Jump to content
  • Advertisement

cowsarenotevil

Member
  • Content Count

    10571
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3015 Excellent

About cowsarenotevil

  • Rank
    Legend

Personal Information

  • Role
    3D Artist
    Programmer
    Technical Artist
  • Interests
    Art
    Audio
    Programming

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. cowsarenotevil

    How was this man able to do this?

    I don't think that's quite a valid comparison. I think it's a bit closer to distinction between, say, sword swallowing, which is a real thing that can be done without injury (by someone who is sufficiently skilled), and just shooting yourself in the throat, which is generally considered harder to practice without injury. The key thing that stands out to me in the video is that the sword is always inserted slowly and at fairly weird angles, and I can't imagine why you'd do it that way except to avoid directly piercing major blood vessels and organs. The fact that doing precisely that apparently did kill him (whether it was due to a sword or needle seems fairly immaterial to me) seems to further back up the claim that what he's doing on video does not involve him directly piercing his organs.
  2. I don't think this is a good analogy at all, to say nothing of it being "exactly the same." The strokes aren't so much "baked" into a texture as they are deliberately drawn onto the texture by an artist, whereas what you call "'proper' cartoon rendering" isn't even close to being a viable substitute for strokes drawn by a human artist. Especially in games that are based around an existing "2D" art style, right now I'd say that drawing strokes by hand is the only option. It'd be fascinating if someone could come up with something that could really consistently generate this type of imagery on the fly (and there's lots of research into this area), and there's no doubt that it would open up new doors, but so far this isn't a solved problem, so people need to (or choose to) work around those limitations. I mean, it's certainly a shame that you "can't" play those games, but lots of people skip games of all sorts due to weird biases like that. Is yours objectively more important?
  3. cowsarenotevil

    How much longer can Trump/Trumpism last?

    Well, that sure is a perspective. I, for one, think a lot of people would probably read a novel dedicated to why you think that. I can't promise I'd find it very convincing, but I'm sure it would be more entertaining than Atlas Shrugged, so, you know, you'll have a built-in audience made up of people who think Atlas Shrugged is the last novel that's been worth reading. In fact, there's probably a lot of overlap between those people and people who believe that western political philosophy hasn't advanced. (I was going to say "advanced since..." but you can't really go much farther back than Aristotle, so I guess I'll need to end on this particular anticlimax).
  4. cowsarenotevil

    Motivation

    Yeah, I agree with that completely. It's just that I'd be lying if I said there weren't days (or occasional periods a fair bit longer than that) when I wasn't just wasn't that enthusiastic about programming, and I think my life would have gone quite a bit differently if I'd said, "Huh, I don't feel like programming today. Time to quit forever, I guess." I certainly don't think that was the point of your post, but it did feel like the logical conclusion of taking it literally, and I just don't want anyone coming away thinking that programming isn't "for them" just because they occasionally don't want to do it.
  5. cowsarenotevil

    Motivation

    This is... actually not good advice at all, I think? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but I'm pretty sure there are at least a few programmers who occasionally take a a break that lasts more than 24 hours, and saying that programming isn't "for them" to me sounds like the same kind of pointless elitism that leads to stuff like "real programmers only [write in some particular language/use some particular text editor/use some particular naming convention/etc.]" -- all fine, I guess, but in that case I think that fake programmers often make programs that are just as good or better than those made by real programmers.
  6. cowsarenotevil

    New Software and Server for GameDev.net

    I can only imagine that this has been answered somewhere already, but it sort of looks like some people's usernames have recently reverted to names they had a long time ago. Is that related to the upgrade, or just coincidence?
  7. cowsarenotevil

      I think that this is a pretty gross oversimplification. It's easy to make someone angry, and it's a heck of a lot easier to make someone angry than it is to actually take the time to give them real, useful advice.   Anyone can say, in your words, "you are pathetic because you are not doing what you want to do." Maybe you really do know a lot of people who genuinely need you to tell them this, but I think for most people, this is just a generic statement that can be said by anyone to anyone.   You're right that coddling people and telling them "you can do it!" isn't helpful, but I think at least part of the reason it isn't helpful is because it's a platitude without any specificity or content. I think "you're not succeeding because you're not working hard enough!" suffers from a similar problem.   The question is, as I've said, not whether people should be taking this sort of criticism to heart; they should. The question is whether the criticism, in the form of this article, by this person, is the best way to make this point. I'll ask the same thing I asked Michael Tanczos: what does this article offer that your post (the one to which I am currently replying) doesn't? They both have the same message, and, while I don't fully agree with everything you said, you seem to do a better job justifying the message than the article itself.
  8. cowsarenotevil

      I think the question, then, is exactly whether this article will positively impact that group of people, and, whether it does or not, if it could be made to achieve that end more effectively than it does in its current form.   I think the self-aggrandizing tone that I and others perceived, while probably not intentional, could prime readers to be less receptive to the overall message.   I also think that the generality of the advice itself makes it less easy for someone to actually apply: people are better able to do something if they know exactly how it's done. Indeed, I think the fact that the very symptom being addressed is a failure to learn effectively (for whatever reason) makes it all the more important that the article go beyond simply saying "get to work and start learning" and actually help the reader to start doing so in a meaningful way. A person who fails to learn will also have trouble learning how to learn. I think almost everyone agrees on what problem the article aims to address, and I think most people think it's an important problem to address as well. But what does this article do to solve this problem beyond what, say, the post you just made does?
  9. cowsarenotevil

    This seems pretty much spot-on to me. The message is valid, and I think "The next time you feel inclined to say “I don’t know how,” say instead, 'I’m learning how'" is probably the high point of the article. As it stands, though, it still just needs a bit of a shift in tone (so that people will get on board with it rather than wanting to rage against it) and a bit more depth of advice.   In short, the fact that people may need to realize "I'm not working hard enough, and I wasn't even aware that I'm not working hard enough" doesn't mean that the only way to get them to that realization is to say "you're not working hard enough, and you need me to tell you this because you couldn't even figure out that you're not working hard enough."
  10. cowsarenotevil

      The problem, I think, is not that the tone is insulting per se, but that it is more self-laudatory than actually helpful. The sense is that when he says "… many intelligent, self-directed people are actually hearing this," he's not really talking about intelligent, self-directed people, he's talking about himself. And from that point forward, it's just sort of a vague series of "your lack of success comes from not being responsible, like I am" things that feel less like someone guiding you into success and more like someone trying to justify their own success with a fairly limited degree of introspection.   It's possible to write an article like this, but it needs specificity and introspection and less "stop blaming yourself and be me, because I'm great." It's not even, I think, that the author really thinks he's better than the readers; in fact, it seems like he's not quite secure enough to be entirely open about what he thinks he's done. I think an example of how to do this thing in a way that I find much more helpful is this speech by Neil Gaiman. The things that jump out at me are that he actually takes you on a journey with him. You don't get the sense that he's desperately trying to convince the audience that they should want to imitate him; he's just sharing some of his story, and the audience listens, because they like him. Neither is he falsely humble or uncomfortably self-deprecating; he just knows he's good and he's not uncomfortable sharing some of the details, good and bad, and how he got there. He says a lot of the same things as this article, in fact: you'll fail, and you'll need to keep going. But you don't feel threatened, because you don't get the sense that Mr. Gaiman feels threatened by the audience.
  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!