>> ^bareboards2:

Can't we just ignore shinyblurry?
He'll go away if you stop feeding him.


We wish...
/pessimistic realism

Shit I had my doubts about the realism of wrestling, but now that I've seen this video I'm sold!

>> ^blankfist:

Want me to tell you where this should've ended? Where the guy in the red shirt sprayed Pneumatic air in the face of the guy in the blue shirt. At most that would be an annoyance.


But the fun part about that is how they made use of the surroundings. This added some realism.

10. Replaced with realism.
12. Texas is further away.
19. I've dropped that whole thing. I'm pretty outspoken nowadays.
20. Almost 13 years I guess now.
24. * = very
25. Most of you.>> ^gwiz665:
10. I wish I could shake my growing cynicism.
12. The farthest away from Denmark that I've been is Ireland.
19. I used to be insanely shy, and now I'm just reserved.
21. I've played guitar for about ten years now.
24. I have [*] little patience for incompetence, but am generally un-confrontational.
25. You all enrich my life.

see that is one of the realities I never accepted in cartoon such as the simpsons, he clearly smashes his head into a plate full of Mashed potatoes and gravy, and yet when he lifts his head the potatoes and gravy are just honky Dorry nothing ever happened to them.... realism people. *()* sakes.

>> ^Croccydile:

Disclaimer: I've played this game for the past two weeks, even ahead of Civ V.
The graphics are the LAST thing you worry about in this game. I was wondering about all the fuss until I tried it myself. It's FUN as a combination creative/survival game. Thats all that matters. It's fun. You don't necessarily need HDR Pixel Shader 3.0 DX11 for fun. (Well if you really hate it, some people have made updated graphics packs to increase the realism anyways)
The dude is still pulling in $100k a day as well. For a single developer indie game. He is doing something right.


Now it's up to 350K a day...

Edit: OOPS guess they edited the article and it's now saying 100k...

Disclaimer: I've played this game for the past two weeks, even ahead of Civ V.

The graphics are the LAST thing you worry about in this game. I was wondering about all the fuss until I tried it myself. It's FUN as a combination creative/survival game. Thats all that matters. It's fun. You don't necessarily need HDR Pixel Shader 3.0 DX11 for fun. (Well if you really hate it, some people have made updated graphics packs to increase the realism anyways)

The dude is still pulling in $100k a day as well. For a single developer indie game. He is doing something right.

@Abel_Prisc there's realism and then there's realism.

Lord of the Rings is obviously not realistic - orcs, giant spiders and so on - but it feels real. A good scifi, fantasy or any genre show that takes you out of the real world, still should feel real, or there is no connection with the audience. Some times, you just accept a given thing - "we have warp drives" - even though it isn't realistic, but you accept it as a suspension of disbelief (or leap of faith, if you will). I think Fringe piles on too much in the suspension of disbelief; new things all the time, weirder and weirder... by the end you can't ignore your doubt of the show.

@IAmTheBlurr My name is gwiz665 with a g, not a q. Only assholes and dickheads so far has called me qwiz, and while we can disagree I don't count you among them.

Morally inferior? I don't accept that notion - morality has no tiers, view points are all equal unless evaluated from another viewpoint. You evaluate morality from a moral realism viewpoint, such that there are moral truths and that the examples you show are moral truths - I do not believe they are. I happen to hold the view that "slavery, child abuse, rape, or torture" are all despicable, but that does not make them immoral in any other way then the fact that I think they are immoral. Morality does not encompass others, only yourself.

Indeed, I believe in a descriptive sense of morality - normative morality is a crackpot theory, just as Moral Realism.

You can construct scenarios where they are justifiable, by making it a choice between that and something worse. Joker's ultimatum in the Dark Knight is an example - that undermines the idea that murder is never justified.

I would add though that from my point of view, there are certainly viewpoints that are better than others, but this is defined from my point of view - I am not saying that we should resort to nihilism because all viewpoints should be valued equally. I think morality evolves like biological beings do, in a direction - the direction is dictated by surroundings and different influences, but to say that there is an "absolute right way" is like saying that there is an "absolutely perfect animal" and that's just stupid - sure, land animals in general do not need gills, but that does not mean that it is "right" to not have gills for a land animal. It just has some definite advantages. A certain morality can also have advantages and disadvantages and those are always evaluated - murder has very little advantage and a huge disadvantage to most people, but some people have different values, like gang members getting advantages for killing enemies, or soldiers who value their duty more than their enemy's life.

@qwiz665 If you believe that slavery has become immoral then it follows that you think that slavery wasn't always immoral. If that's the case then you are morally inferior to a lot of people because you're fundamentally saying that under certain conditions, slavery is justifiable. Slavery has always been immoral, it's just that we (most of humanity) haven't caught up until recently. The systematic ownership of other humans to be used in forced servitude is in no way ever moral, under any conditions, for any reasons.

Even if we lived in a society that justified and allowed slavery, it would still be immoral.

Slavery is illegal in most of the western world, but it isn't illegal everywhere and it's still being practiced in some places. Does that mean in those places, where slavery is practiced, it's not immoral?

If you believe that slavery, child abuse, rape, or torture is at all ever justifiable, you are an immoral person. If you accept that any or all of those conducts are always an immoral act, then you must subject to moral realism.

Do yourself a favor and look up "Moral Realism" on wikipedia.

Just to clarify, is this basically what you're talking about?

"In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by people. For the most part right and wrong acts are classified as such because they are thought to cause benefit or harm, but it is possible that many moral beliefs are based on prejudice, ignorance or even hatred.[clarification needed] This sense of the term is also addressed by descriptive ethics." - From Wikipedia

Because this is what I'm talking about:

"In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what specific individuals think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation. This usage of the term is characterized by "definitive" statements such as "That act is immoral" rather than descriptive ones such as "Many believe that act is immoral." It is often challenged by a moral skepticism, in which the unchanging existence of a rigid, universal, objective moral "truth" is rejected,[1] and supported by moral realism, in which the existence of this "truth" is accepted. The normative usage of the term "morality" is also addressed by normative ethics." - From Wikipedia

I reject the notion that child abuse, rape, torture, and slavery ever have valid justification no matter what he view point of the any individual is.

It must be nice living in a world without shades of gray.

You keep wanting to paint me as someone who condones their religious/extremist views. The point I've been trying to make, and that you keep wanting to avoid, is that not all of them are true believers - and that those who join the Taliban for religious reasons are not the same as those who join for nationalist reasons. Observe the same trend in the American army - some do it for personal reasons, some do it for America, and some do it for Christ. Is it so hard to believe the bad guys forces might have the same factions?

Official protocol eh? Rendition, waterboarding etc. etc. is all official protocol. Does this condemn all members of the armed forces? Or just the ranking members who make policy? Hmmm...

Praising God condemns them all? Visit any American base abroad and count how many go to church or pray regularly. Hmmmm....

Definition of the Taliban eh? Thats a good idea. From Wikipedia:

The Taliban, alternative spelling Taleban,[5] (Pashto: طالبان ṭālibān, meaning "students") is a Wahhabi Islamist political movement that governed Afghanistan from 1996 until it was overthrown in late 2001. It has regrouped since 2004 and revived as a strong insurgency movement governing mainly local Pashtun areas during night and fighting a guerrilla war against the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)

I see the Islamist political movement...and then I see insurgency. I have no doubts the Islamic extremists run the show. I also have no doubts the insurgency (Nationalist) aspect is a big draw in recruiting. Much like Al-Qaeda, the Taliban recruits based on resentment and anger towards imperial powers. You know this, I'm sure.

There's no such thing as a moderate Taliban member? Says who? You'll have to provide more than your word on that one. I'll rely on practicality and realism.

I had no intention of lumping you in with the Fox News assholes. I was meaning to display the various political factions within any given movement - devout doesn't always mean extremist. Not every American pastor or Priest is a Phelps supporter at heart - and not every Afghan insurgent is a wahhabist at heart. You see that, don't you?

I'm guessing many of them signed up to fight the Imperial invaders, not just to woman-beat and Jew-hate. If that were the case, you wouldn't see the informants and intelligence sources from within Taliban-held areas that Americans and other NATO forces rely on for intel, would you?

I despise extremist religious/political philosophy as much as you do. But, I also understand that I would sign up with the nearest big group of assholes in my part of the world if it meant we could better fight off foreign invaders.

>> ^LostTurntable:

I am also well aware that some American/Canadian/British/Australian soldiers are assholes who have killed innocent women and children. Does that make all of the soldiers in those armed forces assholes? Nope.
Yes, but the Allied forces who have done horrible things aren't acting on official protocol. Taliban terrorists who attack and murder women are doing so because their ideology dictates that's okay.
I highly doubt that all Taliban fighters are crazed religious or social extremists.
Go back and count how many times they praise God in that video. Even if not every soldier is a die-hard member of the Taliban (and in that video, they all were) they are part of an extremist Islamic political movement. That is the definition of the Taliban. Look it up.
They are also inhuman savages that beat women for no reason. That's also a fact. It is a strict part of the Taliban idealogy, they go hand-in-hand. Breaking that rule is paramount to breaking any other rule set by the Taliban. There's no such thing as a "moderate" Taliban member.
And for fuck's sake don't lump me in with the Faux News idiots and the anti-"Mosque" assholes. You want to build a mosque on Ground Zero? Go nuts. Build 80. Because the people in NYC who want to build a mosque AREN'T THE FUCKING TALIBAN.
I am sure that many people in Afghanistan do not want the US forces there. But there are just as many who don't want the Taliban there. Saying "not all Taliban soldiers are bad" is like saying "not all Nazi soldiers are bad" that may be true, but they are supporting a cause that is without a doubt entirely evil. So fuck them. They made their choice to sign up with woman-beating, Jew-hating, freedom-denying (and yes, these guys actually do hate freedom, as sad as it is. Under Taliban rule you aren't allowed to speak your mind, do what you want or even listen to music.) assholes who deserve to die.

>> ^Throbbin:
Don't be simple.
I am well aware of the acid attacks. I am also well aware that some American/Canadian/British/Australian soldiers are assholes who have killed innocent women and children. Does that make all of the soldiers in those armed forces assholes? Nope.
I highly doubt that all Taliban fighters are crazed religious or social extremists. I'd bet a good amount of money that many of them joined up because they don't want Team America there. I probably would have if I were in their shoes, and I'm not religious in any way.
"He's a warlord" - yeah, and how much do you want to bet General Petraeus has a summer home and a regular home?
They want everyone who doesn't agree with them out - sounds like the ultra conservatives in America and Canada. Have you seen any of the anti-immigration or anti-NY-mosque rallies lately?
I'm not pro-Taliban, but I am pro-truth. And the truth is that not all Talibanis are crazed religious extremists, and that once in awhile it's a good idea to remember that the people we are fighting (in their country) are people too, not just maniacs like the MSM would have you believe.
>> ^LostTurntable:
Surprise surprise - the "bad guys" aren't all evil monstrous brutal animals. Some of them are just normal folks who resent Team America invading their country and telling them what to do.
I guess he wasn't invited on the mission where Taliban forces attacked schoolgirls with acid.
I understand the war is a complicated issue, but these are holy warrior assholes who enslave women for their own perverted satisfaction. Notice how the commander used to have several houses? You think he got them via good stark market deals/ No, he's a warlord.
These are also religious zealots. They don't just want "Team America" out. They want everyone who doesn't agree with them out. Or dead. Preferably dead.
You can be against the war, that's great. But don't be pro-Taliban.

Ah, realism for the win...

You know, It never even occurred to me. I should have known. The company that made it is known for their graphics and post production work. I've seen this done with actual wax before so I didn't even stop to question it. I must say, though, the realism is well done... I'm going back to watch it again with a freshly opened eye

http://www.movieviral.com/2010/06/08/short-film-mortal-kombat-rebirth-debuts-online/

Today there was some mystery brewing about a short film that debuted on YouTube yesterday titled Mortal Kombat: Rebirth. The 8 minute long video looks well done (and possibly made with at least some budget), but there is very little info given about who made it and why. There are no credits, but Devin at CHUD figured it out. It’s some kind of demo reel/proof of concept for investors for a new Mortal Kombat movie. With the previous MK attempts falling flat, “gritty realism” seems to be the selling point this time around.
It’s still unclear whether thus is meant directly for investors or simply to show them the appeal of the material, since views and comments on YouTube are a good indicator of how the potential audience would receive the movie.

*viral

Ha! All the time I was watching it I just thought it was a completely computer generated image with a shaky-cam effect added to enhance the realism. After reading the comments I had to go back and watch it again to appreciate how cool an effect it really is.