Gathering data for those decisions isn't. Pathfinding is intensive, and if you've got cycles to burn you can just up the resolution in your pathfinding space. Things like visibility checks are also an area where you can burn basically as many cycles as you want. You can make do with less raycasts, but more raycasts can get you a better picture of the surrounding environment or enemies or what have you.
That said, the main bound on AI is usually not processor time, but development time; satisfactory AI, at least from the minds of most publishers, is a solved problem, so a programmer shouldn't have to burn a lot of effort on it.
You're forgetting about many indie rpgs that approach roleplaying from an improvisational, narrativist perspective.
I'm a programmer, and honestly, I'm not a big fan of optimizable rule-sets or powergaming. There's lots of people like me.
But it's important to remember that even more narrativist systems still impose constraints: The game has a setting, the game has a specific method of conflict resolution, the story that comes out as a result has still come out of a very structured process.
As an aside, I've found, when writing, that I can't write about anything, but when I put a challenge to myself (write a story about what you want for christmas, write a story about the queer way "An Inconvenient Truth" affected you), I am actually furiously productive.
I'm convinced that the skill to identify a target and to reduce that target to a series of steps is a critical skill in achieving anything of lasting value.
So instead of looking for the best talent globally, a company should *pay* for a worker who may not have the inclination or drive to master his profession?
I'm no Republican, but if that's not the road to a stagnant country where entitlements are expected then I don't know what is.
My girlfriend is on an h1b for architecture; she's from Japan. She's also the hardest, most driven worker her company has, and they offered her ridiculous amounts of money (for architecture) during her review because she's such an asset. They didn't hire her because she's cheaper, they hired her because she's good.
I can't think of a faster way to torpedo the American character than the parent's idea.
Now, I haven't looked at the PS3 libraries, but it could be that it's just not possible for titles to be using the full power, due to TRC, or firmware with some kind of function
bool sceUseMaxAvailablePower() { // early in the cycle, that's a big no! - pharrison
return false; }
Re:Omegathon?
on
PAX05 Writeup
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Specifically, the Combat went down like this: Round One was a massacre, victory to coreside, like 20-10. Round 2 saw LeRoy manage a tie, while learning the finer points of the game as he went. Round 3 then went to LeRoy, by then the crowd's favorite for his underdog status, in a lower-scoring match.
This all set the stage for the most epic and intense match of combat I've ever seen. Coreside jumped out to an early lead, then LeRoy mounted a comeback. in the middle of which, the Atari actually started to freak out, corrupting the signal. Despite this, LeRoy managed to comeback furiously, going up 11-8 or so by the time the warning flash took place. However, Coreside then landed several miraculous shots to go up by 1 point in the very last second of the match.
I figure LeRoy got the better deal - he won an Alienware PC, and doesn't have to figure out what the hell to do with all that NES stuff.
Well, training machine-learning agents to fight in a digital battlefield isn't really result in "realistic" behavior - those agents are just going to behave in the optimal manner they've learned.
The goal of most game AI is to get a lifelike and entertaining behavior, which can be pretty easily approximated in very simple algorithms.
I'm not knocking the game there either; I haven't played it. There was just a hint of "why don't games use advanced AI techniques" academic frustration in the post - I was pointing out that entertainment and academia are two seperate problem spaces.
It's not that good AI is a bad thing - you just have to keep an eye on the end-user's experience. Whenever I've done AI for characters, it has to be simple, with a focus on visceral reactions to the player as opposed to proper reactions.
Look at Master of Orion III - they basically made a 4X game that played itself, and as a result it didn't do so well.
I'd imagine that focusing on PowerPC gives them an edge in middleware for the powerPC-based next-gen game consoles; I know metrowerks was big into debuggers and compilers for, say, PS2.
The new PS3 has a "Realism System" guaranteed to render realism more realistically than ever before! Criminal simulators such as GTA are further enhanced by the special "Gritty" subprocessor!
So maybe he was preaching to the choir, and got a little too free with his lingo. Replace "conservative" (what he wrote) with "hide-bound traditionalist" (what everyone was thinking) and his criticism essentially mirror yours regarding "American fundamentalism."
Seriously. I mean, if you want to get back to the good-old-days of the 50's, maybe you better stop companies from using sex to sell product. The fact of the matter is, our culture is becoming saturated with sex, and when kids see their idols and role models engaging in wholesale booty-tapping, they're gonna wonder what the fuss is about. Now, you can tell them what the fuss is actually about, mention the risks associated, and tell them how to protect themselves, or you can cover their eyes and tell them "Nothing to see here". For an inquisitive kid in a sex-drenched culture, which do you think will be more effective?
What I'd like to see is more education focusing on critiquing popular culture's use of sex imagery and encouraging kids to think critically about this stuff.
Well... I agree with you in the sense that the physical makeup and specific processes associated with modern computers are critical to a well-rounded education. However, I'd call such study computer *engineering* as opposed to computer science. Computer science, in a broad sense, at least how it's taught, is the study of algorithms, with an applied focus. Tying computer science to specific hardware or software implementations is silly, when those implementations change constantly.
It's definitely useful to know these sorts of things; computer science and programming intersect broadly, but not completely, and the stuff belonging only to the programming set is critical to a successful career in software development.
It's more of a semantic nitpick than anything else, but I think people are really agressive when it comes to defending the term "Computer Science" because tying algorithm research to hardware is just silly, unless you're talking about a hardware breakthrough that anihillates our concept of deterministic computing, like quantum computers might.
but a "vehicle mouse" sounds really freakin' cool.
I can just picture that long-legged guy from "22 Short Films about Springfield" driving his vehicle mouse around and glaring at the people who laugh at him.
Amen. I'm currently spending umpteen-hour days trying to get the game I'm working on done for a milestone, and straigtaway going home to play Knights of the Old Republic for the second time through.
At some point in the future, these habits will be regarded as the perfectionist obsessions of a creative genius, and not the nerdly habits of tunnel-visioned programmer.
When I heard that interview, i got the impression that Terry Gross simply thought O'Reilly was a bad journalist and wanted to call him on it. I would imagine most newspeople would, since he's always taking cheapshots and shouting and whatnot. If *I* were a journalist, I'd be pissed at him for degrading civility in the profession as a whole.
Or what about Diebold keeping election data in an UNSECURED MDB FILE? That *really* scares me, and elections are certainly a life-or-death issue, at least with regards to the safety of the US way of life.
Slashdot Mirror
Decision logic in games is generally simple.
Gathering data for those decisions isn't. Pathfinding is intensive, and if you've got cycles to burn you can just up the resolution in your pathfinding space. Things like visibility checks are also an area where you can burn basically as many cycles as you want. You can make do with less raycasts, but more raycasts can get you a better picture of the surrounding environment or enemies or what have you.
That said, the main bound on AI is usually not processor time, but development time; satisfactory AI, at least from the minds of most publishers, is a solved problem, so a programmer shouldn't have to burn a lot of effort on it.
You're forgetting about many indie rpgs that approach roleplaying from an improvisational, narrativist perspective.
I'm a programmer, and honestly, I'm not a big fan of optimizable rule-sets or powergaming. There's lots of people like me.
But it's important to remember that even more narrativist systems still impose constraints: The game has a setting, the game has a specific method of conflict resolution, the story that comes out as a result has still come out of a very structured process.
As an aside, I've found, when writing, that I can't write about anything, but when I put a challenge to myself (write a story about what you want for christmas, write a story about the queer way "An Inconvenient Truth" affected you), I am actually furiously productive.
I'm convinced that the skill to identify a target and to reduce that target to a series of steps is a critical skill in achieving anything of lasting value.
What the hell?
So instead of looking for the best talent globally, a company should *pay* for a worker who may not have the inclination or drive to master his profession?
I'm no Republican, but if that's not the road to a stagnant country where entitlements are expected then I don't know what is.
My girlfriend is on an h1b for architecture; she's from Japan. She's also the hardest, most driven worker her company has, and they offered her ridiculous amounts of money (for architecture) during her review because she's such an asset. They didn't hire her because she's cheaper, they hired her because she's good.
I can't think of a faster way to torpedo the American character than the parent's idea.
Specifically, the Combat went down like this: Round One was a massacre, victory to coreside, like 20-10. Round 2 saw LeRoy manage a tie, while learning the finer points of the game as he went. Round 3 then went to LeRoy, by then the crowd's favorite for his underdog status, in a lower-scoring match.
This all set the stage for the most epic and intense match of combat I've ever seen. Coreside jumped out to an early lead, then LeRoy mounted a comeback. in the middle of which, the Atari actually started to freak out, corrupting the signal. Despite this, LeRoy managed to comeback furiously, going up 11-8 or so by the time the warning flash took place. However, Coreside then landed several miraculous shots to go up by 1 point in the very last second of the match.
I figure LeRoy got the better deal - he won an Alienware PC, and doesn't have to figure out what the hell to do with all that NES stuff.
Well, training machine-learning agents to fight in a digital battlefield isn't really result in "realistic" behavior - those agents are just going to behave in the optimal manner they've learned.
The goal of most game AI is to get a lifelike and entertaining behavior, which can be pretty easily approximated in very simple algorithms.
I'm not knocking the game there either; I haven't played it. There was just a hint of "why don't games use advanced AI techniques" academic frustration in the post - I was pointing out that entertainment and academia are two seperate problem spaces.
It's not that good AI is a bad thing - you just have to keep an eye on the end-user's experience. Whenever I've done AI for characters, it has to be simple, with a focus on visceral reactions to the player as opposed to proper reactions.
Look at Master of Orion III - they basically made a 4X game that played itself, and as a result it didn't do so well.
If this technique provides for fun gameplay, or more importantly, a notable difference in the experience, then sure, it might become more common.
Keep in mind though - entertainment is meant to be entertaining, not neccesarily realistic or academically advanced.
I'd imagine that focusing on PowerPC gives them an edge in middleware for the powerPC-based next-gen game consoles; I know metrowerks was big into debuggers and compilers for, say, PS2.
The new PS3 has a "Realism System" guaranteed to render realism more realistically than ever before! Criminal simulators such as GTA are further enhanced by the special "Gritty" subprocessor!
He just means that they're unit-length.
So maybe he was preaching to the choir, and got a little too free with his lingo. Replace "conservative" (what he wrote) with "hide-bound traditionalist" (what everyone was thinking) and his criticism essentially mirror yours regarding "American fundamentalism."
Seriously. I mean, if you want to get back to the good-old-days of the 50's, maybe you better stop companies from using sex to sell product. The fact of the matter is, our culture is becoming saturated with sex, and when kids see their idols and role models engaging in wholesale booty-tapping, they're gonna wonder what the fuss is about. Now, you can tell them what the fuss is actually about, mention the risks associated, and tell them how to protect themselves, or you can cover their eyes and tell them "Nothing to see here". For an inquisitive kid in a sex-drenched culture, which do you think will be more effective?
What I'd like to see is more education focusing on critiquing popular culture's use of sex imagery and encouraging kids to think critically about this stuff.
"That sort of thinking is how genocides happen."
Heh.
I guess if everyone else on the planet is dead, that makes the world safe for americans, eh?
Good lord, the planet isn't a zero-sum game. I guess it's easier to leverage fear as a politcal tactic when you treat it like one, though.
that is about the most deflating thing a 24-year-old game programmer 2 years out of college can hear.
jesus. thanks a lot.
I think I'll just ship myself off to a buddhist monastery now...
Well... I agree with you in the sense that the physical makeup and specific processes associated with modern computers are critical to a well-rounded education. However, I'd call such study computer *engineering* as opposed to computer science. Computer science, in a broad sense, at least how it's taught, is the study of algorithms, with an applied focus. Tying computer science to specific hardware or software implementations is silly, when those implementations change constantly.
It's definitely useful to know these sorts of things; computer science and programming intersect broadly, but not completely, and the stuff belonging only to the programming set is critical to a successful career in software development.
It's more of a semantic nitpick than anything else, but I think people are really agressive when it comes to defending the term "Computer Science" because tying algorithm research to hardware is just silly, unless you're talking about a hardware breakthrough that anihillates our concept of deterministic computing, like quantum computers might.
And your duty is clear: to build and maintain those robots.
but a "vehicle mouse" sounds really freakin' cool.
I can just picture that long-legged guy from "22 Short Films about Springfield" driving his vehicle mouse around and glaring at the people who laugh at him.
not to mention ugly dudes trying to dry-hump you or box you out from their territory.
just be patient. My cure for cancer casemod, based on a Mini-ITX in a macrophage shell, is almost done.
You're right. I also decry the point in history when written language evolved beyond linear-B.
Amen. I'm currently spending umpteen-hour days trying to get the game I'm working on done for a milestone, and straigtaway going home to play Knights of the Old Republic for the second time through.
At some point in the future, these habits will be regarded as the perfectionist obsessions of a creative genius, and not the nerdly habits of tunnel-visioned programmer.
When I heard that interview, i got the impression that Terry Gross simply thought O'Reilly was a bad journalist and wanted to call him on it. I would imagine most newspeople would, since he's always taking cheapshots and shouting and whatnot. If *I* were a journalist, I'd be pissed at him for degrading civility in the profession as a whole.
No way man! It's great for *not* debugging, since you can just say it's a buggy machine!
Or what about Diebold keeping election data in an UNSECURED MDB FILE? That *really* scares me, and elections are certainly a life-or-death issue, at least with regards to the safety of the US way of life.