Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:If this is news for nerds (Score 0) 177

It was a joke. Something I thought would be self-evident by how facetious it sounds. I thought it was far-fetched enough that the frequenters of /. were interested in pursuing the affections of 500-year-old women that it would not be taken seriously. That subject is apparently an exposed nerve, though. Sheesh.

Comment Re:This has been perpetually argued since 3d (Score 1) 197

As well, I actually already covered that games in that era won acclaim more for their story and world. Now that graphics is also a factor, you can't just judge gaming as a whole by looking at which games are winning the most acclaim and then only considering story and world and condemning it. Now that graphics is a factor, if you want to find games that have good story and world *look* for those games, but they won't dominate the top-rated lists anymore because graphics is now also a serious factor.
Having to actually look doesn't mean good games are no longer being created, you babies (and by "you babies" I mean the whole complaining world).

Comment Re:This has been perpetually argued since 3d (Score 1) 197

which by no coincidence always happen to be the same time for everyone

Disagree. The golden era of PC gaming was the mid 80's to mid/late 90's. Before that, the hardware wasn't there, although some text-only games like Zork were great. But the richness of gaming worlds reached its peak in the 80's and 90's. After that, game play got dumbed down in the search for bigger and bigger audiences. Graphics got better, and the games got worse. Now, you have handholdy shit like Skyrim trying to pass for an RPG.

The 80's and 90's were definitely not "all the time in the world to play" age for many of us. They were "grinding away at work and unwinding to some gaming in the evening" age.

If you make as much time to play games as a child would, the concept still applies. That would explain why your golden era of gaming is nearly 2 decades, which is like 4 video game eras.
And Skyrim doesn't have a rich gaming world because its gameplay is too "handholdy" for you? O...k... thoughts starting to seem a little crossed there.

Comment This has been perpetually argued since 3d (Score 2) 197

Well, great graphics came; the worlds that came with these graphics are not up to the level of the graphics.

It doesn't make any sense that game stories should suddenly get more complicated because graphics got better.
It used to be that games with the best/most original gameplay and story would be the gems that stood out in review and among peers. Now that graphics came into its own as a factor of quality, there are other games that stand out without necessarily having the best gameplay. Which means you might have to look for games you want to play instead of just taking the highest-rated games. But they're there.

Besides that, it's yet another thing in life that seems to have gotten worse since the better years which by no coincidence always happen to be the same time for everyone -when we were young and had all the time in the world to play every game exhaustively and repetitively to a mastery of every move, path, and secret.
We're gettin' old. Cure that and you'll cure Video-Games-are-Getting-Worse Syndrome.

Comment Re:Wikipedia (Score 1) 277

Researcher criticized, making research look bad > ad hominem
Research criticized, making researcher look bad > not ad hominem

widely displaying a single story about problems in 1 AGW research trying to deface global AGW research --> ad hominem.

*facepalm* You seriously do not actually understand what an ad hominem is.
Whenever you're going to use "ad hominem" just use "attack." You'll actually say what you mean to say and won't embarrass yourself.

Comment Re:Wikipedia (Score 1) 277

Dude, ad hominems are attacks on a person within the confines of a debate, not all attacks at all on a person.
If your funding gets cut, you get punched in the face, or anything of the sort it isn't an ad hominem.

Researcher criticized, making research look bad > ad hominem
Research criticized, making researcher look bad > not ad hominem
It is this simple. I wasn't saying it didn't hurt public acceptance of climate change. I was saying to knock off arguing that it's specifically an ad hominem just because you didn't quite grasp the Wikipedia pages you linked.

Comment Re:Uncertainty = Doubt (Score 0) 277

Yet they almost certainly must have the same lack of certainty of their own beliefs (except for those I'm underestimating the mental simplicity of).
I think either they're really susceptible to perceiving false equivalencies or they think it's virtuous to support their side for religion or as a competition.

Comment Re:Wikipedia (Score 1) 277

The scientists losing funding also does not make it an ad hominem.
Read your own Wikipedia links. It isn't a matter of "ad hominems are bad" and "the attacks are bad" therefore "the attacks were ad hominems."
I know it's exciting to discover Wikipedia's "logical fallacy" page for the first time, but learn to distinguish them correctly.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every little picofarad has a nanohenry all its own. -- Don Vonada