I, uh, imagine that when they find an unlicensed pool on Google Earth, and send somebody to tell you, he does, uh, a quick peek around back to make sure the pool is actually still there before he knocks on the door.
Your argument makes about as much sense as complaining about the lack of dildos and handcuffs in the rest room, because how else can one play orgy games?
You've got me over a barrel here because the topic of debate is a non-interactive cutscene. You're right, of course, that there's no logical way to defend re-rendering a non-interactive scene that will be pixel-for-pixel identical. So if StarCraft II were designed to be a cutscene-rendering-engine, you'd be spot-on.
Since you've pressed the point, I might be willing to admit that the behavior in question, rendering non-interactive cutscenes at insanely high framerates, is indeed a bug, possibly a significant one, although not one that I personally care about.
I would ask you, however, to keep in mind that StarCraft II is primarily a game engine that is also being used to render cutscenes, and as soon as interactivity is added to the mix, this behavior is exactly what gamers expect, and if solving this "cutscene" issue at all impacts the way the game actual performs, it would be a disservice to gamers.
Any CAL-I Counter-Strike player can tell you that, as soon as you've got a mouse cursor moving around, you can immediately tell the difference between 60 FPS, 100 FPS, and 140 FPS, even if your eyes can't. I maintain that Blizzard did it correctly and this cutscene issue, although an issue, is an ancillary, unforseen issue stemming from a correctly designed engine, rather than a flawed engine.
I see what you mean, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. When I am running a video game, it is the "only" thing currently being ran. It does not have to compete for resources. And I would prefer it to gobble up every bit of horsepower it could find in the name of making things look even marginally better. That is the sign of a robust framework that will properly scale to future increases in hardware potential.
Now, if I had cooling issues, which I don't, and found myself wanting to limit it's 912 FPS cutscenes, which I don't, and couldn't find a way to do that, I would claim that the lack of such a feature was a significant design flaw worthy of debate, but it turns out, they've already got it covered:
Add the following lines to your "Documents\StarCraft II\variables.txt" file: frameratecapglue=30 frameratecap=60
You can add them to the beginning, end, or wherever. The game doesn't care.
StarCraft II is exposing shoddy thermal engineering in video cards because, unlike most games on the market, StarCraft II is correctly utilizing your video card to it's fullest potential.
Say what you will about SC2 game balance, say what you will about Battle.NET 2.0's crappy interface, say what you will about how cheesy Jim Raynor is. I wouldn't disagree with you.
But when it comes to writing engines, Blizzard is the best of the best. Hands down. Everything they write runs smooth as silk, and they have a genuine talent for squeezing jaw-dropping performance out of even mediocre computers. StarCraft II contains correctly written code, and it will utilize your hardware to it's fullest potential. If you bought a bargain computer, put it together yourself, and skimped on the cooling, you're going to get burned.
Pun intended.
I have as much hate as the next guy for how StarCraft II was cannibalized in the name of profit, but this article? This is a non-issue. This is not Blizzard's/StarCraft's fault.
Most scientist don't deal with fundamental questions about the universe and existence. I hypothesize that the numbers would be very different if the poll were limited to particle physicists, string theorists, and astronomers. Unless forced to confront the issue head on, humans are perfectly capable of holding two diametrically opposed beliefs simultaneously.
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald
Slashdot Mirror
I'll stop reading slashdot...
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Resistance is Futile
I, uh, imagine that when they find an unlicensed pool on Google Earth, and send somebody to tell you, he does, uh, a quick peek around back to make sure the pool is actually still there before he knocks on the door.
Obligatory XKCD
It took me a solid minute to figure out what you just said, and under what context it would make sense. Allow me. He said:
Assuming the seal was designed by the FBI itself, it's ineligible for copyright as a work of the federal government.
He meant:
Assuming the seal was designed by the FBI itself, it's ineligible for copyright, as it is a work of the federal government.
I had myself a nice chuckle at the very clear attempt at humor.
Then I nearly shit myself when I realized how possible this is.
Your argument makes about as much sense as complaining about the lack of dildos and handcuffs in the rest room, because how else can one play orgy games?
There's a few US Senators that would like to have a word with you.
Wouldn't you, by definition, be walking into yourself? I can't quite wrap my mind around what's going on here.
Me too. Is there a diplomatic way to make such a request? Maybe stage a fake cable and then give it to Wikileaks?
To be honest I still don't understand what you were trying to say.
It's about time.
I imagine this is going to stop working so well when they turn off everyone's Blackberries next month.
You've got me over a barrel here because the topic of debate is a non-interactive cutscene. You're right, of course, that there's no logical way to defend re-rendering a non-interactive scene that will be pixel-for-pixel identical. So if StarCraft II were designed to be a cutscene-rendering-engine, you'd be spot-on.
Since you've pressed the point, I might be willing to admit that the behavior in question, rendering non-interactive cutscenes at insanely high framerates, is indeed a bug, possibly a significant one, although not one that I personally care about.
I would ask you, however, to keep in mind that StarCraft II is primarily a game engine that is also being used to render cutscenes, and as soon as interactivity is added to the mix, this behavior is exactly what gamers expect, and if solving this "cutscene" issue at all impacts the way the game actual performs, it would be a disservice to gamers.
Any CAL-I Counter-Strike player can tell you that, as soon as you've got a mouse cursor moving around, you can immediately tell the difference between 60 FPS, 100 FPS, and 140 FPS, even if your eyes can't. I maintain that Blizzard did it correctly and this cutscene issue, although an issue, is an ancillary, unforseen issue stemming from a correctly designed engine, rather than a flawed engine.
I see what you mean, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. When I am running a video game, it is the "only" thing currently being ran. It does not have to compete for resources. And I would prefer it to gobble up every bit of horsepower it could find in the name of making things look even marginally better. That is the sign of a robust framework that will properly scale to future increases in hardware potential.
Now, if I had cooling issues, which I don't, and found myself wanting to limit it's 912 FPS cutscenes, which I don't, and couldn't find a way to do that, I would claim that the lack of such a feature was a significant design flaw worthy of debate, but it turns out, they've already got it covered:
Add the following lines to your "Documents\StarCraft II\variables.txt" file: frameratecapglue=30 frameratecap=60
You can add them to the beginning, end, or wherever. The game doesn't care.
I don't disagree that SC2 ISN'T causing the cards to die, but I'd like you to take a trip down memory lane that was Diablo 2 Direct3D performance :)
touché
StarCraft II is exposing shoddy thermal engineering in video cards because, unlike most games on the market, StarCraft II is correctly utilizing your video card to it's fullest potential.
Say what you will about SC2 game balance, say what you will about Battle.NET 2.0's crappy interface, say what you will about how cheesy Jim Raynor is. I wouldn't disagree with you.
But when it comes to writing engines, Blizzard is the best of the best. Hands down. Everything they write runs smooth as silk, and they have a genuine talent for squeezing jaw-dropping performance out of even mediocre computers. StarCraft II contains correctly written code, and it will utilize your hardware to it's fullest potential. If you bought a bargain computer, put it together yourself, and skimped on the cooling, you're going to get burned.
Pun intended.
I have as much hate as the next guy for how StarCraft II was cannibalized in the name of profit, but this article? This is a non-issue. This is not Blizzard's/StarCraft's fault.
There are other forms of compensation other than just how much $$ one makes a year.
Yeah! His boss could be buying him hookers.
A 'Nerd-Raging Lamer' approaches!
A 'Nerd-Raging Lamer' summons a 'Wall of Text'!
A 'Nerd-Raging Lamer' casts 'Giant, Angry, and Unformatted' on his summoned 'Wall of Text'!
A 'Wall of Text' swings at you!
A 'Wall of Text' hits you for 4,294,967,295 damage!
You die.
That mother is terrible.
You can always identify the true bits of wisdom by the fact that they bring the entire conversation to a screeching conclusion.
MPU
Sandboxing your document reader so that corrupted documents stop installing malware to the host machine?
You. are. doing it wrong.
Most scientist don't deal with fundamental questions about the universe and existence. I hypothesize that the numbers would be very different if the poll were limited to particle physicists, string theorists, and astronomers. Unless forced to confront the issue head on, humans are perfectly capable of holding two diametrically opposed beliefs simultaneously.
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald
if there is such a shortage of talent maybe we can offshore this responsibility? Maybe to China? As a bonus it will be less expensive.
Trolling: When you do it right, nobody realizes you've done anything at all.
And me without mod points.