Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Metacritic (Score 1) 138

by immerohnegott (#26680037) Attached to: Looking Back At <em>Far Cry 2</em>

They had to be receiving kickbacks of some sort(be they monetary or sexual).

The game isn't complete rubbish, but the shining reviews granted the title by journalists are unfairly positive. Sure, the open-ended approach is a welcome change to the FPS genre, but the details of Ubisoft's implementation of that approach are too glaringly bad to be taken for granted.

Being able to approach an objective from any angle loses its value when the enemies you are sneaking up on can see the pimples on your ass through jungle underbrush in the middle of the night from 100 meters away without so much as a toy telescope(these AI shennanigans were one of my main issues with the original Far Cry). The same can also be said of their fallen bretheren. Since when can a guy 50 feet away from your target (and 100 from you), looking the other direction, instantly tell his comrade has been shot with an AIR RIFLE and immediately start firing on the attacker.

Frankly, the superhuman AI alone is enough to entirely negate any potential benefit from the open-ended mechanic. It leaves the player with pretty much one option for successfully completing a mission - brute force. You can't pick off scouts from afar and then make your way in to clean up the rest without half a dozen goons running right for your position, and you sure as hell can't quietly sneak in to the base and wait in a corner for your target to approach (these African supersoldiers can see through walls, you know).

There's more, but this thing is already starting to turn into a Tolstoy volume at an incredible rate

Comment: Re:Another filesystem? (Score 3, Insightful) 43

by immerohnegott (#24303657) Attached to: DragonFly BSD Releases Version 2.0
That's kind of like saying "ANOTHER linux distro?". One of the key ideas behind FOSS is the element of choice. If a dev-team thinks they can put out a better package manager or window manager or filesystem or , let 'em. If it turns out to be better, then everyone benefits from an improved user experience, or in some cases, an easier API to build on. If it turns out the software isn't so good, we may still benefit from it by learning from their mistakes, or even taking the good portions of the software and applying them to other projects. So long as someone is attempting to do something new, benefits will eventually come.

Is it possible that software is not like anything else, that it is meant to be discarded: that the whole point is to always see it as a soap bubble?