Well to get technical, what the guy said -- IF nobody has heard of it, nobody will miss it -- does make sense:-) But the way you interpreted it, it doesn't. Most likely it was a misinterpretation:-P
Anyway at least you answered his "WTF is monkey island" question (mine too, haha).
Haha real funny. I tend to develop for Firefox and Opera and then hack it for IE6. IE7 in Strict renders pages about as well as FF and Opera as far as my designs (and most everyone else's for that matter) are concerned.
As for the link to the "wishlist of 10 things," those are pretty minor. Not to mention some are just pointless, like the:before and:after. I can't think of a more inelegant way to mix markup and content. I'm not sure how you considered that worth linking to after I said "compliant more-or-less" because I can find comparable "wishlists of 10 things" for Firefox as well.
The way you're describing the situation it's as if non-IE browsers all render everything exactly the same. They don't at all. Developing strictly for w3c will not get you the same thing across all non-IE browsers. Besides, IE7 in Strict conforms about as well as most other browsers (that is, not fully). Maybe you are writing off the differences as "every weird little thing," but for those of us that run into "weird little things" all the time, whether or not one of those browsers is more standards-compliant than the others becomes pointless.
I'm not against standards here. I'm just saying that if you're forced to work with things that ignore then anyhow, they become something to "keep pushing for" rather than treating them as if they're used the way standards ought to be (they're not). Joe Shmo with his IE6 browser doesn't give a hoot whether my site passes W3C validation if it doesn't work "properly" on his browser.
That's an ok way to think about it, but from a practicality standpoint it just doesn't matter. Since conforming to the w3c specs isn't something browsers are generally keen on, it's more an issue of how many different ones need to be accomodated than anything else. Which one of those browsers is "correct" is hardly relevant. It becomes moot altogether when that browser is 3% of those out there (depending on your audience, of course):-/
I tend to enjoy "fancy" CSS designs, and I have found differences in basically every browser as a result. As soon as margins, line-height, and other "formatting" of the sort gets involved, things just get nasty. Firefox and Opera and IE7 in Strict are all standards-compliant more-or-less, but when pixels start to matter, I've found I have to do a lot of klugy things.
Honestly, one can only hope. And I say this as a strictly PC user, because I don't want to worry about any more web browsers:-P Screw Safari, I never hacked for it and I don't want to start. Hacking for IE is bad enough.
fair enough. Then let's at least agree that "to know" and "to believe" carry different connotations, and people do indeed respond to them differently. Take this entire thread, for instance:-)
It appears you don't know the definition of the word "know":-P Maybe you should familiarize yourself a bit with epistemology before proceeding with this discussion.
Graphical fidelity can greatly complement or improve many games, though. A new Resident Evil title, for instance, which relies in large part on realism to produce its indended "boo" effect, has more potential in that regard if developed for PS3/360 than Wii.
Crunch time in MANY games doesn't rely on artists/designers as much as you say, but on the script writers, QA personnel, and random other stuff like voice recording and sound editing. An MMO I alpha tested, for instance, frequently had visual assets ready to go early on, and the actual quest creation and voices came later. Sure, various weapon designs, a few monsters and NPCs, etc., came late in the game. But creating all the dialogue, quest markers, and other "busy work" of that nature is what's saved for last I noticed.
Some games are 90% artists/designers and 10% coding, but many, particularly MMORPGs (multiplayer implementation, all the quest scripts, tons of complex UI interfaces, etc.) I think involve a bit more coding and much of it gets left for later.
Thinking about it, I'd say "crunch" time is basically what game devs leave "knowns" for as opposed to unknowns. Things that have more uncertainty w.r.t. schedule, etc. are taken care of first, and the busy work people are familiar with is left for last, whatever it may be.
Back to the PS3/360 vs Wii, since Resident Evil characters have the mobility of a peg-legged pirate, perhaps the Wiimote aiming is a more welcome feature than higher graphics fidelity:-P but that's a different topic.
Uh-huh. Who needs to write proper conclusions when it's far more "mature" and "artistically viable" (a non-concept if there ever was one) to just leave them out altogether!
To privilege tragedy over other forms of narrative outright is silly like when a clown hits an 80-yr-old old man in the face with a grocery bag full of feces.
My point is "to know" and "to believe" are not synonyms. You're right that "knowing" is a conclusion but it implies truth (i.e. factuality). "Believing" does not. Allow me to elaborate:
To believe something (e.g. "the earth is flat") is true is to think that the proposition "the earth is flat" is true. The key point here is that a proposition may in actuality be true or not, but belief doesn't depend on that.
Given proposition P, to say "I believe P, but I don't know if P is true" is not a contradiction. But, to say "I know P, but I don't believe P is true" -- that is contradictory.
Knowledge can be thought of as the set of ((things one believes) and (things that are true)). For instance, if you jump out of an airplane thinking you have a parachute on but then it turns out you don't, well folks can say you "believed" you had a parachute. But they can NOT say you "knew" you had a parachute.
So, people didn't in fact "know" the Earth was flat.
Now, folks can step in here and argue what it means for something to be "true" and how we can never know something with 100% certainty, therefore qualifying something as "true" being impossible, and "knowledge" being nonexistent. But that's a non-issue, because there *are* definitions (for all intents and purposes) of "truth" in various contexts, and they don't always require 100% certainty.
Uwe Boll is my favorite movie director and producer, and fight choreographer of all time. He should make a movie a week because I would watch them all! Bloodrayne was one of the best movies ever because of Kristanna's amazing breasts and Billy Zane's pimp toupee that looked like he kept it in a pocket right up until the camera started rolling in every scene and hastily kinda just slapped it on, barely checking if it was even right-side-up.
Forget Peter Jackson and Halo. Uwe Boll is the only man for that job. And for Zelda as well. I can't wait for his awesome Oscar-sweeping epic Dungeon Siege movie; I assume Burt Reynolds plays the donkey.
Well, FF already *has* made its way onto Xbox with FFXI, but when it comes to the "flagship" FFXIII title, I think the problem is they are way too far along in development making the game *specifically suited* for he PS3 when it comes to the "white engine." Though that's just my speculation.
1)not even close. The White Engine was designed with the PS3 in mind, and that includes graphical capabilities. It's what FFXIII is built on, and it shows:-) 2)they wouldn't in any appreciable way I reckon, especially with the more "traditional" JRPG setup they have in FF games. Navigating menus and selecting "yes/no" in conversation is about all there is to it. The Wii's controls are better suited for pure real-time [inter]action, and I don't think even FFXIII will make quite that leap. (Although FF games are on their way to real-time slowly)
Kinda, but not really. You're entitled to your own BELIEFS, but you're not entitled to your own FACTS. If you say "I know Earth is flat" that has quite a different connotation from "I believe Earth is flat."
In my view the prologue was fine as a tutorial, because it put you into the action straight away. It also was tied into the story rather well altogether. The Star Wars analogy you described... depending on how it were told it might even be fine. Many films take such a storytelling approach. The "disjointed" feeling would come if the approach was poorly executed, but I suppose that's far from an objective thing anyway.
The battle system... well, it's fine for some folks and not for others. It's a lot more elegant than many RPG (particulary JRPG) systems I've dealt with as of late so I was actually impressed. I found it better than KOTOR, better than NWN, far better than the Xenosagas. But I enjoy almost every sort of combat type that exists in gaming. For a good "middleground" setup in FFXII, you can always try turning Gambits ON for every besides the party leader. But, I personally just had them on for everyone all the time and switched leaders on occasion, as that's quickly done with the control pad.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, that's why you there are dev and staging servers. They'll test stuff before putting it on the live one.
March 23, 2004, although the details of how or why elude me.
Well to get technical, what the guy said -- IF nobody has heard of it, nobody will miss it -- does make sense :-) But the way you interpreted it, it doesn't. Most likely it was a misinterpretation :-P
Anyway at least you answered his "WTF is monkey island" question (mine too, haha).
Haha real funny. I tend to develop for Firefox and Opera and then hack it for IE6. IE7 in Strict renders pages about as well as FF and Opera as far as my designs (and most everyone else's for that matter) are concerned.
:before and :after. I can't think of a more inelegant way to mix markup and content. I'm not sure how you considered that worth linking to after I said "compliant more-or-less" because I can find comparable "wishlists of 10 things" for Firefox as well.
As for the link to the "wishlist of 10 things," those are pretty minor. Not to mention some are just pointless, like the
Quit acting like a jackass.
The way you're describing the situation it's as if non-IE browsers all render everything exactly the same. They don't at all. Developing strictly for w3c will not get you the same thing across all non-IE browsers. Besides, IE7 in Strict conforms about as well as most other browsers (that is, not fully). Maybe you are writing off the differences as "every weird little thing," but for those of us that run into "weird little things" all the time, whether or not one of those browsers is more standards-compliant than the others becomes pointless.
I'm not against standards here. I'm just saying that if you're forced to work with things that ignore then anyhow, they become something to "keep pushing for" rather than treating them as if they're used the way standards ought to be (they're not). Joe Shmo with his IE6 browser doesn't give a hoot whether my site passes W3C validation if it doesn't work "properly" on his browser.
Wow does anyone read comments anymore (or their context) before rating them?
Ah, well lucky you :-P
:-P
Ugh, I still gotta account for Netscape 7 and IE6, let alone IE7 in strict and Firefox. Woe is me
That's an ok way to think about it, but from a practicality standpoint it just doesn't matter. Since conforming to the w3c specs isn't something browsers are generally keen on, it's more an issue of how many different ones need to be accomodated than anything else. Which one of those browsers is "correct" is hardly relevant. It becomes moot altogether when that browser is 3% of those out there (depending on your audience, of course) :-/
I tend to enjoy "fancy" CSS designs, and I have found differences in basically every browser as a result. As soon as margins, line-height, and other "formatting" of the sort gets involved, things just get nasty. Firefox and Opera and IE7 in Strict are all standards-compliant more-or-less, but when pixels start to matter, I've found I have to do a lot of klugy things.
Honestly, one can only hope. And I say this as a strictly PC user, because I don't want to worry about any more web browsers :-P Screw Safari, I never hacked for it and I don't want to start. Hacking for IE is bad enough.
fair enough. Then let's at least agree that "to know" and "to believe" carry different connotations, and people do indeed respond to them differently. Take this entire thread, for instance :-)
Dibs on the other one!
Hey hey wait a second *I* get to decide what gets to happen randomly, not *you*!
It appears you don't know the definition of the word "know" :-P Maybe you should familiarize yourself a bit with epistemology before proceeding with this discussion.
Graphical fidelity can greatly complement or improve many games, though. A new Resident Evil title, for instance, which relies in large part on realism to produce its indended "boo" effect, has more potential in that regard if developed for PS3/360 than Wii.
:-P but that's a different topic.
Crunch time in MANY games doesn't rely on artists/designers as much as you say, but on the script writers, QA personnel, and random other stuff like voice recording and sound editing. An MMO I alpha tested, for instance, frequently had visual assets ready to go early on, and the actual quest creation and voices came later. Sure, various weapon designs, a few monsters and NPCs, etc., came late in the game. But creating all the dialogue, quest markers, and other "busy work" of that nature is what's saved for last I noticed.
Some games are 90% artists/designers and 10% coding, but many, particularly MMORPGs (multiplayer implementation, all the quest scripts, tons of complex UI interfaces, etc.) I think involve a bit more coding and much of it gets left for later.
Thinking about it, I'd say "crunch" time is basically what game devs leave "knowns" for as opposed to unknowns. Things that have more uncertainty w.r.t. schedule, etc. are taken care of first, and the busy work people are familiar with is left for last, whatever it may be.
Back to the PS3/360 vs Wii, since Resident Evil characters have the mobility of a peg-legged pirate, perhaps the Wiimote aiming is a more welcome feature than higher graphics fidelity
Uh-huh. Who needs to write proper conclusions when it's far more "mature" and "artistically viable" (a non-concept if there ever was one) to just leave them out altogether!
To privilege tragedy over other forms of narrative outright is silly like when a clown hits an 80-yr-old old man in the face with a grocery bag full of feces.
My point is "to know" and "to believe" are not synonyms. You're right that "knowing" is a conclusion but it implies truth (i.e. factuality). "Believing" does not. Allow me to elaborate:
To believe something (e.g. "the earth is flat") is true is to think that the proposition "the earth is flat" is true. The key point here is that a proposition may in actuality be true or not, but belief doesn't depend on that.
Given proposition P, to say "I believe P, but I don't know if P is true" is not a contradiction. But, to say "I know P, but I don't believe P is true" -- that is contradictory.
Knowledge can be thought of as the set of ((things one believes) and (things that are true)). For instance, if you jump out of an airplane thinking you have a parachute on but then it turns out you don't, well folks can say you "believed" you had a parachute. But they can NOT say you "knew" you had a parachute.
So, people didn't in fact "know" the Earth was flat.
Now, folks can step in here and argue what it means for something to be "true" and how we can never know something with 100% certainty, therefore qualifying something as "true" being impossible, and "knowledge" being nonexistent. But that's a non-issue, because there *are* definitions (for all intents and purposes) of "truth" in various contexts, and they don't always require 100% certainty.
Maybe some did, but most probably had KNOW idea what was going on to begin with.
Uwe Boll is my favorite movie director and producer, and fight choreographer of all time. He should make a movie a week because I would watch them all! Bloodrayne was one of the best movies ever because of Kristanna's amazing breasts and Billy Zane's pimp toupee that looked like he kept it in a pocket right up until the camera started rolling in every scene and hastily kinda just slapped it on, barely checking if it was even right-side-up.
Forget Peter Jackson and Halo. Uwe Boll is the only man for that job. And for Zelda as well. I can't wait for his awesome Oscar-sweeping epic Dungeon Siege movie; I assume Burt Reynolds plays the donkey.
Well, FF already *has* made its way onto Xbox with FFXI, but when it comes to the "flagship" FFXIII title, I think the problem is they are way too far along in development making the game *specifically suited* for he PS3 when it comes to the "white engine." Though that's just my speculation.
1)not even close. The White Engine was designed with the PS3 in mind, and that includes graphical capabilities. It's what FFXIII is built on, and it shows :-)
2)they wouldn't in any appreciable way I reckon, especially with the more "traditional" JRPG setup they have in FF games. Navigating menus and selecting "yes/no" in conversation is about all there is to it. The Wii's controls are better suited for pure real-time [inter]action, and I don't think even FFXIII will make quite that leap. (Although FF games are on their way to real-time slowly)
I wear a miniature die-cast side of ham around my neck you insensitive clod!
Kinda, but not really. You're entitled to your own BELIEFS, but you're not entitled to your own FACTS. If you say "I know Earth is flat" that has quite a different connotation from "I believe Earth is flat."
In my view the prologue was fine as a tutorial, because it put you into the action straight away. It also was tied into the story rather well altogether. The Star Wars analogy you described... depending on how it were told it might even be fine. Many films take such a storytelling approach. The "disjointed" feeling would come if the approach was poorly executed, but I suppose that's far from an objective thing anyway.
The battle system... well, it's fine for some folks and not for others. It's a lot more elegant than many RPG (particulary JRPG) systems I've dealt with as of late so I was actually impressed. I found it better than KOTOR, better than NWN, far better than the Xenosagas. But I enjoy almost every sort of combat type that exists in gaming. For a good "middleground" setup in FFXII, you can always try turning Gambits ON for every besides the party leader. But, I personally just had them on for everyone all the time and switched leaders on occasion, as that's quickly done with the control pad.
Um, the PSP never outsold the DS in total units since release. Ever. Prior to DS Lite it was getting owned, after DS Lite it's still getting owned.
7 794d _war
http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_wars#Handhel