Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Insufficiently Realistic (Score 1) 311

Those are the things the repel boys, not girls. Do recall that girls bleed every month, a bit of baby poo and vomit isn't going to ding the notion that a baby is a neat idea.

Well, two out of two women I've talked to agree with me on this, including one who had a child. I'm going to stick with it. The mother did say it would also help if it needed to be fed from your aching boobs several times a day, though.

Comment Re:Captain Kirk says... (Score 1) 170

Yeah - I had a neighbor who died at 98 and was still not only living on his own but DRIVING. As a matter of fact that's how he died. He was getting out of the truck to check his mail and didn't have it in park - ended up accidentally running himself over. Now, that incident itself probably proves he SHOULDN'T have been driving, but he was certainly in good spirits, independent, and was mentally sound all the way up to the end.

Granted, if this story is true (big IF), he was still 47 years younger than this guy, but you can still live a productive live well up into old age.

I sincerely doubt I'll make it that long though. On my mother's side both of my grandparents died in their mid 50's. On my dad's side both in their early 70's.

Comment Re:I'm having fun (Score 1) 314

Actually, no. It was very explicitly defined. Sean Murray, right up to days before the release, made explicit, yes-or-no responses to things contained in the game. Almost all of which were false. When things started turning out to not be in the game, such as multiplayer, he pretended it was a "bug" that people couldn't see each other - even though it was demonstrably not supported, including there being no real-time network traffic and no player models in the game files.

It's not a case of "buyers filling in the gaps". It's a case of the developer deliberately trying to deceive customers about what the game contained. Including putting a deliberately long painful grind to reach the center of the galaxy, and telling people that all sorts of neat stuff was near the center, to keep them playing for long periods of time. A cynical individual would view that as them deliberately trying to get people to play for too long to get a refund.

Comment Re:If your ads for "Titanic" say the ship sinks (Score 1) 314

Apparently you don't know the difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact.

Ad: "Ghostbusters is funny"
You: "It wasn't funny."

Liability: None. Because that's an opinion.

Vs.

Ad: "Ghostbusters stars Tom Hanks."
You: "No, it doesn't."

Liability: Yes. Because that's false advertising.

Understand the difference?

Comment Re:50 hours of crap. (Score 1) 314

You'd have as much luck "meeting up" in Super Mario Brothers. There is no real-time networking traffic and no player models in NMS. The "whoops, there must be a bug" reaction is a baldfaced lie.

And the claim that it's unrealistic to reach the same place are BS. There are not 2^64 stars in the starting galaxy (Euclid), only a few tens of billions. And everyone starts out roughly the same distance from the center, which means that they're all in a narrow spherical shell containing only a tiny fraction of those stars. It's rare in the game to not come across systems discovered by others, even when you're not trying.

(The 2^64 claim is valid, but only in that there are 2^32 galaxies)

As for day and night, the game is totally inconsistent about that. You can approach the "day" side of a planet and have it turn out to be night, and vice versa. Really it's hard to think of something in the game that's *not* totally glitched. Even keyboard support is glitched - punctuation in naming discoveries gets mixed up. I mean, how the heck do you even manage to mess up something like that? Oh god, let's not get into the naming filter that lets through names like "Cum Mountain" but bans words like "Cousin" and "Can't".

Comment Re: Given the reviews (Score 1) 314

Indeed. While the landscape goes through LOD changes (although way slower than should be necessary, given that they're not doing any physics, no flowing water, nothing of the sort), there's apparently no LOD work with plant and animal models - they're always the same resolution no matter how close or far they are from you. So the game simply can't afford to have too many of them. Not a problem when they're tiny, but when they're big things that should be able to be seen from far away...

Comment Re:No good-guys here (Score 1) 314

Which was yet another lie.

1) Players playing has gone down over 90% since then on average. At off peak it's a fraction of even that. It makes no difference.

2) There is no attempt at real-time network traffic whatsoever. Nothing sends out real-time packets. Nothing is designed to receive them.

3) There is no player model in the game's files. There's some comically bad development models, along with weirdness like a monkey in a hat and the Fallout logo. But no actual player model.

There is no multiplayer. It's not a "bug". It is simply not there, and they know it.

Comment Re:Given the reviews (Score 2) 314

To be fair, the landscapes can often be quite beautiful. The procedural generation algorithm can have its limitations, but it also shows promise. It was just released too soon. It's actually IMHO the best part of the game. The "game" aspects are what are terribly done.

And concerning procedural generation, it was crippled by their lack of optimization, which prevented them from having large plants / animals without making the already bad pop-in unacceptable. So everything is kept small to moderate in size, which eliminates the "epicness" of planetary exploration. The potential can really be seen with things like the Big Things mod (though you can also see why they cut it, they would have gotten endless bug reports about the pop-in).

Comment Re:Huh (Score 1) 314

The sad thing is, even with the game in the state that it's in, if the development house had been at all decent, had at all play tested, they could have turned it into something that'd be at least decent to play. By means of:

1) Instead of all resources densely available on each planet, resources should be rare and sparse, so you have to actually look and survive.
2) Instead of all buildings densely spaced on each planet, each planet should have between "zero" and "a few" things present so that you don't experience basically the entire game on your first planet.
3) Scanning shouldn't tell you exactly where things are, only approximations, so that it's not just a "fly right to the marker, walk for fifteen seconds, then either pick it up in no time at all, or waste a ton of time mining".
4) In return for upping the actual "exploration" elements that the game was sold on, vastly reduce the busywork grind.

Unfortunately, the developers have actually taken every opportunity to increase the grind since it was released.

Slashdot Top Deals

The test of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. -- Aldo Leopold

Working...