Duke4.net Forums: SpotsSpot'sSpots - Viewing Profile - Duke4.net Forums

Jump to content

Hide message Show message
Welcome to the Duke4.net Forums!

Register an account now to get access to all board features. After you've registered and logged in, you'll be able to create topics, post replies, send and receive private messages, disable the viewing of ads and more!

Reputation: 2438 My posts turn threads into gold
Active Posts:
2,240 (0.5 per day)
Most Active In:
Duke Nukem Forever General Discussion (275 posts)
19-December 05
Profile Views:
Last Active:
User is offline Feb 20 2018 10:30 PM

My Information

Age Unknown
Birthday Unknown
Not Telling Not Telling

Contact Information


Posts I've Made

  1. In Topic: Newcomer Perspective

    27 January 2018 - 10:20 PM

    View Postspessu_sb, on 26 January 2018 - 01:57 PM, said:

    Here's hoping somehow one day one way or another, the early betas do get released into the internet. That just sounds like something that the world has gotta see. It's simply just too big of a thing to keep as secret, sounds truly fun game design to me.

    To be 100% honest I'm not sure any of the archived builds would clearly demonstrate this concept though some of them may have all the ingredients. Those who have access to legacy builds certainly know about my test map(s) that expanded through the years, but this combination in particular barely lived as anything but an idea and one room in a Rob Faison test map. The inventory items were setup and live, but the "production" game space itself never had the chance to try it out because design direction had already shifted and well... "massive staffing adjustments" *cough* followed shortly thereafter.
  2. In Topic: Newcomer Perspective

    21 January 2018 - 08:39 PM

    View Postspessu_sb, on 15 January 2018 - 03:54 PM, said:

    I would actually like to see the 2001 or/and 2007/9 versions, just to see how much (if) DNF 2011 really did wrong. I know that 2001 game did most deflinitely not have any wallboobs, "gloryholes", or whatever brown throwing simulators. Just by you looking at those screens and that iconic trailer, will instantly notice how that was a way more self taking serious game/vision than 2011.

    To be fair, the 2001 version had a Dance Dance Revolution minigame with a stripper in the game room of the Slick Willy.

    There was poo in the 2001-2003 period, but it was presented very differently. I can't say it was "serious" but it was context appropriate and not overplayed (think shrunken sequence under a remote desert facility). As for what was released... necro was spot on in explaining. It's the presentation that sucks the most. It was supposed to be an obscure secret that makes people go "Oh god I shouldn't be surprised, but I'm still surprised they actually did that".

    I've mentioned it before but the same stands for microwaving the rat.

    View Postspessu_sb, on 18 January 2018 - 02:56 AM, said:

    I never digged the whole beer power up really and thus on my intial playthrough I pretty much played it entirely without it. To me it just felt such stupid and gimmicky. However afterwards I have adjusted a bit to it, actually sometimes even use it.

    1-2 beers were supposed to be plenty useful for damage mitigation in normal combat without negatively affecting your vision/controls in any meaningful way. A full 6 pack was supposed to be for very specific encounters where you basically were presented with a combat puzzle that while possibly doable with normal combat... there was the "correct" way.

    Light up a stogie, chug a six pack of 40's, and pop some roids. The cigar regenerated health (ego) cause ya look cool. A full 6 pack mitigated *most* damage cause you're feeling no pain. The roids made your fists/boot instant death.

    So say the player gets presented with a room of a seemingly impossible wall of pigcops and octobrains in an open arena. But behold there's a fridge right before you enter well stocked. The best way to deal with it is reduce the ego hits to a minimum (beer), automatically regen ego whenever you do lose some (cigar), and punch the every living daylights (roids) out of any blurry object that crosses your view. It was an absolute bloody mess once you could see clearly again.

    You'd definitely need to hydrate from a non-poo toilet afterwards though.
  3. In Topic: Net Neutrality....2.0? 3.0?

    16 December 2017 - 05:28 PM

    View PostForge, on 16 December 2017 - 05:18 PM, said:

    Posting someone's reddit spooge isn't reality.

    It's a handy launching point. I don't expect you to land there.

    View PostForge, on 16 December 2017 - 05:18 PM, said:

    The only thing ISPs have to do is disclose what they're doing with your service. Which they can bury 10 feet deep under a log in the middle of the woods, along with your what's in the opt-out private information sold to third parties list.

    Like every other business. I mean if we're gonna start getting uppity about this sort of thing, the medical industry is operating on a completely different plane of existence that renders these sort of things motes not even worth notes.

    View PostForge, on 16 December 2017 - 05:18 PM, said:

    That's why I mentioned quite a bit earlier that people better completely read their contracts and privacy statements from now on.

    Did you read your cell phone contract? What about your credit card contract? How about what a child's Birth Certificate contract actually means?

    It's genuinely interesting to me the easily drummed up outrage over this, when there are *far* more flagrant abuses along these lines (medical, debt, legal standing) that don't even register on the radar.

    These companies are going to want your money and going to do the same thing that extended warranty on your car you just bought are doing. Yes it's up to you to read what you're getting into. But there is the ability for there to be a market *option* again. Your data is already being sold... your online history is easily gotten by nearly any agency that can get a judge to ask for it, etc.
  4. In Topic: Net Neutrality....2.0? 3.0?

    16 December 2017 - 05:01 PM

    View PostForge, on 16 December 2017 - 04:59 PM, said:

    a mesh net, or other derivative of it? I already mentioned that socialist idiocy.

    You miss the point, they should be able to choose their mesh and we should encourage them to embrace the idea of product choice.

    View PostForge, on 16 December 2017 - 04:59 PM, said:

    Letting the ISPs regulate themselves is like letting the FBI to internally review themselves.

    The ISPs aren't regulating themselves. They are under a different set of regulations with different opportunities and consequences. Go back and start over...

    Note: I added some extra to the First Amendment comment in my reply to Hank.
  5. In Topic: Net Neutrality....2.0? 3.0?

    16 December 2017 - 04:43 PM

    View PostHank, on 16 December 2017 - 04:27 PM, said:

    I can't help getting the impression that some people here some are missing the so the called big picture:...

    We probably all feel that way. ;)

    View PostHank, on 16 December 2017 - 04:27 PM, said:

    Can we trust...


    View PostHank, on 16 December 2017 - 04:27 PM, said:

    ...to assure the First Amendment

    You don't have a First Amendment.

    You may think I'm just being sarcastic but I'm not. The *product* FAANG offers is heavily influenced by its need to satisfy US customers who do have a First Amendment. This influences the planet even in regions that don't. However, FAANG has recently been able to flaunt this and... again... it has consequences for the planet. If FAANG suddenly had to worry about people paying extra for internet packages that block advertisements, or accepting cheaper packages that didn't offer FAANG... suddenly they have a *real* product quality problem on their hand. The consequences again... ripple out and grant a shadow of First Amendment to the planet.

    View PostHank, on 16 December 2017 - 04:27 PM, said:

    ...without coherent laws enforcing it?

    It was during the two years of Net Neutrality being active that massive censorship finally started to take off. And it's not because the tech ability wasn't there prior to 2015. It's because these couple of companies thought they had the market locked down where people weren't having to make meaningful cost/benefit decisions about using their services and products, so they endured far more than they normally would if the use of these high consumption services *also* carried specific personal costs.

    View PostHank, on 16 December 2017 - 04:27 PM, said:

    ...the young Internet is interactive, it's not just a one way media avenue for entertainment, it is a communication tool, first and foremost.

    Yes, which is why people should be given the ability to compete against the mega-telecoms again by offering a service that may be higher priced initially, but as word spreads costs can drop while those using the major telecoms can realize they aren't getting what they really want with their investment. However without the ability to enter a high price market to prove the viability, there is ZERO capacity for anyone but the major telecoms to offer services that customers actually want.

    What you seem to be missing is AT&T is thinking it can outcompete Comcast in their regions of influence and vice versa. That's why they want this stuff rolled back, because right now it makes zero sense to try. I would also like it to finally be viable for Google to find a way to do their fiber rollout in a profitable way without constantly being blunted by the current market structure.

    You want things to be where AT&T or Google can look at a city in the US (or Canada) and go "I think it would be worth investing in lobbying that regional government to allow us to lay some new infrastructure and we'll be able to steal all of Comcast's customers". The threat alone is part of what will help keep prices in check.

All copyrights and trademarks are property of their respective owners. Yes, our forum uses cookies. © 2017 Voidpoint, LLC

Enter your sign in name and password

Sign in options