Jump to content

Zane_Marlowe

Members
  • Posts

    457
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by Zane_Marlowe

  1. I think it's a little early to say. Let's see how season three goes, many shows that start out well (as many seem to think about this one) lose their focus and momentum after a few seasons. It's got enough critical acclaim that it will stick around for at least season four I think. Time will tell, but if it does, it won't be predictable from anything on the table now: this series could go up or down from where it's at now.
  2. I think people deserved a rest from the intensity of the season 2-3 cliffhanger series. In his podcast (which I find to be quite illuminating from a story perspective), Ron Moore talked about the latest round of one-off episodes as necessary to balance the show's budget. I also think you need some time to move the characters and relationships forward after the season three opener (as in the boxing episode and the Tigh arc) and there are other threats out there (as in last week's episode). Nonetheless, I'll be glad to see the Cylons assert their continuing menacing presence
  3. Hi Friends, Just a note to let you know that I'm resigning my position as Vice Fleet Leader of ISS. Marc Wubbema will be ably filling in, and has had the acting job for some time now. My next assignment is a semi-autonomous position whose exact nature I'm not free to divulge to anyone outside of top ISS leadership. However, GALCOM's enemies will undoubtedly begin to find it harder to sleep at night.
  4. What an actually disappointing article. There's nothing that actually answers the question except the complaint that there's a dearth of the appropriate software. That's a business problem, not a linux/windows problem. Is that because of the kind of business model you have in Linux? Is it because of Linux's software in some way? I didn't find this very informative.
  5. The iron resolve bit was about putting the Galactica in atmo knowing full well that the ship is a brick with no maneuvering and it would hit the ground. You have to launch vipers and then jump again or the whole thing's over, and you're doing it without having studied the variables involved. The very next time we see the ship, it's a mess, and I take it that the fact that they survived at all is something significant. It's not the act of a a super intellect, but of a hard commander who's got the stones to risk a lot to make things happen. I feel like the show's got integrity insofar as he's got to pay for it though. It was because they did something that risky that they lost the Pegasus, which was a serious loss considering its more effective combat power relative to Galactica. So that's what I mean by "iron resolve," just that they do the job by putting themselves into a more dangerous position, and it's because they pay for it most of the time (and know that they will) that I enjoy it. It takes character to do that I think, and that's what I enjoy. Also, I don't think I was claiming that you didn't care for the characters, I was just saying in general that if someone doesn't care for the characters, then they lose some investment in the show (which I think is a rather uncontroversial claim). If you care for some of the characters, then you're probably partly invested (at least since you apparently keep watching). That said, who do you not like, and why? And what bits of acting did you feel were "b" material?
  6. If you don't care about the characters, you don't care about the show. Action in that show works because you have a stake in the people. I think the latest episode is the latest of many examples that the action isn't about outsmarting the bad guys with some preternatural intelligence or tactics. It's about iron resolve to put yourself in harm's way and throw yourself into the breach. It costs the characters something to do that each and every time, but it's the right thing for them to do, and we cheer when they do it.
  7. Hey Eclipse. Try holding your third mouse button and mousing up or down. I thought that changed it for me in ground battles. I could be wrong.
  8. quote:Originally posted by Eclipse: ...Camera rotation is locked in ground combat making it hard to get the view you need.There's a control in there for this, I've rotated and zoomed the camera often. Also, I think the idea of the unit cap was to promote combined arms since you have to make sure that you have the right ratio of different kinds of units. (At least that's the way it forced ME to play.) This is an aesthetic issue however, and I didn't like it in Warcraft 3 for the same reason then. Try the imperial side if you want lots of space stuff, the tie squadrons are once the destroyers are deployed.
  9. Hmm, big screen, wireless, subscriptions instead of individual song purchases, works with existing formats, Microsoft's budget and built-in OS support... What am I missing here besides Apple's head start?
  10. quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: I think that Edward Norton is the most underrated actor or our time.Here, here. I will see pretty much anything with him in it because he's not just talented, he's good at picking projects to work on. I'm also pretty sure that most of the time his movies aren't going to be same old formula stuff. Good stuff all around, nuff said.
  11. Okay, just got back from seeing this. It's in limited release right now, but it was excellent. Great performances by Edward Norton and Paul Giamatti. Jessica Beals was okay. She didn't add anything amazing but she didn't drag the movie down either. I enjoyed again seeing one of my favorite under-appreciated actors, Rufus Sewell (see Dark City if you haven't). I don't have the technical resources to be too specific about how the lighting and cinematography worked, but I thought everything looked really good. 9/10
  12. I'm going to give it better marks as well. Being about "story" is not an instant turn-off for me. I DO think that he should have cast someone else instead of himself in that role, but I thought that the reason I watched it was for the reasons Aramike suggested as well as the fact that the scenes between the characters were lots of fun. 7/10
  13. ontopic: "A Scanner Darkly" is the title to Philip K. Dick's book, and is an updated reference to the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:12. "For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then shall I know, even as also I am known." Paul's referring to the next world, but Dick's novel is about a deep cover narcotics cop and what he "sees" in the course of his work. I've read the book, and I'll be interested to see if the movie is as smart. Don't judge a book...
  14. I'm also Christian, and I'm not sure what theology would be compromised by Jesus' having had offspring. I'm not interested in entertaining a theology discussion here, so I'll just leave it at that, but I think the thing that Christians get riled at Dan Brown for is that his book seems to take a lot of cheap shots at organized religion as such, and one might feel properly defensive about such broad strokes as I'm told his writing makes (I haven't read it yet). Find me any human institution (religious or not) that survives a thousand years with that degree of social power that doesn't have its ups and downs. I tend to think Christianity has done about as well as anyone could ask relatively speaking. As far as the movie went, I enjoyed the mystery of it, although I agree with the reviewer from AICN who said that when McKellen appeared that we got too much too early. I'm a bit of a pushover too though since I'm not so demanding as long as I'm entertained.
  15. Rubbish to the tune of approximately 77 million according to box office headlines I'm reading.
  16. Of all the things to get in pissing contests about... Sheesh! These characters appeal to people for different reasons, and liking both is possible, but they're apples and oranges. Superman's great because he's NOT dark Scriv. Superman will not be a gorefest with hardcore sexuality or terrifying and depraved departures into mental aberrancy. (Not that such things describe Batman, but I'm anticipating one of Scriv's normal reviews.) Believe it or not, that's NOT because the directors and editors were censored by Hollywood execs afraid to stir the moral center of the American middle class! The flying man in blue tights has lasted in spite of the blue tights (not because of them) because we like to see wonder and goodness. That's not what's great about Batman, but it's good enough for my nine bucks.
  17. I think we're going to be pleasantly surprised at the quality of the presentation, but I just personally have a hard time getting behind this Superman, Routh just seems a little too pretty and skinny. He's got a good honest look, but he looks real young, and I just think he should have been ... thicker, for lack of a better term.
  18. I haven't stopped playing Empire at War since I got it.
  19. I suppose it's lost in the shuffle that the wiretapping in question is on calls placed internationally that we have probably cause to suspect are terror-related. Our Bay Area and Great White Northern friends are perhaps a little to the left of the American mainstream which, if memory serves, runs about 40% to each party and 20% in the mushy middle (basically, people who vote on Charisma and single issues, not on their own worked out political theory). In other words, conservatives will continue to vote conservative (because the alternative is always worse); liberals will continue to vote liberal. Third parties won't get anywhere because neither side wants a Perot or Nader to siphon off a winning margin from their base. Those in the middle will vote for the guy with the best hair. That's really just about it. The one thing I'll say at present is that America will continue to vote conservative as long as conservatives have a discernible and cohesive political philosophy. Americans know where conservatives stand. Liberals do not seem to have much of an organized platform here since they're busier trying to make conservatives look bad than they are with trying to make themselves look good or at least get a coherent set of ideas behind a single message. Watch what the American political left is doing for a message and you won't hear a platform, you'll hear a host of "the problem with the president" or "Bush blah blah blah" or something about how America is going to be doomed by some fateful social problem. Conservatives have won because they proposed their own initiatives and ideas and ran on them. I'm not seeing the same from the American left.
  20. I don't know, but it is a high fidelity sim, so there is a learning curve. I can say that I didn't find it a hassle, there is a good manual in PDF that walks you through things one step at a time. Anyone still game for this?
  21. Others have used "fracking," before BSG, but I don't think that term was so widely distributed before now.
  22. Well, I know I'm dragging up an old thread, but I finally got the dough and bought this title. I'm taking my time and learning how to do things right; interested parties can PM me and we'll fly some missions some evening. Also, check out multiviperforums.com for a decent online server. Clear Skies
  23. That winnebago story's an urban legend, I've heard it before. Check snopes.com.
  24. I did the mission as described, and actually managed to succeed in killing the primary and secondary targets with the tactics described (though I lost two guys early). I also played all the other FPS missions a few times. First, a general thought on how UCAWA's 1st person operates. The main thing that makes UCAWA FPS different from other FPS is the range at which engagements occur. Because we can see infantry on radar far beyond the range where they can engage, there's no surprises about what you're facing. So the question is then, what does it take to line up a shot? I'm often engaging enemies at extreme ranges, sometimes when I can see them, sometimes when I can't, and usually when they're very tiny at whatever range I'm able to see them. If they successfully close, then I'm a bad shot, or there are a lot of them. I think that anything that can either 1) shorten detection distance for both player and AI), 2) speed up closure rates, or 3) extend one's ability to site an enemy (so they're not so tiny) will improve gameplay. Some specific thoughts/questions: Is there some reason why we can't move on a two-axis diagonal (i.e., strafing + forward or backward)? Vertex Shader Foliage is uniformly high enough to make it difficult to see through unless I'm looking down an incline (and therefore have a height advantage). I wouldn't care about this except it doesn't seem to similarly impede my enemies from seeing and shooting me. I thought UC allowed you to turn this foliage off, but UCAWA doesn't. I read the part about IVM not being meant for shooting. I get that it's a separate device. On the other hand, it's also true that we have nightvision scopes for snipers now, and our special forces guys who use nightvision can still use their iron sights to shoot while wearing that headgear. Is it out of the question to have nightvision + some form of targeting? If not, then I'm curious about what the bad guys sight distance is in darkness. Are they adversely affected as I am? The most important problem I've had is being able to tell who's who when an ally and an enemy are of the same marine type and are standing near me: I'm not sure who to shoot since they're indistinguishable! I think Denny was referring to thise earlier, and this comes out mainly in "furballs" where me and a few helpers are in the middle of an enemy engagement and people are running and gunning everywhere. Without there being different skins (or even different tints of the same skin!), there needs to be some quick visual reference when I've got someone in my crosshairs that tells me they're an enemy. (This the fundamental concept behind uniforms in combat I think.) While zoomed, it is sometimes difficult to track a moving target because (it seems to me) my view is still rotating at the unzoomed rate. If there were a little mouse-smoothing while zoomed, I'd have a much easier time engaging targets at range. It would be good if there were directional references in the mission briefing text, so I know that my extraction is (for instance) 1.5 km North of the target. Additionally, if there were some way of seeing objectives without getting into the comm screen, I'd feel much safer when I'm double-checking my mission parameters in the midst of my enemies. Is there some functional purpose to having an image of the weapon I'm holding in my hand in the lower left of the HUD? I can already see the weapon, so I should know what I'm holding. Is there any way to show range to target (the HUD map "T") on the map display on the top right of the HUD? That would help a LOT when I'm closing with enemies I can't see very well. I'm not sure the HUD's too busy, but I will say that many FPS have a minimal HUD (or one that fades info in and out as selections are made). In UCAWA, an intermediate info level between no HUD and full HUD, perhaps just containing ammo count, heath, and a crosshair (or some equally minimal amount of info) could be very helpful. The only time I drop the HUD completely is when I am taking a screenshot and need NONE of the functionality, but rarely do I need to see it all. (Could some of the HUD info be toggled on/off per key commands so people could include what they chose?) Something I remembered as helpful in BF2 (which had been mentioned briefly before) was the notion of being able to distinguish what general direction you've been hit from (which IRL you'd feel the impact from, even if it's not a light from heaven illumining the foul shooter). Just a quick flash or signal on one side of the screen or another would help immensely. Buildings do not seem to contribute enough as obstacles since they seem to be layed out for air/space interaction. If buildings were more complex (as models) then you could have stairways, alleys, and other kinds of urban terrain that would compress combat distance. Without making the building models more complex, you might accomplish something like that if the buildings themselves were closer together and people were weaving in and out of them, perching on top of them and shooting into smaller lanes, etc. The only people that can really take advantage of battles in cities or bases are the MIM people who can get on roofs and shoot down (which is lots of fun). The other marine types have long walks to get around the buildings, and the space between them are such that sometimes you can't see an enemy on the "other side of the street." Well, that's a lot of stuff, but I've been at this for a few days since the topic started and I didn't want to post until I'd studied. Hope it's useful. Edit: I just read the VCF for .12, and I'll be interested in seeing if the changes in the radar ranges and VTT labeling fix much of the "Uniform" problem.
  25. Anyone listening to the Podcast commentaries? I didn't feel it was wussing out to pull back from that possibility. Cain had her victory over the Cylon fleet, Adama was reluctant to do it in the first place, and officers historically dislike the subterfuge of what each had planned. Loved it, am fascinated and will continue to watch avidly. I'm actually buying them the day after and watching them on my TV with my video iPod that I got for Christmas!
×
×
  • Create New...