No, this is how console 'tards look when they play games.
Real gamers sit and play the toughest of games with a straight look on their face all the while carrying out phone calls, eating pizza and vacuuming their keyboards off.

^>> ^BillOreilly:
>> ^Dignant_Pink:
i have one friend who, whenever we play poker together, ALWAYS folds pocket queens. every single time he has stayed in with pocket queens, he's gotten a bad beat.


I always seem to do well with Queen/Duece offsuit, but I invariably lose with pocket aces. This is probably why I don't ever gamble with real money.


If you're playing online poker for play money, this is why you lose a lot with pocket aces. People that play with play money online have nothing to lose, and therefore will play any two cards at any given time. Even if it's all-in pre-flop. You will find that if you play for real money, (higher stakes, not low stakes, as most folks seem to think that even in low stakes poker, real money doesn't mean much.) the donk factor drops considerably.

In some cases it has to do with invisible geometry, or geometry that the AI thinks is there but is really not there. Even in the unreal engine path finding is a difficult thing. Node path finding is another story all together, if there isn't a node there than the AI wont go that way, however attacking pathing is different.

That is why a lot online games have multyplayer and PVP, because nothing is like playing a real human. That is what AI was meant to substitute.

>> ^jmzero:
A path finding is a good algorithm but you get the APE effect in the game where the ape goes over the bridge instead of the land to get to the PC.
If you have a large map, you might allow your heuristic to cheat (and thus have the potential for bad paths) - but I don't think that was the ape's problem (or the tiger's problem earlier). I think the segment they needed to cross for the direct path was simply impassible for them - meaning the roundabout path was the best route.
In fact, most of the problems in the video seemed to be bad maps/rules rather than bad algorithms. If the map says you can walk through that rock, it makes for a good path.

Very cool, but it seems like it would only bee cool for a "game" like Real Life.

How about one that I can actually use to play a real game?

My prediction: This fails miserably to sell.

"Why does everyone say you should just learn to play a real guitar? Its just for fun. I don't remember anyone telling me I should just learn how to dance while playing Dance Dance Revolution..."

I'll bet they were thinking it though. I kid, I kid!

Seriously, though, how can people not get the appeal of this? People play Guitar Hero for the same reason people play flight sims: because it would be prohibitively expensive and require an inordinate amount of time and effort to go out and do the real thing. Guitar Hero lets you fake being a "rock star" without investing the blood, sweat, and tears it would take to become a famous rock musician. What's not to understand?

Why does everyone say you should just learn to play a real guitar? Its just for fun. I don't remember anyone telling me I should just learn how to dance while playing Dance Dance Revolution...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c4Y4Y78MEQ

Well done, though. I like playing a real guitar more.

Edit: In fact: http://www.videosift.com/video/Congratulations-you-scored-1000000-points-in-Guitar-Hero

Somehow I'm more impressed by this gamer's performance than I would have been if he was playing a real guitar.

nah, the kid's parents would rather have little Bobby playing a lame wannabe game than actually learning something useful, LIKE PLAYING A REAL INSTRUMENT

upvote for the losers with nothing better to do than hang out at best buy

Kids (and adults) are gonna play video games; just accept that. Granted, that time should be budgeted and controlled, but they are just fun. This game does have the positives of non-violence and possibly generating interest in playing a real instrument. I started viewing the Fretlight video and decided that I see no music theory behind it. Once you start getting into an actual guitar, you should be learning the "whys" of music as well as the "hows".

As someone who plays both real and plastic guitar, I find this game to be something fun to help pass the time when I'm not practicing. Also, it's helped me keep a tighter rhythm, loosen my fingers, and even work on my stage appearance.

Good redemption at the end there Goofball!

Everytime a Guitar Hero video gets posted, someone *always* jumps in with a "why don't you play a REAL guitar, loser!" type comment, which really annoys me for a few reasons... one of them being that he may well already play a real guitar better than he plays Guitar Hero.

Besides, Guitar Hero opens up the world of musical instruments to lazy kids who play video games. Learning to play the guitar is a very steep learning curve and kids with short attention spans will see little results until they've been playing for some time, so often the boredom threshold kicks in and they give up. Guitar Hero gives them some easy to obtain goals and rewards with their "fake playing" technique. This gets developed, along with their hand-eye co-ordination and rhythm & timing, all of which are important when playing any musical instrument.

So, to cut a long rant short, I think that games like this actual increase the interest in playing the guitar rather than detract from it. It offers an easy route into guitars, while still being fun.

farhad - since you mention it, pierce brosnan was in a number of other movies, notably in this context is "The Tailor of Panama," which i recommend highly. he plays a real-life spy approaching middle age - burned out, coldly manipulative and totally jaded. i found it to be a very interesting characterization of Bond as (evil) anti-hero.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/tailor_of_panama/

sfjocko: my words were chosen very carefully, actually.

Movie trailers manipulate the footage of the very movies they promote, often presenting a very different perspective than is proferred in the finished movie.

My favourite example of this is "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels". The trailer was shot separately, and none of the footage or action from the trailer appears in the actual movie.

From IMDB: "An entire day was spent shooting the trailer, which does not appear in the film. The trailer shows Freddy and Lawrence walking along the boardwalk, politely moving out of the way of other people, etc, with a voice saying something like "There are numerous distinguished gentlemen in the world... refined, cultured gentlemen.... nice men....... but nice men finish last". As these last few lines are spoken, Freddy pushes an old lady into the water, and Lawrence shoves a kid's face into his cotton candy."

There are lots of other examples of this. Generally speaking, a movie's director rarely puts together their own trailers- they are the responsibility of the studio's promotions department, whose purpose is not necessarilly to present a true two-minute representation of the movie, but rather to manipulate the viewer into wanting to spend money to go see the movie. How many times have you seen a trailer and thought to yourself "Wow, that looks like a great movie, I'd like to see that!", only to be disappointed that the P.O.S. movie didn't come close to the level of expectation generated by the trailer?

As for the rest of your point about the movie itself being a manipulation of reality... well, yeah, it's a movie. Robin Williams is not playing the real person named Jon Stewart, he's playing a character who bears many similarities to Jon Stewart. Much as Orson Welles played a character named Charles Foster Kane, who bore many similarities to a real person named William Randolph Hearst, but was certainly NOT Hearst.