Messages

But learning and total control are precisely why people choose to write their own engine from scratch in the first place, not to mention the belief that what they want isn't out there already.  My platform engine uses no third party libraries of any kind, and most of the reasons are obvious:

I'm not arguing that people don't choose this route. I'm arguing that many programmers will indeed use libraries. While the attainment of knowledge, and having done something yourself, is noble (and fun!)...I don't think it's necessarily the only way for programmers to go.

1.  Total knowledge of what you are working with.

Using libraries, especially some open source ones, doesn't take knowledge away.

2.  No reliance on someone else's code.

This makes it seem that relying on ones own code vs. a person who may be more studied in the library they made, is a good thing. I don't necessarily agree...it's why I use standard libraries.

3.  The learning process.

You spend more time learning the actual craft of game making if your not worried about every tiny detail. If you're not interested in making libraries for sound/gaphics and other multimedia, then why bother.

4.  Many of the truly useful libraries aren't free--not if you ever intend to market your engine or games made with it.

That doesn't disclude the fact that there are also many truly useful libraries that are free. I also don't believe that because something is free, it's crap.

5.  You don't have to deal with someone else's shoddy code and glitches--just your own.

This is pretty much the same as number two. And once again, this is under the assumption that your code will be better.

6.  The feeling of accomplishment.

This is a feeling that can be achieved with either route.

I'm not saying your route it wrong...I'm just saying, neither would be using libraries. Also, neither would be using Game Maker. Once again, it's all about what your personal goals are.

-MillsJROSS

If you use some free game programming libraries, that already handle your keyboard/mouse/joystick input, graphics that support other cards, audio that supports other cards, handles different processor speeds, then you're already there. There's no reason you'd have to program these yourself.

Obviously, using the engine will be easier, and have faster results. The other way, you have more control about every little detail, but you have to then program every little detail. I would say, though, creating your own engine would look much better on your resume (for a programmer), than using an existing engine.

As far as major companies not using AGS or Game Maker, it's really just a simple matter of what AGS and Game Maker bring to the table. A quicker way to make games. However, with engines like this, your game will have a lot of code that isn't really necessary for that game. And there might be something they want to code that AGS/GameMaker can't handle.

I disagree to the fact that most people won't use libraries. If libraries exist, and are free for you to use, and you'd rather write code rather than use an engine, than why wouldn't you use those libraries? I'm sure some programmers do start from scratch, but why reinvent the wheel? I can understand people doing it purely for the pleasure of figuring out how to do it, but if you want to write code, but save lot's of production time, libraries are the middle ground between an engine and code made from scratch.

I do think using Game Maker in this situation would be more ideal, though. Not sure how using an engine like this would be considered cliche. Probably just smart.

-MillsJROSS

I think if anything, this would be a good excersize for any programmers to try their hand at making a simple engine. Game Maker will decrease production time, though. It's just a question of if a programmer wants this to be a learning experience, or just wants to help someone make a game.

-MillsJROSS

I'd help you out if I wasn't nearing my last semester of college.

I hope you get a nibble.

-MillsJROSS

It really just depends on what you're applying free will to. Once again wiki saves the day...

The principle of free will has religious, ethical, psychological and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, free will may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In psychology, it implies that the mind controls some of the actions of the body. In the scientific realm, free will may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain, are not wholly determined by physical causality.

So, depending on which area you're applying the term "free will" to, then non determinism may very well play a part. So I don't see anyone confused...we're just focusing on other areas.

Are we slaves to the rules that are set in this universe, or is our being present in some other universe deciding events. If the later is true, than it's possible, as far as this universe is concerned, that our decisions aren't based on the rules of this universe. Of course, once again, this is an example of scope. Regardless of the fact that our decisions might be able to guide us in different direction in this universe, we can only assume that the being in the other universe have some rules that must be followed. So while in this universe we show free will, in the other universe we are bound to deterministic rules and boundaries, and thus free will is once again yanked away from us. Of course, this is probably useless ramblings.

-MillsJROSS

Hire a good electrician.

-MillsJROSS

No, he couldn't have been a rogue time lord, because something big enough to change all of human history would have been stopped.

If we assume he was a Time Lord, though. Is Judas a Dalek?

-MillsJROSS

If he was a TimeLord he was going against trying not to change time. So, no, I don't think he was a Time Lord.

-MillsJROSS

I think the real question is what supplier you got this computer from, because the additional cost of XP should be negligible with many of the bigger companies.

-MillsJROSS

I don't necessarily agree. Agnostics isn't the antitheses of theism. It's a simple matter of saying that we are without knowledge, and to argue over the existence of gods/dietys/what-have-you serves no purpose. Agnostics are allowed to overlap with atheism and theism. An agnostic might say, "There is no proof of existence of god, and I don't personally believe in one" or "There is no proof of the existence of god, but I still believe there might be"

Good ol' wikipedia affirms this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

As far as having a reason to live...I don't buy into the fact that because you believe there is no way to prove the existence of god one way or the other, than your life has no meaning or reason. I'd also argue that believing in a god or not believing in a god, necessarily gives anyone a reason to live either. It's up to the individual to provide their own reasons for living. Mine is to try and make computer games, and if that doesn't work, have a few laughs, anyway. I believe in my existence, therefor I am. And I don't care if I'm created by an architect or by accident.

I am not saying that it's not possible for you not to have a reason to live, but it's not because of your being agnostic as it applies to a god. It's being agnostic as it applies to your beliefs in your existence.

-MillsJROSS

Sadly, I am an agnostic and believe in nothing.

I don't see why this is sad. And in general it's exactly what I believe. Not necessarily in nothing, but that the something is unknown, so why care?

As far as free will is concerned, this is where an agnostic view comes and helps again. Why care? All we know is that we live and percieve to make our own decisions.

If we have free will, and think we have free will then this doesn't have any conflict with how our preceptions are.
If we have free will, and don't think we have free will, then we're free to think that our decisions are insubstantial, and already made up.

If we don't have free will, but think we have free will, then it still doesn't have a conflict with how we live our lives, because it's already been decided for us long ago to think that we have free will.
If we don't have free will, and don't think we have free will, then we probably have a 9-5 job.

If I had to argue anything, I would say this is really a question of relativity. If we take the whole universe and believe everything is set in motion, and uncapable of changing from its destined path, this doesn't really affect our lives. We are just one big equation. However, let's consider us the universe now. It's what we know. We react to events around us, unknowingly partaking in destiny, while at the same time our lives are affected by certain events or certain people. Because our scope isn't universal, but local, our perception of the universe and how we react to things seems to give us the notion that there is free will. Because we live on what we percieve, on our level, I would argue we have free will. Not free will enough to break out of what we're destined to do, but free will enough to think we do.

This is based on the assumption that the universe is based on a set of rules that can not change, and are not random. Let's assume that there are some things that don't apply to rules. This initially sounds more exciting, but I don't like to delve into this path, because you get into this conundrum. If the world is random, and nothing is set in motion, then your decisions are also random. Which means, yes, you have free will, but to what end? It's not you making decisions, it's the randomness of the universe. However, this option also is a question of relativity. If you don't know the universe is random, then you'll think you made decisions based on your will.

So in the end, it your perceptions that matter. I'd say the term free will has a scope. It means more to us than the universe.

-MillsJROSS

Dead Baby Jokes, huh? You really think that's appropriate?

Because I sure do!

Don't read if you have a sense of taste.

What's funnier than a dead baby?

Spoiler

A dead baby in a clown suit

[close]

And to go for more punchier ones, the two on top of my list (which is actually pretty long...I know I should get some help).

What do you get when you skin a dead baby?

Spoiler

An erection

[close]

What's the difference between a white dead baby and a black dead baby?

Spoiler

About twenty seconds in the microwave

[close]

Some tasteless Jewish jokes

Why do jews have such big noses?

Spoiler

Air is free

[close]

What's the difference between a Jew and a canoe?

Spoiler

A canoe tips

[close]

What's so bad about being a blakc jew?

Spoiler

You have to sit in the back of the oven

[close]

Now on to something completely different...

Why can't Helen Keller drive?

Spoiler

Because she's a women

[close]

Why do tampons have strings?

Spoiler

So you can floss afterwards

[close]

Why did the chicken cross the road?
To get to the other side.
Why did the egg cross the road?
It had the inclination.

A long one:

A guy was walking home from work, and on his way home he walks by a grave yard. As he's passing this grave yard, he hears a huge explosion, and upon looking at it's direction, he sees dirt flying everywhere. And when the air is clear, he sees a coffin standing up by a grave. Being creeped out a little, he quickens his pace home. As he does so, he hears a thumping noise, and in the corner of his eye, he sees the coffin is moving in his direction.

This being enough to freak him out, he quickens his pace even more. And as he does so, he can hear the thump of the coffin behind him increasing it's speed. Till his finally running full speed. He reaches his house and unlock the door as quickly as possible, slamming it shut and locking it. And suddenly he hears a BANG. The coffin is breaking the door down, and the door looks like it might only take a few more hits, so the guy runs upstairs and locks himself into the bathroom. In a few moments he hears another bang as his front door is broken. And then he hears the thump of the coffin as it begins to go upstairs.

                    Thump
          Thump
Thump

Bang! As the coffin slams into the bathroom door. The guy looks around for any escape available to him. No window, or other doors. So he begins to look for some weapon as the coffin bangs on the door. BANG! The door flies open, and the guy frantically grabs the first thing he finds, a bottle of VICs vapor rub, and the coffin stops.

-MillsJROSS

It is true that 90% of sequels suck really bad and are nothing but money grubbing

I'm sorry, but I'd say 99.99% of all sequels are money grubbing. This move included. It doesn't mean that the movie is bad, it just means that those who produce movies see what the audience likes and make more of it. I'd actually say, most of the originals are money grubbing, too. Movies are a business, they are there to make money. People read scripts, say, "That one will make us money!" And then a movie is made.

-MillsJROSS

It's pretty difficult to see films before they're made.

-MillsJROSS

Vivendi owns the rights to the game now, I believe, and they probably aren't responsible for damaged disks that Sierra sold 15 years ago. But they are reselling the Sierra collections, starting December 1st, according to amazon. I'm not sure if they've decided to make the games more Windows friendly, but even if they don't I've been able to run all six games without too much difficulty.

-MillsJROSS

And I see no reason for multidimensional arrays to come first. Those are at least easy to work around. Larry Values!!11

They also should be easier to implement within the engine, and while yes it's easy enough to simulate multi-dimensional arrays, I think you have to focus on the small things before the bigger things. Also, I feel multi-dimensional arrays have more likely hood of being used more often then structs within structs. Also, because AGS is designed for adventure games, inheritance isn't usually needed as often as it would be in other genres. Not that the implementation of this wouldn't be helpful.

-MillsJROSS

the film is decent but not clever and I was hoping for alot more.

And therein lies your problem. Expectations cloud our judgement about whether or not a movie will be good or not. You came with high hopes, and not everything met your criteria. I'd argue you won't really know how you feel about the movie till you see it much later, when there isn't so much hype, and you know what to expect. I agree with most of your assertions, but I knew it wasn't going to be as good as the first, so I enjoyed it more.

And if you want to complain about length of movies, look at Superman Returns. I've never been so bored in my life.

-MillsJROSS

And that's when EMP really becomes effective.

I'll be more interested when the technology is good enough to try on "normal" non-paralyzed people. We'll just have to be careful not to make terminators.

-MillsJROSS

I found the movie was enjoyable, my only complaint really is its length. Mainly because I didn't get home till real late, after seeing it.

-MillsJROSS

I used to wake up with sleep paralysis...haven't recently, but I'm sure it will happen again. While I don't personally believe this tidbit, but I read somewhere, when I was researching it because it was freaking me out, that many of the people who experience this are in some way psychic. Once again, I personally don't believe that...but it is interesting.

It's quite a terrifying experience, and if I never have another one, I'll be quite content in life.

-MillsJROSS