metadigital

I agree. But I've heard so many devs claim ground-breaking AIs in their soon to be released games, but which turn out in the end to be just broken AIs. the Dark engine which powered Thief and SS2 was quite good for its time in creating AI's that could respond to sound and motion. Combat AI's in games like FEAR and Far Cry are quite good and are not rare anymore. Other devs have laid claim to emergent gameplay. I think Harvey Smith was big into that term when pimping DX2. But, hey, somebody is eventually goign to get it right. Maybe that someone is Ken Levine and maybe that time is mid-2007! w000t! or something. :joy: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Alan Wake is multi-threaded, with a thread for AI, apparently.

My friend complained to me that his game was crashing in one of the final battles. As he has a brand new system, with 4GB RAM and a E6700, I was dismayed ... until he mentioned that he never shuts down. (In other words, he has played the entire game without shutting down, whilst also simultaneously playing poker on an additional 30" monitor.)

I'm sure if you tunnel into the thing you'll soon get past the outer uninflammable layer. Does it have any purpose aside from extended tormenting of pyromaniacs, worldwide?

Tell that to Mr Buttle.

I know someone who lives in Auburn. They were best pleased by that game.

Blame those pesky European Catholics (Spain and Portugal): it was their persuit of God, Glory and Gold.

Watched Casino Royale.It's a great film, I like the way it parodies (e.g. Bond swimming in the sea) and even re-interprets the common elements of a Bond film using the prism of other recent films in the general genre, to produce a film that has evolved into a "modern" action thriller. I also liked that the film took pains to create a plot that almost seems not to have a beginning or and end, and use technology to create a "timeless" backdrop: it could be any time in the last few decades,or even the next few. In other words, it is a Bond film in name only, and it is the better for it. I always like a new actor playing the lead: the producers actually have to make a good film. Who told you that? :crazy: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A Mason.

Because nobody has been strong enough to "liberate" all of it yet. Not for lack of trying mind you Alexander tried, the Romans tried, the Mongols tried, the Spanish tried, the English tried, the Americans would love to try etc. Yet none has yet come up with the strength to clean the entire house of it's former inhabitants so to speak and keep them out (to stay with the original allegory of kicking your neighbour out). Somebody is bound to come along every century with the idea that "his" people is the chosen master race and all other races/parties/religions/ideologies are inferior and must be replaced with your own. Who knows, somebody might succeed some day. Evolution in action... Edit: In some ways, you could argue that the world is a society by itself, it just has a very high threshold of tolerance for infighting before it's constituent members unify and act against single members. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You forgot the Japanese and the Nazis.

Results haven't been calculated concerning the correlation of these two factors.

I think this thread has outlived the sensibilities of the population.

No, that is just a reductionist pov. Read it all again. Now, I take it that you actually understand what my argument is, and are just arguing about the way I said it because you have no argument for it. Which is fine for a while, but kinda boring after a time, too.

I think we can merge these two topics.

Bots can't circumvent CAPTCHA; that would prevent the automation of account creation as part of the spam, which would prevent most of the spam, because manually creating an account to spam with would invalidate the advantages of automating the message.

No. You are just taking one part of my argument and arguing the logic of it on its own. The law WILL NOT WORK because people DO NOT WANT IT TO WORK. It is not related to murder (which YOU MADE the comparison with), because it is not a positive law, it is a negative law. By that I mean it is a law that is taking away from people's freedoms "for their own good", and not "for the good of everyone". You can continue to argue that my ADDITIONAL argument was flawed as much as you like, but the above is all you need to understand why you are wrong. The law doesn't work, and will not work, because it is not a law that the society wants. That is the point.

As Diamond said, you are making an absurd generalisation. (You are also making up classifications to suit your argument.) Half-Life 2 uses team tactics, for example (with both humans and ANTS), whereas the Dooms don't. (Not to mention the "gravity gun" zero point energy device to grapple objects and interact with the virtual world.) Also Doom 2 was a much better game than the original.

So a bunch of games developed for a static platform will DEMAND upgraded specs on a PC? I'm playing NwN2 on a three year old laptop; the only imperative to upgrade remains personal whim. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I disagree. Very few games are optimized for the lowest-common denominator. Most PC games are designed to run well only on the latest hardware configurations and provide a sub-par gaming experience on older machines. Some are very well made in that you can experience most of the content as the developer intended even on slightly dated hardware, but if you have a new system you will get additional bells-and-whistles and eye candy that enhance your experience. HL2 and Guild Wars are two such games. I can't think of many other games that use this philosophy. Most are designed to provide a satisfactory experience only with "recommended" configurations. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, I didn't say there was no reason to upgrade, I was refuting the claim that playing games on a PC REQUIRED one to spend money continually upgrading. Which is untrue.

It would look good alight ...

It would only be funny if I was winning.

in the last couple of months: Crime and Punishment (Fyodor Dostoevsky) Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels) Common Sense (Thomas Paine) Thomas Paine's The Rights of Man (Christopher Hitchens) On the Suffering of the World (Arthur Schopenhauer) Teach Yourself Jung (as tangential background information for another book I am currently reading: The Seven Basic Plots (Christopher Booker)) An Attack on an Enemy of Freedom (Cicero). I have a subscription to New Scientist and Scientific American

Rotorscope all her performances from now on; it might help. "

Nope. Libertarian argument. Society's right to curtail your freedom to injest toxic substances (or whatever) ENDS at the perimetrical volume marked by the tip of your nose. A drug law is parentalism: society trying to save the pitiable drug takers from themselves. I doubt I need to iterate the above points with respect to murder to highlight how taking a life is markedly different. My point is that because this law is: completely incomperable to murder, AND society (others) imposing their will on individuals for the "benefit" of the indivuals (and society only indirectly) it IS a failed piece of legislation and it will continue to be so. Comparing prohibition to murder is disingenuous, specious and fallacious in the extreme. Apples and oranges.

I'll assume you are not pirating and answer the dubious question. Don't use a no-cd file. If you downloaded the game, you don't HAVE a cd.

I'd join the Illuminati.

Eating lunch whilst the washing machine repairman examines my broekn white good, before leaving for a session on climbing in the gym.

He never said equal: but you're right, some oppressive Big Brother taking my money for their own designs is much worse than evesdropping on telephone gossip ... "