I play DDR sometimes at the local Peter Piper Pizza. I've seen some overweight kids going to town there. They were pretty good, too.
I don't think it'll be a problem. Yeah, you move your body, but it's all about reacting quickly to stuff on the screen. I mean, basically, it's a videogame.
Crappy games are going to kill the games industry at about the same time that rampant and fervent misuse of the comma kills the Inquirer. And don't get me started about "it's".
Seriously though, I don't think games are any worse (or better) now than they were five years ago. There's still cool, original stuff and there are still sequels. Plenty of games are still fun.
Even though Spiderman 2 and The Incredible Hulk were both really awesome games? This sounds like crummy advice.
Here's what I do: never buy a game until you're read some good reviews. NOT previews, which are always suspiciously glowing. After getting burned buying a few $50 games the first day they came out, I stick hard and fast to this rule.
Even then sometimes I wait a year or so until they're $20 at Wal-mart.
'we have plenty of RAM - 16MB - so why not use dynamic allocation'
It's not just about RAM, it's about speed. malloc() is slow enough even on, for instance, the PS2 cpu (EE) to make it worth avoiding whenever possible. If you have to do it, consider writing your own memory manager, or adapting someone else's. malloc() does a lot of complicated stuff you may not need, and in this case simpler may be a lot faster.
Also, you can go a long way with pools of fixed size objects, where the pool mallocs when it needs more, and when you tell the pool you're done with an object it gets reused later.
As a game programmer as well as a parent, I think this is a really good idea. I think the public thinks that game developers want kids to buy all the violent or inappropriate games they can, but it's not true. People don't realize how many adult gamers are out there. Developers don't need or want kids to play violent or sexual games.
The whole idea with Steam, and online distribution in general, is to put control back in the hands of developers, and take it away from distributors. Why should Best Buy or WalMart get to decide what games we can buy?
You actually have some good points here, and I probably should have clarified my viewpoint more.
I guess I should say "I'm really annoyed with the faith the media put in a single 'scientific study'." I'm basing my viewpoint on my own experience with the media; single scientific studies, often taken out of context, and by their nature brand-new and *NOT* yet extensively reviewed by peers, are frequently cited as proof of whatever sensational thing the media thinks will get people's attention.
The headline and text of this post are, I believe, misleading. It makes it sound as if researchers the world over have all come to the same conclusion, which of course isn't true. This is just one study. Big whoop. There are a bajillion studies out there, and pretty much any viewpoint you want to espouse is represented by at least one of them.
I'm really annoyed with the faith people put in "scientific studies". Many studies (not necessarily this one) are funded by corporations, and the scientists are under pressure to come to whatever conclusion the corporation wants.
Also, IMO, Science definately has *NOT* figured out what affect the human mind can have on human health, and how, regardless of this single study.
Comparing game AI to "real" ai isn't really fair. Game AI is created within a very tight time-frame (and budget), to solve a very specific problem (ie, playing a specific computer game well enough to avoid embarassment). Whether it succeeds or fails should not really reflect on whether software could be written to successfully drive cars, for instance. Such software would be written with a totally different set of constraints, safety measures and with actual software engineering practices. The game AI is hacked together until it works well enough to ship, in part because no ones life depends on its performance.
(Maybe an analogy would be complaining that it would be a waste to spend $50 on a nice meal at a fancy restaurant, because you've tasted Taco Bell and it was total crap.)
Slashdot Mirror
I play DDR sometimes at the local Peter Piper Pizza. I've seen some overweight kids going to town there. They were pretty good, too.
I don't think it'll be a problem. Yeah, you move your body, but it's all about reacting quickly to stuff on the screen. I mean, basically, it's a videogame.
Crappy games are going to kill the games industry at about the same time that rampant and fervent misuse of the comma kills the Inquirer. And don't get me started about "it's".
Seriously though, I don't think games are any worse (or better) now than they were five years ago. There's still cool, original stuff and there are still sequels. Plenty of games are still fun.
What kind of crap(py) news is that!
The game was more popular than the movie; you don't see that very often.
Even though Spiderman 2 and The Incredible Hulk were both really awesome games? This sounds like crummy advice.
Here's what I do: never buy a game until you're read some good reviews. NOT previews, which are always suspiciously glowing. After getting burned buying a few $50 games the first day they came out, I stick hard and fast to this rule.
Even then sometimes I wait a year or so until they're $20 at Wal-mart.
If you're honest, you get cleared, right?
"Are you a terrorist?"
"Yes."
"Go on through."
No, you're not.
-Your boss.
'we have plenty of RAM - 16MB - so why not use dynamic allocation' It's not just about RAM, it's about speed. malloc() is slow enough even on, for instance, the PS2 cpu (EE) to make it worth avoiding whenever possible. If you have to do it, consider writing your own memory manager, or adapting someone else's. malloc() does a lot of complicated stuff you may not need, and in this case simpler may be a lot faster. Also, you can go a long way with pools of fixed size objects, where the pool mallocs when it needs more, and when you tell the pool you're done with an object it gets reused later.
playing a violent videogame DOES NOT MAKE YOU A VIOLENT PERSON.
Please stop yelling. Why are you so upset? Hey! Hey stop HITTING ME! Oh no! It's happening again! SOMEONE MAKE HIM STOP!
Hey, glad you're on here. Your kids beat the living crap out of me again.
-Your neighbor
As a game programmer as well as a parent, I think this is a really good idea. I think the public thinks that game developers want kids to buy all the violent or inappropriate games they can, but it's not true. People don't realize how many adult gamers are out there. Developers don't need or want kids to play violent or sexual games.
That is just way, way too much money. Something's gotta give.
Why, I can make you a really top-notch game for HALF that much! (Flash is ok, right?)
Silly. If that's all it took, we'd ALL be pro-gamers.
The whole idea with Steam, and online distribution in general, is to put control back in the hands of developers, and take it away from distributors. Why should Best Buy or WalMart get to decide what games we can buy?
Cut out the middleman, and let the market choose.
Yeah, about the same time they enrolled in this 12-step program.
Does anyone else think it's kinda *fun* to smash crates?
Plus, wouldn't the simulation have to include itself?
Also, is the universe, at the tiniest level, really deterministic?
And how would you take an initial measurement of the state of every particle?
You could always break down and RTFA. The correct price of the stock was mentioned there; $3 to $4.
I guess I should say "I'm really annoyed with the faith the media put in a single 'scientific study'." I'm basing my viewpoint on my own experience with the media; single scientific studies, often taken out of context, and by their nature brand-new and *NOT* yet extensively reviewed by peers, are frequently cited as proof of whatever sensational thing the media thinks will get people's attention.
-csbrooks
The headline and text of this post are, I believe, misleading. It makes it sound as if researchers the world over have all come to the same conclusion, which of course isn't true. This is just one study. Big whoop. There are a bajillion studies out there, and pretty much any viewpoint you want to espouse is represented by at least one of them.
I'm really annoyed with the faith people put in "scientific studies". Many studies (not necessarily this one) are funded by corporations, and the scientists are under pressure to come to whatever conclusion the corporation wants.
Also, IMO, Science definately has *NOT* figured out what affect the human mind can have on human health, and how, regardless of this single study.
-csbrooks
Yes, but...
Comparing game AI to "real" ai isn't really fair. Game AI is created within a very tight time-frame (and budget), to solve a very specific problem (ie, playing a specific computer game well enough to avoid embarassment). Whether it succeeds or fails should not really reflect on whether software could be written to successfully drive cars, for instance. Such software would be written with a totally different set of constraints, safety measures and with actual software engineering practices. The game AI is hacked together until it works well enough to ship, in part because no ones life depends on its performance.
(Maybe an analogy would be complaining that it would be a waste to spend $50 on a nice meal at a fancy restaurant, because you've tasted Taco Bell and it was total crap.)