AliasTheory

I always love those Steam reviews that say 1000+ hours played and the user says something like, "I tried it for a little bit, it was pretty fun". Even if they are fake. I recently got all the nuclear waste collectables in the game. Time to do the spaceship parts or the letters. My patience was already wearing thin on the waste though, because I found out my game glitched and one of the barrels never spawned as expected. I spent an entire hour or so aimlessly searching in the same spot, thinking I was missing a cave or something. Looked up a video and recognized that part of the ocean floor. So I quickly swapped characters, and the barrel magically spawned right in front of me. Ugh.

Long time no see...forgot about the greatest thread on this forum. Sarcasm? Nah. Speaking of Bloodborne, that's a game I'll buy, right after GTAV gets boring....

Agreed.

RIght here

SMBC today: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3329

I'm late, but congrats Werne! I know my parents were a bit afraid that I'd be born on April 1st (but I narrowly escaped that!) Still, I'm sure your girl will turn out just fine.

:sleep:

Bioshock 1 was great. The story and environments were jaw-dropping and haunting to say the least, though I could certainly do without having to play Pipe Dream all the time. Playing that minigame was a distraction, which sometimes happened in heated situations -- real time would have been more appropriate here. In my opinion, the game did fantastic job of making the player feel vulnerable and lost. There was the horror element too. Resources were far more limited than in later installments and Big Daddies were formidable opponents, where engaging wasn't always the best idea. Limited resources also made using the environment more important, especially since just shooting enemies left a bit more to be desired. I believe the sequel did some things right: melee attack with all weapons, avoid playing Pipe Dream every five minutes, and refining the shooting controls, including the dual plasmid and weapon handling (and not switching). The DLCs were quality and expanded on the existing lore. The story was great, just not extraordinary. However, the game felt a bit too "shooty" and lacked the vulnerability aspect. It felt scary in the same sense that Halo's Flood are scary, which is hardly; being a Big Daddy yourself was akin to being the Master Chief here, where nothing feels like a big threat. (Heard that in a review somewhere...I obviously agree). Resources weren't nearly as scarce either, though one could say it made it easier to play the game in a favored style, using one weapon over others. The ability to lay traps and set up for encounters was interesting, but in some cases it made battles way too easy. Bioshock Infinite has undoubtedly great environments. Some might disagree, but I think it is on par with Rapture. I think Ken Levine was the one who said the player would experience this game as an actual force in the story rather than a historian, which has its own advantages. Seeing people around Columbia brings out some real human interaction the older games lacked, so it was welcome in my book. But I do agree that it felt a lot like a general shooter. The shooting mechanics handled well for sure, but I felt like I could easily get through the game without playing "Bioshock". Having solid aim and throwing enemies off cliffs worked great for 1999 difficulty, along with a few exploits. After running through the game on the normal and hard modes, I think I got through 1999 in about 4-5 hours with average completion, first try. DLC so far has been lacking and too expensive for what I've gotten for 15 bucks (episode 1). Story was interesting, but was kind of a mess and overly cryptic in its implications. I've heard all sorts of arguments about this one, though I can't shake the idea that the multiverse idea is a lazy one. Not sure if I want to invest in episode 2, though despite having been underwhelmed by the first part, I'll have to do it considering my already invested time. Anyway, abuse Winter Shield and Return to Sender.

Not to mention that screenshot captured my quality post. Also, all the Internet talk about Facebook buying Oculus Rift is driving me nuts. I really don't need to go on a (different) forum to find six threads about the same thing.

Further proof that this is indeed the most important thread on this forum.

Right here. Yes, I am everybody.

DPI is something you set on your printer. Ink-jets and lasers easily meet this requirement, but dot-matrix printers - the ones with the bars that oscillate left and right - tend to be low resolution, outputting less than 300DPI. Places like OfficeMax specify 300DPI as a minimum requirement for printing artwork so quality isn't negatively affected, so it's kind of like a rule of thumb. In my opinion, the assignment meant PPI, since you are submitting this all digitally; a supplementary set of pixel or inch dimensions would have been ideal. However, I don't know if you were supposed to interpret these dimensions from the example you mentioned. tldr: You're probably fine since the image was fairly large pixel-wise.

From my understanding, "300DPI" refers to the printer density of your image (ink dots per linear inch). It's essentially an output resolution, and should be used to determine if your printer can display the proper colors given the dimensions you'd like to print at. Your image might be in high resolution, but if your DPI is inadequate (or it's not properly adjusted), you'll end up with a poor quality result; this is because multiple ink dots are needed to show each pixel. DPI doesn't change your image's printed dimensions. It's commonly confused with PPI. To answer your question (300PPI), it really depends on what you wanted the original size of your image to be in inches. 1600x1200 could be considered 300PPI if your image was to be printed 5.3"x4". Since you worked at 72PPI, this would currently make your picture 22.2"x16.6". If you wanted the same juicy 300PPI quality of the 5.3"x4" in the 22.2"x16.6", then you'd need 6666x5000 pixels. So if you want a 5.3"x4" physical version of your image when it's done, then you'd be fine. If your professor/teacher wanted a specific size (in inches) to be printed, then multiplying the dimensions through PPI would give the appropriate pixel dimensions to work with. Simply stating 300PPI is incomplete per se, though it does mean high resolution is emphasized. An analogy would be asking for the distance traveled if I said I was going at 100MPH with no other information.

http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html

:ohmy: