Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Old school gamer reply. (Score 1) 404

by Abjifyicious (#29732069) Attached to: Should Computer Games Adapt To the Way You Play?

Most games already have a option to choose how hard or easy you want your game. This works better than autoleveling, because If I set the game to be hard, and I die too much, maybe thats exactly what I want, and If set game too easy and I kill everything, maybe thats what I want.

I couldn't agree more. There seems to be continuing trend in game design towards making games where the player is never frustrated. The way I interpret this, we're headed towards the philosophy of "don't make the game too hard, and if the player is still having trouble, make it even easier by dynamically adjusting the difficulty."

Now obviously for some people that's great. If you're a casual gamer, you still want to be able to play through games without getting stuck on the first level. However, I think there's a real hole in the market right now for games that cater to hardcore gamers. Personally, I like games that are a little bit frustrating, because it means I'm being challenged. I don't want to play an interactive movie, I want to play a game.

There are signs that this might be changing (Demon's Souls is a good example of a game that bucks the trend and does so in a very compelling way), but I think one of the big reasons that multiplayer games are so popular nowadays is simply that real players provide a genuine challenge to play against.

Comment: Re:Dang! Things were just getting fun (Score 4, Interesting) 756

by Abjifyicious (#29023785) Attached to: Earth's Period of Habitability Is Nearly Over

Do you even know how much waste you're talking about? Imagine a cylinder 10mm in diameter. A 5mm slice of that cylinder will supply your energy needs for a year.

Do *you* even know how much waste *you* are talking about? The US alone has accumulated over 60,000 metric tons of nuclear waste from fission reactors. Your figure of a 5mm by 10mm cylinder per year of waste is ridiculous.

Yes, of course coal releases more radioactive material into the atmosphere. Since we have to store the nuclear waste, *none* of it ends up in the atmosphere.

Now I'm not saying coal is good, or that nuclear isn't necessarily worth it...but if you want to advocate nuclear power, then stop damaging its credibility with arguments like these.

Comment: Re:Why batteries (Score 1) 369

by Abjifyicious (#26896445) Attached to: Stimulus Could Kickstart US Battery Industry

Who's to say batteries can't be "free of rare metals" or have "extremely fast charge times"? Yes, nobody likes the limitations of current battery technology, that's why we're spending money to eliminate them.

I know the word "battery" isn't as exciting and glamourous as "ultra-capacitor", but let's keep things realistic here. There are batteries we have that work well for electric cars, and they only keep improving with time. Ultra-capacitors, on the other hand, have yet to demonstrate themselves as anything other than hype.

Comment: Re:what stimulus package? (Score 1) 187

by Abjifyicious (#26859633) Attached to: Open Source Study Included In US Stimulus Package

None of the Republicans voted for the stimulus bill.

That is absolutely incorrect. Three Republican senators voted for it. This may sound insignificant, but without these Republican votes, the bill could not have passed. Because of this, the Democrats ended up making quite a lot of changes to a bill that they could have otherwise just pushed through on their own.

Comment: Re:what stimulus package? (Score 1) 187

by Abjifyicious (#26858419) Attached to: Open Source Study Included In US Stimulus Package

Very well put. The Republicans have been saying things like "the stimulus bill has too much spending in it." What do they think stimulus is?!

This is basic economics, and it's not hard to understand. If the government gives someone a tax cut, they might spend the money and stimulate the economy, or they might just put it into savings. If, on the other hand, the government spends that money directly, they are guaranteed to stimulate the economy.

The best way for the government to stimulate the economy during a recession is government spending. Period. The Republicans aren't opposed to it because they think it won't work, they're opposed to it because they're afraid it will, and they'll do anything to try and bring down their opposition.

If you have to ask how much it is, you can't afford it.

Working...