I usually have an idea first about what the piece should convey (style of music, mood, how it fits into the game's soundscape etc). Then I just pick up an appropriate instrument and futz around with it until something useful comes out. If nothing useful comes out I pick up a different instrument and try again.

This. It just happens. I open up the piano roll, pick a note to start from and just try different progressions. When I get one that sounds promising, I refine it in a few different directions. Then I combine those slightly different variations into a song, and build upon that.

Does anyone have a great screenshot that features mainly one of these two that they could share? Thanks.

I've uploaded some death cam shots here (NO THUMBS, BIG PICS! Don't open if you don't intend to view them all!).

Examples about sniper and spy (or both!), though you'll find good pics of other classes as well; This one with soldiers is my favorite.

I just wish the rock-paper-scissors wasn't so prominent. There's not a whole lot of "challenge" to fights so long as you have the type of pokemon super-effective to the one you're fighting. I'm playing Diamond and the whole game is more or less just super-effective one-hit KOs.

Hmm, that's tough. I generally Shift + Delete and forget disappointing games, so can't recall.

Spore, of course, was light years away from the "sim everything" we were promised.

Oh, Advance Wars: Days of Ruin (aka Dark Conflict).

Now that I think about it, New Super Mario Bros was quite a let down.

Bioshock was ridiculously overhyped.

[exactly]

Those already exist.

I didn't say they didn't exist, I asked if you'd actually want one

You do realize before this you called everyone who enjoyed one of the best animated films in recent memory stupid, right?

Yes, and? It's funny how you say "one of the best in recent memory". Not very convincing.

Japan has talking toilets. The army is making rescue drones that look like teddy bears. I'm sorry but science fiction as you may be used to it is just that, fiction. We are anthropomorphizing our robots whether you like it or not.

Talking toilets are pretty damn far away from what I'm talking about here. Things talk because it's communication, it has nothing to do with emotions or humanizing. But I see your point on the fiction part. Also, source on the rescue drones? (for the lulz)

Haha yeah people never buy one product over another because one's cute, how stupid of me.

Well, if it costs substantially more to purchase the cute one, I seriously doubt that. Specifically when in question are large quantities of trash compactor robots likely financed by the city/government.

I completely forgot to mention the evil ship steering wheel robot that, perplexingly, shows no logic and is introduced as a villain simply for the lack of one. He's just like, "No. We will not go back to Earth for no particular reason whatsoever, except me being evil."

Okay here's how I see things. Someone whom I've seen nothing but mediocrity out of just suggested a number of my friends and family, as well as a substantial majority of the community he was posting in, had below average intelligence because they liked a movie. And then he got upset because I attacked his intelligence, such as it is.

I'm not upset, just surprised at your sudden burst of hostility. Does it bother you that most people aren't smart? What exactly does it matter if you haven't seen anything from me yet? Does being intelligent come with some kind of requisite of having to cure cancer or something? Somehow I get the feeling you haven't really bothered to look, anyway. What is it that you find so mediocre? I fail to see the offense in all this... I'm sorry if you can't bare the thought that your friends and family aren't geniuses. I mean... Most of them probably believe in god, right?

1. Not finding it hypocritical to say you can't feel for a trash compactor, even though you claim intelligence is based on one's ability to feel for alien (as in, very different) things? Like trashcans and robots?
2. Also, intelligence could (and would) be argued to be the ability to analyze and find deeper meanings in things. Yet you're saying because of your inability to empathize with a trash can, you couldn't read a deeper meaning in something? Especially one blatantly spelled out in a children's show?

Your mistake here is presuming my argument subjective. I argue things I don't necessary believe myself. And come on get serious now, of course I would have a problem finding deeper meaning in something that's blatantly spelled out for children. That's kind of the point. Since it's blatantly spelled out (and in a font you find disgusting), it's kind of hard to ignore and look past.

And you don't find any problem with calling other people "stupid"?

By the way, nice save on switching to "unintelligent". Too bad you already said "stupid" and now it's clear you're just being ignorant.

[On a wide note to everyone, un-intelligence is nothing to be ashamed of, much like not-being-Arnold-Schwarzenegger is nothing to be ashamed of. "Stupidity", though, is a term used by smart people for people they look down upon and see as less worthwhile, and is intended to be offencive or hostile.]

Also, a sign of true intelligence would be to not brag about it. In fact, your own intelligence has nothing to do with this argument, and a true debater wouldn't have swung so far off-topic.

Ah. It's a cultural/social thing. See, I don't really think about things like that. To me, 'stupid' and 'unintelligent' mean exactly the same. 'Stupid' is just a lot shorter and thus easier to type. But to avoid being repetitive, I use synonyms to enrich my writing, hence substituting with 'unintelligent'. I'm truly sorry if anyone feels offended by this distinction.

I do not brag about my intelligence. Wanna hear what I'm like when I'm bragging? I have an IQ of 163, which is higher than 98.6% of the population. Most of them are complete morons with delusions of religion and fear of technology. Funny you say that though, because as I recall I never even mentioned my own intelligence, only that of those that enjoyed Wall-E. It was someone entirely else who brought mine into the discussion.

Right, when you insult other people, it's intelligent discussion, when other people insult you, it's flaming.  Classic.

Difference here I think was that my comment was not directed to any person in specific, but a general group. I was attacked pretty much directly (not that I'm complaining, I enjoy a good argument). Let's recap...:

Oh god Wall-E was the extreme of robot humanization, and it almost made me puke when I watched it. It's like "sci-fi" for people with IQ less than a 100.

the sheer retarded insult of Core Xii's post, who is just oh so fucking proud of his hard won mensa membership.

So, I said some people have less than slightly above average intelligence based on a movie I didn't like, and in return my post was a retarded insult, and I'm oh so "fucking" proud of my hard won Mensa membership? Like, you seriously think I'm the one being offensive here?

If two companies were to show off robot cleaners, one which looks metallic and like it might chew up your newborn baby in a second, or one that looks like it may coddle it, which would you choose? Well, maybe not you personally, but try and step into someone else's "less intelligent" shoes and see what they'd feel. (I believe this is another mark of true intelligence?)

You all seem to be ignoring that the cute one costs more. Now the key phrase in your argument above is "looks like". The products are virtually identical, but a fuzzy mother needs that cutesy comfort because she's afraid of something she shouldn't be (probably because she saw a movie as a child where robots attacked people or something, see where I'm going with this?). Also, this is not about which one people would buy, it's about me thinking that the people who do are dumb.

Pick the most efficient tool for the job, not the cutest.

EDIT: Certainly I would not think much of a person who thought that Wall-E was a realistic depiction of how robots work.  If I ever meet such a person, I will let you know.

That's is exactly what I mean. Kids watch the movie and think that's how robots are supposed to work. They may be explained later that it's not quite how reality is, but the damage is already done. Somewhere deep down in their subconscious they crave for cuter robots, slowing down technological progress in robotics.

Sometimes. Mostly I recycle concepts, but sometimes graphics merge with them.

Why the fuck would humans manufacture something they're completely unable to relate to? That's a retarded complaint.

Yeah, why the fuck would humans manufacture inanimate objects? Haha what a ridiculous thought. Oh wait, maybe because it's cheaper and more efficient?

Robots aren't alien! They aren't aliens! They're made by humans! The fact that people fail to pick up on the sheer obviousness of this astounds me. If humans made a sentient robot they'd damn sure make its emotional output, such as it was, easy for a human to interpret.

Why the hell would a company spend resources developing a "cute" trash compactor robot? I mean, I can relate to something like C-3PO portraying emotions because he's designed to assist humans directly. But a trash compactor? Would you like a trash can that thanked you every time you deposited a piece of trash? Or a chair that feels pleasure when you sit on it? A bed that misses you during the day?

[...] the sheer retarded insult of Core Xii's post, who is just oh so fucking proud of his hard won mensa membership.

I'm sorry if I insulted you, but that's the way I see things. You shouldn't need to attack my intelligence as something hostile, but rather spark an argument in favor of your own opinion on the matter. The fact that you're angry just tells me I hit close to home. (by the way I didn't win it or work hard for it, I was just born with it)

Yeah, it's not necessarily plausible, but would you really want to watch a movie starring a robot that had zero personality? It'd be the most boring thing on the planet!

They should've thought of that before making a movie about a trash compactor. Also, movies don't always need to be full of emotion and special effects and what have you. Some movies can be boring on that level, while being very insightful on a different level. Like if Wall-E wasn't actually "cute", it might have had some deeper meaning for the whole environmental aspect it touched.

I can't enjoy a kid's movie because it doesn't match my  very limited worldview!  I better call everyone who disagrees with me stupid right away!

It's called an opinion. People have 'em, so get used to it. My intuition tells me that people who need to humanize everything and can't relate to more alien things posses lesser intelligence. If it bothers you so much, instead of flaming me you should rather prove me wrong.

Being a kid's movie only emphasizes my concern. If we teach our children that robots are to be cute and inanimate objects should behave like humans... I have no idea what's to become of them, or how to finish this sentence.

As for the humanization of robots- okay, Wall-E is probably one of my favorite movies of all time, so i'm a teensy bit biased.

Oh god Wall-E was the extreme of robot humanization, and it almost made me puke when I watched it. It's like "sci-fi" for people with IQ less than a 100.

Do not tell Edmund something that he does, or that arises from his actions, is disturbing, or disgusting. It'll only fuel his powers.

Who says that wasn't my intention?

[magic]

Damn, that's a long topic, and it's 4 days old yet I hadn't noticed it?

I just watched the trilogy a while ago again. Liked it when I was a kid, but now that I saw it again I felt disgust. It's so... erm, "casual". As in, not intelligent at all. Especially I dislike the humanizing of robots. Don't get me even started on the force, who the hell puts magic in science fiction??

That's disturbing. Mildly amusing, but disturbing.

I'm not sure what you mean about enclosing it in another div, though... why would you do that?

Nested stuff. Might need the two-column layout inside another two-column layout, etc.

The example code still defines heights, though. It just doesn't seem to be possible without defining a width or a height.

If you remove the heights, the content div wraps around the menu if it's longer.

In any case... I've come to accept what must be done.

EDIT 4: Okay, I got it! It works in Safari, at least. I can't check any other browsers atm. Have a look here. It's all in the source.

It's a nice try, but relies on the 100% height trick, which prevents the addition of a header/footer. Also if you enclose it inside another div, it doesn't work anymore (so you can't do that for nested elements).

Nope, in all of those, the width is explicitly defined.

What I need is the simplest, two-column layout (with header and footer), but where I don't define the widths for the columns, rather they just stretch to fill all available space (left column as small as it fits, right column fills the rest).

It's not possible with anything else than display:table-cell; which isn't fully supported yet.

No, it does not boil down to personal preference. It boils down to capability. Apparently CSS can't do simple layouts unless you specify explicit widths for the containers. This is unacceptable in certain applications.

That is, not until we can use display:table-cell; universally. (here's hoping it'll be soon!)

Can we see the code? Also, why would you not want to set a width for the menu?

I put up a few samples displaying the problem.

I don't want to set a width for the menu because I don't know the width of the actual content within it (dynamic content, different fonts, etc.). If I set an absolute width, and a menu item is actually longer, it'll either wrap if it can or, even worse, if it can't (like a long single word) it'll simply overflow its container entirely.


It seems the future lies with display:table-cell; once people update to the latest version 8 of IE which finally brings mediocre CSS2 support.

Oh yes.

I was gonna write a long rant but let's keep this short - How do you structure your websites? Take the laughably simple two-column layout with a menu on the left, content on the right.

float:left; doesn't work unless you assign a width for the contents. Floating just the menu causes the content to wrap around it undesirably.

float:left; display:inline-table; works in quirks-mode but as soon as you add a doctype to your page, it breaks.

display:table-cell; doesn't work in IE.

The only remaining option I see is to go back to using tables. Sure it's heavier, and morally wrong, but if it's the only way to get the page to look the way I need consistently on most browsers, then I don't seem to have a choice.

Well the first thing you wanna do is stop using midi, it sucks.

You can self-impose limits doesn't mean you have to actually implement them in code.

why allow 999999 units if that incurs overhead or whatnot when 999699 of that potential will never be used?

Because you don't know that. Someone might use it. Years later someone might still revitalize your game with a crazy level design or something. If you put a needless, arbitrary hard limit you're effectively limiting your game to one point in time and creativity.