Two of the most immersive games I have played are Mirror's Edge (quite much designed to be such, and quite successfully; pity it was such a short game) and a bit lesser-known one: Medal of Honor Pacific Assault.
As I said before, the main purpose isn't to obsolete the controler. It's like the gun in games like Lethal Enforcers or Virtua Cop.
It's a different experience... it's like you're really being part of the game.
It feels much more interesting than using a controller.
I didn't mean "I don't understand why that game has to use the kinect". I said "why it has to be kinect-only". I perfectly understand if someone would want to play it with the kinect. What I don't understand is why deprive those who either don't have the kinect or simply don't want to play the game with it from being able to play it with the gamepad. Why not offer it as an alternative?
(I wonder if Microsoft is paying these people to make kinect-only games.)
I don't understand why that game has to be kinect-only. The whole kinect control scheme seems extremely artificially tacked onto the game, and it looks like it would be significantly more fluent to play the game with the gamepad (and that's coming from me, who hates playing first-person-view games with a gamepad).
Otherwise it would look like a game I could play if it wasn't for that. (I don't own a kinect nor am I planning on getting one. I don't even have the room space to play with it.)
A masculine hunk like me cannot watch this movie, lest my testosterone levels drop dangerously low.
(Btw, where's the encode? Not that I'm going to watch it or anything. It's just to know which video to avoid. Honest. Not watching it. Ever. Grrr!)
Not to belittle your system, but it seems a bit useless. Or, at the very least, seems to have a huge amount of obsolete values, and it's also very misleading. Most people consider "8 out of 10" to mean "pretty good game", rather than "not worth playing".
It seems that your scale really has about three values: 1 (not worth playing), 2 (enjoyable, even though not perfect) and 3 (perfect). Using a scale of 1-3 would be much more descriptive than using a scale of 0-10 where only the values 8-10 have some rational meaning.
I'm ashamed. I have been using the wrong chords for Greensleeves for years. I made a new video with chords that should be more accurate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWZDdGntb3A
Why does a magnet float over a superconductor?
I mean, I know that the floating is caused by the Meissner effect, but what I don't understand is what keeps the magnet stable. Why doesn't it simply slide to the side and fall off when it reaches the edge of the superconductor?
I think Assassin's Creed II was awesome.
Generally speaking I have got a bit tired of wide open sandbox games. Far Cry 2 was so boring that I couldn't get myself to play it longer than a half dozen or so first missions (usually I play most of games completely through before I go for the next game). I played Fallout 3 to the end, and it was ok'ish, but there was not much joy in the open roaming; it was just going from one mission to the next, and the wide open sandbox felt more like being there to slow you down than anything else.
However, for some reason I really liked AC2. I can't put my finger on the exact reason, but it just worked. The amount of free roaming and doing missions was pretty balanced.
3 hours of play before you get to your first assassination.
Algorithms have to take a finite amount of steps to be computable. Uncomputable algorithms don't satisfy this condition.
So what? Your claim was not "uncomputable programs are not useful". Your claim was "you can't write an uncomputable algorithm as a program". Yes, you can.
How could we even describe uncomputable problems if we couldn't write them? If we can write a description of an uncomputable problem, we can write a program that attempts to solve it, following that description. (For example, if you have two 21x21 matrices with integer entries, can you perform a multiplication using them, possibly with repetitions, so that you get a zero matrix as a result? The problem is undecidable, but you can certainly write a program that tries to find it.)
Anyways, I don't understand what this has to do with the question whether there exists a unified theory of quantum gravity or not.
2- Input Lag? yep, it's full body motion detection so there is some. But check this out and tell me if you can see that immense lag they talk about.
There is a very noticeable lag of at least half a second. Clearly the kinect is not suitable for anything that requires fast reactions. A dance game seems ok because a delay of a half second doesn't matter as long as you do the same moves.
If you are into horror games, then the PS3 is da winnar when it comes to current consoles. It's a huge difference to play on something silent over trying to play a horror game in what resembles an aircraft. And yes, I do own a PS3, 360, Wii and a handful of PCs so I do know the drill.
The xbox 360 is pretty quiet. As for a PC, it depends a lot on the PC (and even its bios settings).
So we can easily write algorithms that are uncomputable (in a finite time) as computer programs, but nevertheless "nothing the universe does is uncomputable"? Doesn't sound right.
I think there's a lot of confusion on concepts and terms here.
We don't want to draw the attention of the copyright holders of the games, and making money out of the videos can be a way to do that. Voted no.
(You can discuss "fair use" all you like, but when the cease&desist demand drops into your inbox, you will most probably not discuss it anylonger. Let's avoid doing things that might get us to that point.)
Yet the universe can describe both small and large effects simultaneously in the same system (otherwise it would desync with itself) so it must be possible to come up with one. (otherwise this statement would be impossible)
What do you mean "the universe can describe"? The universe is not a sentient being. And what do you mean by "desync"? What kind of "desync"?
Water and glass have basically nothing to do with each other, yet it's perfectly possible to have a glass containing water. They are completely separate and independent, and the existence of one does not depend on the existence of the other, yet they can form a stable whole. The glass can have an effect on the water (eg. it determines its shape) but that doesn't mean that one is dependent on the other.
Quantum mechanics describes the nature of energy (in its different forms, such as radiation and matter). Gravity is caused by the geometry of spacetime. Spacetime could be the "glass" container, energy could be the "water". They can co-exist while still being completely independent and separate, and one can affect the other (eg. energy can affect the geometry of spacetime).
Honestly, the only thing the 360 had that the PS3 didn't for me was a few Japanese shmups [region free ones at that!] and that one Castlevania game... which looks less and less interesting the more gameplay I see of it. x.x;;
It's not like the xbox 360 doesn't have its own good exclusive games (or games not available for the PS3). I have liked Gears of War 1&2, Lost Odyssey, Alan Wake, Blue Dragon, Splinter Cell Conviction, Infinite Undiscovery and Fable II.
Of course it depends a lot on what kind of games you like.
I can't answer your question, but I thought that the major hurdle in developing a theory of quantum gravity was that gravity is not renormalizable.
Anyways, I have always wondered why scientists seem to assume that there is a unified theory of quantum gravity. Couldn't it be at least conceivable that gravity is a completely separate and independent phenomenon, and that there simply is no connection between it and QM? In other words, there is no unified theory to be found.
