the individual "DirectX" brand and absorbing it into the platform SDK. Now Direct3D is just another Windows component like GDI. The idea that there will never be an update beyond what we have now is positively absurd and I feel he was either misunderstood or the translation is inaccurate.
Yes, because of a few fluff features that weren't often used being disabled, the Wii is a boat anchor.
Sure.
Right.
It was already doorstop if you didn't care about the games that were on it, which is the primary point of the damn thing. This doesn't change anything.
#ShameThisBehaviorIsntLimitedToConsoles
No, fuck that. I don't want the future to change and all humans growing like spider legs or something.
Well that's a new one.
Then why in gods name are we paying for her education if we're going to kick her out? That's the ridiculous part of this argument if you take the original post at face value. If the US government truly did fund most of her education, then why are we wasting our dollars educating these people and then sending them back? Was there not a big discussion not long ago questioning this very practice?
You are a pedantic asswipe.
XP64 was an absolute mess. The hardware world just didn't seem ready to deal with 64bit drivers yet, and it really showed.
That was honestly what I was thinking when I read the summary.
It amazes me how often I hear this as an excuse to do something that shouldn't be done. Apparently to the US Government, you never have any reasonable expectation of privacy as long as there is a computer involved, despite in modern times, a huge portion of our life and financial information being chronicled there.
How can we not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for our email any less than snail mail? We don't expect the people running the servers delivering or receiving our e-mail actually reading it, just like we don't expect postal workers opening our letters and reading it. People would be outraged if they learned that server admins were literally reading their email. We do have a reasonable expectation of privacy, here.
It doesn't. It just so happened that when this bug or error or whatever the hell it was happened, it only posted to Twitter. They have a rather indepth system for informing the population of threats.
I still can't believe someone actually made that...
Funny; that was the first thing I was thinking the post was going to be about when I read the title.
One AC is calling it a myth. The other AC has said they were actually on board such a flight. Can someone actually comment on this with some weight?
When was the last time Microsoft did something new? Yes, they didn't.
...what? They've been consistently trying out new things. Where have you been?
It's a shame Petroglyph has been doing so poorly.
You sound like an ass.
Man, that brings me back... I remember back in the mid 90s putting small sprite animated gifs of running characters into marquee tags so it would look like one character was chasing the other in forum sigs...
I agree; I've been frustrated by slashdot submissions a number of times in the past, needing to look to the sourced articles to figure out what year it was written in. Omitting the year of a date is pointless and only serves to frustrate those who actually need or want to know just as other instances of fuzzy time.
Sorry if you feel my rage misplaced. If you wish, I'll toss oppression a bone here and there.