Keep in mind that there's nothing that states that photorealism has to be the same old thing that the average homosapien can witness in his or her daily routine or with a few hours sitting on an airplane. The fact that Yet Another Jungle Commando Game can look as realistic as ever doesn't mean that better games can't take a photorealistic rendering approach and make something that is genuinely visually interesting. In a fantasty game, clever use of surreal lighting effects can make a light source be a little less like an exposed light bulb and a little more like an aurora borealis; in a sci-fi game, clothing surface properties can make the world seem just a little different than anything you've ever seen in real life. Even when none of the techniques applied technically reach beyond photorealistic rendering, the result can be so much more than any photo you'll see.
It's really up to the artists to take the capacity for photorealism and run with it, creating something that brings the player out of their reality and into a new one. They've failed if they take photorealism and fill it with parking garages and cubicles and crates and things that people play games to get away from.
It's obvious that most programmer have failed to really internalize any of the current programming models we've got, so what's the point of coming up with new ones that everybody's going to spend more time arguing about on messageboards than actually bothering to learn?
I see a lot of people here claiming that they or people like them would gladly brave the hardships of a trip to Mars just so "they can see it". That's not a compelling reason. Why? Because after you've spent years of your life traveling through space in very uncomfortable living quarters to a place that, once you get there, you realize is a ten thousand times more difficult for humans to inhabit than Death Valley, it'll dawn on you that--now that you've got an inoperable brain tumor that may kill you even before you get back to earth--it probably wasn't worth it just for a momentary visual response.
If you don't have some legitimate scientific passion for what can be discovered on Mars (and your certainty that we'll find vast underground Martian cities doesn't count), then please pipe down and leave the bullshit to the television pundits. You do an injustice to people who actually care.
This is so thoroughly different than early human explorers that it's not even a fair comparison. Sure, they risked death (and often got it), but the promise for them was of a better, more fertile land. That a fair reward for adventurous people who, realistically, were largely neither well to do nor educated. There is no such promise for Mars; it's unlikely that some medical panacea is hidden in Martian dirt, but that hope is the only reasonable driving force for its exploration.
...that what the guy is saying isn't necessarily wrong. The real issue is that it's the pinnacle of irony that it would come from the CEO of Microsoft, which has suffered from the same problems on a far greater magnitude.
You know, some people value visual quality enough to justifiably shell out the money without being fools. You're correct in your assessment that cheap cards exist for casual gamers, but then you decided to be a jerk.
I see people who admit that we're probably causing significant global change and people who claim that it's totally natural, but relatively few people who say "it's probably natural but maybe we should be on the safe side..."
Not that it matters to anyone but me, but I really don't see how a student can be so out of touch with coursework that they could solve unsolvable problems and not realize that they were a bit tougher than usual.
Maybe it was the course's first homework, but I suspect he just thought it would be a funny way to stroke his own ego.
I'm not convinced that anything has seriously changed in Lucas' style. He's never been known to be a great director, and frankly I think he was fortunate to have ended up with a fantastic set of actors for the original trilogy. It seems to me that he has an epic story he wants to tell and environments to show, and the rest of the process he just doesn't take seriously (much to the chagrine of more sophisticated viewers).
I do feel that with Lucas directing the vision and Spielberg handling the human factor, it would've worked out more positively for adult viewers, and probably for younger viewers as well.
First of all, they paint a pretty clear picture that it's pretty unnecessary and smacks of being of a luxury item.
However, on the practical side of things, even if the current set of games don't need it, the next generation will (or at least will be able to use it, even if it isn't required). So, in the event that you've chosen to buy now and don't feel like upgrading for another 2-3 years, then perhaps this is the card for you. Granted, for most people it would make a ton more sense to buy a $500 card now and a $500 card 1.5 years from now if you have that kind of money and a taste for power, but... there it is anyway.
Did it occur to you that although we all know that Anakin turns into Vader, discussing exactly when and for how long this occurs might be considered a spoiler?
There's more to this than just the economic analysis (and whatever anecdotal evidence you may have with your given company or companies). As a general rule, bad things happen to nations that fail to look within for the resources they need to perpetuate (though I'd rather not push the energy resources aspect of this at the moment). In particular, a move to abdicate the proper development and subsequent use of intellectual talent has an instant demoralizing and chilling effect on the future population, which one way or another will work itself into the culture of that generation. A powerful message that the men in charge would rather get somebody else to do the job than own up to their responsibility of making it unnecessary.
You're looking elsewhere for people who, ultimately, retain loyalty to their nation of origin (with the exception of those who're seeking asylum, or some other pretty unusual circumstance). When it comes down to it, they may respect and admire the characteristics of the nation that employs them, but if it became feasible to set up shop back home at a reasonable quality of life, national pride dictates they'd probably take it. If the benefactor pushed strongly for this kind of importing of brainpower, then they may inadvertantly find themselves creating a significant foundation for such a large scale transition. So while it may work out just great for the export nation (at the cost of spending a generation of its own talent beyond borders), it eventually leaves the import nation with a vacuum that can't be easily filled.
Heck, the Roman empire's sole strength was its military (let's admit that it had few other redeeming qualities), and at the end of its effective lifespan it was relying on foreign mercenaries. I'm sure it seemed like a great cost-benefit proposal to the powers that be, probably because there weren't enough of them considering the subtle and/or long term ramifications. It wasn't really even that this strategy wasn't effective in the near term; it was that the citizenry just stopped caring about or respecting the premises of the nation's eminence. That's something that can't be bought and sold so easily.
Or... you could put one on a mechanism that's a lot like a small tank/jeep, and probably achieve better speed overall. Unless you have *a lot* of flexibility, using legs instead of wheels or treads just doesn't do a whole lot for you. Since it's practically miraculous that the human body handles running/jumping as well as it does, I think we have a long way to go before we get to the point where there's any benefit in combat.
We also need to fix the cultural ailment of scientists (and engineers, and mathematicians, and so on) not getting a whole lot of respect in this country. Bright kids just don't have a lot of incentive to pursue science; some of them, as always, will be driven by the very fact that they're good at it, but there's a lot of infrastructure driving them away at the same time. People with strong analytical and mathematical skills are treated as a cheap commodity.
Naturally, the steps taken by this administration aren't helping any.
Seriously, people. I think we all know that the world is going to be a truly awful place in thirty years, and this is going to be the least of our concerns then.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep in mind that there's nothing that states that photorealism has to be the same old thing that the average homosapien can witness in his or her daily routine or with a few hours sitting on an airplane. The fact that Yet Another Jungle Commando Game can look as realistic as ever doesn't mean that better games can't take a photorealistic rendering approach and make something that is genuinely visually interesting. In a fantasty game, clever use of surreal lighting effects can make a light source be a little less like an exposed light bulb and a little more like an aurora borealis; in a sci-fi game, clothing surface properties can make the world seem just a little different than anything you've ever seen in real life. Even when none of the techniques applied technically reach beyond photorealistic rendering, the result can be so much more than any photo you'll see.
It's really up to the artists to take the capacity for photorealism and run with it, creating something that brings the player out of their reality and into a new one. They've failed if they take photorealism and fill it with parking garages and cubicles and crates and things that people play games to get away from.
I hate to rub against the grain of some hearty nostalgia, but almost every game created has had way more required to-dos than optional ones.
It's obvious that most programmer have failed to really internalize any of the current programming models we've got, so what's the point of coming up with new ones that everybody's going to spend more time arguing about on messageboards than actually bothering to learn?
I see a lot of people here claiming that they or people like them would gladly brave the hardships of a trip to Mars just so "they can see it". That's not a compelling reason. Why? Because after you've spent years of your life traveling through space in very uncomfortable living quarters to a place that, once you get there, you realize is a ten thousand times more difficult for humans to inhabit than Death Valley, it'll dawn on you that--now that you've got an inoperable brain tumor that may kill you even before you get back to earth--it probably wasn't worth it just for a momentary visual response.
If you don't have some legitimate scientific passion for what can be discovered on Mars (and your certainty that we'll find vast underground Martian cities doesn't count), then please pipe down and leave the bullshit to the television pundits. You do an injustice to people who actually care.
This is so thoroughly different than early human explorers that it's not even a fair comparison. Sure, they risked death (and often got it), but the promise for them was of a better, more fertile land. That a fair reward for adventurous people who, realistically, were largely neither well to do nor educated. There is no such promise for Mars; it's unlikely that some medical panacea is hidden in Martian dirt, but that hope is the only reasonable driving force for its exploration.
...that what the guy is saying isn't necessarily wrong. The real issue is that it's the pinnacle of irony that it would come from the CEO of Microsoft, which has suffered from the same problems on a far greater magnitude.
Unfortunately, Guild Wars is no more an MMORPG than Diablo 2.
What a class argument: "You just don't get it, so pass the ammunition!"
Don't you mean, "crick heal fole owl dairy speciare on democlacy!"?
I'm afraid it'll actually be "grandpa, why are you such a nerd?"
You know, some people value visual quality enough to justifiably shell out the money without being fools. You're correct in your assessment that cheap cards exist for casual gamers, but then you decided to be a jerk.
I see people who admit that we're probably causing significant global change and people who claim that it's totally natural, but relatively few people who say "it's probably natural but maybe we should be on the safe side..."
Not that it matters to anyone but me, but I really don't see how a student can be so out of touch with coursework that they could solve unsolvable problems and not realize that they were a bit tougher than usual.
Maybe it was the course's first homework, but I suspect he just thought it would be a funny way to stroke his own ego.
I'm not convinced that anything has seriously changed in Lucas' style. He's never been known to be a great director, and frankly I think he was fortunate to have ended up with a fantastic set of actors for the original trilogy. It seems to me that he has an epic story he wants to tell and environments to show, and the rest of the process he just doesn't take seriously (much to the chagrine of more sophisticated viewers).
I do feel that with Lucas directing the vision and Spielberg handling the human factor, it would've worked out more positively for adult viewers, and probably for younger viewers as well.
I wonder if Paul Graham needs to lay off the narcotics.
First of all, they paint a pretty clear picture that it's pretty unnecessary and smacks of being of a luxury item.
However, on the practical side of things, even if the current set of games don't need it, the next generation will (or at least will be able to use it, even if it isn't required). So, in the event that you've chosen to buy now and don't feel like upgrading for another 2-3 years, then perhaps this is the card for you. Granted, for most people it would make a ton more sense to buy a $500 card now and a $500 card 1.5 years from now if you have that kind of money and a taste for power, but... there it is anyway.
Did it occur to you that although we all know that Anakin turns into Vader, discussing exactly when and for how long this occurs might be considered a spoiler?
Interesting you should say this, considering that most new buildings these days are large glass or brick cubes.
There's more to this than just the economic analysis (and whatever anecdotal evidence you may have with your given company or companies). As a general rule, bad things happen to nations that fail to look within for the resources they need to perpetuate (though I'd rather not push the energy resources aspect of this at the moment). In particular, a move to abdicate the proper development and subsequent use of intellectual talent has an instant demoralizing and chilling effect on the future population, which one way or another will work itself into the culture of that generation. A powerful message that the men in charge would rather get somebody else to do the job than own up to their responsibility of making it unnecessary.
You're looking elsewhere for people who, ultimately, retain loyalty to their nation of origin (with the exception of those who're seeking asylum, or some other pretty unusual circumstance). When it comes down to it, they may respect and admire the characteristics of the nation that employs them, but if it became feasible to set up shop back home at a reasonable quality of life, national pride dictates they'd probably take it. If the benefactor pushed strongly for this kind of importing of brainpower, then they may inadvertantly find themselves creating a significant foundation for such a large scale transition. So while it may work out just great for the export nation (at the cost of spending a generation of its own talent beyond borders), it eventually leaves the import nation with a vacuum that can't be easily filled.
Heck, the Roman empire's sole strength was its military (let's admit that it had few other redeeming qualities), and at the end of its effective lifespan it was relying on foreign mercenaries. I'm sure it seemed like a great cost-benefit proposal to the powers that be, probably because there weren't enough of them considering the subtle and/or long term ramifications. It wasn't really even that this strategy wasn't effective in the near term; it was that the citizenry just stopped caring about or respecting the premises of the nation's eminence. That's something that can't be bought and sold so easily.
I know the hardcore geeks feel differently, that's fine.
You totally missed the point.
This stuff isn't to assist the mobility-impaired. It's to assist the Japanese military in looking TOTALLY BAD ASS when posing for magazine photos.
Or... you could put one on a mechanism that's a lot like a small tank/jeep, and probably achieve better speed overall. Unless you have *a lot* of flexibility, using legs instead of wheels or treads just doesn't do a whole lot for you. Since it's practically miraculous that the human body handles running/jumping as well as it does, I think we have a long way to go before we get to the point where there's any benefit in combat.
We also need to fix the cultural ailment of scientists (and engineers, and mathematicians, and so on) not getting a whole lot of respect in this country. Bright kids just don't have a lot of incentive to pursue science; some of them, as always, will be driven by the very fact that they're good at it, but there's a lot of infrastructure driving them away at the same time. People with strong analytical and mathematical skills are treated as a cheap commodity.
Naturally, the steps taken by this administration aren't helping any.
Seriously, people. I think we all know that the world is going to be a truly awful place in thirty years, and this is going to be the least of our concerns then.
Um... so that they'll complain less when you work them too hard, or what?
You know, if you calm down a little bit you might live longer!