Re: USF4 changes!
- From: Di Lhong <numotd@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:21:18 +0200
How about a johnnie walker that walks right to left? hahaha
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Ilitirit Sama <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I prefer Johnathon Black.
>
> This is a great ad:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnSIp76CvUI
>
> One shot, 40 takes.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Donaldson, Alasdair <
> alasdair.donaldson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Just going the simple route - Johnny blue.
>> *From*: Ilitirit Sama [mailto:ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx]
>> *Sent*: Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:19 PM South Africa Standard Time
>>
>> *To*: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> *Subject*: Re: USF4 changes!
>>
>> Shot of Don Julio Reposado, slice of pineapple, dab of Wasabi
>>
>> Don Hara Kiri
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Donaldson, Alasdair <
>> alasdair.donaldson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Wtf? Some overkill there. Just stick to my tequila.
>>> *From*: Ilitirit Sama [mailto:ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx]
>>> *Sent*: Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:04 PM South Africa Standard Time
>>>
>>> *To*: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> *Subject*: Re: USF4 changes!
>>>
>>> That's called a Hand Grenade.
>>>
>>> One shot of tequila resting against a shot of Jaegermeister in a glass
>>> above some red bull. The tequila is the "pin". When you pull it the
>>> Jaegermeister drops into the red bull and causes the "explosion".
>>>
>>> One level up is called a Missile. It's the same thing, but with a shot
>>> of Absinthe as well. You pull the Absinthe and Tequila and drink them
>>> quickly after each other. By the time you get to drinking the Jaegerbomb
>>> you feel like you've been hit by a missile.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Donaldson, Alasdair <
>>> alasdair.donaldson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Erm... Jaeger bombs and tequila... I don't think I'm making work
>>>> tomorrow...
>>>> Not really following the emails either.
>>>>
>>>> *From*: Ilitirit Sama [mailto:ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx]
>>>> *Sent*: Thursday, June 19, 2014 10:07 PM South Africa Standard Time
>>>> *To*: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> *Subject*: Re: USF4 changes!
>>>>
>>>> The gameplay demo of MGSV was awesome, but it does make the Fulton
>>>> RS seem OP. I hope they balance it out nicely in the final version. I
>>>> mean, it costs 1000 GMP for a cardboard box delivery, but only 300 GMP per
>>>> Fulton?
>>>>
>>>> Game looks incredibly fun though.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Wynand-Ben <paashaasggx@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ah k
>>>>>
>>>>> All I know about how its generated is the bit you quoted from Otaku,
>>>>> havent seen any interviews myself yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> While that sounds less impressive it should probably count as a
>>>>> procedurally generated "cat" instead of generated "animal". So I guess
>>>>> they could technically not be lying... :P
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There will be shortcuts taken. From the 1st time I saw this I was
>>>>> just thinking is how the hell will a Indy team manage this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Will see someday I guess. Hope they take their time and do it
>>>>> properly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Game looks intriguing
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:09:21 +0200
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: USF4 changes!
>>>>> From: ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
>>>>> But that's what I'm saying. From the interview it just sounds like
>>>>> they just have blueprints for known animals. Cats, dinosaurs, fish. How
>>>>> many ways can you really generate a cat? Who is really going to be
>>>>> impressed when they see a spotted panther for the 5th time, only in a
>>>>> different colour or size? In Spore, every animal has the potential to
>>>>> look
>>>>> completely different. I'm not getting a sense of any of that from what
>>>>> they are doing here. They didn't mention anything about exotic animals.
>>>>> They mention that deer will exist on different planets but they will look
>>>>> different. That's not impressive. Deer exist in different countries on
>>>>> Earth and they look different. In Spore, no two animals look the same
>>>>> (well, some do by virtue of mutation). So either they're overstating what
>>>>> their engine is capable of, or it's not yet ready for a proper demo.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Wynand-Ben <paashaasggx@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Generating tree's and animals could use the same kind of level
>>>>> generation algorithms I reckon.
>>>>>
>>>>> A "exotic" animal could have 1-8 legs. Its ass cant be too close to
>>>>> its mouth, the legs need to be in usable positions.
>>>>> Or tree's, cant have all the branches/leaves be too close together or
>>>>> oddly spread out... so there will be some sort of algorithm to make them
>>>>> look "natural".
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont see how it is any different.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I still have no real idea what you actually have to do in the
>>>>> game... other than "explore". Gather stuff? Trade? Fight? Do what and
>>>>> to what end?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully they can make it fun.
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 20:35:15 +0200
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: USF4 changes!
>>>>> From: ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have a base template and just tweak a few variables, it's not
>>>>> really procedural. It's just randomly assigning values to different
>>>>> properties. eg. When you click "Random Appearance" on the character
>>>>> build
>>>>> menu in an RPG. There's no real algorithm behind it. Procedural level
>>>>> generation on the other hand does require an algorithm eg. exit can't be
>>>>> too close to the start, every room must have an entrance etc etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also think don't think they're going to be able to deliver what
>>>>> they mentioned, or at least make it fun without some big changes. They
>>>>> said the gameplay will take place in on true Universal scale. Ignoring
>>>>> the
>>>>> mathematics, it honestly sounds like the most boring MMO ever. The odds
>>>>> of
>>>>> you running into another player is exceedingly small, and they even
>>>>> acknowledge it! What's the point of an MMO where there's little-to-no
>>>>> interaction with other players? It might as well be a single-player game.
>>>>> I think this is one aspect of the game they will need to rethink very
>>>>> carefully.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Wynand-Ben <paashaasggx@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont take any marketing jargon seriously... dont see why this is
>>>>> any different.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Only thing im worried about is that they have bitten off more than
>>>>> they can chew. The game sounds and looks good but im not sure if its
>>>>> doable properly with a Indy team/budget.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the size of it is really what they claim it to be then procedural
>>>>> generation would be the only way to go. Nobody would create that big of a
>>>>> universe by hand.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "*From the article on Kotaku it seems they just have a base template
>>>>> for various classes of animals and plants and they tweak it to give them
>>>>> slightly different appearances. That's very different from procedural
>>>>> generation.*"
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is it different? Diablo 2 levels where procedurally
>>>>> generated... they were never the same. (Maybe not never but the odds are
>>>>> that it happened). Using sets of preconstructed base items/areas/stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its just varying degrees. If they builds stuff modular or
>>>>> interchangable enough they could "hopefully" generate a shitload of
>>>>> different "Stuff".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The scope of the universe alone sounds amazing tho if they can keep
>>>>> it from beeing too samey after you have seen too much of their
>>>>> "constructions"
>>>>>
>>>>> Would be cool if they pull this off
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:57:36 +0200
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: USF4 changes!
>>>>> From: ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no way I can take any game that makes claims like that
>>>>> seriously.
>>>>>
>>>>> They start out by saying all footage is captured in real time.
>>>>> Believable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then they start talking about procedural generation. Unbelievable.
>>>>> So, how much of it then is just marketing blurb? I really doubt they
>>>>> generated life algorithmically (they have fish and dinosaurs). It's not
>>>>> impossible (Spore did it), but so now I scratch that off my list as well.
>>>>> What does that leave you with then? Procedurally generated terrain?
>>>>> That's nothing new or interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>> From the article on Kotaku it seems they just have a base template
>>>>> for various classes of animals and plants and they tweak it to give them
>>>>> slightly different appearances. That's very different from procedural
>>>>> generation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those systems Ream mentioned are indeed real. Murray and Ream showed
>>>>> me their toolset to prove just how infinite the creatures and objects in
>>>>> their game are.
>>>>> Ream pulls up a blue-ish menu with lines of code written across the
>>>>> screen and quickly clicks across it to pull up a very specific menu within
>>>>> their engine. Before I know it, he's selected an option for trees and I'm
>>>>> staring at one. There's a blueprint for a fairly standard-looking tree off
>>>>> on the right. He clicks a button that says "view variants." Dozens of new
>>>>> trees—of different shapes, sizes, and colors—pop up on the left.
>>>>> "This is our toolset," Murray says as we scroll through the trees. "We
>>>>> built our own engine. It's super crappy, but it's kind of like Unity or
>>>>> something like that. We've written it all around procedural generation.
>>>>> And
>>>>> that's kind of what we spent the first year, when it was just four of us,
>>>>> what we spent our time doing. And then the last month before the VGXs we
>>>>> built the trailer using that."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://kotaku.com/how-a-seemingly-impossible-game-is-possible-1592820595
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I think they're either just throwing the word around for
>>>>> marketing hype, or their engine is nowhere near in a state where they can
>>>>> start demoing true procedurally generated life.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Wynand-Ben <paashaasggx@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like you are taking a marketing comment a tad too serious...
>>>>>
>>>>> I fairly sure its just a fancy way of saying the all of the
>>>>> environments are procedurally generated.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:44:25 +0200
>>>>> Subject: Re: USF4 changes!
>>>>> From: ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This trailer for this game pisses me off so much that I want to
>>>>> smash my PC monitor
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-v6R_T1hEs
>>>>>
>>>>> Every atom procedural? WTF does that even mean you morons?
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you codify the laws of Quantum Physics into your engine so that
>>>>> quarks had no choice BUT to assemble into stable atoms?
>>>>>
>>>>> And if you got that far, why even bother telling us stuff like
>>>>> leaves, rocks and planets are procedurally generated? Surely these things
>>>>> should have just emerged from your awesome Quantum Physics engine?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or let's give them the benefit of the doubt and suppose they just
>>>>> have algorithms than can arbitrarily combine electrons, protons and
>>>>> neutrons to create new atoms (much easier than even understanding Quantum
>>>>> Mechanics). There are about 7*10^27 atoms in 70kg human body. Suppose
>>>>> their algorithm can procedurally create 100 atoms per microsecond (100
>>>>> million per second). That means in order to create a human it would take
>>>>> 2.22 * 10^9 millenia to procedurally generate 1 human.
>>>>>
>>>>> -_-
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally
>>>> privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail
>>>> by anyone else is unauthorized. If you have received this communication in
>>>> error, please address with the subject heading "Received in error," send to
>>>> the original sender, then delete the e-mail and destroy any copies of it.
>>>> If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
>>>> distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it,
>>>> is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in this
>>>> e-mail are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
>>>> KPMG client engagement letter. Opinions, conclusions and other information
>>>> in this e-mail and any attachments that do not relate to the official
>>>> business of the firm are neither given nor endorsed by it.
>>>>
>>>> KPMG cannot guarantee that e-mail communications are secure or
>>>> error-free, as information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, lost,
>>>> destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
>>>>
>>>> This email is being sent out by KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG
>>>> International") on behalf of the local KPMG member firm providing services
>>>> to you. KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG International") is a Swiss
>>>> entity that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent
>>>> firms operating under the KPMG name. KPMG International provides no
>>>> services to clients. Each member firm of KPMG International is a legally
>>>> distinct and separate entity and each describes itself as such. Information
>>>> about the structure and jurisdiction of your local KPMG member firm can be
>>>> obtained from your KPMG representative.
>>>>
>>>> This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept by
>>>> AntiVirus software.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally
>>> privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail
>>> by anyone else is unauthorized. If you have received this communication in
>>> error, please address with the subject heading "Received in error," send to
>>> the original sender, then delete the e-mail and destroy any copies of it.
>>> If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
>>> distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it,
>>> is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in this
>>> e-mail are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
>>> KPMG client engagement letter. Opinions, conclusions and other information
>>> in this e-mail and any attachments that do not relate to the official
>>> business of the firm are neither given nor endorsed by it.
>>>
>>> KPMG cannot guarantee that e-mail communications are secure or
>>> error-free, as information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, lost,
>>> destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
>>>
>>> This email is being sent out by KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG
>>> International") on behalf of the local KPMG member firm providing services
>>> to you. KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG International") is a Swiss
>>> entity that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent
>>> firms operating under the KPMG name. KPMG International provides no
>>> services to clients. Each member firm of KPMG International is a legally
>>> distinct and separate entity and each describes itself as such. Information
>>> about the structure and jurisdiction of your local KPMG member firm can be
>>> obtained from your KPMG representative.
>>>
>>> This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept by
>>> AntiVirus software.
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally
>> privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail
>> by anyone else is unauthorized. If you have received this communication in
>> error, please address with the subject heading "Received in error," send to
>> the original sender, then delete the e-mail and destroy any copies of it.
>> If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
>> distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it,
>> is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in this
>> e-mail are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
>> KPMG client engagement letter. Opinions, conclusions and other information
>> in this e-mail and any attachments that do not relate to the official
>> business of the firm are neither given nor endorsed by it.
>>
>> KPMG cannot guarantee that e-mail communications are secure or
>> error-free, as information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, lost,
>> destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
>>
>> This email is being sent out by KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG
>> International") on behalf of the local KPMG member firm providing services
>> to you. KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG International") is a Swiss
>> entity that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent
>> firms operating under the KPMG name. KPMG International provides no
>> services to clients. Each member firm of KPMG International is a legally
>> distinct and separate entity and each describes itself as such. Information
>> about the structure and jurisdiction of your local KPMG member firm can be
>> obtained from your KPMG representative.
>>
>> This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept by
>> AntiVirus software.
>>
>
>
Other related posts:
