I was looking around at GameDiscovery.com''s Game Ideas, and I came across this: http://www.gamediscovery.com/ideas/menu/ideas/view/ideas.asp?id=865 Is it just me, or was this guy on crack?

well, he DOES say it would use a brand new engine

maybe in a thousand years. in which case we probably won''t need to have people to make games. we could just make our own. so id really rather not have that available to people.

why are you wasting your time there.... it´s a neat site, catering to the dreaded n00b [sic] in all respects.

imagine trying to program even one character in this engine?

if you need to tell it the chemical composition of a brick to build with them, you''d have to be a PhD in biology to generate the human body, and also have psychology background to give it personality...

Wow... just the thought of the processing power you would need to even do the simplest of things gives me a headache ^_^;

- Matt

What would be the point? Even if a "grand unified theory" existed, what would we learn from implementing it in a computer? I mean think about it - if there''s one ultimate law that the Universe runs off, and all the other laws are just specializations of The Big One, then how is knowing The Big One going to further our understanding of anything else?

I mean, take poetry for instance. If there was a "grand unified theory", then you could concievably break the process of writing poetry down into the component atomic interactions. The interactions in your brain, the interactions in your muscles, the interactions between your fingers and the pen, the ball and the ink, the ink and the paper, and so on and so on.

And what''s the point of simulating all that in a computer? A game only needs to look real, and you don''t need to model at the atomic level for it to look real. He seems to think it''d be easy enough to do it, "just tell the computer it''s cement", but who tells the computer what cement is made of? A bit of lime, a bit of sand, etc. But who tells it what lime is made of? What about sand? You''d have to model the entire universe right from the bigging with stars exploding to make the heavier elements and accreting into solar systems and etc.

The whole thing just seems like a waste of time to me. Ah well, I''ll just stop rambling now before my essay becomes as long as that guy''s

If I had my way, I''d have all of you shot! codeka.com - Just click it.

Your right, physisists would be the new game programers. They would have to impliment everything based on the current theories of the time. But, the funny thing is that by that the time we can make such a divice, we will have learned all we need to know about the universe to create those worlds for ourselves anyway. I mean, imagine if you DID create a new world to play as a character, you would have to have a form of VR controls -- an exoskeleton because you would have to control expression. Also, to have such computing power you would have to have the equivilent of what holds our universe together. I''m sorry, but such a thing can''t be done. The universe we create in games is only a percentage of the real "game" of life due to the fact that a higher being must have made it. To have rules, one must make the rules. The same just might be with physics.

I still think the third comment is the best.

thank you, now please let this die and GO BACK TO MAKING GAMES YOU LAZY SODS!

LIVE!!! Lol, joke, sorry, couldnt resist, YOU LAZY SOD!

[edited by - Valkyr on January 6, 2003 6:27:04 PM]