/v/ - Video Games

Genji and the whole "Giant Enemy Crab" thing after being announced as a realistic game about Japan's real pre-shogunate wars.

From a number science perspective, zero is even.

>>14129734

Zero is even, no question about it. If you want to start an autism fight, you should get people asking "Is zero positive or negative?"

>>14130049

I thought 0 was gender neutral?

>>14130049

Even better, ask people "Is zero a prime number or a composite number?"

Just watch the chaos ensue.

>>14129994

Giant Mammoths existed less than 5,000 years ago, it's not a big stretch

>>14129859

There are other ways to parse digits, though, like the functional definition. A computer would consider an odd number to give a non-integer when dividing in half, while an even number gives an integer when dividing in half.

Zero is a weird case because it does meet this standard on a very surface level, but when defining it in terms of a set of finite values (i.e. 3 = |+|+|) you get the real result, that 0 ( + , …) is not a number at all, neither odd or even, it's the absence of value. For this reason, a programmer defining sets as odd or even may add a conditional to ensure there is at least one value embedded.

Similarly,

>>14130049

neither.

>>14130088

neither.

Zero holds only assumed and symbolic properties, and it acts differently depending on how you frame the situation.

Dynasty Warriors

>>14131082

Retard.

Bring the history books that say that there were giant crabs fighting samurais in pre-feudal Japan then.

>>14131965

>le burden of proof face

>>14130049

>Is zero positive or negative?

Has both +0 and -0 if you're using a signed integer.

>>14132044

Not for programming. The negative number has one extra value than the positive number.

>>14133653

in programming zero has a value, that's a flaw in and of itself

>>14133680

Honestly, I find null to be a bigger problem than 0

>>14133653

>Not for programming

Do you not understand how signed ints work? The first bit is whether the number is positive or negative.

>>14133794

Yes. And using an sbyte for example, the numbers start at -128, increase to 0, and cap at +127.

>>14129859

>>14129734

0 is considered even because even numbers are numbers that set the carry bit to 0 after doing a %2 to them.

You guys like Gauntlet, right? Well, what if someone made Gauntlet, but made it PC exclusive and forced all players to use the same keyboard? They actually did this.

>>14133873

Yes, but it does:

>-2

>-1

>-0

>0

>1

>2

If we're using only 8 bits (essentially, a word) this sequence would be:

>10000010

>10000001

>10000000

>00000000

>00000001

Wonderfull world, the one of lower-level processing, isn't it?

I want to choke whoever came up with BCD to death.

>>14133913

B-but you could use a gamepad.

Right?

Right?

I only played it single player. Loved Gauntlet on the PSone, but was really disapointed with the newer one.

>>14133913

You mean the remake? They also crippled it with Steam cancer and then stuffed it full of microtransactions.

>>14133922

I don't think a C64 has enough inputs even if you could use a controller.

>>14133848

>Infinite mana

>Not X

>>14133934

That could be mitigated by PIRATING.

I don't really know why. It just didn't feel like a Gauntlet game to me. Maybe I missed the open spaces from the PSone, maybe the items, or the simple TURBO mechanics.

Also: the hordes of enemies were shit.

Actually, wait a second.

THAT'S PRECISELY WHERE THEY FUCKED UP

See, modern dev's don't know how to make horder enemies. In the newer gauntlet, there's plenty of enemies. But they spawn in waves, climped together. One or two AoE later and they're dead.

On the PSone version, enemies had generators all over and came from all sides. THAT's a proper horde. You can only attack in one direction at a time, so at most you can cleave a path to run through and reach a critical point (like a generator or a chest) and you gotta keep moving because the horde is closing in on you.

The AoE you have are reserved for when things get dire: you start cutting a path, something with a lot more HP gets in the way. Your path is blocked, enemies are one inch away from you.

You got potions (that are limited in the first few levels and gotta be rationed), you got items that cost money, can't use them willy nilly and you had your turbo attacks. Lvl2 Turbo was a surround attack that cleared a few mobs around you to give you a breather but on a cooldown.

Shit, that's it. After a few levels, the game threw so much shit your way that whenever you found yourself in trouble, you had a dozen ways to get out of it. It came down to optimizing and figuring the best way to pull it through.

It's not really a tactical game, it's a fairly simple hack & slash, but you had a bunch of shit you could do at any given time.

The newer gauntlet gives less tools and the few that it gives you are limited to being equiped 2 at a time: an amulet and a relic (can't really remember the mechanics, it was what, 2 years ago?).

Limiting the player for balance and dificulty reasons is retarded: just throw more enemies, bigger enemies, faster enemies, enemies from above, enemies from bellow, enemies from within and let the carnage and particle effects consume the screen.

>>14133970

>using a C-sharp specific type instead of every other standard uint

>not printing (sbyte)1b0000_0000 and (sbyte)0b0000_0000

>>14133970

That's after your compiler fixes it. And you're working with a consumer-grade chip.

I'm talking about raw shit. PLC's, small chips you put in fridges or crappy alarm clocks.

Maybe should say crap from 10 years ago.

Most modern ALU's will read "-1" and when you "++" it will perform a sign change.

Or the sign change occurs in the rever, when "1" get's "–" to "0".

I got to work with a chip that did both and it fucked up constantly because we had to test for sign changes. We ended up moving all values to the 1 - 20 range because of it, less hassle

You're also printing it on a console. The Write() will never print "+0" or "0", only "0"

>>14133995

Actually, the blue-cased keyword, "sbyte" is defined in the .NET specifications, that is, common CIL code. If it were a "SByte", then yes, that is the C# equivalent type.

>Bitching about C# specifically

>When fucking C itself does the same thing https://www.tutorialspoint.com/cprogramming/c_data_types.htm

>>14134023

>still doesn't print them

>>14129734

> Zero is neither odd nor even

>>14129734

> Zero is neither odd nor even

>>14129734

> Zero is neither odd nor even

>>14129734

> Zero is neither odd nor even

>>14129734

> Zero is neither odd nor even

>>14129734

> Zero is neither odd nor even

ARE YOU AN FUCKING RETARDED?

>>14134052

Here let me help you.

Posts like yours often convey a stronger meaning if you attach a video or image to it.

>>14133981

By the way, you know why that "Gauntlet" remake was made in the first place right? A Gauntlet clone by the name of Hammerwatch was released a while back and was pretty good. It made the rights holders sweat and decide they needed to remind people that Gauntlet exists.

>>14134085

>the virgin Dark enchanter

>the chad Dark Master

>>14134044

Newsflash, retard: CPUs don't run x86 assembly anymore, it's cores are RISC and x86 code is converted to that using bypass translation unit. That's not even to mention things like out of order execution.

>>14129734

It's called "by definition" you dumbfuck. Same as with 1 is not a prime.

>>14134122

>t. assmad Pokemans player in the lunchroom that gets shit thrown at them, while superior computer "nerds" are busy discussing practical problems

<not knowing that +0 is larger than -0

Fucking retards.

Remember, rock paper scissors is 50% chance to win

>>14134147

>RPS is 50% chance to win

Is this some monty hall bullshit? You either win, lose, or draw

>>14134157

Assuming a draw means playing again, drawing has no effect on winning or losing.

>>14134157

and what does draw do?

resets the game

>>14134147

It's ⅓ chance to win and ⅓ chance to draw. Hence RPSLS is a better game because chance of draw is only ⅕. Also no negative zero is the same as positive zero.

>>14134167

>>14134169

Draw draws out the game in a stalemate, resulting in both of you quitting eventually, with neither of you winning or losing.

>>14133720

yikes

>even considering rock paper scissors

>not playing lightning fairy chess

>>14129859

>>14134174

The game I depicted here >>14134157 is better, You both chose either odd or even, like heads or tails, then each one throws any number with their fingers, you can even use two hands if you're retarded. Winner depens on if the sum of the numbers is odd or even, so it doesn'1t actually matter if the number you chose is high or low, only if it's odd or even, so technically only 1s and 0s would work. It's impossible to hit a tie with this game.

I've no idea how it's supposed to be called in other countries, it's very popular in Brazil yet I've never seen it in any sort of media.

Another popular one is used when there's three people: Everyone throws out either a 0 or a 1, not choosing anything, the winner is the one that threw the number that only he threw. Like, two guys throw 1s and only one guy threw a 0, or vice versa. If everyone throws the same number, then it's rematch.

>>14134224

>the winner is the one that threw the number that only he threw

Couldn't you just make it so that anyone who picked an unpopular choice is removed? Eg, you have 13 people, and cull about half the people out

Also, there was a gameshow based around the odd or even concept, called Friend or Foe. It started with 6 players and did trivia rounds to build up money as they were gradually eliminated. At the end, whoever had the most picked a partner or something, and they'd do a teamup round to get extra money.

The catch was that they also secretly voted FRIEND or FOE

>Both FRIEND: Split the prize

>Both FOE: Nobody gets shit

>FRIEND and FOE: FOE gets all the money

>>14133680

Zero is actually a number that contains all values, much like infinity. The proof for this is elementary school shit:

0 = 1 + -1 + 2 + -2 + 3 + -3 …

Zero is equal to the sum of all numbers.

>>14134450

Sorry it's equal to -1/12

>>14134692

Actually, having come back to this video months later, I question (everyone's) ability to devise the sum of -1/12.

He states that with the sum of [N=1-1+1-1+1-1…] it's equal to 0.5, because you don't know if it's either 0 or 1 so you just average it (with additional ways to prove this). However, I disagree. This makes sense if you are guaranteed to start on +1-1. What if it was the other way around? It would be -1+1, and the reverse would be true: You would either have -1 or 0, so if you averaged that, it would be -0.5, which would be the opposite of what he claimed. Thus, the sum truly would be 0 if you follow what he claimed to a logical conclusion.