Osmosis, as you may know, is the diffusion of a solvent between two distinct 'cells' through a selectively-permeable membrane where there is a concentration gradient.
This brings the question, is peace is to be transferred via osmosis, what dissolves in peace? Well, many chemicals found in the household dissolve in peace. You put sugar into water, stir it gently, and it dissolves in peace.
Games, however, do not dissolve in peace. Experiements placing various cartridge and optical media into a large enough beaker, and stirring gently, result in the clank of the cart (or disc) rattling against the side, until it aligns itself flat against the inner wall of the beaker. These experiments have been conducted at all possible viable temperatures. We conclude that peace is not a solvent for games, and games are not a solute in peace.
For osmosis to occur, we need a concentration gradient. Giving everybody games is a flawed course of action as everybody will have games, and there will be little motion of peace across this gradient. If peace dissolved in games, then peace would be distributed across the system via diffusion.
Therefore, I believe we do not need to give everybody games for everybody to have peace. I recommend the rapid distribution of sugar to all the peoples of the world in the hope that we can create a peace gradient sufficient enough for the osmosis of peace to occur.
Be advised, however, that this will reduce the concentration of peace in areas where peace is to be transferred from. This may result in a global peace distribution where all areas have equal, yet insufficient peace.
I therefore recommend research into the improvement of efficient peace extraction methods of from common ores to fill this demand.
I hope they're procedural, and the dog's nads, but a large section of my brain is telling me that it's going to be a bit crap in practice.
The great thing about pessimism is that you're never disappointed: If it's crap, you were right: go you. If it's good, then it's good: Go Will! I wish 'em all the very best of luck!:)
Forgive me, I meant that as a theoretical statement.
It may very well be technically über, but then again, it may very well be not.
Either way, (slightly offtopic) whether it's fun or not is a completely different matter.
When I read the post title on the front page, I thought that the comments page would be a horrific cross-fire of mangled misinformation about Morrowind and Fable.
Thankfully, the first post reads 'We can explore any aspect of the story that the developer already thought up and wrote code for...', and many more posts of the same ilk follow. I'm so glad you said that.
The only truly non-linear games are ones that, as it's been said in posts previous to this, to have some kind of content generator behind the scenes. A real life example would be a particularly imaginative DM who takes the scenario book and rests his bowl of Doritos on it while weaving amazing tales through sheer imagination.
The only possible parallel in computer gaming terms, that I've found anyway, would be a particularly vibrant Addventure, with multiple users buzzing and making sprawling trees of dizzying amount of possibility. (That's not counting the direct computer based parallel to the DM example above: the PnP RPG via Forum)
Until computers can do that, non-linear isn't going to be that great.
Also, I'd like folks to play Spore, and then those crafty Swedes to get into it and find the base rules under the hood, and then we can all go 'Ahh. These critters a'int procedural, they're precalculated imported creature part-sets, categorized into broad sets and parameterised to create many permutations'. That would be pretty amusing.
If you've ever played Indigo Prophecy / Fahrenheit, Lucas Kane has a damn fine office.
Sure, there's a cubicle farm right outside it which he has to dive and dodge through, but they've got to have some use, right?
I picked the CGT crapola as my insurance choice, my first choice was an EE Masters in Southampton, but I couldn't hack it, the halls made me go insane.
To avoid Labours amazing top-up fees, I rang as many places as possible, and they let me into CGT.
Which is ironic really, because I never go in... because I don't need to. The profs are catering to the inexperienced, and all the lecture slides are on the internet anyway. (Both in the lecture slide form, and if you type in a few select phrases into Google, you'll find the internet tutorials from which they're "based")
I'm currently taking a BSc Computer Games Technology course in Liverpool John Moores University, and it's one of the worst mistakes I've ever made in my entire life.
It's a terribly watered down degree, similar to CS but without any of the reputation or respect. Can you honestly take anybody seriously with a 'Computer Games Technology' degree?
The only reason I'm on this damned course is that I was told that I would gain experience with the Nintendo/SN Systems SN-TDEV development Gamecube. Sure enough, they do have a room full of 'em, but none of the staff know the first thing about them. They just... sit there unused.
The entire course content is very basic stuff with respect to the complexity of some sub-areas of computer game development... You're not going to be making The Experimental Gameplay Project any time soon. Heck, you'll have to wade through two years just to get off the teletype games!
My only hope is a possible switch from CGT to CS at another university at the end of this year, or, because SCEE Liverpool are literally just down the road, I could possibly do my placement year there (fat chance, but you've gotta hope, right?)
Please, stay the hell away from these degrees. You want some serious skills that you can use, and a degree you don't have to be ashamed of? Take a classical subject, or just plain old CS. Make some games in Allegro, SDL, OpenGL or DirectX in your spare time.
Another thing: These degrees course content is all on the internet anyway. I mean literally... the third year OpenGL syllabus is word for word NeHe. Seriously.
"Third year?" You yell?
Yup, Liverpool JMU CGT is a low-requirement course for folks who want to start from the bottom up. And I mean the VERY bottom... it's only on this years syllabus that they changed from DarkBASIC to C++.
They're missing out the fact that the two dt's don't have refer to the same variable.
Consider time as a dimension, and you're travelling at a certain speed within that time. We all are currently moving at 1 second per second, a dimensionless ratio number representing time per time.
If you could travel faster than normal time, the world would appear to move faster or slower around you. You can represent the number of seconds you can travel in one observed second as n, dividing this by the number of observed seconds, t, you get v, a time-per-time value.
In this case, velocity in time = velocity in accel-or-decel time / velocity in real time: v = dn / dt. This is a dimensionless number as a ratio between the time you travel through against and the time observed by you.
It's a bit of a lame example, but remember the The Time Machine movie? The trip to the future was observed over a few minutes, but straddled over 1000s of years. The v-in-time value for this would be huge! (5 minutes / 1000s of years = big)
('course I know jack about physics, but the above should make some kind of sense.)
Slashdot Mirror
In Soviet USA, Wal-Mart learns from YOU.
I'll be here all week, folks.
And suddenly, you wake up, and find you're Edward Norton again.
Mod parent up: +5 subtle. =D
(i.e. poisoned with a bit of methanol, making it unsafe to drink)
You underestimate the tenacity of students. *nod*
From the website:
eBook: PDF, 404 pages (with color photos), $14.95 US
Where the hell are the pages?
Like this?
() |\/| (, |_ () |_
That's just foul.
Osmosis, as you may know, is the diffusion of a solvent between two distinct 'cells' through a selectively-permeable membrane where there is a concentration gradient.
This brings the question, is peace is to be transferred via osmosis, what dissolves in peace? Well, many chemicals found in the household dissolve in peace. You put sugar into water, stir it gently, and it dissolves in peace.
Games, however, do not dissolve in peace. Experiements placing various cartridge and optical media into a large enough beaker, and stirring gently, result in the clank of the cart (or disc) rattling against the side, until it aligns itself flat against the inner wall of the beaker. These experiments have been conducted at all possible viable temperatures. We conclude that peace is not a solvent for games, and games are not a solute in peace.
For osmosis to occur, we need a concentration gradient. Giving everybody games is a flawed course of action as everybody will have games, and there will be little motion of peace across this gradient. If peace dissolved in games, then peace would be distributed across the system via diffusion.
Therefore, I believe we do not need to give everybody games for everybody to have peace. I recommend the rapid distribution of sugar to all the peoples of the world in the hope that we can create a peace gradient sufficient enough for the osmosis of peace to occur.
Be advised, however, that this will reduce the concentration of peace in areas where peace is to be transferred from. This may result in a global peace distribution where all areas have equal, yet insufficient peace.
I therefore recommend research into the improvement of efficient peace extraction methods of from common ores to fill this demand.
I hope they're procedural, and the dog's nads, but a large section of my brain is telling me that it's going to be a bit crap in practice.
The great thing about pessimism is that you're never disappointed: If it's crap, you were right: go you. If it's good, then it's good: Go Will! I wish 'em all the very best of luck!
Forgive me, I meant that as a theoretical statement.
It may very well be technically über, but then again, it may very well be not.
Either way, (slightly offtopic) whether it's fun or not is a completely different matter.
Thank the heavens!
...', and many more posts of the same ilk follow. I'm so glad you said that.
When I read the post title on the front page, I thought that the comments page would be a horrific cross-fire of mangled misinformation about Morrowind and Fable.
Thankfully, the first post reads 'We can explore any aspect of the story that the developer already thought up and wrote code for
The only truly non-linear games are ones that, as it's been said in posts previous to this, to have some kind of content generator behind the scenes. A real life example would be a particularly imaginative DM who takes the scenario book and rests his bowl of Doritos on it while weaving amazing tales through sheer imagination.
The only possible parallel in computer gaming terms, that I've found anyway, would be a particularly vibrant Addventure, with multiple users buzzing and making sprawling trees of dizzying amount of possibility. (That's not counting the direct computer based parallel to the DM example above: the PnP RPG via Forum)
Until computers can do that, non-linear isn't going to be that great.
Also, I'd like folks to play Spore, and then those crafty Swedes to get into it and find the base rules under the hood, and then we can all go 'Ahh. These critters a'int procedural, they're precalculated imported creature part-sets, categorized into broad sets and parameterised to create many permutations'. That would be pretty amusing.
If you've ever played Indigo Prophecy / Fahrenheit, Lucas Kane has a damn fine office. Sure, there's a cubicle farm right outside it which he has to dive and dodge through, but they've got to have some use, right?
That phrase should be recorded by John Lithgow.
Oh crikes. I forgot about the hacks! Good call, my friend! *Remembers his medion doohicky has a region free code!* Wahey!
I picked the CGT crapola as my insurance choice, my first choice was an EE Masters in Southampton, but I couldn't hack it, the halls made me go insane. To avoid Labours amazing top-up fees, I rang as many places as possible, and they let me into CGT. Which is ironic really, because I never go in... because I don't need to. The profs are catering to the inexperienced, and all the lecture slides are on the internet anyway. (Both in the lecture slide form, and if you type in a few select phrases into Google, you'll find the internet tutorials from which they're "based")
And I've just put a requisition order in for a Cannon Fodder box art image macro, friend.
I'm currently taking a BSc Computer Games Technology course in Liverpool John Moores University, and it's one of the worst mistakes I've ever made in my entire life.
It's a terribly watered down degree, similar to CS but without any of the reputation or respect. Can you honestly take anybody seriously with a 'Computer Games Technology' degree?
The only reason I'm on this damned course is that I was told that I would gain experience with the Nintendo/SN Systems SN-TDEV development Gamecube. Sure enough, they do have a room full of 'em, but none of the staff know the first thing about them. They just... sit there unused.
The entire course content is very basic stuff with respect to the complexity of some sub-areas of computer game development... You're not going to be making The Experimental Gameplay Project any time soon. Heck, you'll have to wade through two years just to get off the teletype games!
My only hope is a possible switch from CGT to CS at another university at the end of this year, or, because SCEE Liverpool are literally just down the road, I could possibly do my placement year there (fat chance, but you've gotta hope, right?)
Please, stay the hell away from these degrees. You want some serious skills that you can use, and a degree you don't have to be ashamed of? Take a classical subject, or just plain old CS. Make some games in Allegro, SDL, OpenGL or DirectX in your spare time.
Another thing: These degrees course content is all on the internet anyway. I mean literally... the third year OpenGL syllabus is word for word NeHe. Seriously.
"Third year?" You yell?
Yup, Liverpool JMU CGT is a low-requirement course for folks who want to start from the bottom up. And I mean the VERY bottom... it's only on this years syllabus that they changed from DarkBASIC to C++.
Beware.
Every single last one of these features is redundant and lame, seriously.
Be well, Warden William Smithers!
- Yeah, you too!
Surely the v = dt/dt equation proves nothing!
They're missing out the fact that the two dt's don't have refer to the same variable.
Consider time as a dimension, and you're travelling at a certain speed within that time. We all are currently moving at 1 second per second, a dimensionless ratio number representing time per time.
If you could travel faster than normal time, the world would appear to move faster or slower around you. You can represent the number of seconds you can travel in one observed second as n, dividing this by the number of observed seconds, t, you get v, a time-per-time value.
In this case, velocity in time = velocity in accel-or-decel time / velocity in real time: v = dn / dt. This is a dimensionless number as a ratio between the time you travel through against and the time observed by you.
It's a bit of a lame example, but remember the The Time Machine movie? The trip to the future was observed over a few minutes, but straddled over 1000s of years. The v-in-time value for this would be huge! (5 minutes / 1000s of years = big)
('course I know jack about physics, but the above should make some kind of sense.)