Messages

But there is a  huge gap between a polymer and a self replicating polymer.

Is there, though? What reason would you have to assume that the gap is so mind-bogglingly huge that it couldn't plausibly ever be bridged by oceans full of chemicals over tens of millions of years? In fact, the article I linked to uses a reasonably short self-replicating peptide as its example in the examination of the probability argument.

Indeed, there's no one theory of abiogenesis/biopoesis that's viewed as virtually certain yet. Science doesn't have all the answers of the universe. It does, however, have the means to ask the right questions, and so far we've seen enough answers to partial questions that abiogenesis looks extremely possible. There's no real reason to assume otherwise.

lo_res_man: Now you're arguing abiogenesis, not evolution. And you should read this, for example. Especially this diagram:



The point of which is, life is pretty complex, but so are its origins. The first self-replicating molecules that would eventually lead to this discussion didn't have to be anywhere near as complicated as the structures we find in life today, and they had plenty of time to get there.

Well that's how science works. We figured it out in the end, didn't we?

A somewhat unfortunate way to phrase it (we certainly don't have the whole universe figured out just yet), but that's indeed the point to see here: ether was discarded because, as the situation developed, it simply couldn't at all stand up to the evidence, and it should be remembered that the modern scientific method is just that: modern. It only gradually developed and spread out to the various disciplines and subdisciplines of science.

Today, we're able to launch a probe into space so that it ends up in orbit around a different planet that's currently 120 million kilometers away. You can't eyeball that sort of aim. You need careful measurement and planning, and for that you need the predictive power of modern physics. This does involve rocket science, after all.

Here's an example of what this has to do with what certain annoying people like to call macroevolution: the discovery of Tiktaalik was more or less predicted:

The discovery caps a search that spans five field trips over six years aimed at filling this gap in the fossil records. The team knew the kind of rock formations they needed to search, pored over detailed geological maps, then settled on a set of sites to search.

That is: they decided, based on the evidence given by the prior fossil record and on the current views in geology (also a science that involves trying to find out what happened in the hilariously distant past!), where in time and space such a creature would have existed and been likely to end up fossilized, and where such places would have shifted to by now, and then they went there and found it. It still took years, of course, because science is almost always hard work and they didn't exactly have infinite manpower.

lo_res_man, anyone else this applies to: you could check the Talk.Origins FAQs for the scientific perspective on things - see, for example, this bit on the second law of thermodynamics. If you like, you can still decide they're all just educated stupid and evil, but at least this gives you the option of finding out, in some detail, precisely what variety of stupid and evil you're dealing with.

Another option is offering several alternate solutions, or alternate puzzles. The solution you "want" the player to use, involving that one item from near the start of the game 500 years ago, could be a shortcut around a more circuitous one, or one that involves the player losing an item that would have made another puzzle later on easier (or opened a different route to the next part of the game, or one to a different ending), and so forth.

True. I had more than just a glance, but I have to admit that not much stuck in my memory: I couldn't now possibly offer an adequate defense of the impression I got then.

I looked at MMF a while ago (for Urban Joe reasons), and I'm afraid I'll have to add another vote against it. This may have just been due to Chrille's way of working (though I doubt it), but all I remember of it scripting-wise is... rows and rows and rows of checkboxes. The whole thing seemed rather inelegant. Certainly people can make good games with it in spite of all that, but... well... a poor workman may blame his tools, but that doesn't mean it's a wise decision to ignore the tools' flaws, if better ones are available. I know even less about Game Maker, and so can't comment on it either way; personally, if I wanted to do a platformer, I'd also write my own engine.

I would, but unfortunately that would require more power than allowed by the question.

Depends on the type of control, I suppose. You don't have to be able to read to hit someone over the head with a book, but if you're going to write in the margins, you obviously have to know how to write... which isn't very well possible without being able to read as well.

As for me, I'm not sure. One possibility would be absurd implausible eyesight, including zoomy ability to the extent of easy scrutiny of extrasolar planets and whatnot.

ultimately felt like a trivial waste of time.

As opposed to vital waste of time?

As opposed to a *meaningful* waste of time, like, say, Varicella

There's an unfair comparison if I've ever seen one. Honestly, Automation is an OROW game. Keeping it short and relatively simple was the whole point. If you basically want every game you play to resemble a particularly brilliant IF game, I suggest you just stay away from graphic adventures made by one person in a week.

The precise time this problem will start, I suspect, is 3:14:09 AM on the 19th of January 2038. Read the linked article for an explanation.

Sounds interesting! I too enjoy the graphics. Looking forward to it.

I'd make sure all three colors are different hues.

Unless you meant slightly different, I disagree with this bit fairly strongly, though your other points may be reasonable (the bright red/orange doesn't look eye-hurty to me, but that's going solely by my monitor and eyes, which aren't everyone else's). The (more or less) monochromaticity is part of the style's appeal, in my opinion.

Fuzzpilz, try to put it in a paint program and use the magnifier glass, and then change the background from white to black... it's alot weirder.

No. No, it's not. I recommend you investigate vict0r's link for some illusions that deserve the term (and an annoying bit of javascript on the list page, but there's worse).

Not to be rude, but I don't think I'd call "oh, the brown blob is somewhat harder to make out on the white background" an optical illusion. It's roughly on the same level of bafflement as "oh, I can't read the small text on that poster over there if I take my glasses off".

Well... the good news is, it doesn't actually take a "master etymologist" or anything to get these things right. The bad news is exactly the same fact, since it also means that rather more people will notice if you get them wrong. Seriously, bad thou-speek is grating. Don't do it.

But that's just it. With General MIDI, you have essentially zero control over the style. You're entirely at your players' equipment's mercy there. Somehow mandating the same soundcard in every system is an utterly ridiculous idea, although the smiley suggests you're aware of that.

There is a case to be made for interactive music, but General MIDI really, really, really, really isn't the way to do it.

Things will probably be restored before too long, but until then I have #16 mirrored here (I doubt Grund and Zoot will complain very loudly about this, but if they do I'll obviously take it down). I don't have the older episodes, unfortunately.

Exactly. MIDI is still a useful interfacing standard; it's obsolete in many ways, but not enough to be likely to be replaced anytime soon. I think General MIDI, however, really shouldn't be used for "serious" purposes - you get far too little control, or none, over almost every aspect of sound design and production. This is fine if you want to exchange or store compositional material in a way that isn't essentially a picture of the score. It is not if you want to accompany a game with reasonably well-crafted music. It's akin to giving the player just a description of the background art and making them draw it themselves... er... if you live in that one alternate universe where everybody can draw really quickly.

But enough thread-hijacking on my part. I should probably say something that actually relates to the topic, but I don't have anything of importance to contribute - I do think both sound effects and additional animations are important (although from playing the few tiny games I've made you wouldn't know I care about them at all ), though not essential, but to be honest there isn't much more that I would see as necessary to say.

I'm sorry, but I still think General MIDI is one of the worst ideas anybody ever had in the history of the universe.

Apart from that, though, I don't think "explain" is the right word for what music can do. It can vaguely set and/or influence the mood (and is fairly important for that; good music really adds a lot to a game in my opinion), but I wouldn't say it can explain anything unless it has lyrics to replace the in-game narration and dialogue, which would be very difficult to pull off and probably rather annoying for the player.