In fact, we already provide an optimization that no other shading language provides (this will be in the next release, and is working in the subversion repository) called uniform lifting. Sh will automatically discover computations which do not change from one fragment to the next, and move them to the host where they can be evaluated more efficiently. This is something that would be difficult to do in other shading languages.
How is this different from the preshaders introduced in DirectX 9.0c? Not that I'm an expert on compilers or optimizations, but it sounds to me like they're the same (doing any calculations that aren't dependent on vertex data or data passed from the vertex program on the host system and use them as constants).
Are the graphics used in video games art? Sure, they're graphics.. it's easy to say graphics are are. Is the music and sound in video games art? Yeah, might as well call that art too.. it's generally accepted that music is an artform.
However, that's not the question. The question is are _video games_ art. Games are more than the sum of their parts and even with the most beautiful graphics and awe inspiring music, a game can still fall flat... just look at Daikatana or one of a million other (insert popular game here)-clones. On the other hand, games like The Sims or Railroad Tycoon have been on the top sellers list for... a long time.. and EverQuest, although it's losing steam with all the new MMORPGs being released, had an extremely strong userbase for years and years even with their subpar graphics and sound;)
It's the gameplay, stupid.
A game isn't just pretty pictures with nice sound tracks and some 'code poetry' to tie everything together and make it run... it requires a certain amount of artistry to take what you can get and make it into something that people actually want to play
So yes... some video games are art.. others are just the Rambo/Rocky/Die Hard/American Ninja MCXVIII's of the industry
Sure it may sound a bit cynical but c'mon... most American voters, at least at one point or another, have come to the realization that it doesn't really matter if you vote or not. Personally, I live in Texas. It's insane to think that George W. Bush would EVER lose to Gore or anyone in the state of Texas, his homestate, a very strong Republican state, and the state he governs. I also don't agree with a lot of Bush's ideas and plans. So, I'm not going to vote for him. However, thanks to the electoral college system, if I don't vote for Bush, my vote is definitely going to someone who isn't even going to get a single real vote for president. Even if I did vote for Gore (who I also don't agree with on several points) it wouldn't mean anything. So, not only do I not have any candidates that think like I think and feel the same way about the state of the union as I do, it doesn't matter, because even if I did it wouldn't matter, my vote wouldn't miraculously make them win Texas.
But I did vote. I voted for Nader, and not because I agree with everything he says, not because "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush", but because by voting for Nader I throw my vote in the face of the election. It's ridiculous that we only have two candidates to represent the 250+ million people in the US today and expect everyone to be satisfied, especially when their opinions on matters are so influenced by money and lobbyists that they "agree" on so many points. My vote wasn't for Nader, but for the hope that 4 years down the road someone might come along and actually have a chance in the election other than the Republican and the Democrat - someone that I actually agree with. Sure my single vote doesn't make a huge difference, but my vote for Nader is a vote for the hope of an actual choice in the future.
Voting shouldn't be this hard. People shouldn't have to argue about who's the better candidate, there should be someone running for president that you agree with, at least for the most part so unless you agree with what Bush says or with what Gore says, why NOT vote for Nader? He's not going to win, but at least your vote has a little bit of meaning.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, we already provide an optimization that no other shading language provides (this will be in the next release, and is working in the subversion repository) called uniform lifting. Sh will automatically discover computations which do not change from one fragment to the next, and move them to the host where they can be evaluated more efficiently. This is something that would be difficult to do in other shading languages.
How is this different from the preshaders introduced in DirectX 9.0c? Not that I'm an expert on compilers or optimizations, but it sounds to me like they're the same (doing any calculations that aren't dependent on vertex data or data passed from the vertex program on the host system and use them as constants).
Are the graphics used in video games art? Sure, they're graphics.. it's easy to say graphics are are. Is the music and sound in video games art? Yeah, might as well call that art too.. it's generally accepted that music is an artform.
;)
However, that's not the question. The question is are _video games_ art. Games are more than the sum of their parts and even with the most beautiful graphics and awe inspiring music, a game can still fall flat... just look at Daikatana or one of a million other (insert popular game here)-clones. On the other hand, games like The Sims or Railroad Tycoon have been on the top sellers list for... a long time.. and EverQuest, although it's losing steam with all the new MMORPGs being released, had an extremely strong userbase for years and years even with their subpar graphics and sound
It's the gameplay, stupid.
A game isn't just pretty pictures with nice sound tracks and some 'code poetry' to tie everything together and make it run... it requires a certain amount of artistry to take what you can get and make it into something that people actually want to play
So yes... some video games are art.. others are just the Rambo/Rocky/Die Hard/American Ninja MCXVIII's of the industry
-nohbdy
Sure it may sound a bit cynical but c'mon... most American voters, at least at one point or another, have come to the realization that it doesn't really matter if you vote or not. Personally, I live in Texas. It's insane to think that George W. Bush would EVER lose to Gore or anyone in the state of Texas, his homestate, a very strong Republican state, and the state he governs. I also don't agree with a lot of Bush's ideas and plans. So, I'm not going to vote for him. However, thanks to the electoral college system, if I don't vote for Bush, my vote is definitely going to someone who isn't even going to get a single real vote for president. Even if I did vote for Gore (who I also don't agree with on several points) it wouldn't mean anything. So, not only do I not have any candidates that think like I think and feel the same way about the state of the union as I do, it doesn't matter, because even if I did it wouldn't matter, my vote wouldn't miraculously make them win Texas.
But I did vote. I voted for Nader, and not because I agree with everything he says, not because "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush", but because by voting for Nader I throw my vote in the face of the election. It's ridiculous that we only have two candidates to represent the 250+ million people in the US today and expect everyone to be satisfied, especially when their opinions on matters are so influenced by money and lobbyists that they "agree" on so many points. My vote wasn't for Nader, but for the hope that 4 years down the road someone might come along and actually have a chance in the election other than the Republican and the Democrat - someone that I actually agree with. Sure my single vote doesn't make a huge difference, but my vote for Nader is a vote for the hope of an actual choice in the future.
Voting shouldn't be this hard. People shouldn't have to argue about who's the better candidate, there should be someone running for president that you agree with, at least for the most part so unless you agree with what Bush says or with what Gore says, why NOT vote for Nader? He's not going to win, but at least your vote has a little bit of meaning.