Silvermyst

Members
  • Content count

    2107
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

113 Neutral

About Silvermyst

  • Rank
    GDNet+
  1. Ideal RTS Game

    [quote name='AltarofScience' timestamp='1338634446' post='4945546'] What kind of features would exist in your ideal RTS game?[/quote] Time to think and consider my options. Units that I care about instead of units that are just cannon fodder. [quote]How do you feel about simulation elements ala Majesty: The Fantasy Kingdom Sim[/quote] Very much enjoyed the indirect control aspect. Recently bought and played the Warlock: Master of the Arcane game, and really missed that control system (and the sense of humor). Almost like they took everything that was good in Majesty, and then created Warlock with the leftovers. I think the indirect control mechanic is perfect for this genre, as it allows for the gamer to be placed in a godlike position, while not being all powerful. The indirect control mechanic itself can become a strategic element. Intellect and willingness to follow orders might actually become important in units. Do you whip your minions, and make them sacrifice their pitiful lives out of fear, or do you treat your servants well and make them risk their lives out of love? The RTS game in my dreams is one with a strong Shogun: Total War flavor for battle (including scouting, and actual reasons to attack or defend locations), using semi-direct control (you relay commands to your generals, who may or may not relay those commands to their troops, who may or may not follow those commands) with a mobile base (which grows over time, but can be attacked and destroyed) in a persistent world (women and children would be part of the clan, and generations could come and go as you trek across the land).
  2. Need a good Diablo clone

    Din's Curse kept my interest for a while.
  3. Are Republicans really serious about reducing the deficit

    [quote name='Prefect' timestamp='1298393537' post='4777568'] I realize that these facts are not very widely known these days, which is of course highly convenient for the conservative (or should I say: anti-worker/employees) agenda, but a little history lesson can be quite eye-opening. The difference between what can be done and the current sorry state of affairs is shocking. If you want to read more about the historical and political context from somebody who has written a PhD thesis on the topic, I can recommend this [url="http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=11941"]blog entry[/url]. In any case, if you believe that a situation that can reasonably be called full employment is unachievable - for concreteness let's define it as below 2% unemployment, and zero underemployment - then it's time for you to remove the wool that has been pulled over your eyes.[/quote] Interesting read. I agree that if there are no fiscal restraints, the government could just put people to work. And I'm all for it, since it would also effectively be the end of taxation: [quote]According to their ‘Modern Monetary Theory’ (MMT) – governments which have sovereignty over their currencies and floating exchange rates have no fiscal constraint, i.e., no shortage of money, nothing to prevent them from mobilising their nation’s unutilised productive resources, such as unemployed people, and giving them socially beneficial work to perform.[/quote] And, no, Republicans aren't serious about reducing the budget. They're just trying to get rid of stuff they don't like. To be serious about reducing the budget, you need to also get rid of stuff you do like. At least, that's how it works when I have to cut back my own personal budget. I don't just stop buying cleaning supplies. I also stop buying computer games.
  4. Xbox 360 vs PS3..

    Kinect?
  5. Quote:Original post by Oluseyi An interesting point that came up in conversation yesterday is how devices like Google TV are poised to formally bridge the gap between internet video and television (without laboring under the label of "toy" or "video game console" like the Xbox 360, PS3 or Wii), particularly by offering the possibility of "channels." I wonder if the "on demand" aspect of all the new media will improve the long-term experience. Continuing to use ted.com as an example, I love the way I can just search a term, start playing it while I do my work, and then just select the next "you might also like" video once the first one is done. But we may lose out on that captive audience aspect of the older media. Would we know songs like "I Will Survive" and "Maggie May" (both B-side songs) if our parents and grandparents could've just downloaded the A-side songs?
  6. I agree that the TV is a better medium for this, due to its passive status. Sure, a 360 or PS3 might be able to stream it, but... I'm not watching media on a 360 or PS3, I'm interacting with it. (And I just found a new way to interact with my Wii, thanks to this Johnny Lee lecture on cheap Wii hacks that I found on ted.com yesterday when browsing for "gaming".)
  7. I would definitely pay to see more gaming programming ala the Icons series, which, before they changed the theme from gaming to pop culture, was a must-see G4 show for me. Game reviews are somewhat meaningless in today's environment. There are plenty of free sources to get game review ratings plus plenty of ways to test the water without an actual purchase (decent demos, renting, buying preowned with money-back guarantees), so there's no real need/demand for game reviews in paid-for media. I can just imagine a site/channel like www.ted.com with game development material.
  8. Carmack on government

    Quote:Original post by think_different every time the Fed produces money the value of the dollar goes down. It has the same monetary effect as a universal tax but people don't think of it like that. Perhaps the next chairman of the monetary policy subcommittee will be able to keep the Fed from producing money.
  9. Why Must Games Be Fair?

    If and when the gameplay itself is not fun (grinding?), then an unsatisfactory outcome might make me feel like the game cheated on me, but as long as the gameplay itself is fun, I don't really care about the outcome. In sports, I prefer seeing my favorite team lose in a good game than win in a bad game.
  10. Can someone explain this whole US elections thing?

    Quote:Original post by frob Having opposing parties in one of the three locations necessarily means more debate and compromise, which tends to mean more reasonable, moderate, and gradual changes. Less government expansion and fewer wars. Quote:From the dawn of the Cold War until today, we've had only two periods of what could be called fiscal restraint: The last six years of the Eisenhower administration, and the last six years of the Clinton administration, both intervals in which the opposition controlled Congress. Under Clinton, the average annual increase in spending was at about 1 percent, while, under Ike, it was negative. By contrast, our unified governments have gone on fiscal benders. Harry Truman, with the help of a Democratic Congress, sent the money flying, with spending increases of as high as 10 percent a year. Lyndon Johnson was almost as profligate. And today, unfortunately, George W. Bush, with a GOP majority, is the heir to their legacies. To put this in plain numbers, government spending has increased an average of only 1.73 percent annually during periods of divided government. This number more than triples, to 5.26 percent, for periods of unified government. That's a hefty premium to pay for a bit of unity. Equally striking is that these spending increases have generally found the same recipient: the Pentagon. It's not that unified governments love to purchase bombers, but, rather, that they tend to draw us into war. This may sound improbable at first, but consider this: In 200 years of U.S. history, every one of our conflicts involving more than a week of ground combat has been initiated by a unified government. Each of the four major American wars during the 20th century, for example—World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War—was initiated by a Democratic president with the support of a Democratic Congress. The current war in Iraq, initiated by a Republican president and backed by a Republican Congress, is consistent with this pattern. It also stands as the only use of military force involving more than a week of ground combat that has been initiated by a Republican president in over a century. Divided government appears to be an important constraint on American participation in war. Needless to say, this reduces outlays in both blood and treasure.
  11. USA Election Predictions

    The "profit through volume" approach can definitely work (and I see no reason for anyone to prevent it through legal means) but it is also very susceptible to losses, since when the demand dries up, there's no profit margin to allow the company to survive for very long. A slight shift in consumer attitude (away from "cheap but inferior quality" towards "good quality but more expensive") could bring even giants like Wal-Mart down, as especially the bigger companies will have difficulty adjusting.
  12. Carmack on government

    Quote:Original post by Rycross Do you think that government always "gives its citizens fish" in every case? I think it's the rule, more so than the exception. Quote:If you dispute that the government is the best avenue, do you have a plan of migrating people off of the government services and onto something else, or do you have ideas about how to solve the problem? I don't even necessarily dispute that government is the best avenue. I dispute that it is a given. Libertarians may be unable to put forward nuanced alternatives, but it is my opinion that non-libertarians don't exactly have a track record of proven solutions. There's far too much proclaimed certainty in the words of politicians and people who talk politics. "I'm right, you're wrong." I believe that at the federal level everything is so large-scale that it is near impossible to prove the positive or negative effects of policies. Did [A] happen because of or in spite of [X]? I am of the belief that in the absence of proven optimal-outcome policies, it is best to keep the number of policies to an absolute minimum, and to keep their scope limited. I see libertarianism as an ideal to fight towards, but not necessarily an ideal that should ever be reached. More as a compass than a destination.
  13. Carmack on government

    Quote:Original post by Rycross That assumes that competition (which is a cornerstone of a free market) always leads to optimal outcomes. Rudimentary knowledge of game theory shows that this is not the case. The libertarian response (in my experience) is often to simply assert that its not an issue. This is what I'm talking about when I complain about un-nuanced points of views. Even if the government knew the optimal way to catch fish, I believe it would still end up just giving its citizens fish instead of teaching them. Besides, it's not always about catching the biggest or the most fish. Sometimes it's just nice to spend some time on the water with some time to reflect. Dutch freeways may be straight, smooth, and able to get you to your destination quickly, but I much prefer driving LA freeways, even with all the potholes and traffic jams.
  14. State of American political discourse

    I don't think that using the footage in an attack ad will do much good.
  15. State of American political discourse

    Quote:Original post by ddn3 If the shoe was on the other foot how would the Tea party react to such behavior? "Don't stomp me, bro!" The thing that bugs me about these incidents is that there never seems to be anyone willing to risk their self to protect another from harm. [Edited by - Silvermyst on October 27, 2010 10:19:33 PM]