Click to expand
Rank #24922 on SubscribersLevel 196 Comments: Anon Annihilator
OfflineSend mail to ashfightsrobots Block ashfightsrobots Invite ashfightsrobots to be your friend flag avatar
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||4/13/2011|
|Funnyjunk Career Stats|
|Highest Content Rank:||#2978|
|Highest Comment Rank:||#7789|
|Content Thumbs:||3484 total, 3700 , 216|
|Comment Thumbs:||1030 total, 1094 , 64|
|Content Level Progress:|| 83% (83/100) |
Level 134 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 135 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
|Comment Level Progress:|| 90% (9/10) |
Level 196 Comments: Anon Annihilator → Level 197 Comments: Anon Annihilator
|Times Content Favorited:||382 times|
|Total Comments Made:||212|
|Favorite Tags:||Nintendo (3) | Pokemon (3) | Zelda (3) | back to the futu (2) | epic (2) | fail (2) | game (2) | Mario (2) | Nike (2) | nostalgia (2) | the (2)|
latest user's comments
|#86 - Sept he began designing / working on the park in 1959,and whil…||04/08/2015 on Disney facts||+2|
|#47 - Structural Engineer student here; to back you up steel looses … [+] (7 new replies)||02/10/2015 on Jet fuel can't do it but...||+5|
#55 - anonymous (02/10/2015) [-]
collapse =/= almost perfect freefall of 70 more floors, especially when the "added weight" that creates a domino effect to make the tower falling rate speed up is simultaneously being crushed into powder. It's either collapsing and rubble crashes down adding more weight witch makes it fall faster, or the building is being pounded into dust which would not add weight. It can't be both.
You can present arguments/explanations for both sides til blue in the face about everything but building 7; there is not reason scientific or otherwise that explains what happened to that building. First building to freefall demo itself due to a small fire in the corner of the building.
#98 - veryspecialagent (02/11/2015) [-]
I'm not 13, the ppl who make that argument to justify the story they were told to believe night as well be. The "pancaking theory" that everyone brings up makes no sense to me. The theory is that as the top started to fall it pancaked the story below it, which adds more weight to the overall collapsing area, which makes the next level below collapse etc etc... The more levels collapse, the heavier the collapsing part gets, the faster the building begins to fall. I'm saying this doesn't make sense when there's a little thing called conservation of energy. It especially doesn't make sense when these levels that are "pancaking" seem to be turning into dust and being expelled out. That makes the pancaking theory make even less sense.
Plus I never said that the towers freefell. They did increase in speed as they fell however, and they fell a hell of a lot faster than most would have expected them to. Building 7 however practically did freefall, perfectly into it's own basement, and with barely any damage given to it previous to the collapse. That is the headscratcher.
#50 - zeroqp (02/10/2015) [-]
The jet fuel burned up in the first few seconds of the crash (hence the fireball). The fire was not very intense compared to other fires that have occured in other steel-framed structures (none of which ever collapsed), and even if for some reason the supports collapsed from the fire, not only would they have crashed unsymmetrically, but the crash would have also stopped at the base of the fire, and not taken down the whole building with it.
A quote from 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
"Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things. "
|#146 - certain games will make use of the new available hardware (imp… [+] (1 new reply)||01/15/2015 on Nintendo is the Best at...||+1|
|#8 - Picture [+] (2 new replies)||12/03/2014 on Advise||+32|
|#24 - Wait! I just had a thought. Since the Rare of yesteryear doesn… [+] (7 new replies)||09/23/2014 on MineCraft||-5|
#65 - bluemagebrilly (09/23/2014) [-]
#79 - snowshark (09/24/2014) [-]
They're already skins in MC, however the problem with Rare was that they came out with a terribad game that basically sunk their brand post being bought-out by Microsoft and around that time the puzzle-platformer genre was already starting to die out popularity-wise making a new Banjo Kazooie game a massive financial risk. Then when they finally DID make one it was a total catastrophe.
In order to make a Banjo Kazooie game that wasn't shite Microsoft would need a team that understood puzzle-platforming and Rare's style of writing at least as well as Rare did as well as be able to market it to a receptive and wide audience but let's face it, no team in the market today has that know-how... otherwise we'd still see Puzzle Platformers. Nintendo have basically taken all of the people who love Platformers for themselves.
However the indie teams making games atm are about the age that they would have been young enough to grow up with puzzle-platformers, hence we'll probably see them making them on the indie scene like we're already seeing with 'A Hat In Time'. Just like we've had a flood of antiquated gametypes coming out of the indie market that trend is going to continue because indie games are cheap and the best ones offer a great, nostalgic experience like Shovel Knight without being too dependent on the rose-tinted goggles.
So is Microsoft gonna make another Banjo Kazooie game? Well, probably, if the market can supply them with the means and the justification to do it, but as it stands the market is moving towards 3D adventure games like Uncharted and The Last of Us, and away from FPS titles so it might be a while before Microsoft ever allocate enough resources to make a decent stab at a good Conker/BK game, but it's still in the cards.
As for Mojang, they're probably not gonna leave. Microsoft are very smart, they just don't take risks. Meddling too much with Mojang and making the staff uncomfortable is a risk so Minecraft is safe enough for now.
#82 - bluemagebrilly (09/24/2014) [-]
I already said something about the Banjo game in another comment with you, I have nothing to say about platformers, really.
Mojang may leave or be fired, honestly, to make room for Microsoft's workers or just because they don't agree with Microsoft. It happens, and Microsoft aren't /that/ smart. They've been declining and making poor choices for awhile.
#88 - snowshark (09/24/2014) [-]
Huh, you are the same guy. Okay then.
And if you think Microsoft are declining then you're kinda misguided. Ever since 2008 every single video game company has been flatlining so far as their finances are concerned, hence why so many have died... except for two. Valve and Microsoft are the only two powers left in the business who aren't haemorrhaging money and are actually growing.
Aye, MC's business strategies have been dumb of late but remember, the X-Box One's functionality was first rumoured to be extant in the PS4. Playstation got there first and shot themselves in the foot by removing it, therefore taking a big impact to their sales through game retailers and used games still being a thing whilst Microsoft (who was doing the same thing) just kept on going, possibly not even knowing of the changes made to the PS4. (Although to be fair they were both in the wrong since the enemy's not the people buying used games but the retailers who are selling them and the retailers should be the ones paying the company, not the consumers directly.)
Atop that there's the Kinect which has been such a drain on Microsoft so far as development was concerned that they were determined to make it a success... however it didn't work out and now Microsoft and Playstation are on pretty equal footing.
So far as how Microsoft has been behaving it's all pretty understandable for a company unwilling to take risks (especially in this current market).
As for Mojang leaving Microsoft? Eh... 343 studios and Bungie work(ed) fine with MC for the time that they did. The only real issue was that Bungie signed a deal with Microsoft to produce more Halo games than they wanted to produce so that made things tense. Microsoft made the smart decision and tried to milk the Halo franchise and in creating 343 they filled it with people who loved Halo, not just corporate shells trying to capitalise on market trends.
Mojang will be fine so long as they're profitable.
|#14 - Picture||08/10/2014 on Wallpaper||0|
|#13 - Picture||08/10/2014 on Wallpaper||0|
|#12 - Picture||08/10/2014 on Wallpaper||0|
|#11 - Picture||08/10/2014 on Wallpaper||0|
|#10 - Picture||08/10/2014 on Wallpaper||0|