05-14-2003, 07:33 AM
I suppose I should make my last word on the issues of what Nicodemus said known....(this may jump around a bit....i'm doing other stuff while typing this):
The "facts" vs. "theory" thing you claim is hypocracy is in fact NOT hypocracy - or did you not notice that the assumption of blizzard released information is to be the "facts" we use to prove the theory. If you want to claim hypocracy, first be sure to understand what is being discussed to at least some extent to prove it. - I use the term "Fact" in that sense loosely too if you want further clarification, this is a thread about contemplating the impact, use, etc. or even just the mathematical theories behind things as they are.
The section you speak of who is making the code, that is correct, Blizzard makes the code. The thing is you have to realize, this is a patch, not a full game - there are things that WILL without a doubt remain fundamentally the same - the fact that you attack and it will produce an effect will remain, the fact if you use a skill it will produce an effect will remain the same, do you get what I'm saying? There is a core set of "rules" that they must follow or it simply would not be a patch.
You keep bringing up the subject of second-guessing, which is not occuring, so far all the other threads have performed admirably in not producing fodder but in fact producing meaningful conversation which results in VALID points and counter-points (I will post information from them sometime over the next few days when posting slows down on the other forums), one may look at this as second-guessing when in fact this is actually desired for intellectual discourse - to give a point, have someone address that point, and to adapt it as the analysis evolves. While no one answer may be reached you will come up with respectable answers, with respectable arguments to back them up. - and your quote of "may or may not be in the final release" is true, but I would also like to point out that on many ocassions you can pull the quote "these features are locked in" in relation to the features listed with the side note of if no major balance issues or bugs are discovered.
Next we talk about art vs. coding, two things which I have respectable knowledge of (I am a Junior in college working on a Computer Science and Studio Art double major if you were interested) - the fact is that BOTH have the potential to evolve over time at the creator (or owner's) whim. - a body of artwork is quite easily changed, updated, etc. through either discoveries, new creations, etc., you underestimate the actual ability of such things to change over time. (My portfolio changes nearly every WEEK if you were interested, and I still go back and alter/update/remake pictures from 8-10 or more years ago.)
A body of artwork can be:
changed (some copies of old nude sculptures are modified with clothing, while others aren't)
altered (removing the faces from egyptian art would be considered alteration)
removed (gesso a canvas)
rectified (fixing a hand on a drawing)
redundant (copying machine anyone? or laser scan for 3d objects)
saved for another day, but out of sight (Attic - similar to putting code in /* */ stuff in C)
As for art being subjective, yes, the emotional side of it is subjective. But there is also a part you fail to acknowledge - the design aspect. If art is to fit a certain theme, it must fit a certain grouping of design criteria to fit within that theme (although these are usually few) - which forces someone who wants to produce something of a certain type to use objective instead of subjective. (ie you can't paint a photo-realistic picture of someone and try and call it abstract)
Perception is relative if you want to get down to it, but if you're getting at what I think you are - 1.10 is actually concrete, and it is physically possible to look at the current code (just because none of us are doesn't mean it's impossible....or would you call the Mona Lisa "ethereal" because you've never seen the real one personally?)
You can't garner the information from playing, you can assume the information from playing.
I mentioned not morals in my comparison of study of 1.10 information to the study of Religion and god, it is a rather long shot you have to make to include morals in that. I was merely comparing the study of one unprovable to the study of another unprovable.
As for the color of my sky, none, it is but the mere reflection of light in a colorless atmosphere.
In closing:
I find your labeling quite ironic, for you seem to fill the role of one of your ridaculed "HMIs" by flaming this thread with mindless dribble. You also confuse megalomaniacal with arrogance - which I openly admit to being at times, it is part of my nature, and I don't deny it.
I also find it simply amazing that you choose to claim that I don't empoy my energy and desire towards something meaningful and lasting. Which one of us was posting in a thread they considered absolutely pointless? Which of us seems to be going to some great lengths to attack a post from someone who has already stated that he does this as a break from more meaningful things?
If you wish to know, I currently have 3 major things (no perticular order) I'm working on in the majority of my spare time, none of which are this (this is merely a distraction for me):
1. Time Theories (graphing of time, been working on it for 3-4 weeks...it is NOT a line, got into this through a religious debate I'm currently still having.)
2. One of my life's works (been working on it for the past 5-6 years, most intensely over the past year)
- game design (so far 2 full 5 subject college ruled notebooks of formulas, storylines, characters, settings, and some coding - along with about 2 full sketch pads worth *75 sheets per pad* of concept art)
3. Working on my CD (only about 2 months here.....have 4 tracks done)
I know those may seem trivial to you, but ironically that is what I enjoy to do in my spare time at the moment. Currently my other "life's works" are on the back burner with the exception of my education *which is not something I consider being what I do in my free time, free time is anything besides that and work*
The "facts" vs. "theory" thing you claim is hypocracy is in fact NOT hypocracy - or did you not notice that the assumption of blizzard released information is to be the "facts" we use to prove the theory. If you want to claim hypocracy, first be sure to understand what is being discussed to at least some extent to prove it. - I use the term "Fact" in that sense loosely too if you want further clarification, this is a thread about contemplating the impact, use, etc. or even just the mathematical theories behind things as they are.
The section you speak of who is making the code, that is correct, Blizzard makes the code. The thing is you have to realize, this is a patch, not a full game - there are things that WILL without a doubt remain fundamentally the same - the fact that you attack and it will produce an effect will remain, the fact if you use a skill it will produce an effect will remain the same, do you get what I'm saying? There is a core set of "rules" that they must follow or it simply would not be a patch.
You keep bringing up the subject of second-guessing, which is not occuring, so far all the other threads have performed admirably in not producing fodder but in fact producing meaningful conversation which results in VALID points and counter-points (I will post information from them sometime over the next few days when posting slows down on the other forums), one may look at this as second-guessing when in fact this is actually desired for intellectual discourse - to give a point, have someone address that point, and to adapt it as the analysis evolves. While no one answer may be reached you will come up with respectable answers, with respectable arguments to back them up. - and your quote of "may or may not be in the final release" is true, but I would also like to point out that on many ocassions you can pull the quote "these features are locked in" in relation to the features listed with the side note of if no major balance issues or bugs are discovered.
Next we talk about art vs. coding, two things which I have respectable knowledge of (I am a Junior in college working on a Computer Science and Studio Art double major if you were interested) - the fact is that BOTH have the potential to evolve over time at the creator (or owner's) whim. - a body of artwork is quite easily changed, updated, etc. through either discoveries, new creations, etc., you underestimate the actual ability of such things to change over time. (My portfolio changes nearly every WEEK if you were interested, and I still go back and alter/update/remake pictures from 8-10 or more years ago.)
A body of artwork can be:
changed (some copies of old nude sculptures are modified with clothing, while others aren't)
altered (removing the faces from egyptian art would be considered alteration)
removed (gesso a canvas)
rectified (fixing a hand on a drawing)
redundant (copying machine anyone? or laser scan for 3d objects)
saved for another day, but out of sight (Attic - similar to putting code in /* */ stuff in C)
Quote:Unlike a body of artwork that now exists as a static form; CODE can be changed, altered, muted, commented out, rectified and made redundant.
As for art being subjective, yes, the emotional side of it is subjective. But there is also a part you fail to acknowledge - the design aspect. If art is to fit a certain theme, it must fit a certain grouping of design criteria to fit within that theme (although these are usually few) - which forces someone who wants to produce something of a certain type to use objective instead of subjective. (ie you can't paint a photo-realistic picture of someone and try and call it abstract)
Perception is relative if you want to get down to it, but if you're getting at what I think you are - 1.10 is actually concrete, and it is physically possible to look at the current code (just because none of us are doesn't mean it's impossible....or would you call the Mona Lisa "ethereal" because you've never seen the real one personally?)
You can't garner the information from playing, you can assume the information from playing.
I mentioned not morals in my comparison of study of 1.10 information to the study of Religion and god, it is a rather long shot you have to make to include morals in that. I was merely comparing the study of one unprovable to the study of another unprovable.
As for the color of my sky, none, it is but the mere reflection of light in a colorless atmosphere.
In closing:
I find your labeling quite ironic, for you seem to fill the role of one of your ridaculed "HMIs" by flaming this thread with mindless dribble. You also confuse megalomaniacal with arrogance - which I openly admit to being at times, it is part of my nature, and I don't deny it.
I also find it simply amazing that you choose to claim that I don't empoy my energy and desire towards something meaningful and lasting. Which one of us was posting in a thread they considered absolutely pointless? Which of us seems to be going to some great lengths to attack a post from someone who has already stated that he does this as a break from more meaningful things?
If you wish to know, I currently have 3 major things (no perticular order) I'm working on in the majority of my spare time, none of which are this (this is merely a distraction for me):
1. Time Theories (graphing of time, been working on it for 3-4 weeks...it is NOT a line, got into this through a religious debate I'm currently still having.)
2. One of my life's works (been working on it for the past 5-6 years, most intensely over the past year)
- game design (so far 2 full 5 subject college ruled notebooks of formulas, storylines, characters, settings, and some coding - along with about 2 full sketch pads worth *75 sheets per pad* of concept art)
3. Working on my CD (only about 2 months here.....have 4 tracks done)
I know those may seem trivial to you, but ironically that is what I enjoy to do in my spare time at the moment. Currently my other "life's works" are on the back burner with the exception of my education *which is not something I consider being what I do in my free time, free time is anything besides that and work*
Chaos < Logic > Order
One who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be in danger in a hundred battles.
One who does not know the enemy but knows himself will sometimes win, sometimes lose.
One who does not know the enemy and does not know himself will be in danger in every battle.
- Sun Tzu "The Art of War"
One who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be in danger in a hundred battles.
One who does not know the enemy but knows himself will sometimes win, sometimes lose.
One who does not know the enemy and does not know himself will be in danger in every battle.
- Sun Tzu "The Art of War"