Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Indie Game Jam 2 Physics-Based Games Released

simoniker posted more than 10 years ago | from the mmm-physics dept.

PC Games (Games) 21

DaFlusha writes "Chris Hecker has posted the freely downloadable games from Indie Game Jam 2 (actually the third year, as programmers start counting from 0). When the games (from the 'yearly game design and programming event designed to encourage experimentation and innovation in the game industry') were showcased during the Experimental Gameplay Workshop at GDC 2004, I was highly impressed and couldn't wait to play the 2D-physics-based games myself. Now everyone can try them, provided you can run a Windows executable." Oh, and any game description which starts with the phrase: "The physics engine treats the hamsters kinda like a fluid" (as 'Stunt Hamsters' does) is a friend of mine.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Linux is dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8994274)

GNAA / Google confirms: Linux is dying. GNAA / Google confirms: Linux is dying.
By GNAA Staff

Here you have it: it's official; Google confirms: Desktop Linux is dying.

Now, you might be thinking this is just another cut & paste troll based on the typical *BSD is dying bullshit.
It isn't.
As you might have know, your favorite search engine, Google [google.com] , has been running a little statistics service, called "Zeitgeist [google.com] ".
Since about a year ago, they started providing statistics of the operating systems used to access their search engine worldwide.
I will let the numbers speak for themselves:

Operating Systems Accessing Google in January 2002 [google.com]
Operating Systems Accessing Google in March 2002 [google.com]
Operating Systems Accessing Google in April 2002 [google.com]
Operating Systems Accessing Google in May 2002 [google.com]
Operating Systems Accessing Google in June 2002 [google.com]
Operating Systems Accessing Google in July 2002 [google.com]
Operating Systems Accessing Google in August 2002 [google.com]
Operating Systems Accessing Google in September 2002 [google.com]
Operating Systems Accessing Google in November 2002 [google.com]
Operating Systems Accessing Google in December 2002 [google.com]
Operating Systems Accessing Google in January 2003 [google.com]
Operating Systems Accessing Google in February 2003 [google.com]
Operating Systems Accessing Google in April 2003 [google.com]
Operating Systems Accessing Google in May 2003 [google.com]
Operating Systems Accessing Google in June 2003 [google.com]
Operating Systems Accessing Google in July 2003 [google.com]
Operating Systems Accessing Google in August 2003 [google.com]
Operating Systems Accessing Google in September 2003 [google.com]
Operating Systems Accessing Google in November 2003 [google.com]

If you've looked at even a few of these links, you don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict Desktop Linux's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Desktop Linux faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Linux on Desktop because Linux is dying. Things are looking very bad for Linux on Desktop. As many of us are already aware, Linux on Desktop continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

According to Google Zeitgeist [google.com] , there are about 80% of Internet Explorer 6 [microsoft.com] users. The only platform supporting Internet Explorer 6 is, of course, Microsoft Windows. These statistics are consistent with the earlier presented graphs of the operating systems used to access Google, with the Windows family consistently taking the top 3 ranks. Out of remaining 20%, the split is even between MSIE 5.5, MSIE 5.0, both Windows-only browsers. Netscape 5.x (including Mozilla) counts for only a measly 5% of browsers used to access Google. As you can see from the graph, this sample was calculated starting from March 2001 until September 2003.

Linux "leaders" will have you believe that Linux is gaining market share. However, according to Google [google.com] , "Linux" was never a top 10 search word at *any time* since Google began tracking search statistics. This can only mean one thing: Linux is dying.

All major surveys show that Linux on Desktop is something never meant to happen. Repeatedly, reputable organizations review Desktop Linux offerings, and consistently [osnews.com] give [com.com] it [com.com] unacceptable [yahoo.com] scores, compared to even Apple [apple.com] 's MacOS X [apple.com] , which is actually based on the "claimed to by dying long time ago" *BSD. If you paid attention to the operating systems used to access Google graphs earlier, you will notice that MacOS has consistently scored higher percentages than Linux. Infact, the obscure "other" category, which we assume is embedded systems, PDA's, cellular phones, etc, has at times ranked Higher [google.com] than even Mac OS - and of course, Linux.

In almost 2 years worth of statistics, Linux [linux.com] has NEVER outranked even such a truly "dying" OS as Mac OS, and infact, never raised above the 1% mark. When Windows XP [microsoft.com] was released, Google searches for Linux drastically decreased [google.com] . This clearly demonstrates that Linux on Desktop is, for all practical purposes, dead.

Fact: Desktop Linux is dead.

This commentary brought to you by a proud GNAA member.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.
By moderating this post as "Underrated", you cannot be Meta-Moderated! Please consider this.

________________________________________________
| ______________________________________._a,____ |
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ |
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ |
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ |
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ |
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ |
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ |
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ |
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ |
| ______-"!^____________________________________ |
` _______________________________________________'

Re:Linux is dying (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8994393)

They all (all 3 I saw) say 1% for Linux desktop, also wrt the browser statistics there seems to be an upsurge in fire-pandas a few weeks ago, any explanations?

Bah, all cheap imitations (5, Interesting)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 10 years ago | (#8994398)

Now here's [jet.ro] a real real-physics game.

Re:Bah, all cheap imitations (1)

Xaymot (754751) | more than 10 years ago | (#8997949)

A financial donation for Truck Dismount?

HAAAA!

It is fun as hell though.

Just a Little Twisted? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8994682)

STUNT HAMSTERS

No hamsters were harmed during the production of this game.
Design by: Casey Muratori with Ryan Ellis

The physics engine treats the hamsters kinda like a fluid. So you basically fire all these hamsters out of a cannon, and you pack them into different areas and then when you light them on fire, the gas that gets let out of that, displaces the fluid very violently. So you can change the structure of the level because this organic fluid explosion allows you to push blocks over and do these cool things.

what is the minum requirementes 4 runningthis ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8994696)

I get a popup box everytime a sound even happens

Chris Hecker is a god! (3, Insightful)

Chelloveck (14643) | more than 10 years ago | (#8995361)

When I was writing video games [klov.com] for a living, Hecker's physics articles in Game Developer magazine really helped me out. He knows what he's doing when it comes to this stuff. And, at least as important, he knows how to teach others to do it too.

Stunt Hamsters! (1)

mrseigen (518390) | more than 10 years ago | (#8996783)

I'll have to look for whoever wrote this genius piece of work so I can thank them profusely, I've never had so much fun exploding large piles of rodent. :)

So which year? (1)

Deraj DeZine (726641) | more than 10 years ago | (#8996948)

actually the third year, as programmers start counting from 0

Is this true or just some lame attempt at humor? I couldn't find any mention of it being the 3rd Game Jam, so I'm assuming this was meant as a joke. Unfortunately, the reasoning is kind of crazy: programmers don't start counting from zero, they just count offsets from the beginning of a list/array because it can be more efficient (doesn't matter nowadays, but it used to). This works out well since all integer types contain 0 as a number, so a single byte could address 8 elements instead of just 7. This contrasts with functions like strlen which count the characters in a string. strlen starts counting with 1 just like any sane human being. To summarize: the joke is not funny and untrue =)

Re:So which year? (1)

Mahrtian (238199) | more than 10 years ago | (#8997123)

This is the absolute truth. Check out the home page [indiegamejam.com] to read about IndieJam0 (massive sprite counts) and IndieJam1 (shadow interface).

Re:So which year? (1)

Deraj DeZine (726641) | more than 10 years ago | (#8998680)

Ah, thanks, I wasn't sure how to search for the zeroeth IndieJam. I still stand by my claim that programmers start counting with 1 and only start with 0 for storing offsets.

Re:So which year? (1)

PhoenixOne (674466) | more than 10 years ago | (#9001340)

Okay, this ties into my sig so I guess I should say something. ;)

In C/C++ etc, we index things from zero. So, if you had an array of 50 IndieJams (indieJam[50]) you would access the first jam like so: indieJam[0];

So, do we start counting with 0? That isn't the point really. I guess it is all a matter of context. Is it funny? Well that depends on your humor. If you laugh at the punchline to the "Two strings walk into a bar.." joke, then the answer is yes. ;)

Re:So which year? (1)

Deraj DeZine (726641) | more than 10 years ago | (#9002358)

My point is that you don't start counting with 0 instead of 1, because then how would you count 0 items?

In C/C++, you index array elements by their offset from the beginning as I stated before. There is no "counting" involved.

Re:So which year? (1)

ikkonoishi (674762) | more than 10 years ago | (#9003664)

null

Re:So which year? (1)

Deraj DeZine (726641) | more than 10 years ago | (#9003806)

NULL is usually defined to be zero, so no, that doesn't work. If you're returning a pointer, then yes, but that's not the same as counting.

Never mind, though. No one seems to understand my point...

Re:So which year? (1)

AnotherFreakboy (730662) | more than 10 years ago | (#9004037)

Then there is the whole is zero a natural number thing.

Mathematicians usually say no, it is defined to not be. The reason for this definition is that zero is a special case in terms of many rules (division for example) so having it not be a natural number makes many mathematical theorems work for natural numbers that would otherwise have a special case. Mathematicians don't like special cases.

On the other hand Computer Scientists, among others, like to say yes, as it is possible to have zero of something (eg there are zero sheep in the room with me, at the moment) so zero should be a natural number. Having zero not be a natural number even though it is possible to have zero of something makes zero a special case. Computer Scientists don't like special cases.

In the end it is more or less a matter of preference and convention. When in Maths-land ignore zero as it is inconvenient, when in CompSci-land take zero into account as your programs will likely crash otherwise.

Slashdotted! (1)

MonkeyCookie (657433) | more than 10 years ago | (#8998069)

The site appears to be slashdotted already.

Bummer :(

Stunt Hamsters - Great Game! (1)

jtriska (520530) | more than 10 years ago | (#9004140)

I just beat it. It was challenging, but not so challenging that it wasn't fun.

I'd be really interested in learning if there's a tool or simple way to make levels for it though.

It'd probably end up with a contributing community pretty quickly if the word got around.

Re:Stunt Hamsters - Great Game! (1)

DaFlusha (224762) | more than 10 years ago | (#9008441)

I don't know about Stunt Hamsters, but I know that many of the games support level editing. Just press "E" and you get a level editor in BootLooter, Nebulae, and a couple others.

Re:Stunt Hamsters - Great Game! (1)

misuba (139520) | more than 10 years ago | (#9012741)

How do you beat the last level? I'm stymied.

Re:Stunt Hamsters - Great Game! (1)

illuin (113072) | more than 9 years ago | (#9022140)

Here's how I did it:

Fill the whole bottom area with a sea of flaming hamsters. Make sure they cover the peak of the "mountain" in the middle.

Next, you job is to shoot some hamsters up towards the movable rock, so that 2-3 hamsters get clumped together and fall down to the flaming sea together.

The last part is to aim a hamster shot so that it is shooting as high on the rock as you can without hitting the ledge over the cannon. You need to time it so that this shot is directly above the mountain peak when the hampster clump is ignited. If all goes well, he "gas expansion" from the hampster-clump-explosion will give your just-shot hampster just that extra bit of lift he needs to make it over the rock and into the vortex.

You have to do this 10 times to win, and it takes a while because it's quite tricky to get the clumping and timing just right. The timing the shot is possible if you put 97 hamster in the flaming sea, use 3 to build the clump, and then suck one of the flaming-sea-hamster up with the mouse just when you need to shoot.

Maybe there's an easier way, but I just couldn't get that big rock to move far enough.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?