Er, they all do.

Plus, it's a game about dog fighting in space. Realism already went out the window (anyone advanced enough to be that deep in space will not have squishy meatbags controlling their ships)

I wasn't expecting realisms from 300. I like action stuff.

Most of these critiques only make sense if the movie tries to maintain an authentic setting. Tarantino movies are all style and attitude, they never are or try to be authentic period settings. Similarly his Life of Pi critique of realism is irrelevant in light of the revelation at the end of the movie.

Wish people would know to quit when they're ahead.

science is self correcting... its not a logical fallacy to say "it works", because producing results is what science is concerned with... and testing hypotheses, which is NEVER ENDING...

If two models agree with observation, neither one can be considered more real than the other. A person can use whichever model is more convenient in the situation under consideration."

All of science assumes there is such a thing as uniformity in nature. If tomorrow the laws of physics stopped working science couldn't self-correct that..it would become useless. The question was, what justifies the scientific method..and pragmatism doesn't justify it. You have to be able to answer why it will continue to work without using a logical fallacy to justify it.

you will run into limits with a faith based system which the scientific method will accelerate by due to use of logic and model-dependent realism.

In the case of Christianity, there aren't any limits. It was because of the Christian assumption that there is a Lawgiver who created an orderly Universe based on laws which helped birth the scientific method in the first place. Now science still operates with the assumption of an orderly Universe based on laws, but it denies the Lawgiver that created them without explaining why they should exist in the first place.

simple, no??? what do i win?? eternal torment in this form by having to exist with ignorant animals who deny their true existence?? Cool... somedays i wish i hadnt bit that apple, but it is done... and i take some comfort knowing that reincarnation is literally true for the physical world, but this planet is getting a little crowded ill never see the end or the start all i am is a middle... when can i sleep eternal...

Are you of the Hindu faith? Why do you believe in reincarnation?

science is self correcting... its not a logical fallacy to say "it works", because producing results is what science is concerned with... and testing hypotheses, which is NEVER ENDING... something inherently without end and self referencing surely is confusing, but the scientific method builds on observation... so what? Well, maybe this will put it in terms one can understand:

"Adopt a view -- model-dependent realism -- the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. According to model-dependent realism, it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation. If two models agree with observation, neither one can be considered more real than the other. A person can use whichever model is more convenient in the situation under consideration."


you will run into limits with a faith based system which the scientific method will accelerate by due to use of logic and model-dependent realism.

simple, no??? what do i win?? eternal torment in this form by having to exist with ignorant animals who deny their true existence?? Cool... somedays i wish i hadnt bit that apple, but it is done... and i take some comfort knowing that reincarnation is literally true for the physical world, but this planet is getting a little crowded ill never see the end or the start all i am is a middle... when can i sleep eternal...

I've already seen stunning examples of computer animation,used to advertise games, surpassed on modern consoles. I look forward to the day I'll be playing games with this level of graphic realism.

Yea there are both 9 and 20mm versions for target practice, the 20mm adds more realism in the form of a large bang,
I have used both, and i have to say that the 9mm is definitely one of the weirdest weapons to shoot.
First its basically a gun barrel in a drainpipe which effectively makes it a suppressed weapon, it doesn't go plonk as the wikipedia article states but more of a suppressed pong as the whole tube resonates with the bang.
Secondly it's surprisingly accurate (possibly due to the size of the weapon), but the barrel is designed to mimic the flightpath of the real ones which makes the bullet behave strangely once it hits something, it has a tendency to bounce, deflect or just move irraticly, multiple times at that.
On several occasions during training we saw those tracer rounds basically jump and skip up the cliff face behind the firing range.

>> ^Yogi:

I think it's more of a style. If it looks more realistic they lose a certain flair or ridiculousness which they like. Sort of like World of Warcraft which people whine about but I love how it looks.


It's not the lack of realism that bothers me, it just looks .... bad.
And it really jars with the environments.

TF2* doesn't look realistic but it still looks awesome.

yeah, I'm valves bitch. I'm comfortable with that

Anyone else thinks that World War Z was a bad book?
For me, Brooks tries to give a serious global perspective of a zombie apocalypse, but his portrayal of different cultures and real world geopolitical forces falls flat.
I know it's pointless complaining about a lack of realism in a novel about zombies, but it ruins my immersion when the author seems to get his impression of the world from American news and the Karate Kid.

Who would have thought that those 12 year olds that bitch over the mic in FPS are actually adding realism to my game.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

>> ^JiggaJonson:
@EvilDeathBee "reaching" ain't there yet. Still looks like a cartoon to me (probably bc I play too many games). And nomatter how good it gets, it will always look like the actors are talking to/interacting with empty air. Say what you will about animatronics and puppets but meeting a puppet's eyes is never a problem for actors.

Completely disagree. Did you seriously think Prometheus looked "cartoony"? Also, the CGI Yoda in the Blu-Ray Episode 1 was so much better than the rubbish puppet from the theatrical release (regardless of how shit the film is). No matter how good a puppet or animatronic is, it will always be limited in what it can do and especially how it animates.
And if and actor has trouble meeting the eyes of a digital character, that's poor setup, poor direction, poor editing and even poor acting. As I said, it's knowing when to use CGI and when to use puppets/animatronics/models. All can be blended to work well together, depends on the shot.

Ok, so the Yoda puppet was pretty shit, but I think I still prefer it to the CG one. Whether something is believable seems pretty binary to me. Its not as if either version really does a good job of hiding the man behind the curtain. Some CG I am totally fooled by. Backdrops, a lot of special effects but when it comes to something organic, something thats going to be the focus of the camera CG never really holds up. I've seen tech demos of CG faces, and tbh, I can't really tell the difference. I think the problem often is blending this CG in with the rest of the scene. Our brains seem very good at detecting inconsistency in lighting etc, too often CG elements really seem painted on top and it spoils the illusion. A lot of animatronic stuff matches CG in terms of its animation, but because its actually in the scene it never jumps out at you.

But hey, maybe one day our films will be made entirely in front of bluescreens. Pehraps the performers won't even have to wear makeup or costume, it'll all be superimposed on afterwards. For the moment I still think animatronics has the edge in realism.

It's nice. Unfortunately, visuals are not currently what's holding games back. It's interaction, especially in the large-scope AAA titles. I'd give up at least 10 years of visual development for some decent AI in games, especially when it comes to believable characters... Not a fair comparison of course, but I do feel increased realism on the graphics side makes the rest of games' limitations so much more obvious.

>> ^Lendl:

This is why I'm NOT seeing the movie. I love sci-fi and I'm ok with a bit of non-realism but I could tell from the trailer it was going to pass my "stupid" threshold by a lot...


It's not worth seeing in theater, but check it out eventually. The effects and design are top notch. There are some shots that are breathtakingly beautiful and awe inspiring for a fan of sci-fi.