thomasnash's forum posts

#1 Edited by thomasnash (556 posts) -

@andorski said:

According to a forum post, this game was played by GB at one point. I don't remember that video though, and I'm sure there haven't been many others who have played this game: MegaRace.

It's basically a prequel to Wipeout (hence the wheels).
This dude was an asshole.

haha, I would have said this. My Dad did localisation on a series of PC game compilations, one of which had megarace on it (IIRC, it also had jouneyman project and possibly slipstream 5000). You can get it on GOG.com now...

For me, a game I remember really enjoying as a kid but that I've never see anyone talk about ever:

I can't even remember a huge amount about it now. I think it was kind of a dungeon siege/Nox style rpg with a cartoony style

#2 Posted by thomasnash (556 posts) -

I hope to one day be able to overcome my fear of public transport in foreign countries, have enough money, and be physically fit enough to go and see Machu Picchu.

#3 Posted by thomasnash (556 posts) -

@andrewb said:

"Caravella: takes 2 acid damage from Ryckert."

I looked through the screenshots specifically to see if they'd updated for the 2014 rosters!

Unfortunately for Icewind Dale, there's just not as much that you can "enhance" about it since you create your own party. I'll probably play it because I never finished Icewind Dale myself, although hearing from my brother about some of the stupidly difficult later encounters makes me a little shy. Game still looks amazing though. It's weird how the Infinity Engine is still the most beautiful RPG engine (or maybe that's all down to the artists) to date.

The Icwind Dale games specifically look really beautiful. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the IWD games used matte paintings for the environments, as opposed to the Baldur's Gate games which had digital art for the backgrounds?

With regards to the enhanced editions, I've never encountered any new bugs, but really don't think they're worth it compared to just getting the originals on GOG. The new content they add in is pretty much trash anyway, and modding the originals is a really quick process anyway.

With that said, I do own the EE of the first one on my Nexus 7. I just wish they'd hurry up and get the second one on android.

#4 Posted by thomasnash (556 posts) -

@thatpinguino: Hmm, I see. I think in terms of the skills XCOM does hide its complexity in a purely literal sense by not showing you what skills you'll be getting later on, but this obviously only really applies once.

But I suppose following the metaphor, it has to be something that is perceivable at all times, not simply a case of obfuscation.

I'm not sure I can think of any other possible examples. It is an interesting idea....

#5 Posted by thomasnash (556 posts) -

I think I get what you're driving at here, but can you clarify: In the example from MTG you gave us once the tactical advantage of Invasive Species has been mastered, it seems to be the obviously better choice, so you would always prefer it over Centaur Courser. Is this a necessary feature of Lenticular design? Am I just ignoring the fact that there might be an equally viable way of including Centaur Courser in a deck which is set up for a different strategy?

The game that springs to mind for me is the new XCOM: Enemy Unknown. The upgrade path for the sniper early on offers you a choice between firing after movement, and being able to fire at any enemy which an ally can see (and to which they have an unobstructed shot). For first time players, the inability to move and shoot might seem really prohibitive, and they might decide that the aiming penalty is worth it for being able to move their snipers along with the rest of the squad. However options later in the game reveal that the Line of Sight upgrade is far more powerful, especially as one of the final upgrades is the ability to shoot twice if the sniper doesn't move, allowing them to take out the toughest enemies in the game in one turn.

Likewise the Heavy Class had a choice between a skill which made targets easier to hit for allies when the heavy fired at them, or one that allowed them to shoot twice if they didn't move. The first skill again seems like an immediately attractive option, but I remember seeing someone point out that firing twice was the better option, as heavy weapons usually destroy cover in two hits, meaning you actually give your squad mates a 100% bonus to hit...

However the fact that this was obviously the best strategy is more a balance issue than a design feature. Certainly they rebalanced the sniper stuff in the expansion. But, if it isn't a feature of lenticular design for one strategy to be obviously better, then I think the "ideal" XCOM would still qualify - the idea that with the right tactics, either strategy could be viable, and it's just asking you to make those choices, and exhaust the ways you can look at things.

#6 Posted by thomasnash (556 posts) -

My favourite bit is when the cop is like "Streaming? What the fuck is that you fuckin nerd"

#7 Posted by thomasnash (556 posts) -

And yet in Die Hard all John Mclane can get is Al Powell

#8 Posted by thomasnash (556 posts) -

I had a go with a witch doctor but found it a bit boring. I also just felt that I wanted to actually be using the weapons I was equipping, and witch doctor seems designed around using darts?

I'd like to try a demon hunter because I like the design on her a lot more, but at the moment I'm rolling with a crusader, which is a lot of fun.

#9 Posted by thomasnash (556 posts) -

@sbaitso said:

@thomasnash: I wouldn't call what Dawkins does philosophy. It's more politics than anything else.

I wouldn't argue with that, I was mostly just trying to say that what he is famous for, and therefore the type of prestige that he brings to his University, is not hard science research. I only went with Philosophy because something like the God Delusion can definitely be placed into a metaphysical (or anti-metaphysical?) tradition.

@thomasnash: @jazz_bcaz: @peakborn: Thanks for the clarification on what Oxbridge meant! When my brain saw the word, I think it literally just went "Nope, that's a nonsense word" and just converted it to Oxford instead, which is why I thought to bring up the omission of Cambridge. Interesting that those two get lumped together.

It's because they are the two oldest Universities in the UK by quite some margin. Oxford is late 11th Century and Cambridge is early 13th. Universities in England are broadly chronologically divided into Ancient Universities (Oxbridge, then 200 or so years later Universities in Scotland and Ireland), Red Brick Universities (late 19th Century universities like Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol, generally in the new Industrial centres of the UK) and "Plate Glass" universities from the 1960s (UEA, Warwick, Essex and others). There's also "New" Universities which are generally polytechnics that have been given a University Charter in the last 20 years or so. I think the last Poly to get its charter was Anglia Polytechnic in Cambridge (now Anglia Ruskin) which has a nice symmetry to it.

So put simply, they get lumped together because they are the oldest universities in the UK, and also the only two ancient universities in England.

#10 Posted by thomasnash (556 posts) -

@peakborn said:

@bisonhero: Oxbridge refers to any of the colleges under the university of Oxford or Cambridge banners (some of which have the same name). Both are prestigious at whatever they do really just due to their history, kinda like the Ivy league I guess.

That's sort of true, but they are definitely prestigious in different areas. Oxford tends to be seen as the place to be for humanities, particularly literature and history. More recently it's been (in)famous for its PPE degrees, having produced a large number of our current ruling class.

Cambridge is definitely seen as the "science" one, mostly because of the Nuffield centre but also because Cambridge has a very significant tech industry which probably makes up the bulk of its non tourist and non academic economy. When I was growing up it was quite a centre for battles between animal rights activists and scientist who tested on animals at the science park. I remember a guy on my street posting letters to all the neighbours apologising for the vandalism of his property by protestors.

I think it would also be fair to say that in terms of their prestigious history, the great moments of Cambridge's history have been scientific. Newton was a Cambridge fellow, as was Christopher Wren. IIRC Watson and Crick worked at Cambridge for some amount of time at the Cavendish laboratory, and I seem to remember hearing that the atom was split for the first time in some fellow's bedroom. It was a Cambridge scientist who made the first steps in showing that cloning was viable by doing experiments on frogspawn.

Maybe someone can correct me, and there is a similar list of scientific achievementss for Oxford, but the only Oxford scientific product that springs to mind immediately is Richard Dawkins, who is at least partly a philosopher at this point! Geoffrey Hill (often called Britains finest living poet) is an Oxford Don I think (while the school of poetry known as the Cambridge School remains fairly obscure). Alan Bennet went to Oxford as well I think.

Anyway, all this is totally irrelevant, I just thought people might be interested. I've definitely always had an impression that Cambridge is the "science" one.