Some of the info given about BG are really interesting. This caught my eye
Some parts of BG seem simple now, and many perceived
character relationships were outright imaginary. The players imposed their own perceptions on those tiny sprites and unrecorded text.
This engaging the player's imagination is a very powerful tool since it allows each person's experience to be personal.
Here is how they describe Dragon Age
With full quality voice and cinematic visuals, the characters provide a huge array of responses in no uncertain terms.
I fear the uncanny valley also apply to exposition. The more you anticipate how the relationships between the characters could go, the more artificial it could seem to the players, because it will only reflect what the designers think could happen.
Skimming through the comments here, they seems to break down into several categories:
Don't need it because I can do it myself.
It is just like some other technology.
Beware of vendor lock in.
I don't see any posts talking about
here is what we used cloud computing for and here are the problems with the current platforms.
This tells me that whatever this technology is, it is still early and people are still testing the water. If we want some kind of standard or open implementation of clouds, we are going to need much more people using it to explore what is good and bad about the model.
The beginning of a new technology should be about trying to find the limits of it. It is stupid to worry about open or proprietary before we even know if people will want it. The proprietary people are getting first crack at it because they think it will make them money. So let them find out what the issues are and if they can make money.
After they do your R&D for you, then you can make an open and free version. That's been the model of most successful open source projects.
I really hope the current attempt at E3 dies. The old E3 format had issues but it was actual an important symbol for the industry. I wrote a post yesterday about why the games industry needs E3. In it I argue that E3 was presented gaming culture, whether you like it or not.
And instead of using it as a forum to celebrate gaming and welcome the tons of gamers who flock there trying to sneak in, ESA ruined it by trying to make it focused on the business side of the convention.
PAX is becoming much more popular because there is demand for gamers to feel part of a culture of gaming. E3 had it and tossed it out because the companies were just looking at their bottomline.
that used a physical board? It must have been 16 years ago. The board had two groove for your feet and actually slid left and right to control the skier.
I am not sure how much fun just using the wii fit board would be. But I'll willing to give it shot.
Intel obviously sees the threat of the GPU creators, but their attempts at breaking into the GPU market hasn't been very successful.
Their next generation effort is called Larrabee. Which uses multiple x86 cores linked with a ring bus.
It actually reminds me of PS3 SPU setup but Intel is using the GPU functionality as a wedge into the GPU market, instead of pushing it for general computation. But, since standard C code will work on it, you can rewrite the entire stack to be a physics co-processor or fold@home client.
Ultimately, I see the CPU and GPU separation disappear and merge into one chip, much like FPU and sound card functionalities.
Slashdot Mirror
Some parts of BG seem simple now, and many perceived character relationships were outright imaginary. The players imposed their own perceptions on those tiny sprites and unrecorded text.
This engaging the player's imagination is a very powerful tool since it allows each person's experience to be personal. Here is how they describe Dragon Age
With full quality voice and cinematic visuals, the characters provide a huge array of responses in no uncertain terms.
I fear the uncanny valley also apply to exposition. The more you anticipate how the relationships between the characters could go, the more artificial it could seem to the players, because it will only reflect what the designers think could happen.
Skimming through the comments here, they seems to break down into several categories:
I don't see any posts talking about
here is what we used cloud computing for and here are the problems with the current platforms.
This tells me that whatever this technology is, it is still early and people are still testing the water. If we want some kind of standard or open implementation of clouds, we are going to need much more people using it to explore what is good and bad about the model.
The beginning of a new technology should be about trying to find the limits of it. It is stupid to worry about open or proprietary before we even know if people will want it. The proprietary people are getting first crack at it because they think it will make them money. So let them find out what the issues are and if they can make money.
After they do your R&D for you, then you can make an open and free version. That's been the model of most successful open source projects.
I really hope the current attempt at E3 dies. The old E3 format had issues but it was actual an important symbol for the industry. I wrote a post yesterday about why the games industry needs E3. In it I argue that E3 was presented gaming culture, whether you like it or not.
And instead of using it as a forum to celebrate gaming and welcome the tons of gamers who flock there trying to sneak in, ESA ruined it by trying to make it focused on the business side of the convention.
PAX is becoming much more popular because there is demand for gamers to feel part of a culture of gaming. E3 had it and tossed it out because the companies were just looking at their bottomline.
that used a physical board? It must have been 16 years ago. The board had two groove for your feet and actually slid left and right to control the skier.
I am not sure how much fun just using the wii fit board would be. But I'll willing to give it shot.Intel obviously sees the threat of the GPU creators, but their attempts at breaking into the GPU market hasn't been very successful.
Their next generation effort is called Larrabee. Which uses multiple x86 cores linked with a ring bus.
It actually reminds me of PS3 SPU setup but Intel is using the GPU functionality as a wedge into the GPU market, instead of pushing it for general computation. But, since standard C code will work on it, you can rewrite the entire stack to be a physics co-processor or fold@home client.
Ultimately, I see the CPU and GPU separation disappear and merge into one chip, much like FPU and sound card functionalities.