shikigami

youre kinda still supporting it by buying the xbox version...

eten, boost ball isnt a new concept for speed runners . not only that, you should stay in the ball and lay a bomb next to a door before unmorphing.

but the game isnt driven by the shooter nature. aside from bosses, you dont have to shoot a single thing (well, except doors).

not many people know what youre talking about, so metroidvania will have to suffice.

to be honest i dont even know why they added the 'vania', i guess the name came up around the time SoTN was out. castlevania 2 is described as metroidvania as well. it doesnt need to be a platformer. the word describes the general idea of finding an item which opens up new areas to find new items, most of the time requiring free roaming exploration and backtracking within a constant world. the legend of zelda series can be described as a more streamlined metroidvania. also, they could have called it castletroid, but metroidvania sounds better.

for mere mortals maybe...

metroid has been put into its own genre called "metroidvania" (the "vania" comes from koji igarashi developed castlevania games, most notably SoTN). aside from metroid and SoTN the genre includes games like blaster master, faxanadu, and legacy of the wizard. /thread

my AIM is "just got rushed", ill be on around 6 when i get home.

before i go on, this isnt for a school project or anything is it? i dont want to be pressing your deadline any further by introducing new concepts. if this is the case, use an iframe. anyway, your main page would contain the header and a div somewhere (in this case, it looks like the entire rest of the page). when someone clicks a link or a button, your onClick code would be the http request function. what this does is sort of secretly navigate to a different page and gets the html within that page. to discuss how it actually works is that an HTTP GET is sent to the server, and the internal xmlhttp object handles the response. this response, if a 200 OK, contains HTML content, which you can put inside the div. so youre div would act as your iframe.

the main components youll need are as follows: case: where you gonna put all this stuff? choose a case to your liking, some come with CD-ROM drives. if it doesnt, you will need to buy a cd drive seperately. also, select a case that would accomidate all your modding joys. for the most part, one that will be OK when it comes to cooling. fan slots etc. motherboard: id go with an ASUS with SLI compatability. (note: SLI is nvidia, crossfire is ATI, similar technologies, only ATI is bad at it). processor(s): id go with an AMD. RAM: depending on your current motherboard you can probably reuse the RAM, but read what type of RAM the motherboard takes first, then order more RAM if you need to. crucial.com is a good site for RAM. 1 gig should be good enough to do whatever you want. hard drive(s): again, check the motherboard to see what type of hard drive communication it supports. if it supports serial ATA (SATA) get a SATA HD (or multiple HDs). SATA is slightly faster than traditional IDE, and allows for a larger array of hard drives. video card(s): i hate ATI, but choose a video card(s) to your liking/budget (or 2 if you want to use SLI/crossfire. crossfire only works with ATI cards and SLI only works with nvidia. to my knowledge, ASUS boards only do SLI). as far as any other components are concerned just ask. but a word of advice: READ INSTRUCTION MANUALS.

yes, sorry, im trying to help you and tell everyone else why css sucks at the same time. the javascript i posted is a simple AJAX method. it makes a request and displays the page requested within a div without ever reloading the page. in other words, you can have the mp3 on your "main" page, and its content within a div. when you click a button for example, it would change the contents of the div, but the main page would stay intact. im not sure exactly what you want to do and how you designed your site, so i cant explain exactly how you would use it. the implementations of the browsers differ, and this difference probably changes how the browser interprets CSS. either way, CSS and even HTML on the whole is stupid until all browsers can conform.

oh and: function ajaxFunction() { var xmlHttp; try { // Firefox, Opera 8.0+, Safari xmlHttp=new XMLHttpRequest(); } catch (e) { // Internet Explorer try { xmlHttp=new ActiveXObject("Msxml2.XMLHTTP"); } catch (e) { try { xmlHttp=new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP"); } catch (e) { alert("Your browser does not support AJAX!"); return false; } } } xmlHttp.onreadystatechange=function() { if(xmlHttp.readyState==4) { // heres where you would set the text of some area within your page to the new text. document.somediv.InnerHTML=xmlHttp.responseText; } } xmlHttp.open("GET","yourpage.html/php/asp/whatever",true); xmlHttp.send(null); }

CSS can determine the position of div's as well as the attributes of this positioning (relative, absolute, floating, etc.) its better to use a table to determine placement, see 10 reasons above.

CSS is certainly an improvement on plain old HTML but it’s limitations are staggering and the lack of industry support will continue to hold back designers for many years to come unless we begin to build and design something better. 1. For all that CSS has been able to do it’s a technological failure. CSS just doesn’t work as expected. How can I say it’s a failure when millions of sites use it? CSS can be used to style basic text attributes but browsers aren’t consistent in how they use this technology. Even though there is a “standard” and some browsers partially adhere to the standard to truly be a useful standard you need two things: Predictability and Consistency. CSS has neither. Any designer who has tried to create a large and complex site using CSS will tell you that all popular browsers interpret the standard differently. 2. CSS is ‘markup centric’ not ‘design centric.’ I have this idea that designers should spend more time designing great looking sites and less time fiddling around with markup tags and browser compatibility. When I say ‘markup centric’ I mean that every CSS design tool forces users to go into source code mode to create an attractive modern site. Many designers take pride in hand coding CSS. Tools for designers should be design centric. PDF/postscript is a good example of a design centric markup , (unfortunately not very suitable for the web.) Designers don’t argue about how to create semantically correct postscript tags they just create great designs using great design tools. CSS sucks because it forces designers to think about how to make it work technically rather than how to make it work from a design perspective. 3. Why on earth do we think that cascading is a useful feature? The way that styles cascade from one level of layout to a deeper layout makes it difficult to figure out why a particular item is styled in a certain way. By contrast non-cascading style sheets would be equally powerful and more predictable. The cascading makes it harder to interpret the page for both the designer as well as the web-browser. In fact the complexities in cascading is one of the reasons why so many browsers screw up the standard. In theory cascading could save bandwidth but in practice it creates bloated documents to get around the cascading issues. 4. The box-model is too simplistic. The high level idea of CSS is that you can create attractive pages using margin, border, padding and content attributes. While this is a nice theory it’s primitive in it’s understanding of both layout problems and design. Highly developed design tools have layout engines that offer multiple layouts, non-rectangular margins, proportional layouts, dock-able layouts, table layouts, column layouts, etc. etc. It’ll be years before these features make it to CSS and many more before browsers implement them with any consistency. If browsers keep spending so much time on CSS they’ll have a well polished turd. Tools like Aldus Page Maker had better design tools, font tools and layout capabilities 10 years ago. This is because good design tools start with the design, not the markup. 5. When writing software you learn what works and what doesn’t. You get new and better ideas and you throw away the old ones. This process of starting fresh is absent from the current CSS way of thinking. Each version of CSS builds on the previous one without acknowledging any fundamental flaws. CSS and its HTML sibling are the ultimate designs by committee. Any enhancements to CSS/HTML are piled on top of the old standards. This makes it progressively harder to create powerful, compatible and consistent browsers. This also makes it harder for designers to create sites that target the new platform because they are constantly trying to satisfy the compatibility with older browsers. Version compatibility has to be all or nothing. If you support V3 it has to be 100% supported and tested. Supporting some of the features actually makes things worse. 6. There shouldn’t be multiple right answers for a visual design. The way CSS works there can be many ways to do the same thing. In fact there seem to be endless debates about the proper way to hack together trivial things like rounded corners. Rounded Corners? I mean really! Again I refer you to Aldus and even MS Word circa 1997. These features are not that hard to develop but getting them to work in a “standard way” seems to be all but impossible. 7. CSS captures styles not semantics or design intention. A design intention would be something like: “I want to balance these two columns” or perhaps “This text should line up with the logo image in the first column.” When designers do things like this: #content{position:relative;top:32px;left:20%;width:40%;} They are capturing the style specifics not the design intention. Why 32 pixels? Why 40%? Perhaps the logo is 32px tall? Perhaps the other column is 60% wide? When the logo changes size or placement how will you know what styles to touch? There is a basic concept called parametric design that can be used to specify the parameters of the design. This concept helps embody the design intention as a set of rules that can then be preserved as the design changes. Even a very simple parametric design allows you to preserve design intention rather then hard coding sizes and dimensions. 8. Design should be declarative not interpreted. Again CSS has to process a large number of rules before it can figure out where things are supposed to go. After these rules are interpreted this data is thrown out and each and every browser that opens up the web-page has to re-interpret the data. This is incredibly inefficient. First of it makes web-pages load very slowly. Even when you’re on a fast connection the browser can’t figure out where to place objects until the entire web-page has finished loading. Secondly this interpretation is very prone to errors. A declarative design isn’t open to as much interpretation allowing it both render quickly and consistently. 9. CSS is a pain to work with. Take a look at some of the designs over at CSSZenGarden. The designs are both attractive and sophisticated. A good designer could take these designs and mock up similar designs in PhotoShop or Illustrator in a matter of hours but take the same designs and ask for it in CSS and it may take a couple days. Each time you make an edit to your CSS you have to refresh your browser to see what it’s actually going to look like. Then after you get one browser working you need to double back and get the other browsers working. 10. If you can’t get consistency across browsers then you can’t rely on CSS to accurately and properly design your site. If you can’t get the site to look exactly the way you want on every single browser then how can you claim that CSS is a good design tool or even a success? The fact that there is no alternative to create attractive websites doesn’t make CSS is a good tool. There are two ways to solve the problem. The first is to continue to hammer on standards and CSS asking for a better solution. This has been happening for the last 10 years and it just doesn’t work. The alternative is to realize that CSS is flawed in it’s intrinsic design and begin to ask the questions of how could you do it better? in other words, use a table.

you overestimate javascript. CSS is good so you dont have to add all that color and size crap to your div/font/table/whatever tags, it un-clutters your html.

exactly. prime 3 isnt a bad game, its just not what i wanted from a metroid game. i mean its better than halo and probably bioshock.

no no, uniformly. i.e. all those browsers interpret it differently. i had used a stylesheet to create a footer, which i wanted to always be 100% width of the browser. i had to hack around the fact that 100% is 100% in IE, but firefox stretched it past the width of the browser, creating a horizontal scroll bar. apparently 70% is 100% in firefox.

no. use a table. CSS isnt supported uniformly through all browsers, especially when it comes to positioning. if you want to change something on your page without reloading, use AJAX. it will make an asynchronous http request and you can take the response and change the innerHTML of a div without reloading the entire page. also, your </frameset> tags are spelled wrong, that might be an issue.

echoes was difficult because of the counter-intuitive level design and the fact that every item required a boss fight. corruption made it seem like they didnt even try in those areas. plus, even with the hint system off in corruption, youre still told where to go, which seems is built in to the story-driven design of the game. i liked it much better in super metroid or prime 1. they both had well distributed boss battles, and even though they didnt happen as often, they were tougher. exploration was a huge aspect of previous metroid games, but it seems that exploration was much more fun in previous metroid games because of the rewards. now its like the game punishes you for exploring. oh you wanna explore? have fun navigating through these energy draining areas just to find you have to go all the way back through it because youre missing a certain item. in other metroid games it was like "oops i f-ed up...oh heres an elevator let me go do something else." okay. being a developer let me talk about this for a second. yes, the job of a developer is to listen to its users. however, that does not mean that everything a developer makes is what the users want. in fact ive seen some developers hand a project that was completely what the user didnt want. ive also seen developers over-complicate the requirements to the point where they wouldnt have the budget or time to complete it. this is whats called "gold plating" the developer says "well lets fulfill this requirement by doing all sorts of neat shit!" bad developer, bad. what im trying to say is: just because we dislike something in echoes, doesnt mean we want it completely erradicated in the next installment. just do it right this time. in addition, simply fix the issue rather than radically changing the game, because thats what we as users wanted.

i usually name my machines after transformers.

yeah the game being story driven really takes the solitude away. i think it was missing alot of what made metroid so great. i also think the "elevator" level design was better than flying your ship around.

buy parts and build it yourself, youll be glad you did.

youre forgetting some important elements, such as the scientists findings that metroids can be used for the benefit of humanity, and the metroid larva coming back to help samus, whom it thinks is its mother. metroid as a whole never had a huge story. how could it? the point was to make you feel secluded on your mission. all story elements were external to that. as for prime 3, the story-driven gameplay is new and different, and its too soon for me to generate an opinion on it.

virginia is too far away for a lan party.

you dont need another computer, just a hard drive. put in the hard drive, load up the BIOS, and set it to slave. then fire up knoppix. learn a couple simple linux commands (like cp, and you might need mount.) cp to the slave hd. yay.