Should we also care about enemies who jump into bottomless pits in stage 1? How about those who get scrolled offscreen in stage 3? We know getting scrolled means certain death in that stage. What about item carriers and stuff like spiky walls in stage 6—should we save those? What if saving enemies in stages 2 and 4 from being caught in the explosions cost several seconds per screen, increasing total time of the TAS by minutes? What if we need to "sacrifice" an enemy or two so that more could survive? That's a completely plausible scenario if you really want to push it that far with the pacifism idea.
I think it's not as important to truly live up to some fun idealistic concept such as being pacifist in a shooter, as it is important to make a movie that is fun to produce and, most certainly, fun to watch. It may be closer to the any% that way, but if it means I won't have to wait for meddling enemies to escape with their lives every time, that's totally fine by me.
I think the discord happens because you define pacifist as preventing enemy deaths, if possible, while the runs have so far aimed for not actively killing enemies. The latter is easy to conform to, the former... well, not so. It's ambiguous and somewhat pointless, because in this case the best way to prevent the deaths of the entire island's worth of enemies is to game over at the last boss.
I see no problem with an easter egg like that. As long as it's documented in the movie description, I don't think anybody would have a problem with it.
I seem to remember watching such a run, but can't find it anywhere?.. Odd, must be my memory playing tricks on me.
Edit: Nope, here it is, albeit an any% and not a 100%. Found it in my smv folder. I think I'll add the link to the published glitched run's description.
Actually CRTs are awesome for low resolution, because instead of ugly blur (or having the fullscreen image reduced to a small patch in the center, if you choose 1:1 mapping) you get sharp graphics with unintrusive scanlines. Unfortunately, gaming is the only thing CRTs are good for nowadays. :\
I know there are people out there who always want "the best", and that's why the 580/6990 are out there. But I'm not rich (or crazy) enough to spend $400~600 for something that'll be obsolete in 8-10 years. For that kind of money, I'd want it to last that long and I know it wouldn't xD.
8–10? Try 3–4 if you want to be realistic. I'm currently using a factory-overclocked GTX 460 (the 1 GB model) and a 1600x900 monitor; so far the 460 has been quite sufficient for games I've played—which, admittedly, aren't numerous. If I looked for a new card now, I would have happily settled on 560 Ti; I don't use multisampling, it's too inefficient.
I've found that the best time to buy any hardware is after a significant price drop, or at least at some point where the price doesn't considerably fluctuate from month to month. New lineups usually trigger that kind of price drops, so Atma's suggestion is reasonable. Maybe, however unlikely, there will even be something new that performs better than 6870 at the same market price.
Also make sure to keep an eye on comprehensive tests that calculate per-$ efficiency; obviously the formulas will be different for every site, but generally they won't contradict each other. I use iXBT.com for the reference, but it's in Russian. The last table on the page is sorted by per-$ efficiency, with the rightmost column being the average price, and the one in front of it the performance index (all data from October '11).
Your current GPU is stronger than those found inside XBox360 or PS3, so any cross-platform title is going to work just fine on your GPU if you configure the detail levels similar to the console version.
The assumption seems logical, but, unfortunately, it's completely detached from the practice. First of all, most of the demanding games run mostly at 30 fps, often dipping into 15-20 (I'm not kidding, this happens on both the X360 and PS3 even in very mundane scenarios). This sucks on a console you can't make faster in any way, but on PC, a platform where you have total control over performance, this is completely unacceptable. Then, a good deal of the demanding games don't run at 1080p natively, and are, in fact, upscaled. Weren't you wondering why the performance difference between 640x480 and 1920x1080 takes at least an order of magnitude on a PC, but is barely noticeable on a console?
Tub wrote:
There's no need to get a new monitor for each upgrade, nor any of the other things I quoted.
Duh?.. I was talking about building a system from ground up. My last upgrade, for one, consisted of me swapping a GTX 460 in place of a 7600 GS. Instant upgrade!
Using modern consumer-grade hardware for over 4-5 years non-stop isn't advisable, anyway, as it has its own unavoidable wear. This is especially the case with PSUs and capacitor-heavy components, as well as mechanical ones such as HDDs and mice.
Tub wrote:
An average 100$ 5.1 sound system will last more than 10 years and is well worth the price. In 10 years, you'll have bitten through enough headphone cables and rubbed off enough of the ear-protecting foam that the proper sound system may still be cheaper in the long run..
5.1 is a waste of space and money. A 2.0 system bought for the same price will sound much better and will have a broader focus. There are very objective reasons for that, as well as the fact that all professional sound equipment is based on stereo.
And for the record, during the last ten years I've gone through nine pairs of headphones, and not a single one of them died at home. :)
Of course in order to make such compromises one has to resist the urge of thinking like "it's only half as fast as the best one, that's nothing! It will barely be able to run any modern game!" In reality even the slightly older, but quite cheap, cards are able to run modern games pretty decently. They might get obsoleted faster, but OTOH you only invested on tenth of the money, so you can buy a better one for that same price in a year or two, and you are still way ahead in the benefit/cost ratio (compared to if you had bought the best card right away).
Oh, that's true, but I'm not talking top of the line, far from it. That's only counting the best-bang-for-the-buck hardware that is able to run any modern game without giving you eye cancer. That's just how the two industries are balancing each other, which shouldn't come off surprising in any way.
For instance, an average Sandy Bridge-based system here would cost:
a motherboard — ≈75$;
i3-2140 w/fan — ≈160$;
two 2 GB sticks of DDR3-1333 — ≈25$;
Radeon HD 6850 — ≈150$;
a couple HDDs (one for system and temp files, one for games and stuff) — ≈160$;
a 80+ standard 500+ watt PSU — ≈70$;
a DVDRW drive — ≈20$;
a roomy thick-walled tower case — ≈60$;
a set of minimally-comfortable peripherals — ≈30$;
a set of non-shitty headphones (because it's cheaper to get acceptable sound out of headphones) — ≈20$;
a TN-based 20"+ monitor — ≈150$.
Total: 920$.
That's a reasonably cheap rig made of above-average components that are expected not to fail before the next upgrade. It's not terribly comfortable, pretty, or silent, and the visual and sound quality are average at best, but it gets the job done.
Edit: Forgot an optical drive.
You know what's funny? Back in 2000, when I got my first computer, assembling a good, balanced gaming system cost around $1000 (sans the software). Hardware has changed, games have changed, but assembling a good, balanced gaming system still costs around $1000.
If there's equilibrium anywhere, there it is.
HD 6870 is a good card, GF 560 Ti is as well. They should be quite enough if you aren't hell-bent on combining huge resolutions with multisampling. It's cheaper to get a decent card every two years or so than investing lots in one "dream card" that will serve you just a few months more before the next game with killer graphics comes out. If anything, more powerful cards are often louder, larger, and need more watts to run.
That's hardly deniable. I think the question is more about what to do with the current one: either delay it until a new one is made (to be on the safe side), then cancel, or publish it right away and have it obsoleted in a few days/weeks.
«Так и сказал бы», ага, а вот ты взял бы и сам бы подумал бы. :D
Смотри, для чего нам вообще нужен этот перевод? Вряд ли чтобы заполнить квоту: «ну всё, теперь там есть русские буквы — покатит».
Мы хотим, чтобы текст был простым, понятным и не вызывал отторжения у носителя русского языка. Для этого его нужно написать просто, понятно и по-русски. Если ты будешь последовательно переводить отдельные слова, даже не меняя структуру предложений, то моментально перегрузишь текст (деепричастями, англицизмами, канцеляритом и подобным мусором) — что и произошло с твоим переводом. И потом — английский вариант тоже не идеален, не надо к нему присасываться.
Я не говорю, что нужно заново сочинять смысл сказанного — хотя переводчикам Шекспира, например, практически этим и приходилось заниматься, чтобы не угробить рифму. Нужно передавать смысл на другом языке, учитывая, что ты передаёшь его другой аудитории с другой культурой, другой лексикой* и вообще почти всем. И плевать, что отдельное слово может потеряться, если смысл будет таким же и без него. Попробуй переписать текст так, как предлагаю я.
* Вообще далеко не все русские и английские слова, которые имеют однозначный перевод в словаре, взаимозаменимы. Например, «друг» в русском языке — не эквивалент английского «friend». Куда ближе к правде сочетания «знакомый — friend» и «друг — close friend» (поэтому «друзья» в социальных сетях и блогах так бесят; это сраная калька с английского, которая не имеет ничего общего со значением слова «друг»). Словари сосут; изучай культуру и мысли её контекстом.
Используя эти инструменты, мы превосходим человеческие способности прохождения игр с максимальной точностью, развлекая зрителей тем, как наши игроки проносятся сквозь игры на невозможных скоростях. Конечный результат нашей работы представляет собой последовательности кнопочных нажатий, которые могут быть посланы игровой приставке и дать тот же результат, что и на эмуляторе.
Прочти этот абзац вслух, пожалуйста. Прочти его кому-нибудь и спроси, что они поняли. В реальной жизни так могут разговаривать только наши госслужащие и юристы. %)
Во-первых, английский и русский — слишком разные языки, чтобы считать переводом последовательную замену слов. Зачем насиловать восприятие текста убогим подобием дословности? Во-вторых, английский текст контекстно оптимизирован под ссылки на важные страницы. Поскольку не все эти страницы будут переведены (а переводить некоторые из них я вообще не вижу смысла), нам необязательно на них ссылаться — а значит, необязательно строить предложения вокруг ссылок.
Предлагаю такой воркфлоу:
1) возьми абзац из оригинального текста;
2) выпиши все идеи и смыслы (чем проще — тем лучше), которые в нём видишь, в буллетированный список;
3) закрой оригинал и больше на него не смотри;
4) связно и красиво изложи идеи из списка по-русски.
Вернёмся к тому абзацу и выпишем из него идеи:
— тулзы делают игрока намного точнее, чем это возможно;
— с тулзами можно проходить игры очень быстро;
— быстрое и точное прохождение выглядит красиво;
— результат использования тулзов — запись нажатий на кнопки;
— её можно скормить приставке и посмотреть прохождение на ней.
Похоже на правду? Теперь давай попробуем записать это, как понятный текст, а не как договор-оферту на лизинг ПО:
Тулзы позволяют нам управлять игровым персонажем с абсолютной точностью, которой лишены даже самые лучшие игроки. Мы не тратим время на лишние движения; наша цель — пройти игру быстрее, чем можно вообразить. В результате мы получаем запись нажатий на кнопки, которую можно воспроизвести в эмуляторе, а в некоторых случаях — и на настоящей приставке.
Это набросок; я использую в нём слово «тулзы», потому что по-хорошему нам бы не мешало сначала обсудить перевод местного лексикона, а уже потом клепать тексты. Ещё там есть ряд не шибко удачных сочетаний слов («быстрее, чем можно вообразить» и «на настоящей» немного раздражают) и прочих тупых мелочей, не выражена идея красоты таса, но у меня сейчас нет времени на всём этом заморачиваться. Придумай свой вариант — может, у тебя получится лучше.
100 miles? You guys are luckier than you think. According to their official site there are 93 of them in Moscow alone. Yep, that means they're within walking distance from each other.
That's definitely not the case here. Back in USSR we were encouraged to brush our teeth as a part of morning/evening hygienic procedures; breakfast on the go, however, didn't even exist here until the last 1.5 decades or so.
I think the immoral part here is that we don't have to go through any risk (or any effort at all) to kill for food. In that sense we're now closer to carrion eaters than hunters. Many vegetarians I've asked say they would have no problem eating meat of an animal they'd hunted in person.
Amusingly, I had to look twice to notice vast superiority any significant change at all. :D Somehow the large brown enemy in the bottom right corner caught a few new artifacts as well. I'm sure the 4:4:4 version will take over in the Last Cave or some other place where there is a lot of red.
