I have noticed that with many anime series watching the first episode only is not actually enough to get a good picture of what it is really about, or even if you will like it or not. For some reason, it seems, many anime series do not use the standard American TV show method of trying to hook you with the first episode of the series and maximize retention rates that way. Instead, the "introduction" to the actual idea of the show might take even up to three or four episodes sometimes.
I have noticed more than once that if I had judged an anime based on its first episode alone, I would have concluded that I probably won't like it, but after watching more episodes I ended up liking it after all. (Although, to be fair, sometimes the exact reverse has happened as well.)
Consider a positive integer n
Construct the divergent series 1+2+3+4+...
The divergent series has a value strictly greater than our integer n, let's call this value k.
That's incorrect logic. You are just assuming that the infinite sum has a value that's greater than n. On what do you base that assumption?
I understand that you are assuming this because you are thinking about partial sums and limits. Sure, at some point the partial sum of that series is larger than n, and the limit as the number of terms approaches infinity, is infinity. But the infinite sum is not a partial sum, nor a limit statement. You need to forget about partial sums and limits when dealing with them.
I suppose that this is, once again, contingent on which philosophy of thought you want to use. You may want to always think about infinite sums in terms of its partial sums and the limit of these partial sums. But you may also want to consider a sum with an infinite number of terms a completely different beast altogether. Something that cannot be described with partial sums and limits.
The methods that are used to assign values to divergent series seem to be consistent, not arbitrary. It's the reason why eg. S=1+2+4+8+16+... is assigned the value -1 and not something else. (-1 makes logical sense because it is the result you get when you consider S-2S.)
It may be unintuitive and hard to accept, but is it wrong? It depends on your philosophy of thought.
It might sound strange at first, that you're unable to subtract or add sums and retain equality, but we're dealing with infinite sums here.
To apply basic mathematical operations, you first have to prove that they work as expected.
If they don't, then you might screw up mathematics if you use them anyways.
Assigning values to divergent series is a wide topic in mathematics, as described for example here. "In specialized mathematical contexts, values can be objectively assigned to certain series whose sequence of partial sums diverges, this is to make meaning of the divergence of the series."
As said, whether you accept those methods and the conventions that they use as "valid" is up to your mathematical-philosophical preferences, I suppose.
Essay time.
Consider this statement:
lim(n→∞) sum(0, n) 1/n2 = 2
In other words,
1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... approaches the value 2 as the number of terms approaches infinity. This is rather a rather indisputable mathematical fact. The above is a true equality.
However, can we write it like this?
1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... = 2
This is a rather different statement. It is not a limit statement. It is not an expression saying that as more and more terms are added to the sum, said sum approaches the value 2. Instead, it's an expression that states that the sum of that series of infinite amount of terms is mathematically equal to 2. Not just that it approaches 2, but that it is 2. This is mathematically and philosophically a rather different proposition.
Although one could present philosophical objections to the statement (because the concept of having an infinite number of terms is not something that can just be taken as a self-evidently defined thing), it is nevertheless a pretty non-controversial and easy to accept convention. It is, after all, when we get down to it, a convention that mathematics has agreed to. It has been agreed that it is ok to have a sum with an infinite amount of terms, and that said sum can be mathematically equal to a given value. There are good reasons to accept this convention as completely valid.
But what happens if we take some more equivalent conventions, and apply them to infinite sums whose partial sums do not converge to a given value, but thanks to these agreed conventions nevertheless have an unambiguous unique value, which they are equal to? For example, it can be demonstrated that, using these conventions, this equality holds (and is unique):
1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... = -1
Obviously no partial sum of that series converges to -1 (or to any value at all). But we are not talking about partial sums. We are talking about an infinite sum. It is not the same thing.
Again, philosophical objections can be presented against considering the above equality valid. But are these objections, in principle, any different from the ones presented against the infinite sum of reciprocals of powers of two? (Again, we are not talking about a limit here, but about a literal sum with an infinite number of terms, which is not the same thing.)
Granted, more conventions need to be agreed on in order to arrive to that equality, but these conventions are not any less mathematically justified than the less-controversial one. And the end result is not arbitrary, but can be uniquely and unambiguously defined. (This is unlike those tricks that can be used to show contradictions like that "1=2" by using undefined operations which can yield any arbitrary value you want. In this case there is no arbitrariness.)
The more famous statement
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... = -1/12
is a result of a few more similar conventions being agreed upon in mathematics. These conventions can be philosophically controversial, but not necessarily mathematically any more wrong than accepting that
1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... = 2
So, I suppose, it is a question of whether you accept these mathematical conventions on a philosophical level or not.
.....A basement tier to store the mass amounts of chess/checkers/real-life game based runs?
Maybe we should avoid giving a tier a name and fame of being just a dump for everything that has been rejected from everywhere else. I believe that every tier deserves a certain amount of prestige that the others do not. Having your run be put under a certain tier shouldn't be a shame, but something normal.
One thing that that seems to exclude is runs of games that are not eligible either for vault or moons, because of the type of game that it is. In other words, it's just your old regular TAS of a game that hasn't a published TAS, but which gets rejected from moons for being "boring" (whatever that means) and from vault because of being of the "wrong type" of game, but still would have merit to have a TAS (because we want TASes of all existing games).
I'd say that if it's an officially published commercial game for one of the supported platforms, a sensible TAS of it ought to be almost automatically published, unless there's a good reason not to. (One reason that comes to mind is if the game has no clearly defined ending, and the goal or stopping point chosen by the runner is so arbitrary that it might just as well had been stopped at a random point, with little justifiable logic or reason.)
There is no denying that playing a game with a VR headset, controlling the playable character's movement with keyboard+mouse or a gamepad, will cause motion sickness in the vast majority of people, especially at first. The visual effect is so uber-realistic that the brain is pretty much 100% fooled into thinking that you are moving, yet it can't feel the movement as normal, causes a heavy dissonance. It's the same reason why so many people get sick in cars and boats, especially when not used to it: The movements they feel do not match what they see, so their brain gets all confused, which results in dizziness and nausea (which may last for a considerable amount of time even after exiting the vehicle).
When the virtual reality matches 100% with your movements, the motion sickness is pretty much likewise eliminated 100%.
The Oculus Rift has gone the route of categorizing games by the propensity to motion sickness they cause, so you have a kind of warning before you start playing the game.
Valve, however, seems to have gone to the extreme: It seems that not only are they not promoting any game that's controlled by any other means than 100% by the motion trackers (with the possible exception of vehicle simulators), but it also seems that they have zero intention in adding VR support to any of their existing games (such as the Portal series).
Their stance seems to be that VR "doesn't work" in traditional first-person shooters, or even traditional third-person shooters, where the playable character is controlled with kb+mouse / gamepad (with at most the head-tracking used to look around), because it "causes nausea". Thus it seems that their intent is to not give people even the choice to try, ie. to let people decide for themselves whether they want to play their existing games with a VR headset or not. Valve is making that decision for them, and that decision is a stern "no".
Sure, it causes nausea, at least at first. I'm 100% sure that if I ever get a VR headset and get to play a FPS game with it, I will get motion sick really quick. I accept that.
However, I'm pretty sure that with time I'll get used to it. Many people report getting used to it, and that they can play for hours without problems.
Heck, for years I sometimes got motion sickness for playing FPS games on a regular old monitor. I haven't for quite many years. I got used to it. Granted that the stereo vision will make it a thousand times worse, at first, but I'm sure one gets used to it.
But so far it seems that Valve has decided to remove that option from me, at least as far as their games are concerned. It will be up to third-party modders to add support.
It has been my dream for years to experience Portal 2 in stereo vision. I hope that dream comes true some day. But so far it seems it will not be thanks to Valve at least.
I use a standing desk for most of my workday, every day. It took me maybe a week to adjust, and that was standing for much longer periods than you would normally game for. Standing is not a big deal for most people. Walking around a little is also not a big deal for most people.
Actually, I'm not sure I agree with that "most people" there. It might not be a problem for some people, but especially since we are talking about gamers here, I'm not so sure about most people.
The thing is, Valve would, rather obviously, want VR to become as popular and widespread as possible. It would be profitable. It would revitalize the industry even more than it already is. It would revolutionize the industry.
However, you don't make something widespread and popular by a) pricing it in such a manner that only maybe 1% of your userbase can afford it, and b) promote it for uses that most of your userbase won't be comfortable with.
If either the Rift or Vive were priced at 100€, I would order one right at this second. (I know that's a completely unrealistic price, but that's not the point in this.) If they were priced at something like 300€, I would be tempted to order one. I would probably wait for a month or two to see how the industry evolves, and then probably purchase it. If they were priced at 500€, I would be really, really hesitant. I might purchase one some day, but definitely not now. I would really wait for widespread adoption and game support, and see how popular it becomes.
However, at 950€, it's just completely out of the question. Completely. I'm not exactly rich. And even if I could afford that kind of money, I would much prefer using it for other things, even in gaming (eg. a more kick-ass graphics card, or a high-quality g-sync monitor. Heck, maybe even a new MB + cpu.)
I'm quite convinced I'm not the only one. At its current price point the Vive (and even the Rift) is targeted at maybe the 1% of gamers with too much money to spend. (And I think even that 1% figure is generous.)
You don't make something popular by pricing it for 1% of your userbase. How many triple-A games do you think will be done for it, if the adoption rate of the device is only 1% or less?
Imagine if the Steam Controller had been priced at launch at something like 300€ instead of the 50€ it was? Imagine how much it would have stifled the adoption rate. (I know it's not really the same kind of innovative technology, but that's not my point.) It was smart to aim at the masses.
But the Vive is not aimed at the masses, due to its price.
I know (and hope) that the price will come down. But when? In a year? Two years? Five years? And by how much? Will it increase adoption rate if its price comes down to, say, 600€? Maybe a little, but maybe too little to matter.
Contrast this to, for example, graphics cards. Both big manufacturers have high-end graphics cards in the 600€+ range for the enthusiasts (who have too much money to spend), but they always also have mid-range cards (in the 200-400€ bracket) which are still decent but more affordable to the average consumer. If one of these companies always priced their cards at the high-end side, their adoption rate would be significantly lower.
I think it's a bit stupid to price the device at 950€ and expect a large adoption rate. I also think it's a bit stupid to try to limit the use of the device for, essentially, walk-around tech demos. (Not that this last part will happen forever, I'm sure, but at this moment Valve seems adamant.)
I also wonder if using VR has a bad effect on your eyes because you're constantly looking at a screen that is 5 cm from your eyes.
No. At least not because of that. The lenses allow you to focus on the distance, and see the screen as if it were far away.
There is a different reason why some people are questioning the health issues of VR. And the reason is that it creates a conflict between the perceived distance of an object, and its focus distance.
You see, with a VR headset you have to focus your eyes to a large distance. And always the same distance, regardless of the perceived distance to the object you are looking. This means that even if the object seems to be 10 cm from your face, your eyes still need to focus to the distance to see it sharply.
This is, of course contradictory to how it works in real life. If an object is 10 cm from your face, your eyes need to focus very close, to see it sharply (and subsequently the background becomes unfocused).
This clash between how eyes should focus in real-life, and how they should focus in VR, can cause eyestrain and headaches in some people. It makes it worse that you need to constantly "switch" between the two modes when using the visor, and when not using it. And the long-term effects of this are yet to be seen.
Mothrayas wrote:
It seems kind of disingenuous to say about VR-enhanced FPS games that you get used to it, and then later on in the same post dismiss standing up/walking while gaming (with VR) like that isn't possible to get used to.
How is it "disingenuous"? They are completely different things. One requires physical stamina, fitness and muscles; and it may be physically straining even for a fit person. The other requires for your brain to adjust to conflicting sensory inputs.
I think that categorizing a completely unbeatable game as "TAS-proof" is a bit of cheating. Of course it's "TAS-proof" if it's impossible to complete. That sounds like a complete triviality.
What I'm thinking with "a TAS-proof game" is one that is perfectly well beatable, but its game mechanics are such that TAS tools do not help beat it any better. In other words, TASing it offers no advantage over playing it normally: It's exactly as difficult either way.
It's hard to imagine such a game existing. I think it would have to be a kind of game that is not skill-based.
The closest thing I can think of would be a chess game. Although, in a sense, there are tools to help even a non-player to play at superhuman strength: Top chess engines. OTOH, beating such an engine would in itself be an almost impossible challenge, except by using another chess engine. So, depending on how you define TASing, this might not be an example.
This might be a bit sappy (and a bit off-topic), but I would like to show my appreciation that the staff of tasvideos does listen to their visitors and seriously consider their ideas, suggestions and questions. I have had way too many experiences at other sites where the staff is too stubborn and arrogant and full of themselves, and consider their own rules too holy and too rigid to ever change, and somehow seem to consider the visitors too stupid to be even being considered seriously. It's really refreshing and warming to participate in a site with reasonable and down-to-earth staff.
Thank you.
If this is a hack, and not the original game, I would consider that a completely acceptable argument for rejection. However, I see no reason why a TAS of the original game couldn't be published. (In fact, I find this more interesting than quite many vaulted runs.)
This is not true for all sports games, of course, this one in particular being an exception, but that doesn't mean the game is complicated enough for site publication.
Since when has triviality been grounds for disqualification from vault? I thought vault was specifically intended as a means to publish TASes of all possible games regardless of entertainment level. Vault is not supposed to be Moons v2, where the "slightly less enteraining" TASes go.
Besides, I would argue this game is fair from trivial. It's not a "press right to advance, and nothing more". Actual work needs to be done in order to make a perfect run of this game. (Again, not that I think that should be a requirement, but the rejection is doubly baffling given the fact that this is not an absolutely trivial game to TAS.)
As it stands, this is just a minigolf game, quite clearly a "sports game" as I don't see any possible way to make minigolf not a sport
"Most sport games are timer-based, therefore no sports games should be accepted, even if they aren't timer-based" seems a rather silly rule, and it makes no sense. I have hard time believing that's the spirit of the rule.
What exactly is the problem in determining vaultability on a case-by-case basis? What exactly is the problem in saying "sport game X is the kind of game that does not fit in vault, but sport game Y is the kind of game that does fit"? You are already judging submissions individually, on a case-by-case basis, so what exactly would be the problem in determining whether the game is of a type that suits for vault, rather than just shoving every single "sport game" under the same category and rejecting all of them regardless of content and game mechanics?
I see nothing in this particular game that would make it unsuitable for vault, even with the current vault rules. It has a progression from beginning to end, and it has a clearly-defined ending. Its completion time is not dependent solely on some in-game timer, but the TASer has plenty of opportunity to do non-trivial optimizations.
I'm convinced that if I browsed through all the relatively recently published vault runs, I could find at least some that I would consider less "vaultable" than this one.
Some games work better than others -- in particular, games in vehicles seem to be less prone to causing motion sickness. But I'm fairly confident that you can't expect to just slap on a VR headset and play existing FPSes; they'd need extensive modification to work without the player getting sick.
You get used to it. Many people out there testify that they got used to it, and say that they can play your regular old FPS games (modded to support VR) for hours without problems. They don't need any "extensive modifications" for anything.
Sure, there may be a percentage of people who never get used to it, but is that really a reason to not give anybody even the choice? To deliberately not add support to existing games? To deliberately remove the option from those who would like to try and who, potentially, would get quickly used to it and be just fine?
That doesn't make any kind of sense. It's like saying that because some people get sick while riding a car, then no cars should ever be built and nobody should be given the option to drive cars. That's just nonsense.
The "play by physically walking in your room" game mechanic has no future. Why? Well, I propose a test:
Take any game you like to play for hours. A game playable with a gamepad. Or if you have a handheld console, that's fine too. Now start playing the game, but standing up. Don't sit down. Play standing up. Let's see how long you last.
My point exactly.
the fact that it is a game of sport means that we can't Vault the run
Please define "sports game" in this context (ie. in the context of TASing, and admission to vault.)
Why are "sports games" not eligible for vault? How does this particular game fulfill those reasons?
If the game is pretty linear, and has a definitive and clearly-defined ending, isn't that all that's needed for vault? Why does it matter if the theme happens to be based on some real-life hobby?
Would you reject a linear FPS game that just happens to depict paintball rather than an actual war, just because paintball is considered a kind of sport in real life?
Now that the HTC Vive has been out for a bit, it seems that my worst fears have come to fruition.
It seems that Valve is promoting the device exclusively for AR usage (with which I mean the "walk around your room" game mechanic), to play games made exclusively for it. Not only is all the promotional material exclusively about that (with not even a single mention of playing existing games while sitting down), but also the Steam VR forum is all about developing custom games made exclusively for it. Moreover, it seems that they are completely dissing the possibility of using the visor to play normal games (like the Portal Series, the Half-Life series, and so on). At this point I wouldn't actually be surprised if Valve didn't add HTC Vive support for any of their existing games. They seem to consider VR useless for them.
This is rather the polar opposite of the Oculus Rift which, unlike my predictions, seems to have after all kept more focused on playing actual games, even existing ones (assuming game developers add support to them via patches).
I think that the HTC Vive has no future, unless third-party developers save it by adding support for it to their normal games (such as vehicle simulation games, first-person shooters, and so on.) The "physically walk around your room" is extremely limiting in terms of game mechanics and game design. It's also very limited in enjoyability. (How many video games can you name where you are limited to a laughably small space, unable to freely move at will over larger distances, eg. along corridors, from room to room, or on a wide open outworld?)
Clearly the people here, and wherever else you posted, are not bothered by the extra features that are put in VR hardware by Oculus et al.
I'm not bothered by the extra features. I'm bothered by the high price (which, I'm certain, is in part caused by the enormous amount of development time put into those augmented reality features and needed peripherals.)
Apathy, disinterest, maybe, or perhaps they just don't agree with your position.
My position is that I want a cheaper version. A "value pack" version, if you will. People oppose this idea? It's not like it would be taking away the possibility of buying the full version.
Warp wrote:
Contrast that to the PlayStation VR. A minimalistic set of features, those needed for actual gaming, at half the price. (I have no idea of the quality. It might be complete crap. But at least they kept to the essentials, and kept the price to a reasonable level.)
Isn't this exactly what you are already asking for? If Sony is already creating a minimalistic VR headset with a lower price, why not just exclusively buy or support that? Why do all the other companies also need to cater to those like you who want just the gaming essentials?
Because it's for the PlayStation 4 only. It won't allow me to play PC games.
(Also, its image quality might not be in par with the OR of the Vive.)
If the rest of the companies don't want to comply to your wishes, just don't buy or support their products.
Don't worry, I won't.
I'd rather buy eg. a GTX 980 Ti, or a g-sync monitor, with that same money.
So, a whopping 1 signature. And this isn't the only place I have advertised the petition.
The general sentiment seems to be that of apathy and disinterest.
Nice.
These VR headsets were from the very beginning aimed at videogames
No, they weren't. Most were designed for purpose-built applications, such as simulators.
I am not talking about VR made in the 60's. I'm talking about the Oculus Rift, the HTC Vive and the PlayStation VR, which started this modern wave of VR for regular gamers.
Oculus Rift was quite clearly designed as a generic peripheral for video games. Regular video games, not just exclusives made for it. Many game companies (such as id Software) supported the project, and planned to add support to existing games (such as Doom 3) and new ones. Just look at the list of supported games at wikipedia; many of them are your regular PC games, with patches/mods to add support for the VR headset; they are not games made exclusively for it.
Both development kits of Oculus Rift were designed to be used while sitting at a desk or couch. They had no AR features other than the head-tracking.
Then they started developing AR stuff for it. Granted that they have kept it to a modest amount. The HTC Vive, however, went completely overboard with it, and what do we get? A $900+ device with tons of useless cruft that's not useful to anybody, except to keep them entertained for an hour or two, even if that.
Contrast that to the PlayStation VR. A minimalistic set of features, those needed for actual gaming, at half the price. (I have no idea of the quality. It might be complete crap. But at least they kept to the essentials, and kept the price to a reasonable level.)
They aren't just targeting VR representations of existing games, but are trying to create new game genres, or even expand beyond gaming.
And thus they create an overly expensive device with half of its features being completely useless to the average consumer. The majority of who will not buy it because it's too damn expensive, and too niche, because it's full of extraneous cruft.
The AR stuff has been compared to the infamous Kinect (and rightfully so): It's an extremely niche feature which is extremely inconvenient (requires lots of room space), and with only a handful of games (most of which are crappy), and actual triple-A games do not benefit from it at all, because of the physical limitations it has. Moreover, it has the potential for accidents and damaged property, even more so than with the Kinect, when people trip over and hurt themselves or damage their furniture.
People will be amused for perhaps an hour or two, and then just toss the thing aside and go back to the couch to play some actual games. Unless there are actual games that support the VR headset, that is. But even in that case, they paid a hefty sum of money for features they won't be using.
If you think there is a market for a product that the industry is not selling, do what the creator of Oculus Rift did. Create a product and compete.
I am baffled at the inanity of this sentiment, which is being repeated over and over.
Yeah, surely I own the millions of dollars and resources required to start this kind of company. If I owned millions of dollars, I would just buy these headsets; all of them. Regardless of how much extraneous cruft they have.
Unfortunately I don't own millions of dollars. My income is very low. Which is why I'm not going to buy any of these headsets, until their price is reduced significantly.
Warp wrote:
Why do you oppose the idea of petitioning them to keep it simple (and cheap)? Do you honestly want to pay $800+ for features that you will not be using?
I don't oppose it. But it would be like petitioning my neighbor down the street to pull his weeds. I could ask him, or I could get all the neighbors to sign a petition asking him, but it still just isn't happening. It's a futile argument.
It certainly won't be happening if nobody tells these companies what we want. "It just isn't happening" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Signing costs you absolutely nothing, and it's not something you oppose. But you won't sign. That's fine; you can do whatever you want. But it's just a rather odd principle you are showing there. It just feels like a rather odd principle of apathy.
I honestly can't understand what your point is. You seem to be saying that it's a stupid idea to petition these companies to make a cheaper version of their product that would be more practical for the average gamer.
These VR headsets were from the very beginning aimed at videogames, and for the gaming masses. They were intended to be used with your regular normal 3D games. Many video game companies have been on board with these projects from the beginning. For example, look at the list of games with Oculus Rift support at Wikipedia. Many of these games are not "VR-only" games specifically designed for it. Many of them are mainstream AAA games (such as Alien Isolation, Doom 3, Dying Light, Half-Life 2, etc.)
None of those games benefit from augmented reality (with the exception of head tracking, if you want to define that as an AR feature). The stereo vision is the main purpose of the VR headsets, to be used in actual practical video games.
Why do you oppose the idea of petitioning them to keep it simple (and cheap)? Do you honestly want to pay $800+ for features that you will not be using?
Keep in mind that the industry does not agree with you about your requirements.
I don't even understand what you are trying to say with that.
This is either the stupidest video I have seen in a long time, or the most ingenious video I have seen in a long time.
It's absolutely ingenious if it's a parody video. Why would it be a parody? Just wait until it starts talking about the Atari 2600 joystick to see what I mean. The genius comes from the fact that it never gives away nor establishes clearly whether it's a parody video or a seriously made one. It keeps up the ambiguity and facade all the way to the end.
If it is a seriously made video, then it is one of the stupidest I have seen in a long time.
Link to video
