The "PC Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This thread has been linked to the game 'Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas'.
Is now available!!!! I've heard about a pirate version being circulated around. Ages before its release. And unlike the pirate version of Halflife 2, it apparently works quite well.
I'll post a review if I get my grubby mits on a copy.
I'll post a review if I get my grubby mits on a copy.
Page:
*sheesh* LH is always getting into arguments...
Little Hobbo wrote:
> Any
> code, no matter how basic, no matter how crude, whether objective
> based or not, whether you progress levels or not, and basically
> whatever state it is in is still 'playable code'. Playable does not
> mean enjoyable. Completely different? Not a chance fella, simply a
> lot more basic.
Which is why I explained what I meant by playable... you're doing that handy trick of only reading the bits you want to read again, aren't you?
> I strongly suspect by the ignorance of half of that post, that you
> actually have no idea what you are talking about
And I strongly suspect the only reason you ever replied was to say "I know some code - aren't I l337!!!1". You've picked up on one small point, totally missed the meaning, and ran off on one.
> Any
> code, no matter how basic, no matter how crude, whether objective
> based or not, whether you progress levels or not, and basically
> whatever state it is in is still 'playable code'. Playable does not
> mean enjoyable. Completely different? Not a chance fella, simply a
> lot more basic.
Which is why I explained what I meant by playable... you're doing that handy trick of only reading the bits you want to read again, aren't you?
> I strongly suspect by the ignorance of half of that post, that you
> actually have no idea what you are talking about
And I strongly suspect the only reason you ever replied was to say "I know some code - aren't I l337!!!1". You've picked up on one small point, totally missed the meaning, and ran off on one.
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> Little Hobbo wrote:
> A sweeping statement, and very well covered by subtle use of the
> word
> 'significant'.
>
> Subtle? Was as black and white as anything else in the article.
> Well, I suppose you did struggle to note other things plainly
> written... such as the whole jist of your problem seems to be that I
> somehwere siad there is no coding until late in the process... nope,
> no playable code - a totally differnet things.
> Just to clarify something that is simply someone spoiling for an
> excuse to sund snooty, "significant" was used as tech demo
> etc will inevitably at some stange involve interaction from a tester.
> This could be called "playable" if you're really pushing
> it, but without a context, goal, any form of progression, depth etc
> etc it can hardly be called a playable demo.
Oof!! If you write code as well as you spell you'll still be debugging by the new year. And what are babbling on about? Any code, no matter how basic, no matter how crude, whether objective based or not, whether you progress levels or not, and basically whatever state it is in is still 'playable code'. Playable does not mean enjoyable. Completely different? Not a chance fella, simply a lot more basic.
> I have been involved in the creation of a small
> budget game for a Uni project, and I wholeheartedly disagree with
> that ridiculous concept you so boldly proclaim.
>
> Therein lies one problem, in smaller scale games the same extent of
> preparatory work isn't necessary. Coding at this stage will be
> largely engine based, the tech demos I mentioned to test the
> feasibility of new ideas. For super raw titles without a suit of
> source tools this is also when you'd be coming up with things such as
> an easily managable program to layout levels, and the general
> building blocks that'll you eventually blend together into a whole
> world. Note: there's still nothing playable there...
> Basic coding is neccessary all the way through the production
> process, to test speeds, angles, movement and a myriad other
> parameters that are not visible to the multitudes.
>
> There's those tech demos again...
>
> The final usable
> code may not be written until a late stage, but basic stuff is used
> from start to finish.
>
> And on the bigger scale the project, the more there is to bring
> together in those final few months to make something you could
> actually sit down and play.
I strongly suspect by the ignorance of half of that post, that you actually have no idea what you are talking about, and that you are simply bluffing to try and retain a little pride. Even if what you were saying was indeed true for one or two late-breaking titles in the past, that formula as a rule is a crock of complete toss. Please don't dirty this thread any more with your ignorant guesswork. Find out the facts first.
> Little Hobbo wrote:
> A sweeping statement, and very well covered by subtle use of the
> word
> 'significant'.
>
> Subtle? Was as black and white as anything else in the article.
> Well, I suppose you did struggle to note other things plainly
> written... such as the whole jist of your problem seems to be that I
> somehwere siad there is no coding until late in the process... nope,
> no playable code - a totally differnet things.
> Just to clarify something that is simply someone spoiling for an
> excuse to sund snooty, "significant" was used as tech demo
> etc will inevitably at some stange involve interaction from a tester.
> This could be called "playable" if you're really pushing
> it, but without a context, goal, any form of progression, depth etc
> etc it can hardly be called a playable demo.
Oof!! If you write code as well as you spell you'll still be debugging by the new year. And what are babbling on about? Any code, no matter how basic, no matter how crude, whether objective based or not, whether you progress levels or not, and basically whatever state it is in is still 'playable code'. Playable does not mean enjoyable. Completely different? Not a chance fella, simply a lot more basic.
> I have been involved in the creation of a small
> budget game for a Uni project, and I wholeheartedly disagree with
> that ridiculous concept you so boldly proclaim.
>
> Therein lies one problem, in smaller scale games the same extent of
> preparatory work isn't necessary. Coding at this stage will be
> largely engine based, the tech demos I mentioned to test the
> feasibility of new ideas. For super raw titles without a suit of
> source tools this is also when you'd be coming up with things such as
> an easily managable program to layout levels, and the general
> building blocks that'll you eventually blend together into a whole
> world. Note: there's still nothing playable there...
> Basic coding is neccessary all the way through the production
> process, to test speeds, angles, movement and a myriad other
> parameters that are not visible to the multitudes.
>
> There's those tech demos again...
>
> The final usable
> code may not be written until a late stage, but basic stuff is used
> from start to finish.
>
> And on the bigger scale the project, the more there is to bring
> together in those final few months to make something you could
> actually sit down and play.
I strongly suspect by the ignorance of half of that post, that you actually have no idea what you are talking about, and that you are simply bluffing to try and retain a little pride. Even if what you were saying was indeed true for one or two late-breaking titles in the past, that formula as a rule is a crock of complete toss. Please don't dirty this thread any more with your ignorant guesswork. Find out the facts first.
Sweet, like candy.
Um...yeah.
Um...yeah.
Little Hobbo wrote:
> A sweeping statement, and very well covered by subtle use of the word
> 'significant'.
Subtle? Was as black and white as anything else in the article. Well, I suppose you did struggle to note other things plainly written... such as the whole jist of your problem seems to be that I somehwere siad there is no coding until late in the process... nope, no playable code - a totally differnet things.
Just to clarify something that is simply someone spoiling for an excuse to sund snooty, "significant" was used as tech demo etc will inevitably at some stange involve interaction from a tester. This could be called "playable" if you're really pushing it, but without a context, goal, any form of progression, depth etc etc it can hardly be called a playable demo.
> I have been involved in the creation of a small
> budget game for a Uni project, and I wholeheartedly disagree with
> that ridiculous concept you so boldly proclaim.
Therein lies one problem, in smaller scale games the same extent of preparatory work isn't necessary. Coding at this stage will be largely engine based, the tech demos I mentioned to test the feasibility of new ideas. For super raw titles without a suit of source tools this is also when you'd be coming up with things such as an easily managable program to layout levels, and the general building blocks that'll you eventually blend together into a whole world. Note: there's still nothing playable there...
> Basic coding is neccessary all the way through the production
> process, to test speeds, angles, movement and a myriad other
> parameters that are not visible to the multitudes.
There's those tech demos again...
> The final usable
> code may not be written until a late stage, but basic stuff is used
> from start to finish.
And on the bigger scale the project, the more there is to bring together in those final few months to make something you could actually sit down and play.
> A sweeping statement, and very well covered by subtle use of the word
> 'significant'.
Subtle? Was as black and white as anything else in the article. Well, I suppose you did struggle to note other things plainly written... such as the whole jist of your problem seems to be that I somehwere siad there is no coding until late in the process... nope, no playable code - a totally differnet things.
Just to clarify something that is simply someone spoiling for an excuse to sund snooty, "significant" was used as tech demo etc will inevitably at some stange involve interaction from a tester. This could be called "playable" if you're really pushing it, but without a context, goal, any form of progression, depth etc etc it can hardly be called a playable demo.
> I have been involved in the creation of a small
> budget game for a Uni project, and I wholeheartedly disagree with
> that ridiculous concept you so boldly proclaim.
Therein lies one problem, in smaller scale games the same extent of preparatory work isn't necessary. Coding at this stage will be largely engine based, the tech demos I mentioned to test the feasibility of new ideas. For super raw titles without a suit of source tools this is also when you'd be coming up with things such as an easily managable program to layout levels, and the general building blocks that'll you eventually blend together into a whole world. Note: there's still nothing playable there...
> Basic coding is neccessary all the way through the production
> process, to test speeds, angles, movement and a myriad other
> parameters that are not visible to the multitudes.
There's those tech demos again...
> The final usable
> code may not be written until a late stage, but basic stuff is used
> from start to finish.
And on the bigger scale the project, the more there is to bring together in those final few months to make something you could actually sit down and play.
Little Hobbo wrote:
> A sweeping statement, and very well covered by subtle use of the word
> 'significant'. I have been involved in the creation of a small
> budget game for a Uni project, and I wholeheartedly disagree with
> that ridiculous concept you so boldly proclaim.
>
> Basic coding is neccessary all the way through the production
> process, to test speeds, angles, movement and a myriad other
> parameters that are not visible to the multitudes. The final usable
> code may not be written until a late stage, but basic stuff is used
> from start to finish.
Thanks for that Hobbo. It was what I suspected but having never written anything more complicated than a few Java scripts I couldn't say for sure.
And I'd rather keep my mouth shut than say something completely incorrect.
> A sweeping statement, and very well covered by subtle use of the word
> 'significant'. I have been involved in the creation of a small
> budget game for a Uni project, and I wholeheartedly disagree with
> that ridiculous concept you so boldly proclaim.
>
> Basic coding is neccessary all the way through the production
> process, to test speeds, angles, movement and a myriad other
> parameters that are not visible to the multitudes. The final usable
> code may not be written until a late stage, but basic stuff is used
> from start to finish.
Thanks for that Hobbo. It was what I suspected but having never written anything more complicated than a few Java scripts I couldn't say for sure.
And I'd rather keep my mouth shut than say something completely incorrect.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> I sincerely doubt any useful playable code will be available. By
> useful I mean, levels, quests, or anything involving more than five
> lines of AI.
Agreed. You don't need much more than that to test the various elements.
> I sincerely doubt any useful playable code will be available. By
> useful I mean, levels, quests, or anything involving more than five
> lines of AI.
Agreed. You don't need much more than that to test the various elements.
I sincerely doubt any useful playable code will be available. By useful I mean, levels, quests, or anything involving more than five lines of AI.
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> There is no significant playable code of the next GTA game available
> now. Guaranteed.
A sweeping statement, and very well covered by subtle use of the word 'significant'. I have been involved in the creation of a small budget game for a Uni project, and I wholeheartedly disagree with that ridiculous concept you so boldly proclaim.
Basic coding is neccessary all the way through the production process, to test speeds, angles, movement and a myriad other parameters that are not visible to the multitudes. The final usable code may not be written until a late stage, but basic stuff is used from start to finish.
Mr Gonzo fella. What on earth inspired you to give out such a wildly inaccurate idea of game production?
> There is no significant playable code of the next GTA game available
> now. Guaranteed.
A sweeping statement, and very well covered by subtle use of the word 'significant'. I have been involved in the creation of a small budget game for a Uni project, and I wholeheartedly disagree with that ridiculous concept you so boldly proclaim.
Basic coding is neccessary all the way through the production process, to test speeds, angles, movement and a myriad other parameters that are not visible to the multitudes. The final usable code may not be written until a late stage, but basic stuff is used from start to finish.
Mr Gonzo fella. What on earth inspired you to give out such a wildly inaccurate idea of game production?
Well, I'll agree with you that it's almost certain none of their code or anything else has been leaked, but whether any of this actually exists is another matter that nobody outside of their development circle will really know. What annoyed me enough to start arguing about this was the "You idiot" attitude that some people took.
That's what general chat's for.
That's what general chat's for.
Page: