• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.

Max_Payne

Members
  • Content count

    2877
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

757 Good

About Max_Payne

  • Rank
    Banned
  1. NO. Not kidding. It seems to be some kind of nude skin for one of the Max Payne 2 characters. [Edited by - Run_The_Shadows on June 24, 2006 11:18:42 PM]
  2. I am working with VC++ 2003 and I get an error which makes no sense to me, and the MSDN pages are not helping at all. If someone would be kind enough to suggest a fix... template <size_t A> void foo() { } template <> void foo<0>() { } template <size_t A, size_t B> void bar() { } template <size_t A> void bar<A, 0>() { } The error is as follows: error C2768: 'bar' : illegal use of explicit template arguments It applies to my attempt at a partial specialization of the second function. While I can specialize foo, which has one template argument, it seems impossible to specialize bar over one of its template arguments.
  3. Assuming the universe contains a finite quantity of energy and space is inifinite in all directions, then there is such a thing as a "center of mass" of the universe (Note that I'm not saying we can easily find where that would be). Of course now if the universe is a hypersphere, then this makes a center of mass irrelevant because there is really no "edge" of the universe. But anyways. If space is expanding, why does it drag everything along with it? And what happens to heisenberg's incertainty principle and the smallest measurable distance?
  4. Quote:Original post by Katta Quote:Original post by Max_Payne If they made the skull and fire look realistic, and the skull-head moved in a way that looked natural, it would already be alot better.Realistic? You have walking biker-skeletons in your neck of the woods? I hate it when people misunderstand such basic sentences. I said the *skull* and the *fire* could be more realistic. And yes, you can make realistic fake *skulls* and *fire*. The point is, it could look much better. Especially the movement, it looks wooden. I'd like to see the skeleton move as if it had the muscles of a live person on it. If it doesn't look like it's a real skeleton, and it doesn't look like the skeleton is actually there, it simply takes away from the feel and the illusion, in my opinion.
  5. Quote:Original post by JBourrie Seriously, how good can you make a guy with a flaming skull-head look? The source material isn't exactly gold. Well, the movement looks unsmooth and so does the fire. If they made the skull and fire look realistic, and the skull-head moved in a way that looked natural, it would already be alot better. What's kind of lame is that the movie "Spawn" is alot older and looked alot more impressive. That being said, they could also make him look like some evil undead guy and it would do even better. They could also make the motorcycle look better in a simpler manner by making it look like a demon-posessed machine without the lame "bone transmutation". But anyways, like modern movies do things simple and efficient.
  6. I don't know what you guys think about this, but that trailer almost made me cry. The CG is so horrible, even a 2 year old kid wouldn't be scared. Don't get me wrong, I think the movie could be almost remotely entertaining... If they redo all the CG (oh, and make a remotely original score for the movie, although I do realise the score on the trailer may only be temporary).
  7. Quote:Original post by Maega How does one explain the girl swimming under him if it is vertical posts? They wouldn't be placed far enough apart for her to do that. It doesn't have to be ALL horizontal, or ALL vertical. It can be transparent bridge "segments" held up by transparent (or just blue, matching the pool color) vertical posts. It can simply be fabricated to let people swim under at one point, and other people pass through at another point. Seriously, the rig just has to be good enough to let the actors do this little scripted run to try and convince you that they could swim under anywhere and cross through anywhere (which they most probably can't). The reason he's taking so much time to do it can be explained in terms of: A) Leaving time to the actors to do their stuff. It wouldn't be as convincing if he just walked the distance in 3 seconds. B) He does have to be careful about stability. The rig, if it is as I imagine it, is probably not amazingly stable.
  8. ... He's walking on some sort of transparent bridge. If you're wondering how people can swim underneath, well, it's not very thick, that's how. As for people crossing his way, the bridge can simply be cut into two or three parts to allow people to pass in specific places. I would bet on that more than on a camera trick. But yeah, it's obvious that the "audience" are in fact a bunch of lame actors. Please note that we don't really get a clear shot from under his feet, or from underwater. On the video on youtube at least, there seems to be alot of sunlight, making it difficult to see under the water because of the reflections.
  9. Quote:Original post by Mithrandir Unless God created himself? That's a trick I would like to see. Well, one way or another, it would seem kind of strange to think that our universe did not exist forever, and yet was created out of *nothing*, with a *finite* quantity of energy in it, some *well-defined rules* to define the interactions between energy masses, etc... It seems logical to think that our universe was created somewhere, or by something that is able to escape the rules of our limited physical universe. It had to, otherwise how could this something have brought all of the energy that makes our universe together. And very importantly, how could this something decide on the rules of our universe? How was it designed? Was the universe created by something endowed with intelligence? Or is our universe part of an infinity of alternate universes, each with its own random set of rules, in which case we are lucky our universe *just happened* be able to sustain life. In any case, a God creating himself is more likely than just our universe creating itself. Why? Because our universe would have to have come from nothing. The assumption that a God created itself could be better explained by saying that God is the natural creating force that goes against entropy. Some kind of intelligent entity living outside our universe, in a realm where everything is possible (eg: no physical limitations, energy can be created, the thoughts of God have their own existence of sort, etc...). This life creating force could have created several physical universes, based on physical rules such as those of our universe, for the sake of experimenting (because creating things is its purpose). Of course this explanation is very unsatisfactory to many scientists as it relies on something we can't touch or analyze in detail. We can't escape our universe, so we can't really see what's outside, it's as simple as that. But we can theoretize and use reductionism to come to interesting conclusions. Anyhow, on the question of how God created himself, I think it's a bit difficult to imagine, but we can always try... But assuming there is such a thing as a natural creative force. Assuming there is a realm outside of our universe where energy can be created, and assuming that universe has random energy variances similar to what occurs with quantum physics in our universe (eg: ghost particles). God could have emerged as a simplistic energetic entity (an energy blob), which became self-expanding by itself creating more energy alike its own, and then somehow developed consciousness. Obviously this assumes the existence of an outer universe as well. Some kind of axiomatic existence of "something". But you could also say that this outside universe without rules about energy is simply "nothingness", or "chaos", and that God emerged out of the randomness of chaos.
  10. I know gamedev doesn't like to get into debates, but I can see a few arguments for Linux... It's just a fact that you can do alot more on linux without restarting because of the higher level of control it gives you. No software on linux will actually ask you to reboot your system. But as far as uptime is concerned. It depends. If we're talking stability, some of the crashes are due to hardware failures, or physical reasons (like power outages). These are things your OS can't protect you from. I would still trust linux a bit more when it comes to stability because of its higher flexibility, giving it more of an ability to recover. If there is a bug that crashes the graphical part of windows, it might take the whole system down. But on Linux, it's possible to run a server without even running x-windows at all. You can strip the system more, making it less prone to failure, and you have more chance to recover if a failure does occur... As far as I'm concerned, I've run a windows 2000 webserver for 2 years. It never crashed. I got up to 3 months of uptime. Always ended up having a power outage or having to change the hardware. However, my system got hacked into at one point because of a security weakness in windows, and there was no windows support for the RAID adapter on my server. But anyways, it was pretty stable. On a server, as long as you don't run buggy software, you're pretty safe from crashes. Now that I run linux, it's faster because of the RAID support, and pretty much rock stable. I also like the better remote management capabilities that come with linux (eg: ssh, sftp). But I can't say it's "more stable", as my windows machine was never unstable to begin with. However, I do have less reboots now, which gives it more uptime.
  11. Quote:Original post by Sneftel I've got a better idea: Why don't you guys do it over PMs instead? So as not to not deprive us from the humoristic value of this "debate".
  12. Quote:Original post by Machaira Quote:Original post by Sandman Creationism is not a theory. It is a hypothesis that has already proven false according to just about every test you can apply to it. ROFL. You can no more disprove creationism than you can evolution. I'd be happy to look at the test that have disproved creationism. Have any links? It's true that you can't really "disprove" it, but from a *scientific* perspective, Occam's Razor invalidates creationism. It's just nonsense to believe that God set everything up to lead us to believe in evolution when everything was created "as it is today". Plus, we all know that creationists simply want to maintain their belief that a litteral the bible is 100% accurate. I just don't see how evolution is so inacceptable for Christians. Even if you assume that the old testament is the word of God, you would have to think that, if God came to inspire a prophet to write this for the masses, he couldn't have explained the theory of evolution and the big bang to the people of that time. They just didn't have the scientific background for that. Instead, you can either consider that the bible may be somewhat inaccurate, or believe that it was written in terms of metaphors, which would not make it inconsistent with modern scientific knowledge. My view is that Christians should essentially believe in what is said in the new testament (the part about Jesus, the Christ, and the basis of Christianity), and regard the old testament as an heritage from the jewish origins of Christianity.
  13. Quote:Original post by Kaze Quote:Original post by eektor As for life being formed on Earth, we can test it by replicating the exact same conditions and trying to get at least amino acids to form. This has yet to be done. its has been done, over 50 years ago link Not only has it been done, but I believe that a follow-up experiment showed that some proteins can naturally arise from the amino acids given appropriate conditions. Quote:Original post by eektor That's true and I believe the only way you can test for instance the big bang theory is if you can replicate it in a small scale, of course we do not have the technology for that yet. One interesting way to investigate the theory of the big bang is to perform computer simulations of it. We most likely will never be able to create another universe that way due to the immense amounts of energy required, so it remains an interesting alternative. Quote:Original post by eektor Here's a problem ... how would a dinosaur give up his arms for them to slowly evolve into wings that would not be able to fly until the full evolution cycle has come about? Notice that birdreptile has no hands, the hands are its wings. How can a dinosaur survive and evolution thinks its good to give him wings that would not work so he can continue to evolve into a bird? This is not really a problem. First of all, I doubt dinosaurs ever user their "hands" or "arms". You are probably thinking of the T-Rex, but most dinosaurs were walking with their four legs. Dinosaurs, like most other ground animals, probably never used their front legs for manipulating things. I mean, does your dog do that? And how do you think chickens survive? They only use their legs to move around, and their mouth for eating and manipulating objects. I doubt even the T-Rex used its front legs that much... So the answer you are looking for probably is that the reptiles that evolved into birds were able to stand vertically on their back legs, and did not use their front legs much. There is also the very high probability that these front legs turned into wings only very progressively (I believe there are fossils to confirm this, actually). Hence these legs did not change much at first, and were still usable to manipulate things at first, if the animal used them much, but as they turned into wings, the animal probably adapted more and more to not using its front limbs to manipulate objects. As for what evolution "thinks" of wings, it doesn't think anything. It's simple. If the adaptation produces a viable animal, which is not less functional than the previous one, then it has a good chance of being passed on for generations. The adaptation doesn't have to be instantly beneficial, but even if it is only slightly helpful to the animal (or even not making a difference), it has a fair chance of being passed along. My biology teacher in college said that the first precursors to birds probably weren't able to fly, but they might have been able to use their wings to do long range jumps (like some insects do), which may have been an evolutional advantage when it came to escaping predators).
  14. Quote:Original post by Arild Fines Quote:Original post by Terlenth That allows for my point to still go through though. Even if what you said was true the light hasn't reached Earth yet. The light that is reaching Earth right now was created in place 6000 light years away with a vector for Earth. Why? ;)
  15. I like how creationists have zero understanding of genetic algorithms and natural selection... Yet they pretend to be able to argue against it...