• 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.

recompile

Members
  • Content count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

151 Neutral

About recompile

  • Rank
    Member
  1. [quote name='Khatharr' timestamp='1353042217' post='5001442']The benefit, like frob pointed out, is that implementing in this way allows a 'player' to be more or less anything (local player, network player, AI, chicken with a USB port wired to its brain, etc).[/quote] Not to start a holy war, but that's not really a benefit of OOP in this case. Wrapping the whole thing in a class is just one of many solutions that afford those same benefits, and may not ultimately be the best solution. Yeah, that'll start a holy war. I should probably bow out at this point...
  2. It's not uncommon for phone and tablet games to be written in HTML5/JS. I've seen quite a few, and two of my games are written in HTML/JS. You'd be surprised what you can do with WebGL on a tablet -- it was lots of fun. [quote name='Cornstalks' timestamp='1353013730' post='5001345'] I was going to give it a shot until I learned you can't properly loop audio without FireFox/Chrome specific JavaScript extensions. [/quote] You can do a good bit with the <audio> tag. It's supported in most desktop browsers and various mobile platforms. It's a bit of a pain though. Things are much better with the Web Audio API, though broad support is going to take a while.
  3. I'll agree. OOP doesn't make a whole lot of sense here. You may find this valuable: [url="http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Board+Representation"]Board Representation[/url] [Chess Programming Wiki] Skip to the bottom and you'll find tons of great articles on the subject.
  4. [quote name='brx' timestamp='1351802216' post='4996302'] At our company ALL developers have an Android phone. ALL buisiness people have an iPhone. [/quote] Different places, different demographics, I guess. Here, iPhones are popular with women and teens, BlackBerry still rules the business world, and Android, with the lions share, fills in the gaps. Feature phones are vanishing at an alarming rate, faster than I expected. I can't prefix any category with "ALL", however. Personally, I still prefer my BlackBerry. I've made QNX PBOS / BB10 my platform of choice as far as my game development hobby goes. I'm going to guess that puts me in a very tiny minority here, but that's okay.
  5. [quote name='rawfle' timestamp='1351266642' post='4994178']It seems that rather than creating something new and unique, developers are trying to ride the wave of success of other developers by producing similarly built games with only a few changeups in overall gameplay.[/quote] Seems to me like the industry has always been this way. Remember the zillions of maze games, Space Invaders clones, and a market flooded with home pong clones? Sure, there were more unique offerings then, but when you start with nothing, it's not difficult to create something new or unique. [quote name='rawfle' timestamp='1351266642' post='4994178']the greatness of a game is only valued of it ability to generate income[/quote] As far as industry is concerned, isn't that the ultimate goal? You won't find too many people with the resources to produce a AAA or AA title who are concerned more with "bringing their vision to life" than they are about turning a profit. How to you propose that the problem you identify be addressed?
  6. [quote name='Narf the Mouse' timestamp='1351320533' post='4994357'] Y'know, I'd be interested in buying a good book on writing an OS, if anyone wants to write one and put it up on Amazon. I'd probably learn a lot from it, if nothing else. [/quote] It's an antique by today's standards, but I remember it being handy: [url="http://www.amazon.com/Developing-32-Bit-Operating-System-Cd-Rom/dp/0672306557"]Developing Your Own 32-Bit Operating System[/url] It worked surprisingly well with this much older, but extremely handy book: [url="http://www.amazon.com/Programmers-Problem-Solver-IBM-PC/dp/B000SKWM12/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1351487655&sr=1-3&keywords=programmers+problem+solver"]Programmer's Problem Solver for the IBM PC, XT, & AT[/url] Hmmm... Maybe I need to find new books...
  7. Keeping to a routine works well for me. Schedules and todo lists, preferably on paper, also seem to help.
  8. [quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1350018478' post='4989366'] mdwh: consciousness arises out of the complexity of a large number of smaller simpler parts. recompile: that belief lacks grounding. there is no reason to believe that it is the case the consciousness arises from a complex system. It seems as if you're trying to refute that consciousness doesn't arise from the complex interactions of smaller parts? [/quote] No, I said that that belief lacks grounding. It should be perfectly obvious that it lacks grounding, but most people don't take the time to notice. It seemed important to point out. That's not a refutation (That it lacks grounding doesn't mean that it's false, just that ... it lacks grounding!) That bit I pasted at the end to my last reply to you is relevant here. [quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1350018478' post='4989366'] [quote name='recompile' timestamp='1350016465' post='4989362'] If it's not caused by something within the body, then it must be caused by something external to it. (That's too easy.) [/quote]And now it seems you're directly refuting that consciousness is created by the body, and maybe it's just magic?[/quote] Where on earth do you get that? I was pointing out what I had hoped you'd notice is an obvious problem with your dichotomy. It's a silly mistake that I'm surprised you missed. I had hoped that a humorous correction would take the sting out. [quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1350018478' post='4989366'] [quote name='recompile' timestamp='1350016465' post='4989362'] Take some time with it. [/quote]Please stop being so sophomoric and maybe answer some questions people have had about your statements, instead of going off on vague tangents about things they didn't ask about. [/quote] Again, this is beginners stuff. I've not said anything outrageous or even advocated a particular viewpoint. I've certainly said nothing that couldn't be clarified or further explained with a quick trip to the bookshelf. Now, see, we're not even on topic any longer. I'm going to bed.
  9. Sigh... okay, but then I'm off to bed! [quote name='szecs' timestamp='1350017581' post='4989364'] Recompile, you have these (questionable) initial assumptions: [/quote] Really? Let's have a look... [quote name='szecs' timestamp='1350017581' post='4989364']You can experience and measure other consciousnesses directly (which is impossible which was already pointed out, only [i][b]behaviour[/b][/i] can be examined)[/quote] Nonsense. I've made no such assumption or implied anything of the sort. Heh, if I had such a method, I'd be too famous to post here! [quote name='szecs' timestamp='1350017581' post='4989364']Consciousness is a boolean thing (I pointed out that even this is questionable. How about early childhood memories? Dreams? Drugs?)[/quote] I don't know what this is supposed to mean? [quote name='szecs' timestamp='1350017581' post='4989364']Other complex (animals/planets/whatever) systems don't have it (as already pointed out, this is questionable, due to the first point)[/quote] Consciousness you mean? No, I've not made such an assumption. I've gone well out of my way to avoid asserting *anything* about consciousness (save that it's a hard topic to discuss, there are no easy answers, and computationalism is dead.) [quote name='szecs' timestamp='1350017581' post='4989364']Epiphenomenalism and the subjective experience of consciousness somehow contradicts causality[/quote] This may help: If consciousness is epiphenomenal, [i]by definition[/i] we lose downward causation. [i]In the simplest possible terms[/i], that means is that your thoughts can't affect your brain. That's not an assumption (qustionable, initial, or otherwise). It's just what the term means. Hope that helps.
  10. [quote name='szecs' timestamp='1350016021' post='4989360'] I guess my posts are stupid or hard to understand. We keep asking and telling the same things. Why do you, Recompile, ignore these? [/quote] Disinterest? Lack of time? In your case, I had no interest in tearing down behavioralism -- you can read all about the rise and fall of behavioralism (at least from Skinner forward) in any good undergraduate textbook. See, the point I wanted to make was that the problem is difficult and that there are no simple answers (er, and say that computationalism is dead). This isn't exactly the right place to exchange meaningful dialog -- this is a site for hobbyists who make computer games, not for philosophers. While I can expect that the users here are well-versed in linear algebra, I have no reason to expect them to be familiar with the work of Kihlstrom, Baruss, or Jacoby. It's just the wrong forum. In hindsight, I should have just stayed quite.
  11. [quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1350010226' post='4989352'] If the phenomenon of consciousness is not caused by something within my body, then what is it caused by? It seems that if it's not caused by stuff within my body, then the only other option is that it's caused by magic like souls and whatnot. [/quote] Now, I know you know better. If it's not caused by something within the body, then it must be caused by something external to it. (That's too easy.) [quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1350010226' post='4989352']So, if you're saying that consciousness isn't created by the body, where do you believe it comes from?[/quote] Again, I'm not saying anything of the sort. The only thing I've said is that the problem is not simple, there are no answers as of yet (easy or otherwise). Oh, and that computationalism is dead. [quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1350010226' post='4989352']Just because it can be simulated, it doesn't mean that it's deterministic[/quote] That's not what I said at all. Also, reading the rest of the quote, I looks like you've misunderstood the term 'determinism'. Anyhow, we're just wasting time talking past each other. Let me repeat this bit from earlier: While it's easy to say things like "it must be that X because the metaphysics demands that conclusion" it doesn't get you from "that" to "how" [i]or even guarantee that the question and the conclusion are consistent with your foundational assumptions.[/i] (An unrelated example to clarify that point: Science can say nothing about the existence of god because that topic is outside the scope of science. Any conclusions drawn from the metaphysics [e.g. god does not exist] are not scientific statements. To make it a scientific statement, you'd need a new metaphysics to increase the scope of science so that the question can be answered by scientific means.) Take some time with it.
  12. [quote name='cowsarenotevil' timestamp='1350002679' post='4989325']It seems to me that you've delievered the standard argument against epiphenomenal qualia[/quote] Maybe. I offered, in a single sentence a few posts back, something similar to (a modification of) one of the more common arguments against epiphenomenalism. I'm not sure that I'd say that I "delivered the standard argument against ..." (I think that "expression of" makes a stronger case than "knowledge of") [quote name='cowsarenotevil' timestamp='1350002679' post='4989325'] you haven't really put forward anything in favor of the existence of qualia at all.[/quote] Again, I'm not advocating any position. Even against computationalism, the only position I admit to holding, I've not offered an argument. On epiphenomenalism, I've not giving an opinion, just briefly noted some problems with it and alluded to others. I'm just trying to point out that the problem is incredibly difficult and there are no simple or easy answers. It's silly to make any sort of claim as to the nature of consciousness, let alone what you need to artificially create it! Absurd things like "it must be" type answers are not just uninteresting (they're implicit in the metaphysics, after all, and thus offer us nothing new), they're ultimately useless (they can't get us past "that" to "how"). Again, the problem is extraordinarily complicated. It's absurd to make any claims like "it must be that" or "requires only that". Just for fun: [quote name='cowsarenotevil' timestamp='1350002679' post='4989325']Anything that's typically treated as non-deterministic can just as easily be expressed as something with hidden variables;[/quote] It turns out that this isn't true. See Bell.
  13. [quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1349939588' post='4988996']... a sufficiently complex system (arranged in a very specific way) cannot give rise to consciousness, when such a thing has obviously happened.[/quote] It's not obvious at all. From: We are a complex system; We are conscious; It does not follow that consciousness must necessarily be an emergent property of certain kinds of complex systems. (That's just basic logic.) [quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1349939588' post='4988996']What if, stepping away from biology/neurology, we 'solve' the laws of physics and are able to algorithmically simulate reality, then surely it would follow that any chemical/biological/neurological process could be simulated by such an algorithm?[/quote] Let's pick the low-hanging fruit. As mdwh rightly pointed out, you can't mistake the simulation of the thing for the thing itself. A simulated rainstorm won't get you wet, and Japan has nothing to fear from a simulated nuclear bomb. The standard counter: A simulated thought is still a thought. I assume that you mean we should simulate a person, and that person would be conscious? Let's assume it's true, we have such a thing, and look at some of the immediate consequences. This assumes computationalism is true and, as a consequence, multiple realizability -- though it gets stretched to the limits! You need to assert than any system that is computationally isomorphic [i]at any level of description[/i] with relevant parts of the brain [i]at any level of description[/i] would share the same experience. (You should see an ontology problem here) Straight from John Searle "For any program there is some sufficiently complex object such that there is some description of the object under which it is implementing the program. Thus for example the wall behind my back is right now implementing the Wordstar program, because there is some pattern of molecule movements which is isomorphic with the formal structure of Wordstar. But if the wall is implementing Wordstar then if it is a big enough wall it is implementing any program, including any program implemented in the brain." It not longer becomes silly to say something like "at some point in history, Mt. Everest independently invented calculus" Further, being deterministic, we lose downward causation, forcing us to conclude that consciousness is epiphenomenal (the standard arguments against epiphenomenalism now apply, though we're in a tougher starting position. To counter, for example, Popper, you'd need to change your set of metaphysical assumptions or advance a new physics.) There are other problems, of course, before we even get to those consequences. The most obvious is that we cannot simulate the universe on a computer as a computer is a deterministic system and the universe is not. (Asserting the the brain is deterministic is a good approach, though that brings you right back to the problems above, and a few zillion others.) What's the point of all this? The problem is incredibly difficult and there are no simple or easy answers. We just picked some of the easy stuff, the low-hanging fruit, and we've already got more than anyone on an internet forum want's to deal with. While it's easy to say things like "it must be that X because the metaphysics demands that conclusion" it doesn't get you from "that" to "how" or even guarantee that the question and the conclusion are consistent with your foundational assumptions. (An unrelated example to clarify that point: Science can say nothing about the existence of god because that topic is outside the scope of science. Any conclusions drawn from the metaphysics [e.g. god does not exist] are not scientific statements. To make it a scientific statement, you'd need a new metaphysics to increase the scope of science so that the question can be answered by scientific means.) Hope that helps.
  14. [quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1349924828' post='4988942']This is likely the part where I've misunderstood you.[/quote] Indeed. I'm not positing anything; I was just trying to show why evolution does not support epiphenomenalism. [quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1349924828' post='4988942'] You don't need to drag theories of the mind into this, just ignore and treat it as a black box. A thing that can be described as concious exists. That thing is a complex system that evolved from previous complex systems. Prior forms of the thing along it's evolutionary path cannot be described as conscious. At some point along that path, forms of the thing developed conscious behaviours. Either that is due to the new configuration, or it's due to magic.[/quote] I'd hoped to show why the question is not that simple. That we evolved is beyond dispute. It's also obvious that we are conscious. Though that's not terribly interesting. Just from "that we evolved" we need only assume the dominant metaphysics to turn that in to "we evolved to be conscious". No further work required -- Short of positing new metaphysics, you're forced to that conclusion. (Boring, isn't it?) [quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1349924828' post='4988942']N.B. we're not trying to say anything about what consciousness is or how it arises, but simply disputing your assertion that it [b]can't arise from a complex system[/b][/quote] You're in luck, as I never intended to make such an assertion. (I understand completely, however, why my "attack" on epiphenomenalism would give you that impression. You need a lot of background to avoid that kind of misunderstanding.) Now, I did assert that it cannot be by purely algorithmic means. That may be too strong a statement, but it's stood up to near constant attack for more than 30 years now. I may have been unfair to your position by picking on epiphenomenalism -- er, and refusing to advance a position. If you want, I can pick on a different theory; but I won't advance a position [quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1349924828' post='4988942']I am a machine, and there's no reason to believe that I'm conscious through anything but my own machinery. If I build a machine just like me (through reproduction) I can expect that it will likely be able to exhibit consciousness too.[/quote] That reminds me of an old joke: "AI researches have discovered a method to create a thinking machine. It requires only two technicians and a nine-month initial construction period. Unfortunately, initial maintenance and training is both expensive and time-consuming with few production units able to eventually perform meaningful cognitive work." Anyhow, we're just playing here (this is beginners stuff, after all) I only wanted to make the point that there are no simple and easy answers like the earlier posts in the thread imply. Oh, also that computationalism is dead -- I almost forgot that one!
  15. [quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1349914946' post='4988909']Well if you believe in evolution, then the reason to believe this is because that's what happened. The question is what kind of complex systems can give rise to behaviour that can be described as conciousness.[/quote] On the contrary, the fact of evolution puts the final nail in the coffin of epiphenomenalism (the idea that consciousness is caused by brain processes). I'll try to keep this as simple as I can: We'll define consciousness simply as subjective experience. First, note that you (i.e. your brain) can report on the content of phenomenal experience. (Give it a try.) Assuming that epiphenomenalism is true, consciousness is causally inert. (This is not in dispute) As consciousness is causally inert, it should be impossible for the brain to report on the content of phenomenal experience. (This one is tricky at first. Take some time with it.) That was too easy. Is there a way out? Well, we should expect specific brain states to give rise to specific experiences. In order for the brain to report on the content of phenomenal experience, it needs only additional structures that can examine the state of the relevant neurons involved. Surely, such structures can evolve. After all, evolution needs just two things to work: 1) Heritable variation with change and 2) A selection mechanism Well, we have (1), no question. However, we can't get (2). (Can you see why? It's easier than you think.) Like I said before. It's a hard problem ... and we have yet to even crack open an undergrad textbook here! There is a large interdisciplinary research effort (which as spawned several new disciplines) yet for the volume of work produced, we're no closer to an answer. If you're a layperson, and you think you have the answer, you're virtually guaranteed to be wrong.