Posts by Sentura

  • Eminence: Xander's Tales TCG / MMORPG

    My point is that from what you've shown I'm not even interested in reading the backstory, because the presentation is lacking. If I have to sit through something like this, it has to be made so I catch on immediately. I'm never going to read up on your 12 blog posts just so I can become interested in your game. If you want me to get interested, you need to push something that is immediately interesting to me as a player. Even if your story is meant to be thought provoking, if it's not interesting to read, or if the game doesn't match the level of storytelling, it's just not worth it.


    Keep in mind I say this as constructive criticism. You're clearly well on the way towards a Kickstarter campaign, so it boggles my mind why you wouldn't want to catch the attention of as many players as possible. Have short introductions, have few elements to show and excel at showing just the minimum quantity of content for your game at maximum quality. Have a hook that draws players in. If you already lose me at the number of houses or the names or the lore or the (perceived) silliness of the armors, then what is my incentive to back your project despite your 12+ blog posts about how the story works?

  • Eminence: Xander's Tales TCG / MMORPG

    The art itself is decent. The way that its presented leaves some things to be desired.


    For instance, the names of the houses/factions sound like they're trying too hard to be something special. This seems to be a very common trait among high fantasy realms that everything must be written in fancy words or else it doesn't count. Stuff like that alone would make me not want to play this game. The lore, if present, needs to be engaging on a high and complex level. The lore should reward the players for attempting to understand it just as much as the game should reward players for playing it. As an example, Tolkien created a usable language (Elven) for his Middle Earth. While an understanding of Elven isn't necessary to read any of the books, it is necessary to understand some bits of the lore -- however obscure they may be.


    Going back to how the art is presented, the art direction seems to be... going everywhere? You have samurais mixed with knights mixed with what I can only assume are master chiefs? How are you going to justify that the armor of "Wilkurse" looks like it would be invulnerable in comparison to that of "Ixion"? I understand that you're trying to make every house diverse, but it seems really weird with things like that. From a gameplay perspective, I would assume that "Wilkurse" must be from the future and have gone back in time to kick the asses of everybody in what I can only imagine is the middle ages. And if that is the case, how are they not already dominating the realm? Even if it's a purely cosmetic thing, it just creates way too much disparity in the presentation of the game art.

  • de_bruises pimpage and accountability thread

    The outside lighting in the first shot is really good, but it seems the other shots don't follow suit on that. As for props, the street in the first shot looks proper now, now you just have to make the building to the right (with the columns and stairs) match that.


    IMO working on indoor lighting and the general prop/moodification of the level is what is necessary, but it's a good start.

  • Buying a new rig !

    Quote from Pericolos0

    are clock speeds really that important anymore? From what I know cpu optimization is really more about optimizing specific instructions and stuff like hyperthreading these days.


    Also what are the things you guys are running that need so much overclocked CPU power? My cpu is almost 5 years old now and everything still runs fine


    Clock speed have never been as important as being able to process instructions fast. CPU cycles do not necessarily mean that it will process the information faster, because it all depends on the architecture. At this point any CPU with modern quad core tech will be sufficient not to be a bottle neck in the grand equation that is a computer. The biggest bottleneck up until the advent of SSD drives has been data routing, but that has been solved pretty effectively. So unless you have some VERY specific CPU intensive processes going on (e.g. building VIS for an entire game at a time) you'll be fine with your average modern multi core CPU.


    Here's a glance at CPU effectiveness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycles_per_instruction

  • Buying a new rig !


    Pretty much this. CPU wise the most important thing is that you don't want a bottleneck. Any decent quad core i7+ processor is going to be decent enough. There are of course more criteria you can look into, but if you don't want to spend more money on e.g. cooling etc. just go for that. I'm running an core i5 currently and it's good stuff, but the i7's should be cheap enough to get now.

  • Going to the gym is like a korean MMORPG


    You're missing the point entirely, or rather, you're not seeing the entire picture. This is what will happen in the next 5 or 10 years, not the next 50. You assuming that technology by the year 2060 isn't going to be adequate enough is basically the most arrogant thing ever, as you imply that you know what's going to happen by then. Not even the best scientists can predict how far our research will take us by then, what makes you so sure you know? Even what I say is mostly just an analytic extrapolation of what has been going on previously and what's going on now.


    You also seem to have an extremely myopic view of what's feasible and what's not, and what is necessary to know before processes like e.g. replication have to take place. You DON'T NEED to know the complex processes of the brain in order to mimic its structure, especially not if you have a live brain to follow by example. If you wanted to translate every single process of the mind into computational equations, yes, you would need that. But for replication, this isn't even a point worth mentioning. Look up the connectome project, and connectomes in general. Here's two links (literally one second of googling, mentioned in my first fucking reply):

    http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/ 

    http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/%C2%A0http://e…wiki/Connectome


    Completely disregarding convergent scientific research will get you nowhere, as by the same year we might have cultivated artificial stem cells or similar which will be inserted (or created) by nanobots. Science isn't following one specific direction for its research, and its true strength lies in how the branches interact and CONVERGE with each other.


    You should take a good, hard look at your own arguments (or lack thereof) if you think ANY of your arguments refute mine, or if you think mine refute my own. I'd also advise you to change your attitude in a discussion, because you bring less than the bare minimum to the table currently.

  • Any recommendations for a standing desk?

    I stand up for most of my workday usually, I make exceptions only if I push myself in exercise somehow. The first two days I tried were terrible, but after that I adjusted fine for the next two months. Around that mark I started feeling a bit of knee pain so I went to my doc and he basically told me "oh lol concrete floor + sneakers = no go, get better shoes or a carpet." So yeah, that's my current knowledge.

  • Going to the gym is like a korean MMORPG

    Oh cool, I have friends in cognitive science saying the opposite. What gives? Maybe it's because the argument doesn't fucking hold up without sources?


    You also seem to have tunnel vision in that you only see one solution to this, rather than seeing that science is convergent, and that most solutions can be reached in different ways. Nowhere did I say or even hint at that a mind equals a complex modern computer with AI, I don't know how you come up with this. Scanning and recreating a brain by "copying" elements of an already existing brain does not even necessitate a computer more complex than being able to visualize and print its molecular structures.


    PS: My argument didn't change the slightest. It is still within 50 years we get enough longevity to see eternal life. Your arguments on the other hand, consist of strawmen and ad hominem. If trolling, then consider me rused.

  • Going to the gym is like a korean MMORPG

    You're forgetting we didn't get computers until about 60 years ago, first off. There's been a huge acceleration in research and development in all scientific areas ever since then.


    Second of all, master in what? I don't know if you're being deliberately vague, but you're giving out zero information about the topic other than "IT CANT BE DONE LOL". Even if the case is that your brother has a master in whatever area that even comes close to this, 50 years is a LONG TIME. It's TWICE your age - and just look at the development that has happened from when you were born until now, with inferior means. Improved technology also means we'll get improved research faster, meaning we're constantly accelerating the technological evolution, as it were. Moore's law is still in effect, and will be so until we get to a point where quantum blocking just becomes too much to handle, at the very least. Then we can create universal constructors or whatever the fuck people will come up with to break down the barrier and press forward.


    Even if the case is that we don't know how the brain functions, and aren't able to understand or translate the brain's high level functions into computational methods by that time, it STILL does not mean that we won't be able to copy and reconstruct it - allowing it to serve essentially the same purpose. And I'm betting more on the latter happening than the former.


    So no, it's not like people in the 50s claiming that by 2000 we'll have flying cars or whatever. Because we're not in the fucking 50s anymore, and the scientific spectrum has broadened to an immense size, as has the acceleration of scientific research. I'll make you a wager that in 50 years (let's say by 2060 because I'm fucking lenient), we'll have the right technology to increase our longevity by at least 10-20 years, and within those 10-20 years we'll find a possibility for eternal life. Even before 2060 I'm sure we'll have technology that will be able to extend our life for smaller amounts.

  • Going to the gym is like a korean MMORPG

    Quote from Vilham

    You clearly have little understanding of how little we understand about the brain. We are not going to be uploading an entire human consciousness in the next 50 years. You are smoking crack.


    This is a akin to people in the 50s claiming by 2000 we would have flying nuclear powered cars.


    I didn't say that either, but we WILL have commercial nanobots by 2060. They might not be powerful to keep us alive for all eternity, but they will be able to grant us greater lifespans. As for the brain, go read up on connectomes. There are R&D departments doing good work on these topics even today.

  • Buying a new rig !

    Any of the new Nvidia cards would be decent enough to do 3D work. I currently have a 660Ti at home running 2, formerly 3 screens. It's about a year or more old, so it shouldn't be super expensive. SSDs are pretty stable nowadays so you should be good if you grab one of those, although they might still be in the expensive end. No idea about RAM, I assume DDR3 or DRR4 or whatever type they're on now. PSU wise get a good brand so it won't fuck with you in the long run. I've had my corsair RAM and PSU for 5+ years without any problem, even with how often I have the computer on 24/7.