davetansley

joined 1 year ago
[–] davetansley@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Pixel 6 phone, and I pretty much just picked it up and pointed it :)

142
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by davetansley@lemmy.world to c/pics@lemmy.world
 
[–] davetansley@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I did try running Plasma on Mint, but it was never quite as good as on Fedora or as smooth on Mint as Cinnamon.

Honestly, I think I just like the simple uniformity of Cinnamon. It's dull and predicable, but really, really solid.

[–] davetansley@lemmy.world 51 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Switched to Linux Mint about three years ago after being unable to take my perfectly good laptop from W10 to W11. Dual boot firstly, quickly becoming entirely Mint. It just worked. It was the first Linux distro I'd tried in about 20 years that I didn't mess up in a week or so.

Recently bought a new laptop and decided to distro hop. Tried various flavours of Fedora, and a few others, but ultimately came back to Mint. None of the others worked quite as well as Mint does for me (though I really liked KDE Plasma, and Gnome surprised me once I finally discovered extensions!)

[–] davetansley@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

For some reason, Mint doesn't provide access to the power profiles out of the box... no idea why. I just install a Cinnamon applet called "Power Profiles" and it gives me the same systray switcher as Fedora.

Fresh install of Mint was giving me about 2 hours battery life. By switching to Power Saver profile, I can get up to about 6-8 hours. I mostly only need to go to Balanced or Performance when gaming.

[–] davetansley@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago (3 children)

I'm starting to think that we need to see AI research in the same way we see biological weapon research - a visit from a SEAL team or a cruise missile for any identified laboratory. Smash the disks, burn all the print outs!

Okay, this is hyperbolic and unrealistic, but I agree with this lion-maned YouTuber - we are really not ready.

AI as a tech is game changing, but it practically demands at least UBI (and probably some form of socialism) as a prerequisite. We, meanwhile, are still electing conservative governments! The same arseholes that will label the legions of unemployed artists, actors, musicians, coders, admin assistants etc etc as lazy and cut their benefits.

Does anyone truly believe that a tech that can replace half of human jobs is going to create happy outcomes in today's society? Or will it just make tech-bros and scammers richer, and virtually everyone else poorer?

[–] davetansley@lemmy.world 59 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Working from home has its pros and cons. Fortunately, in my experience, the pros are all mine and the cons are all someone else's. That kind of colours my judgement.

[–] davetansley@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Religion has certain self-reinforcing properties. Kind of like genes that make it more likely to propagate against other forms of information.

  • Believing without question is better than questioning
  • Not believing will be punished
  • Virtue will be rewarded
  • Spreading the belief is a virtue
  • You should obey your parents

Combine that with young human brains being malleable, and religion tends to continue against all odds.

[–] davetansley@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Clowns who think like this need to fuck all the way off... and, honestly, it's up to older folk like me to make that clear. Younger folks are going to be fooled or scared into thinking like this and be unable or unwilling to speak up. We who have less pressing concerns need to have their backs.

[–] davetansley@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why did its valuation tank after Elon Musk took over and started enacting his policies? Perhaps we'll never know...

[–] davetansley@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I use it for work. Other than having to think for a second to find weirdly hidden menu items, it's fine. At least for my purposes, as a .NET dev. One thing I love about it is Windows Sandbox... really wish Linux would could up something similar.

[–] davetansley@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

It's interesting how far Linux desktop has progressed recently... I don't hate Windows, in fact I think it's a great OS for most purposes. But I happened to try Linux Mint a few years ago in a fit of pique about being excluded from the Win11 upgrade for spurious reasons... and it just kind of stuck.

Two years later and I am full on Linux now. Don't even have a Windows partition (though I do keep a VM). And I'm about to buy a new laptop that I intend to buy without an OS, it will never be touched by Windows, there's just no need.

For my purposes, Linux does everything now. OS, software, the games I want to play... I never even think about it. Also, everywhere I look, I see Linux - my Steamdeck, my MiSTer, my Pis, my Miyoo Mini. It's everywhere...

 

Everyone knows about Final Fight, right? This 1989 Capcom beat 'em up feels almost genre defining, even though it was not the first beat 'em up of its type. Nevertheless, it cast a long shadow over games that came after it, especially those released by Capcom.

And with good reason. Final Fight is awesome, even today. It's a simple enough concept - gang kidnaps ex-Street Fighter and new Mayor Mike Haggar's daughter, so Mike and his pals Cody and Guy undertake a mission to save her. Said mission involves beating up fools, swinging various weapons, taking part in a wrestling match at one point, and eating lots of food out of trashcans. You can play as either of the three pals, and even bring a pal of your own along as a second player.

The arcade version of Final Fight

It's a lot of fun, and well worth a look today. It hurls hordes of bad guys at you that you slice through with kicks and punches and special moves. Nothing quite beats the feeling of your guy disappearing under a pile of ruffians, only to emerge with a cyclone kick to send the bastards flying.

But it was also a technical powerhouse, with massive sprites, detailed backgrounds and a ton of stuff on screen at once. So how the hell would this behemoth fit into a humble ZX Spectrum? Grab a trash-chicken and let's find out...

The Spectrum version of Final Fight

Let's deal with the Amstrad and Spectrum versions together, since they share a lot of the same DNA, not to mention failings.

Okay, there's no two ways about this. 1991 was way late in the life of the 8-bit home micros. They were about two generations behind the curve at this point, and time had not been kind. So any hope of getting a decent port of Final Fight onto these two was wishful thinking at best. Yet, somehow, someone thought it might be a good idea...

There are two ways you can look at these versions.

First, you can judge them on merit. And, honestly, they come up wanting. They're both terrible games, by any measure. To their credit, both attempt to copy the arcade to the best of their abilities, including all three playable characters, all stages, most moves, a representative sample of the animation frames... but it's this ambition that cripples both ports. Because the result is a slow, jerky, indistinct mess (especially on the monochrome Spectrum) that is really difficult to play. Moves take forever to animate, collision detection is terrible, every single-enemy fight is more like a boss fight in the length of time it takes to play out. There are glitches aplenty and both versions share a quirk that sees your character getting frozen to the spot after every punch or kick, standing there like Mitch McConnell while the enemies pile on. On top of that, weapons are useless, Cody and Guy are useless, and the game generally feels like a kind of torture.

The Amstrad version of Final Fight

But there's another way of looking at them... because there is clearly some achievement there. They are both recognisably Final Fight. The sprites, the locations, the enemies, all reasonable representations of Final Fight. They play like Final Fight, albeit Final Fight shot through a prism of shit. They attempt big boy feats they have no business doing, like the animated train on level two, or the wrestling arena. They both have the fancy animated intro... these are clearly not mindless cash grabs. There was talent here, talent that pushed these two machines beyond what anyone would have thought possible in 1982. It just feels like wasted effort.

Worth a look for novelty value alone.

The C64 version of Final Fight

I've kept the C64 version apart from the other two because it is a very different beast, and a very different kind of bad. As is often the case, the C64 went its own way and knocked out a port that feels inspired by Final Fight at best. The levels are similar only, the sprites are smaller, the whole feel of the game is different.

It has a weird kind of floaty feel to it. There's this strange quirk where landing a kick will only have an effect a short time later. So you'll kick a dude, you'll get a sound effect, then about half a second after that, the dude will fly backwards. It's almost surreal.

The thing is, this port almost feels like it could have been a decent game. Just rounding off the sharp edges would have helped a lot, and it could have been a fun two player beat 'em up in the Renegade style. It's just not Final Fight.

The Amiga version of Final Fight

Surely things are better on the 16-bit micros, right?

Well, yes and no. The Amiga port is clearly superior to the 8-bits. It has some great intro music, the graphics are colourful, the sprites massive and reasonably well-animated. It just has that undeniable Amiga-arcade-port quality of something feeling off. It doesn't feel fluid or hectic like the arcade. There are fewer enemies at once, the control is hampered by a one-button joystick and feel sluggish, and the difficulty feels off, with stunlocks happening far too often.

But it's not the worst Amiga arcade port out there, and would probably serve you well if you were looking for bit of quick mayhem.

The Atari ST version of Final Fight

The same can't be said of the Atari ST port, sadly. This version looks similar to the Amiga, but with fewer colours. It has some terrible character-block scrolling that wouldn't look out of place on the Amstrad. And the sound is about Spectrum quality. Not the ST's finest hour.

The SNES version of Final Fight

Over on the console, and things look a little better, as you might expect.

Starting with the SNES version, which is definitely the runt of the litter. It's not terrible, it plays pretty well, it just feels cut down. That's because it is... only two characters available (sob, poor Guy). No two player mode. Some weird early-90s censorship that saw various female enemies replaced by cookie-cutter male hoodlums. A whole missing level. Some missing level transitions. And a generally drab looking appearance.

Not awful, but not great by any means.

It should be noted that Japan got a version called "Final Fight Guy" which returned Guy to the game... at the expense of Cody. So close.

The Mega CD version of Final Fight

Let's end on two high notes.

The Mega CD version of Final Fight is superb! From the animated, voiced intro, to the faithful reproduction of the gameplay, to the extras that this version includes, everything feels complete. It plays well, it sounds amazing, it is the first port so far that actually captures the essence of the arcade incredibly well. It has lots of enemies on screen at once (not quite as many of the coin-op, but better than the SNES).

If I was compelled to level but one criticism, it would be that the colour palette feels a little off, which is probably a limitation of the Megadrive itself. It just leaves things looking a bit... gritty.

But that shouldn't deter you! This port is awesome and well worth a play!

The GBA version of Final Fight

But for all that the Mega CD version is great, it's not my favourite...

That accolade goes to, surprisingly, the Gameboy Advance!

The GBA got a port titled "Final Fight One", which is basically a port of the arcade, so it counts. Unlike the SNES, all characters are present, as is a two player mode via link cable. All stages are here, and the game generally looks a lot more vibrant. Due to the nature of the GBA screen, it does feel a little "zoomed in", but you get used to it.

Where this port succeeds the most is in how it plays. It is fluid as hell, fast and easy to control. You get the same frantic feeling as the arcade, with lots of enemies flying all over the screen. The music really adds to this feel, with some cool renditions of the arcades tunes.

Overall, a really complete package and well worth playing today!

So what are your memories of Final Fight? Did you suffer through the Spectrum version or were you lucky enough to get the Mega CD port?

[–] davetansley@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I believe there was an MSDOS port, I just didn't have the set up to play it. From YouTube, it looks similar to the Amiga version.

 

Ivan 'Ironman' Stewart's Super Off Road is a 1989 arcade release that plays kind of like a fancy Super Sprint. It's a single screen game where three players race their trucks over a number of courses, picking up nitro and money, and upgrading their vehicles between races. It's fast, goofy, chaotic and a lot of fun. The orginal arcade, notably, featured a three steering wheel cabinet.

The arcade version of Super Off Road

On the face of it, this simple game looks ideal for home ports... but can they capture the mayhem of the original?

The Amstrad CPC port is, unsurprisingly, based on the Spectrum version. But in this case, they've at least attempted to include some colour. Sadly, this amounts to changing the track to orange-brown and adding colour to two of the cars, meaning that the other two remain resolutely orange-brown. It's a curious choice, but I guess they ran into some four colour screen mode limit. It's not terrible though, but it does suffer from some horrendous slowdown. Like the Spectrum, it allows for just two players.

Next up is the C64 version, and it's pretty good. It's more colourful than its 8-bit cousins, and it allows for up to three players. It moves and plays okay. But it feels a little bit stiffer, losing some of the chaotic speed of the original. Good attempt!

The Spectrum port is arrestingly yellow. Yellow cars on a yellow track, with your yellow car being distinguished by a yellow square above your vehicle that takes a good few seconds to spot. However, despite its monochrome shortcomings, the conversion itself is top notch. As is often the case with Speccy ports, you can't hang your hat on either the graphics or the sound, but you will frequently find that the feel of the arcade original is captured surprisingly well. And that is totally the case here. Great speed, fluid control, a lot of fun! And some surprisingly good 128K sound!

So, for the 8-bit micros at least (the only comparison that really matters) a Speccy win!

For the posh kids, the Amiga got an effortlessly competent port. Lovely smooth graphics that perfectly capture the arcade original. Not much to say about this one, other than it's very good indeed.

The console versions of Super Off Road

Over on the consoles, the SNES port is the best of the bunch. It looks, plays and sounds superb, retaining much of the original arcade and adding to it. Notably, the soundtrack is brilliant, with lots of catchy and memorable tracks. If you're going to play just one home port of Super Off Road, pick this one. It's rad!

The Megadrive/Genesis port... not so much. It's not terrible, it just tries to add a uniquely Megadrive spin on the game, which doesn't quite work. The end result is a drab looking version with a crunchy/scratchy Megadrive soundtrack which doesn't play quite as well as the SNES version.

On the 8-bit consoles, the Mastersystem is the best of the two. It's bright and crisp with good controls and smooth gameplay. The NES doesn't fare so well, with an incredibly drab palette that somehow swaps red for pink on the main car. However, it supports up to four players, which makes it unique among the home ports and even the arcade!

The handheld versions of Super Off Road

Sadly, the handhelds don't fare so well. All of them lose the single screen in favour of a scrolling play area, which tends to make the game feel a bit claustrophobic. The best of them is the Game Gear version, which is basically the Mastersystem version on a small screen, and it plays almost as well.

The Gameboy version, on the other hand, is a disaster, with slow scrolling, terrible controls and indistinct graphics. Kind of like a shitty RC Pro Am.

And even worse than the Gameboy port, is the Atari Lynx port. It initially looks promising, with chunky, colourful graphics that capture the arcade well. Then it starts moving... jerky scrolling, bad controls and annoying sound make this the very bottom of the bunch. Avoid!

 

R-Type is the greatest game ever made, right? Right? No? Then get off my land, you pervert. It just is.

The 8-bit ports of the game were mixed: the Amstrad got a terrible, slow, drab port. The C64 got a fun shooter that felt loosely based on the source, but which loses points for straight up doing it's own thing (as the C64 often did).

But it's the ZX Spectrum port that really shines. More colourful than it had right to be, fast, faithful, fun. It was a weird kind of miracle: so accurate you could even use your arcade learnings to do well at the game.

So, for the 8-bit micros at least, clear Speccy win!

...

But they were, all of them, deceived, for there was another 8-bit computer R-Type made.

The homebrew Amstrad port of R-Type

On the internet, in the coding forums, homebrew coders forged in secret an Amstrad port to beat all the others. And into this port they poured colour, accuracy, music...

And the result is pretty great. Amazing to see what the Amstrad can really do when it isn't getting stinky Spectrum ports. I would say this one ties with the Spectrum port for playability.

view more: next ›