Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for m00t

Real Name m00t   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname None given.
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Description m00t
Homepage http://
Signed On Mar 4, 2003, 23:52
Total Comments 405 (Amateur)
User ID 16358
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Older >


News Comments > XCOM Shooter "Fresh Look" Reveal in "Days"
32. Re: XCOM Shooter Apr 24, 2013, 15:02 m00t
 
Agreed, Beamer. It felt like they didn't know what they actually wanted to do with it and rushed to get something that looks "okay" but plays badly because they didn't have time to do a real base system. That's my impression, anyway.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > XCOM Shooter "Fresh Look" Reveal in "Days"
28. Re: XCOM Shooter Apr 24, 2013, 14:18 m00t
 
Prez wrote on Apr 24, 2013, 13:52:
... stuff ...
EDIT: Oh, to address the complaint about the aliens repositioning once found - they did something similar in the first game if they avoided moving and stored all their action points in reserve. There was admittedly an initiative check that allowed high level soldiers to be able to keep going without an alien interrupt that has been done away with but since the new game is all based around cover that was taken out to avoid it being too easy.

No, in the original (and best) game, they could not. The aliens could only do reaction fire on your turn. They could not actually move.
Also they did not "spawn" at random around your troops as happened on almost every mission in the re-make. All aliens that survived the crash / landing were present from the beginning of the mission. The only way you could get new ones was for a human to be taken over by a Chryssalid.

Additionally, in the original game, the Alien team had an actual agenda and missions it had to accomplish. It wasn't some silly linear script with a handful of pre-set landscapes. If you intercepted the alien craft attempting a mission or part of a mission, they could fail their mission and their score would go down. It was like playing against a real opponent. The new "X-Com" has none of this.

The new "X-Com" was a decent game, but it was not proper X-Com. It was simply missing too much of the deep gameplay and interesting choices.

One of the reasons the original X-Com was so good is that you frequently lost team-members which was painful (and taught you to be more careful), but it didn't cost you the game each time it happened (unless you lose your commander amongst a bunch of rookies, but I digress). The new game, the squad sizes are so small and you invest so much into each squadmember, losing one guy puts you on a downward spiral that is much more difficult to recover from. This teaches you that you have to play *perfect* and never make a mistake and hope that the random rolls don't fuck you over and that it doesn't spawn enemies on your units. It's too binary and frankly much less interesting or fun. Even 2 or 3 more guys in a squad would have made a much better game. More of a gradient of success/failure instead of a binary Perfect Success or Eventual/Immediate game ending failure.

And wtf was with the ant farm shit? Building bases and organizing them into defensible configurations was a big and fun part of the original. Totally lost on the silly side-view presentation.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > NY Times on 38 Studios
40. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 16:38 m00t
 
Certainly cuts should be made, but they should be made not because of the debt or deficit, they should be made because they're just downright wasteful. Bloated military programs that continue for years or decades without any progress, for example. Subsidies to businesses that are reaping record profits (and have been for decades). But we need to spend more in other areas also in order to keep up growth long term. We have to improve our education system and that costs money no matter which way you look at it. Certainly lots of things we're doing now aren't effective, but they don't change by having less money available in the system as a whole. Likewise expanding infrastructure spending saves money and generates revenues in the long term. We need a high-speed transit system that is affordable and efficient. Maintaining the highways is extremely expensive and has a lot of secondary costs that go with it. (real) High speed rail with dedicated right-of-ways would benefit freight and personal transit. It doesn't have to be like Amtrak which is a dying relic. It can be faster, cheaper, and easier, but we have to invest now. And finally we need to fix our power infrastructure. Dependence on oil and coal is crippling us and will be the weight around our neck that sinks us. We need to stop funding them and make sure functional alternatives are in place. Solar (PV and thermal) is viable, even at current efficiencies. (Current technology) Nuclear is safer and ultimately cheaper as a provider for base-loads, but we have to get rid of the NIMBY attitude and approach it rationally, not as a favor to industry pals.

More and better health care reform would have a significant effect as the cost of it is far too high and the ACA doesn't actually deal with that in a meaningful way. The key problem is the insurance companies have every incentive for prices to go up and such make no effort at controlling them. This forces people into a Faustian bargain where they must take insurance to avoid paying the rate-sheet prices but are still being charged 10x - 100x more than the services actually cost to provide. On top of that the insurance industry adds a "moving money around, but mostly into our pocket" tax for facilitating the transaction. A single payer public system would be able to control prices and would cost *substantially* less than both what we're paying now in total as a society AND less than just what we pay into Medicare now. To cover everyone in the country. This means a lot more money to spend on real goods and services instead of invented schemes that add zero value. Providers would compete on service and people would have real, open choices as to who to visit for their care.

But a lot of this doesn't really mean much or have a chance of happening if wages aren't raised to match the increase in productivity over the last 30 - 40 years. For decades wage levels followed closely to productivity increases, and then in the 70's "magically" stopped. Productivity increased greatly but wages stagnated. If wages were closer to what they should be relative to productivity the tax base would increase immensely and we'd almost certainly have a surplus even at current tax and spending levels. But as it is now, the majority of people (in the "developed" world and the US) have less and less money to spend each year which means businesses have fewer customers and are more likely to go out of business. This ultimately shrinks the economy and puts on a path of ruin. When most people have no money to spend on anything but food and shelter, any business that doesn't go directly to that will be unsustainable. When most people start having to choose between food and shelter, I suspect we'll start seeing a lot more riots and violence which does good for no one.

/rant
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > NY Times on 38 Studios
36. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 14:55 m00t
 
Certainly the debt is a concern, but it's not an immediate one. As in, it won't kill us tomorrow, or the next day, or even the next year. After WWII, we had a debt ratio of over 110% and paid it down over the course of 30 years, so the current level of ~75% is clearly not "life threatening", as it were. Now if we use the debt as an excuse to cut services and enact austerity measures, then yes, that's a problem as it will contract the economy significantly. The real issue that will cause significant long term damage is the vast inequality in the economy. People with significant sums of money simply spend less of it as a total percentage than people with more "middle" amounts. They tend to hoard it in various ways. The poor (but not utterly broke who obviously have *no* money) and middle classes have to spend a large % of their income or holdings to survive and spending goes up as their net worth and income go up (to a point) keeping money in the system and increasing fluidity, causing the economy to grow (and in the long run, reducing our debt / gdp ratio). Everyone benefits. Even the rich, it's just not as immediate or direct as they'd like. Think of it as a trickle-up economy... The current distribution will ultimately harm them, too.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > NY Times on 38 Studios
32. Re: NY Times on 38 Studios Apr 22, 2013, 14:39 m00t
 
US Debt ~$16.8 trillion according to wikipedia

Depending on when you asked you might get slightly different numbers
$1.2 trillion (~8%) - US GovInfo.about.com
$1.1 trillion (~6.5%) - wikipedia
$~1 trillion (~7.5%) - Forbes

Which is also about as much as Japan holds.

China holds 26% of all *foreign held* debt. Not 26% of ALL US Debt.

So... all of their asses seem to be in the realm of 8% (or less, generally).
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Metaverse
2. Re: Comcast caught hijacking web traffic Apr 11, 2013, 13:29 m00t
 
I've heard people check their email now and then.

Or a phone call. Or text message. It's unlikely his phone number isn't on file. Violating someone's security interests to tell them they're reaching some ridiculous arbitrary cap is a pretty piss poor idea.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
13. Re: Op Ed Mar 18, 2013, 18:25 m00t
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 17:35:
*snip*

But hey lets "amend" the 2nd, and remove the right to bare arms. That worked oh so well for the people when Hitler took all the guns away, Or Stalin or Mao. Don't worry! The government will protect you! They then killed millions of defenseless innocent people.

*snip*

Took away all the guns, you say?
"Gun restriction laws applied to all guns and ammunition. The 1938 revisions introduced restrictions specifically reiterating the prohibition for Jews to hold firearms, but made it easier for one party nazi regime to gain acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition."[4]
The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[5]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[4]
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[4]"


As if owning a gun would have deterred any of it. They'd just be dead in their homes instead which may or may not have been an overall better outcome, I'm neither Jewish nor old enough to have been there so I can't judge that. There was more wrong in Germany than the '38 gun law.


As for Soviet Russia, Stalin came in to power in part due to extremely lax gun control laws that allowed the *massive*, open, importation of firearms. When the Bolsheviks took power they only banned fire arm possession by non-party members. Plenty of people owned firearms during WWII and many of their best snipers grew up hunting in the mountains.

And finally, there's little evidence that gun control laws played any role in Maoist era policy making. More people died due to starvation (IE bad regional planning) and you can't eat guns (not that they could afford them anyway), so... not sure what your point bringing up Mao was.

Really the theme here is un-equal application of the law creating two distinct classes of citizenry, not blanket controls.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm
17. Re: Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Mar 12, 2013, 11:54 m00t
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 11:20:
Sempai wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 11:03:
Sure wish they'd allow me to move that damned camera out a little..

Adjustable camera in an RTS? That's so 2004 on! How dare you expect Blizzard to innovate rather than rehash the same 10 year+ old starcraft with a new subtag line? Heresy!

Or pulling the camera out in multiplayer gives you a huge advantage, but hey why let balance get in the way of your bashing.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
24. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 7, 2013, 13:43 m00t
 
Seems someone else recalls the boxcutters
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/07/opinion/hawk-tsa-knives/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

That said, I think this op-ed is a little over the top.

" "If a terrorist takes you hostage, we will have to let you die," "

She's concerned that people will bring knives onto planes and attempt a hijack by killing passengers and crew members. First off, plenty of sharp objects make it onto planes; if someone wanted to harm or kill another passenger there are other ways to do it (maybe not as quick?), and finally if they did get control of the plane, you're going to die anyway, so really what does she expect? Note the invented quote she says "takes you hostage" and neglects the means or threat involved.

More hysterics from people who can't handle trivial (if depressing) logic. I can't wait until they raise the liquid limit to 3/4 of a liter and people cry out how this will allow people to carry water bottle they purchased in the airport (as noted below...) onto a plane and how dire a threat it is to their safety. Someone could *drown* with that much water!
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
10. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 6, 2013, 12:35 m00t
 
I recall that as well.

blegh.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
3. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 6, 2013, 10:59 m00t
 
Creston, they're just worried this might happen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZWKis8_EcI
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Safety Dance
7. Re: Morning Safety Dance Feb 21, 2013, 10:29 m00t
 
As a native of Washington State (from a town next door to Mt Vernon), I sincerely and deeply apologize for the existence of Glenn Beck.

I am so, so sorry.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Developer: Demos Kill Sales
21. Re: Developer: Demos Kill Sales Feb 12, 2013, 14:12 m00t
 
In an effort to give this guy the benefit of the doubt, the only way I can see "Demos killing Sales" being a reasonable thing is if they botched the demo:
1. Buggy, not representative of the actual game.
2. Bad packaging or too constraining, not showing enough of the game. Or just plain nagging.
3. Not restrictive enough, basically giving the game for free, or enough of it that people have no reason to buy it. This is fairly rare but some people can get what they want out of the demo and not need the rest of the game to entertain themselves.

That said, this guy is dumb.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Gas Powered Games Layoffs
38. Re: Gas Powered Games Layoffs Jan 19, 2013, 15:52 m00t
 
You claim to have worked in the industry for 12 years, but you show a pretty piss poor understanding of how it operates and how it really is substantially different from most other industries. Certainly every industry shares aspects of what the games industry does, but very few of them have to deal with all of the problems as extreme as this industry does. The nature of digital gaming is that it's actually very easy to get in to but much, MUCH harder to survive in. There are fewer protections against bad actors and sudden shifts in the environment, both of which happen with high frequency. Most publisher contracts are fairly draconian, yet aside from the novelty that is Kickstarter and the ilk, there are few alternatives to them aside from simply not existing at all. Recently that's improved somewhat with Steam, Faceobok, and the proliferation of flash games, but doing A - AAA games as an independent is still one of the hardest, yet rewarding, things to do. Still, even people in the industry don't seem to value the work that is done as much as it is in other industries. Part of that is simply the immaturity of the industry, part of that is there are a lot of eager people who are willing to forgo pay and benefits for the opportunity. Either way, the industry is different.

In your infinite wisdom, if every industry is the same, why did you leave?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Gas Powered Games Layoffs
33. Re: Gas Powered Games Layoffs Jan 19, 2013, 14:26 m00t
 
Stormsinger, you must not work in the games industry. Often it is completely irrelevant how good your management is and how well prepared you are. Sometimes contracts end before you expect (often with no warning) and not everyone can spare the resources to have many projects going at once (actually very few do). Bad management would be to run the company into the ground, beg people to stay with no pay for months without a realistic plan. At least paying severance and PTO gives people some cushion to find some place else. There are a lot of things that are simply out of your hands as an independent game developer and you gamble every time you choose to make a game.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Gas Powered Games Layoffs
19. Re: Gas Powered Games Layoffs Jan 19, 2013, 03:26 m00t
 
I know Chris and a few other GPG guys personally and I have to say this is really hitting them hard. They're all real honest and fun people who've been trying their best to get projects out the door. Unfortunately the well being of the studio is not always a consideration for the publishers so sometimes projects never see the light of day. They're being very up front in the video and laying it out for people to see and make their own choices about what they want to do. Chris' first priority has always been to the people working at GPG and making sure they get what is due to them instead of risking the KS failing and then not being able to cover severance and PTO.

If this project seems at all interesting to you, please help out.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Steam Greenlight Adds 10 Games
3. Re: Steam Greenlight Adds 10 Games Jan 15, 2013, 16:22 m00t
 
Is it me or are like 1/3 of the greenlit games obvious jokes/trolls or terrible games that are promoted by the likes of 4chan and reddit because they're so hilariously bad and the joke is getting so many people to play it? Seems like the opposite of what you'd want, imho.

Good to see some non-crap is getting through, though.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > EA Can't Say It Wasn't Warned About SimCity DRM
26. Re: EA Can't Say It Wasn't Warned About SimCity DRM Dec 18, 2012, 13:38 m00t
 
jdreyer wrote on Dec 18, 2012, 13:19:
Yakubs wrote on Dec 18, 2012, 12:14:
I hope this game is a huge bomb.

But if it is, will they take the right lesson from that failure?

No, they'll just lay off enough people to cover the difference and move on to more Call of Battlefield 7 for the console where morons throw cash at them for the same garbage year in and year out and not make any more PC games at all. I'm not 100% sure that's a bad thing.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Battle.net Authenticator Class Action Suit
7. Re: Battle.net Authenticator Class Action Sui Nov 8, 2012, 22:33 m00t
 
They are non-free to manufacture, but most likely they have to pay patent license fees to the likes of RSA or something. Also the server hardware does cost a bit to maintain given the number of people (including phone versions) they have to support.

As for sharing a dongle between logins, no way. There's no way a company would let anyone else have access to the key sequence. That'd be the dumbest thing ever and basically make them useless from a real security perspective.

Given that SecurID tokens can cost upwards of $200, $6 is a steal.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
3. Re: etc. Oct 27, 2012, 15:43 m00t
 
That was just the first auction. Lots of desktops, monitors, chairs, a few Cintiqs, buckets of office supplies and random office contents. There's a second coming up that has a lot more server hardware, among other things. Most of the stuff went for ~50 - 75% of retail, though it was almost all used.

Funny thing is, if you weren't on-site, the cost of shipping almost anything you bought back is more than what you bid on it, so kind of pointless unless you're buying a *ton* of stuff.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
405 Comments. 21 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo