I only heard of this level of paranoia and delusion was possible, I never thought I would see it.

Ok, then use "contains" when I said "derived/derive." Better now?

 

Here: You can use the Theory of Relativity to explain Newtonian mechanics. What inside Newtonian mechanics explains the Theory of Relativity like Black Holes, time relativity due to speed/gravity etc.?

No you can't derive more or less anything from everything and anything. Does Kepler's laws contain Einstein? Don't be a retard.

It doesn't matter if Newton 100% understood Kepler the person. What matters is that he understood where he was right, as well as where the analysis fell short. Which is the same exact thing as understanding something.

unfortunatly you are wrong. do you have any physics qualifications?

 

oewarj, I don't think he's saying Newton understood physics as a whole better than Einstein did, just that Newton understood his own models (models which, yes, are inferior to Einstein's) better than Einstein understood Newton's models and his thought process in creating them. Which should make sense, given how Newton was the creator of his model.

You still aren't understanding it. You can derive the Newtonian model from the relativistic model. So if we are to say that Einstein completely understood his own model, then he completely understood Newtonian as well, because Newtonian physics is a subset of relativistic.

As for the rest, that's assuming that said mediums necessarily replace or "are higher than" the others. I would rather a game developer use "guidance" (if he must) from other game developers, not film directors. Likewise, I would rather a photographer seek guidance from other photographers. I know that you (and icycalm, and most of the people on insomnia) believe that certain art forms are above others (photography above painting, movies above photography, games above movies) but I don't.

"You can have influences from photography, but they are quickly exhausted. Whereas if you look at the history of painting, you have 25,000 to 30,000 years of recorded history of two dimensional art to study."

Which is what every CUTTING EDGE ARTIST tries to do, use GUIDANCE from history to cut down the learning time. Although I don't think he is cutting edge anymore.

If you are a PhD physics student, do you honestly think you would know about Newton's models more than Newton himself did?

The newtonian model still progressed after the death of Newton you know. "Newtonian physics" means the physics that doesn't account for the relationship of time/speed and space of the particle compared to the speed of light.

What would be the point in Einstein learning every little detail of Newton's models? He expanded upon a certain segment of them. He knew all of the intricacies of relativity, but I seriously doubt he would've bothered with every single detail of Newton's models, and how Newton derived them, etc. By developing the models, he, by necessity, must have had a much greater understanding of them.

To clarify, not only did Einstein derive Newtonian mathematics from within his own model, but his model explains stuff that Newtonian physics could not explain, like the orbit of Mercury. So yes, by completely comprehending his model, HE MUST HAVE CONTAINED NEWTONIAN. The only reason we don't use relativistic model absolutely everywhere is because the accuracy gained by the Relativistic model is miniscule compared to the demands of understanding it Edit: for the purpose of regular industry work.

You learn about a specific subset of the available knowledge regarding physics, and expand upon that small area. And then, maybe in the future, someone else will expand upon a further subset of your developments. They wouldn't bother learning about what you had to know in order to develop this, that would DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF USING  YOUR CONCLUSIONS.

You understand nothing.

So according to you, newtons laws of gravity mean nothing?

ie f= GMm/(r^2)

hmm?

What are you bollocking on about, einsteins models do not completely explain the universe, only the very small level. We require newton for things like planets, and people.

Newton: Macro
Einstein: micro.

Are you fucking retarded or are you saying Einstein didn't understand Newtonian physics, and to a much greater than Newton himself did? Is this not exactly why HE DEVELOPED A SUPERIOR MODEL?

[accelerates the process]

A physics student learning about relativity, or the person who developed the model for relativity? I don't think we are actually disagreeing here. It's just semantics over what "best" means. Replace best with "most comprehensive," perhaps.

Wtf is so hard to understand about this? Einstein couldn't have developed Relativity without Newton/Leibniz, the Greeks were essential for Nietzsche to develop his philosophy. You can't progress if you have to keep recreating the same model from scratch again and again and again.

Why not just use that thinking ability in the first place and skip the guidance altogether?

Because I want to get the higher criticism faster! Just like movie critics read book critics, just like Icy reads Pauline Kael, Orwell, and the old videogame critics to accelerate his review standards. Just like photographers look at the masterpieces of painting, just like games try to use techniques they learned from movies. Because guidance accelerates the process which is why it is necessary.

Sure. Seeking the advice of experts on what games to start with doesn't strike me as a particularly bad thing to do. The problem more arises when you allow said experts to dictate your tastes.

They aren't dictating my tastes. They are trying to give their most comprehensive analysis of what the game is in a manner that is very time-efficient. I parse this as a thinking, mature person and judge it against my criteria.

Here is a better example, Einstein learned from both Leibniz and Newton and all the mathematicians that came before him. Who do you think has a better model for the universe, Einstein or Newton/Leibniz?

[because they can't think]

Blademasterbobo, you aren't parsing that properly. I am saying that because they can't think, they say such stupid shit like "the best way to develop as a person (maturity, taste, or otherwise) is to develop in a vacuum with critical thinking" and not see why a vacuum wouldn't even be close to ideal.

Paul has mentioned this a few times before (mostly in Skype), and I agree with him: the best way to develop as a person (maturity, taste, or otherwise) is to develop in a vacuum with critical thinking.

That is because you guys can't think. People can't progress (at least not in an accelerated rate) if they don't build on older foundations that people already laid out for you and are relegated to building it AGAIN and AGAIN.

Guidance molds you towards another person's ideal idea, not necessarily what is more mature or correct.

No duh. That is where you use your THINKING ABILITY. Like any normal, mature individual.

[because]

Children do not need parents in order to mature so that they do not make themselves miserable. Parents may accelerate the process, but it's not necessary.

They are absolutely necessary because they accelerate the process.

Edit: to anyone who reads it -- notice the all-too-familiar cries of "you defend icy, ergo you are icy". It's nothing new, P Diddy just happens to be taking it to new levels of in(s)anity.

Yeah, this has to be the most delusional level of "you are icy" I have ever seen.

Most of the skillshots consist of ways to kill enemies in conjunction with the leash, kicking, sliding, or charge shots. For example, Torpedo is given for killing an enemy with the shotgun while sliding, while X-Ray is given for killing two enemies at once with a single charged machine-gun blast. Body part and environmental achievements are a mainstay, but not the majority of the skillshot tree.

Aren't you guys forgetting the enormous bonuses given for killing things when you are intoxicated in some manner (toxic love/drunk)?

Unlikely, unless the games he wants to make become mainstream, which may happen, but probably won't given how risk-averse publishers are.

It's also somewhat rich of you to equate 'stop being indie' with 'growing up'. You know, current environment and company acknowledged, and all that.

Uh... what?

Stops being indie here just means stops being a moron (trying to create meaning or w/e). Aka, makes a fantastic platformer or a fantastic puzzle game.

[No, I am not]

("oewarj" is JoshF on Insomnia, I guess? They both seem like decent fellows.)

No, I am not. I am not that active in Insomnia (or indeed that much of a poster). JoshF is also much more skilled and has much more expertise in videogames than me, I don't think there would be any point of him posting here. Also, if you look at his writing style, he is much more succinct.

Just wanted to clear this up.

If you "seriously" believe that Jon and David have a chance, then you are saying that indies have a chance, period.

Only once Blow grows up (aka, stops being "indie").

DavidCaruso, I hope you don't mind if I stop posting here. I can see that you are trying to understand what you have read (with some deep misunderstandings, but that is normal with this kind of thing), and you are actually giving it some thought. But I just can't do it when every one of my serious responses are then forgotten almost immediately after I make a new one, and I have to spoonfeed people the most obvious of facts.

I think we're going round in circles. Most of the things you say here are just variations on "things I don't like are bad" and "people who like the same things as me are intelligent". And some more conspiracy theories about how people don't REALLY enjoy things, they just pretend to because of their "social game". Oh yeah, and you used my age to insult me, just as I knew you would.

Btw, I wasn't insulting you, I was just noticing some of the trends that young people fall for due to brainwashing.

By the way, I do think JRPGs are equal to Chess, in some sense. They both have different values which can't be compared. There's nothing in Pokemon that compares to the strategic depth of Chess, but there's nothing in Chess which compares to the joy of your Magikarp evolving into Gyarados.

Well, if you aren't good at Chess, I can imagine that this is possible to state without lying through your teeth.

I suspect that Icycalm's entire project of rating and ranking videogames is pointless. Even among relatively similar games within the same genre, the range of different values is so diverse as to make it impossible to chart on a one-dimensional graph.

It is useless for me to explain any further, you have just been too trained by school to look for meaning where there is none. I grew to be a master at this, the amount of things I could spin off of a stupid story was literally astounding. To fix this, I suggest you read Nietzsche and all of Icy's reading list, as well as his posts too.