When I run games of late, though, they're set in a quasi-historical fantastic Europe and the Middle East during the Crusades. As a historian and theologian usually would, I've familiarized myself as best I might with the societal mores of various cultures from that era; I have represented sexuality as accurately as I may, with the caveat that I lean towards inclusiveness as a matter of conscience and personal preference.
It's often telling, which historical throwbacks fictional world creators arbitrarily decide to include, and which they decide to reject.
Kahn Zordlon wrote:
I recently made a transaction and was charged a transaction fee (not sure what that was about and if anyone knows please fill me in).
Transaction fees are (ostensibly optional) incentives provided to bitcoin miners to ensure that a given transaction makes it into the next verified block.
It pops up every now and then (olive oil on the leg; thinking that stabbing your cybernetic leg is a cool trick to show a kid IT TOTALLY IS; risking your life to save an android about to be shot; altering speech patterns or mimicking other voices entirely in order to make the other person more cooperative; etc.). Right now it's being used as spice to flavor the social interactions, but I think it's safe to assume they'll be revisiting it in a more in-depth way later this season.
Honestly, the only real difference between this and other procedurals is this one actually admits the science involved is sci-fi.
You don't think the whole exploration of what it means to be a person (and what it means to relate more to something that isn't considered a person than actual people) is a noteworthy deviation from the norm of procedural drama?
But you're also assuming that the hardware requirements for the desktop OS won't go up.
No, I'm not. I'm assuming that the rate of increase in hardware capabilities of mobile device will match or outstrip the rate of increase in hardware requirements of operating systems. That's a very reasonable assumption.
What's the last version that happened on?
Both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of both Windows 7 and Windows 8 have identical system requirements. 1 GHz CPU, 1 GB RAM (2 GB for 64-bit), 16 GB of storage (20 GB for 64-bit), and DirectX 9 graphics capability.
It makes a lot of sense if you think about it; the sorts of tasks operating systems are designed to perform don't scale in requirements at the breakneck rate that programs like video games do.
It's worth noting that if your laptop came with an OEM copy of Windows 8 Pro installed, Microsoft grants you downgrade rights to roll that back to a copy of Windows 7 Pro.
The "low end" iPhone 5 absolutely can handle it.
Actually while you could squeeze it onto a mid to high end iPhone5... win 7 would eat up the entire processing power of that phone leaving you with nothing to run apps... not a good idea.
a) That's not how system requirements work.
b) All three iPhone 5-branded phones (the iPhone 5, iPhone 5S, and iPhone 5C) run dual-core 1.3 GHz chips, giving them plenty of spare processing power.
No, you need it to fit on the phones being released after the deployment of your platform. (And even current mid-tier phones can meet the hardware demands of an OS like Windows 7; you can easily get such a phone for free with your wireless contract.) And we're not talking about now, we're talking about easily five years from now. There is absolutely no reason, from a hardware perspective, that they wouldn't be able to make this happen.
I doubt it would be possible. Think of the size and minimum specs needed for a good desktop OS and they simply wouldn't fit on a phone.
This is false. Windows 7 (easily fitting the bill of a "good desktop OS") requires a 1 GHz processor, 1 gb of RAM, and 16 gb of hard drive space. The iPhone 5 has a dual-core 1.3 GHz processor, 1 gb of RAM, and up to 64 gb of hard drive space. The Galaxy S4 has a quad-core 1.9 GHz processor, 2 gb of RAM, and up to 64 gb of hard drive space. In other words, phones can already run a good desktop OS (or could, if their architecture were designed to support Windows). By the time Microsoft gets around to designing and deploying their unified platform, years from now, it's completely reasonable to expect to see phones more than capable of running an OS with a footprint like Windows 7's.
The Reapers have had quite a lot of "interaction" with the universe prior to the start of the first game. :p
Certainly, but on the order of once per every few dozen millennia. In that respect, we ought to expect the next few games in the series to be absent of them even if they had merely retreated into dark space once more.
While the Geth aren't important, the absence of the Reapers kinda is. If the Catalyst is right, then Synthetics murdering all life in the universe is inevitable unless you murder all organics before it can happen.
I think one of the central arguments of the main series is that the Catalyst isn't necessarily right, and is more accurately guilty of a zealous overabundance of caution.
Of course, there's also the (fairly good) chance that the Catalyst is a total crackpot with no idea what it's talking about. Which makes the past umpteen instances of galaxy-wide genocide even more horrific (and anything but the 'Destroy' ending pretty terrible). The only things that really bother me about the original ending was how there's no option to go "dude, that makes no sense", and random space magic. That all this pointless mayhem was caused by a mad AI would have been a perfectly acceptable conclusion to the series.
...but that is the conclusion. From Shepard's point of view, at least, it's more than possible to have fostered a (shaky) peace between organics and synthetics. This outcome makes the Catalyst look less like a galactic protector in the form of a necessary evil and more like a terrible mistake created by a paranoid people. The point, however, is that regardless of what Shepard thinks about the Catalyst's existence, it's still the only way of stopping the Reapers. (Notably, the extended version of the ending provided a fourth ending option where you shoot the Catalyst and watch the Reapers annihilate civilization again.)
Your assumptions are poor ones.
It is possible for an OS that is developed to provide an excellent mobile user experience to also provide an excellent desktop user experience. There is no law saying that can't happen. It's just a matter of effective design.
But they cannot. If they make a unified OS, one or all of the platforms will actually suffer.
That's some kind of weird software design myth. It presumes that all the platforms are currently designed to perfection, and that design must inherently suffer for the sake of unification. The former is certainly not true, and the latter is likely not true.
Well, at the very least I can give BioWare that they have the cojones to take one ending and stick to it. I had feared that they effectively had killed the future of their franchise with their prior stance of not wanting to invalidate the players individual endings and would try to make (meaningless to me) prequels. Good for them.
I'm of the same mind. I don't think they should just hand off ownership of their franchise to the player base like that. They'd be doing everyone a disservice. When you have a universe that's been hailed as the most important sci-fi world of our generation, it's kind of a tragedy to neuter it after a single trilogy of video games.
The only serious complaint I currently have with the current design is that I feel the split interface between Metro/Desktop causes cognitive dissonance with the user.
Definitely a strong criticism, though not of either interface individually. I think their awareness of that problem is what's leading them to decide they need to unify their platform.
I wasn't refusing to do anything. I pointed out that Metro apps are designed in such a way that they don't need to be closed manually. If the issue had been pressed I would have looked it up, but you provided the answer before my second post on the topic.
Until you can identify actual and significant problems with the design as-is, I don't really see any reason to be ambiguously critical of it. Yes, it's trying to figure out in advance what decisions would be best for the user, and then carry them out. That's what smart design does. And now that you know that it is possible to manually terminate Metro apps (dragging to the bottom of the screen), even these ambiguous concerns are unwarranted.
My understanding is that Metro apps preserve state when they self-terminate, if state is something that the app cares about. I haven't watched it yet, but I expect that this talk will go a long way towards explaining the framework. Do let me know if my understanding of that is incorrect.
I hope most things I need won't be Metro apps, when I am eventually forced to move to 8 (or more likely whatever comes next.
It's a fair bet that they aren't. Microsoft's desire to more towards a unified ecosystem all but requires that the abandon the Metro standard as it currently exists, or dramatically rework it.
Possibly, but then if Shepard isn't in the new series (which is the official word from BioWare), that shouldn't many any difference.
No, it shouldn't, you're right. I just figured that it was their acknowledgement that Destroy is the "good" ending. Even if that weren't the case, though, it's still far and away the cleanest choice.
Nitpicking means you pretty much lost the argument.
That's not a nitpick. It's important to clarify that the vast majority of intelligent programs (whether "true" AIs or not) were not wiped out. In fact, since AIs were banned by the Council anyway, for the vast majority of the galaxy this changes nothing at all. They always assumed AIs didn't exist, and now they don't.
To some, absence of Geth and the Reapers will be a huge deal. Mostly Geth. Do not equate what you feel like with what everyone else feels like.
I'm not talking about the universe seeming the same to players. I'm talking about to people in the Mass Effect universe. Prior to the start of the game, no one really cared about either of those groups (save, the Migrant Fleet, obviously).
The universe shouldn't feel exactly the same to players. You don't want the game starting from the same place that the first series did. It needs to feel both familiar enough to be comforting to return to, while being different enough to be exciting. Destroy is the only ending that allows for that without requiring that the ramifications of the ending choice be reduced to near-meaninglessness.
When the OS detects that memory or processing power is becoming limited, it intelligently terminates Metro apps to free up resources. Therefore, Metro apps running in the background should never slow your computer down, because they will self-terminate before they impact your computer's performance in any noticeable way.
Which does suggest there are reasons to close apps, even if they don't slow the machine down.
Desktop apps, not Metro apps. Desktop apps are not managed by the Metro interface, and they are not built to intelligently manage resources when they are not the active window. There are good reasons to shut them down.
No. It is most certainly NOT.
Sure it is.
It is like asking "how do I close the damn thing?". You really can't stop putting words in my mouth, as always implying I hold views I do not, and am stupid for holding them.
I wasn't putting words in your mouth. In fact, I quoted you. I was saying that the words you said are similar to these other words.
Microsoft made a version of Windows, 98, that set its sights on knowing what you wanted to do better than you did. They should have learnt that particular lesson then. A while after that came a windows 98 lite that dispensed with Active Desktop because people didn't like it. Not putting in a close button is arrogant and stupid.
It is neither of those things. It's a smart design decision that appears "arrogant and stupid" for literally no other reason than you not understanding how it works.
When I use my computer, it does get difficult to find the relevant window at times, and Microsoft wanting you to keep every single program you started up is not a good enough reason to have a few more.
Alt-tab provides a view of all running applications, and allows you to switch very quickly (you can even tap the program you want to switch to from the alt-tab interface, if your computer has a touch screen). It's the best way to switch between apps that use the Metro UI if you have more than a few running.
So, no, it is not a good thing. Your mileage varies.
Your mileage varies only based on how well you know how to use your computer.
You are Scott Betts. Nothing more needs be said.
Personal attacks. Great.
I definitely got the impression from the game that players were 'supposed' to go with Synthesis,
I figured that the designers were giving tacit support to Destroy as the canon ending by virtue of the fact that it's the only one that allows Shepard to survive (if you worked hard enough).
Thing is, they set themselves in this situation by even giving the option of a sequel. All the endings are like that.
No, they're not.
Destroy wipes out geth and every sort of mechanical intelligence everywhere.
Only AIs. VIs are left intact.
Which means the defining conflict of Mass Effect (according to their own words) is GONE.
Synthetics vs. organics was one of the central conflicts of the original Mass Effect series. It's not the defining conflict of the universe.
Delve deeply enough into it, and it's not likely to feel like Mass Effect.
The absence of the Geth and Reapers isn't a huge deal. To give you an idea of how not-central they are to the universe, prior to the start of the first game neither of them were interacting with the rest of the galaxy at all.
Control means there is a god made flesh around, toting a fleet of reapers, to force everyone to conform, which pretty much nullifies Mass Effect style adventuring.
Which is why we probably won't see Control as the canon ending.
Synthesis means every biological life form is part mechanical, and vice versa, and according to you, that's impossible to deal with.
It's a concept that deserves to be treated with a level of detail that matches the dramatic scope of the change, and you can't do that feasibly without dedicating the game to it.
So any way they go, they are set up to fail.
No. Control will work fine.
Or, they could try to deal with it in some way, and allowing import/choice is not the worst idea.
It's a pretty bad idea.
And, Scott, as usual you are implying that I said or did something I didn't do. Don't do that. I was one of the few who thought the original endings were pretty decent.
The idea is that they're moving towards programs designed to accommodate those different formats as necessary. It's a design challenge, but not the nightmare it's often made out to be. The current app ecosystem is a slog for Windows - I don't blame them for wanting to move away from Windows Phone and Windows RT, neither of which has proven particularly successful.
Seriously... the Win8 photo gallery... how do I CLOSE the damn thing???
You're not supposed to close it. Just like on your phone, Windows 8 Metro apps are intelligently managed by the OS. You can switch into and out of them, and they will remain active until the computer needs those resources, at which point the OS will terminate the program to free those resources up.
This is a good thing. It means your access to that program is faster and avoids negatively impacting your computer's performance. If you want to switch to another program, just swipe out of the gallery.
Asking, "How do I CLOSE the damn thing?" is like asking how you save your MMORPG character to your hard drive.
And you won't have one. This isn't about making the user experience the same across all formats. If you'd read the article, you'd know that. This is about unifying the platform so that users aren't put in the position of owning software that runs on their tablet but not their desktop, or runs on their phone but not their tablet, etc.
You mean YOU consider it a no go. You have been spewing the line about synthesis being worse than rape since day one. Not everyone agrees with you.
I daresay the game's designers agree with him. A merging of organic and AI life should have dramatic, wide-ranging implications that cannot be anywhere near adequately covered by a game if left merely as an option. It would be nonsensical and incredibly dull to have such a fundamental change amount to nothing more than cosmetics. It boggles the mind that some of the people I've seen harshly criticize the ending of Mass Effect 3 for supposedly nullifying player choice are now advocating the reduction of all the choice players were given in the first three games to literal reskinning.
That's why I provided you the link that I did. The trademark disappearing from the European database doesn't necessarily mean it's fake. It could just as easily mean that it has been processed and rolled into the Fallout mark.
Nothing even close to being proven as fake.
Also, dumping a save import will save a truely massive amount of time and money.
Well, I mean, not if the save import is limited to changing skin tones or whatever. Which it won't be. Because it won't exist. But if it did, that wouldn't be that expensive. It would be a terrible idea, but a cheap one.
It doesn't have to be. It just has to be relatable to the sod who chose the synthesis-ended save game to import. See? Just because you don't play Shepard in ME4 doesn't mean you can't import stuff off a save.
An imported save system of any kind would be surprising. But seriously, you think that someone who chose Synthesis is going to be satisfied if the sum total of the difference between their world and the next is that theirs has glowy skin? If you give them the ability to import, they are going to want content that reflects that choice, not a merely aesthetic difference. The endings are so different that you should expect to see dramatic changes that are more than skin-deep (pun intended).
They're not talking about hedging out the competition and making everyone use Windows. That would be monopolistic, and Microsoft has (I should hope) learned their lesson there. Instead, they're talking about shifting from a multi-platform model (currently Windows Phone 8, Windows RT, and Windows 8) to a single-platform model (just Windows).
All systems sharing the same operating system does not mean all systems sharing the same user interface.
Heads of the department don't really give a damn. One of the reasons win8 had that godawful start menu was because the heads of MS use mostly tablets and cannot comprehend that most of the people use PCs, and that PCs are here to stay.
And you know all of this because you work there, or what?
I am not sure I see the problem there. Every save game has the look of Shepard stored, so images can still be done if necessary, with the standard (probably, though it irks me) bro-shep as the default if no saved game exists. Also not much of a problem is the ending chosen... generally. Assume Destroy, then if someone has a Control or Synthesis game, what would really be the problem? London still gets rebuilt. Synthesis makes people's eyes and skin a bit weird, but nothing major otherwise. Control also shouldn't matter too much, because God-shepard is out doing... something... and the reapers are helping it do that. EDI should at most be a cameo role, and I am sure they could add some little optional mission that features a geth if Destroy wasn't chosen. In short, I really don't see the big problem here.
If you think people were upset about their actions being supposedly nullified the first time around, wait until you tell them that the galaxy-shaking decision that you made at the end of the first trilogy amounts to nothing more than giving everyone glowy skin.
I wouldn't mind a game that takes place during Shepard's death in ME2. I think it would be neat to become archangel as Garris, an info dealer as liara, Tali back with the migrant fleet. You could even have Jacob and Miranda stories in there. Just an idea I think would be fun.
While there is some wiggle room here, some of these stories have already been fleshed out in novel form.
My expectation is that we will be exploring the setting we know from the first ME games. Certain things will be a bit different, perhaps (likely no Geth, and people may still be putting out the fires left over from the war, and who knows what the state of the Citadel will be), but by and large this should still be the Mass Effect universe we spent the first three games in.
There is no corporate authority that makes all bitcoins. You need to do some homework.
And "they only have value if someone wants them" is literally how all currency works.
That's too bad. I'd like to see them do 'something else' in the setting. Something that didn't involve the main Shepard plot.
I doubt very much that it will continue the Shepard plot. I think the word "sequel" here merely refers to the universe's chronology, with the new series taking place after Mass Effect 3, rather than before the first game or alongside the first series.
There is a rumor doing the rounds about some focus group testing being run regarding Mass Effect, with the individual posting the information claiming that it seemed EA/Bioware understood that most people were looking for a sequel series (and that the focus group overwhelmingly chose a sequel series over other options).
Klaus van der Kroft wrote:
I can at least give the insight of our experience (which my own country also suffered, taking us several decades to recover from) in noting that while strict quorum systems that make it hard to pass laws can seem problematic, they often are a better alternative to a system in which every change of government brings the possibility of a full turnover.
Right, but that's not a concern with this change because it doesn't affect legislation. All it does is prevent the deliberate obstruction of appointments - there's no possibility of a full turnover, because the requirement of these appointments can't necessarily be predicted or controlled in advance, and because any attempt to roll back or overturn legislation would require a tremendous amount of work even with the full cooperation of all political appointees.
No one is talking about removing the legislative filibuster. But the government is struggling to function dealing with all of these vacancies that are only remaining vacancies because the Republican party is no longer interested in reasonably vetting appointees, but is now committed ot the wholesale obstruction of any political appointments at all.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Like when you characterize the desire to prevent further crippling political obstructionism as a "power grab", the sort of thing that the GOP would never threaten to do (hint: they've threatened to do it)?
This is the greatest.
Doug's Workshop wrote:
"We won, and it's not fair that we can't do what we want." My toddler doesn't whine as much as those guys do.
...says the guy whining about the GOP no longer being able to do what they want. The best part is that your guys didn't even win, and you're still whining.