Welcome to the wonderful of politics, where politicians turn out to be an awful lot like what they seem the most after. I.e. Elliot Spitzer the anti-prostitution governor who gets caught with hookers, Larry Craig the homophobic senator who turns out to solicit gay sex, and so on.. So yeah, no surprise that someone in that middle should be just like who they're pointing they're finger to, that's pretty much how it works. The witch hunter tends to turn out to be the one witch.
Ethics are based on the concepts of right and wrong. Because there is no right or wrong ethics can not exist.
Ha, the scent of a logical fallacy in the morning.. I'll fix it for you : Because there's (arguably, if you're a moral relativist) no absolute right or wrong, ethics are subjective. Someone more pedantic might also want to argue about the first claim.
Yet you still find it in more recent games such as Rise of Nations. Sometimes I wonder if a genre's "thinking box" in which most people think inside of isn't mainly defined by the limitations present at the time of the genre defining titles.
You could buy two Wiz's for the price of a Pandora though. Then you'd have four D-pads and two displays.
But still 2.5 times less pixels;-). And you could argue that the Pandora has four 4-directions controls, by its D-pad, two analog nubs and the four buttons. And the combined battery life would be roughly equal (the Wiz claims 5 hours, the Pandora 10 hours).
Allow me to disagree with that statement. In my view, objects are treated as a singularity (their barycentre) with a "collision shape" around (the actual object you interact with). Since you only have two portals anyways, all you have to do with keep calculating the physics for just the singularity, and as for the collisions, calculate them once for the side of the portal the singularity is on, and just do them once more for the other side, simply by translating the shape's coordinates there.
Please do point out any flaw in my reasoning, but the way I see it it's nowhere near as complicated as you make it out to be.
A bit off topic but it may also be of interest to note that there's a fair disregard for air drag. The proof is that if you make two portals in a same floor, and jump into one, you'll reach the same heights indefinitely whereas air drag should gradually make you go lower and lower.
On and as for the points you brought up, the Portal "character" is one of the "singularity in a box" type. I.e. it's treated like a singularity but is inside an invisible box that keeps it to a certain distance from anything to act like it's a body. The human appearance is very accessory.
Parallax and stereoscopy won't give you 3d information. There is no depth field. You've got two 2d images from which 3d information can be speculated, but no 3d information.
What does it even mean "3D information can be speculated but no 3D information"? The information is either there or it's not. Of course it only gives you information on what both cameras see, which in some cases might even be all the 3D information you can get from the scene (picture shooting a "bumpy" wall, or really anything else which you can see in its entirety from some point), but it's a bunch of information you can extract "3D information" from.
Why not cameras that use different wavelengths of light
It's called a colour camera. It's quite a common sort of device these days. It uses filters in the form of a grid to dedicate certain pixels to a wavelength band of light. And most are sensitive to infrared, just post your camera to a hot electric plate before it becomes orange to see it glow in purple in your camera or point it to the end of your remote control when you're pushing a button.
Might be a bit overkill for just 25 years, but microfilms are what they used before the "digital era" to hold reliably and densely tons of info. Only takes an optical magnification instrument to read. With that said, I'd go for a small set of instructions at the beginning of the microfilm, and then the rest would be data printed as hexadecimal characters, or maybe a smarter more efficient scheme if you can think of one, like storing data as colour pixels (the important part being how many colours per pixels and how much resolution you can afford without making it too susceptible to error), also using a slight error correction scheme. That's what they used in the late 1930s when they wanted to store data to be read 6000 years later.
Wait, you don't put your portal camera in the portal, do you? You put them at a distance from the portal (same distance as the player is from the portal) and make sure nothing gets rendered in the way, correct?
You're pretty much missing the point, or at least your comparison is quite flawed. The Mona Lisa isn't obvious, not anyone who wanted to a woman's portrait came up with the Mona Lisa. And neither is Portal as a whole. But the algorithm behind the teleportation in Portal is flat out obvious. Like, really, anyone can come up with it when they're thinking of teleportation. The idea behind the game is what's admirable and ingenuous, not the little necessary and obvious algorithm.
Oh I know, I use it, and I'm not denigrating it. Just saying, if Gamasutra wrote a tutorial about it, I wouldn't want to see that on the front page of Slashdot, no matter how elegant and efficient this algorithm is.
Slashdot Mirror
Welcome to the wonderful of politics, where politicians turn out to be an awful lot like what they seem the most after. I.e. Elliot Spitzer the anti-prostitution governor who gets caught with hookers, Larry Craig the homophobic senator who turns out to solicit gay sex, and so on.. So yeah, no surprise that someone in that middle should be just like who they're pointing they're finger to, that's pretty much how it works. The witch hunter tends to turn out to be the one witch.
Welcome to America, the Land of the Free! Err.. scratch that.. Welcome to America.
So who will I play Halo 3 against now? :-(
What's the point of your comment if you're just gonna agree with me? ;-)
I guess the reassuring bit is that they didn't put themselves through the hassle of proof-reading it a tad.
It's called a copy-paste troll.
Ethics are based on the concepts of right and wrong. Because there is no right or wrong ethics can not exist.
Ha, the scent of a logical fallacy in the morning.. I'll fix it for you : Because there's (arguably, if you're a moral relativist) no absolute right or wrong, ethics are subjective. Someone more pedantic might also want to argue about the first claim.
"I fixed your post for you"
Thats lucky, I thought it was "I Fuck Your Penis For Yuans".
IFYPFY ;-)
Yet you still find it in more recent games such as Rise of Nations. Sometimes I wonder if a genre's "thinking box" in which most people think inside of isn't mainly defined by the limitations present at the time of the genre defining titles.
You could buy two Wiz's for the price of a Pandora though. Then you'd have four D-pads and two displays.
But still 2.5 times less pixels ;-). And you could argue that the Pandora has four 4-directions controls, by its D-pad, two analog nubs and the four buttons. And the combined battery life would be roughly equal (the Wiz claims 5 hours, the Pandora 10 hours).
Please do point out any flaw in my reasoning, but the way I see it it's nowhere near as complicated as you make it out to be.
A bit off topic but it may also be of interest to note that there's a fair disregard for air drag. The proof is that if you make two portals in a same floor, and jump into one, you'll reach the same heights indefinitely whereas air drag should gradually make you go lower and lower.
On and as for the points you brought up, the Portal "character" is one of the "singularity in a box" type. I.e. it's treated like a singularity but is inside an invisible box that keeps it to a certain distance from anything to act like it's a body. The human appearance is very accessory.
You mean like what happens to some people during near death experiences?
Parallax and stereoscopy won't give you 3d information. There is no depth field. You've got two 2d images from which 3d information can be speculated, but no 3d information.
What does it even mean "3D information can be speculated but no 3D information"? The information is either there or it's not. Of course it only gives you information on what both cameras see, which in some cases might even be all the 3D information you can get from the scene (picture shooting a "bumpy" wall, or really anything else which you can see in its entirety from some point), but it's a bunch of information you can extract "3D information" from.
Why not cameras that use different wavelengths of light
It's called a colour camera. It's quite a common sort of device these days. It uses filters in the form of a grid to dedicate certain pixels to a wavelength band of light. And most are sensitive to infrared, just post your camera to a hot electric plate before it becomes orange to see it glow in purple in your camera or point it to the end of your remote control when you're pushing a button.
Might be a bit overkill for just 25 years, but microfilms are what they used before the "digital era" to hold reliably and densely tons of info. Only takes an optical magnification instrument to read. With that said, I'd go for a small set of instructions at the beginning of the microfilm, and then the rest would be data printed as hexadecimal characters, or maybe a smarter more efficient scheme if you can think of one, like storing data as colour pixels (the important part being how many colours per pixels and how much resolution you can afford without making it too susceptible to error), also using a slight error correction scheme. That's what they used in the late 1930s when they wanted to store data to be read 6000 years later.
Oh and I guess you can use such services for that.
How else will you play SmashTV and Total Carnage?
With the Pandora's two analog sticks? ;-)
lol, learn how to hide your bias towards the Wiz/against the Pandora ;-) (I'm A_SN)
Wait, you don't put your portal camera in the portal, do you? You put them at a distance from the portal (same distance as the player is from the portal) and make sure nothing gets rendered in the way, correct?
You said it yourself, the article talks about the easy part, which is obvious. The harder problems you raised are more interesting.
I dream of the day I can cut off this buggy tired right arm of mine and replace it with a bionic one.
Or you could just duct tape a Fleshlight to your arm..
Angry poster is angry.
Anonymous Coward is anonymous.
Don't they know that giving an angry paraplegic a super powered robot exoskeleton is just a recipe for a murderous cyborg rampage?
Fucking idiots!
Awesome idea! The first one to sell the script of that movie (The Rise of the Crips?) to Hollywood studios wins!
You're pretty much missing the point, or at least your comparison is quite flawed. The Mona Lisa isn't obvious, not anyone who wanted to a woman's portrait came up with the Mona Lisa. And neither is Portal as a whole. But the algorithm behind the teleportation in Portal is flat out obvious. Like, really, anyone can come up with it when they're thinking of teleportation. The idea behind the game is what's admirable and ingenuous, not the little necessary and obvious algorithm.
Oh I know, I use it, and I'm not denigrating it. Just saying, if Gamasutra wrote a tutorial about it, I wouldn't want to see that on the front page of Slashdot, no matter how elegant and efficient this algorithm is.