Discussion in 'Games' started by vawrvawerawe, Mar 5, 2013.
I do. I know it will f*ck with my mind.
You're a digital file on a server. The lights you see in the sky are all the fiber optic cables that control the 'universe'.
Graphics are good, no?
The fact computers can't produce a cornerless arch is a pretty big giveaway.
Not until I got my hands on Oculus Rift.
Never, maybe not until they develop fully functional holodeck which AMD said will take 10-15 years
The computer was created to fix some of the real-life problems which are impossible to do without it.
So the games are aiming to be like real life.
This has nothing to do with indie game developers though. They won't aim it.
You can choose to help them.
The first sentence I don't understand, and the second sentence is simply wrong, the third and fourth I dont understand.
It's not just you. I understand the first sentence but I don't know what it has to do with the topic and the rest baffles me too.
Too much vodka???
hehe nice one and we do live in a digital universe controlled by electrons,
I think we'll survive photo realistic graphics, it'll be like controlling a film, but no doubt there will be a few, that turn there gun cases on the real world, but there always is
1 - You don't understand that the computer was created to solve real life problems?
2 - FX technology aimed to a more realistic hair. This is proof you are totally wrong. Games are trying to be as more realistic as possible.
If you talk about aliens, explosions and such, than it's your problem you got it wrong. I was talking about the graphics.
3 - Those who create indie games don't aim realistic graphics to their games but the gameplay. Minecraft is an example.
4 - It is your choice to choose helping indie game developers and from what I know, you can simply buy their games or donate to them.
There are people who sometimes won't understand, but I have done some research on this problem. I posted on TPU the same sentence and on some other well-known forums.
It comes out that on here it was not understood, meanwhile on the others it was understood and vice-versa.
It must be about the articulation of the words and how the brain actually gets this articulation, which is not usual since I am not a native english or american, but I am left-handed.
Also, the worse the reply from the forum members, the less likely they are going to understand since it is clear that trying to articulate the words will give out a meaning,
but also I could be wrong on how I wrote it.
No, it was created to simply count beans for big corporations. Later they sang "be all you can be" to the computer, and today we multi-task between PowerPoint, Crysis 3, Winamp playing Justin Biber, and a Chrome tab of My Favorite Brony.
So you mean that counting beans is not an actual problem?
It's not. Entire civilizations were built on the human ability to properly count beans.
...and what better than developing technology to count beans for you faster than you could otherwise.
I haven't heard of anyone suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from palying games so far.
The first time I played Dead Space when it came out with surround sound in a dark room, it scared the hell out of me. No PTSD, but it was pretty nuts when you actually hear something behind you.
Makes me miss surround sound.
I think people start losing their social life... but I hope it happens
I think no matter how great the graphics get it, there will always be that sense of it being a game. Whether it's the animations, the art style or the lack of real world physics. But if we do get true photorealistic/awesome physically capable games, the only thing that would probably get to peoples minds would probably be the gore. Killing countless enemies and watching their heads explode/guts fall out, ewwww. I have no problem when its fake and it just some blood splatter but I hate that stuff in real life. That will probably be what makes future horror games appealing though. To note, I am a Dead Space Fan.
1. It was the "which are impossible to do without it" that threw me off. My bad. But as others have said, computers didn't really solve anything when they came around afaik, they just sped things up. After the computer came along we have made things that cannot be done without it, not the other way round.
2. You should have said that then.
3. This totally depends on the developers, indie or not.
4. Which is true for any developer really. You support them with your wallet.
And for the rest... Don't take it so seriously.
EDIT: But to go on topic, I think that once we just have plugs in our heads and actual life like simulations it will fruck things up a bit. I see it as a bit like the internet, which some people say is not really "real", but it totally is at this point. Human interaction works pretty much the same way (while the interpretetions are harder because we only have words to go by): People will dislike you if you're an asshole and like you when you're nice.
So, if a virtual reality is as real as the "real" reality, how can you say where one reality ends and the other begins? It's the discussion of many works of fiction (eXistenZ pops to mind), and I think it is pretty interesting. At one point, if things progress the way they do now (which I doubt they will) I think we will end up with several "realities", and where we want to spend our time will be a philosofical/idealistic choice. And if things progress the way it does regarding how humans behave, humanity will cease to exist because we're all busy boning sexy historical figures.
EDIT again: This is of course just random semi-sci-fi ramblings.
It all depends on your frame of reference.
Noone lives in "the" reality to begin with; The only thing each person has is an internal representation of what they think their world is like based solely on the impressions the person in question has had of this world up till that time. So in effect, we all already live in our own virtual reality, which is the result of the poor emulation of our mind of the real world.
At the moment our minds cannot correctly differentiate between the "real world"(lets say the way science describes our surroundings), and an artificial world created by a computer, I'd say things start to get interesting.
For most people, this means that the virtual world has to mimmick the real world in such a way that people cannot detect a flaw in the simulation. Of course, there are all kinds of tricks which help fool our brains into thinking something is real when it is not, like the way games are presented on a 2D screen: Even though the image is definately 2D, things like perspective fool us into thinking the scene has depth, because perspective in the real world usually means depth.
Also, if you lack any frame of reference, you can be easily fooled: If you let a young animal/child grow up with nothing but a treadmill below it and VR goggles on, it will regard that world as real.
Ever played Big Rigs?
It was like a Vietnam flash back!
But then the computer wasn't playing the role of a problem solver, just a modern convenience.
Before someone jumps in with a "try writing pi to 100000 digits," my preemptive response is: the first computers were quite literally bean counters (adding machines), which helped in accountancy. Using them for science came later. After that "be all you can be." So no, they were not "problem solvers to begin with."
Separate names with a comma.