I agree on depth of field. It works well with pictures and movies because it can be used to direct the viewer's attention towards a certain part of the frame, but in games I feel it's rather questionable. It seems to be one of those effects that is used for eye candy rather than to actually improve the graphics.
It just plain doesn't work with 3D, either. I saw the Lego movie in 3D, and it was full of FOV effects. I understand that the movie was made for 2D as well and they probably weren't going to remove it just for the 3D version, but it was striking how much it ruined the 3D effect and made my eyes strain as I kept trying to focus on blurry background objects. FOV has no place in 3D material.
The point of developer kits is to get the hardware out there so that people can actually develop content for them. Without content, there will be no reason to buy the consumer version.
It's not rotating around a single point, it only looks that way because of the camera's perspective.
Dirt 2 was garbage. Yeah, the physics and stuff might have been okay, but the actual racing events sucked and everything good was removed in favor of the X-Games bullshit.
I love how willing you are to distort the opinions of other people in order to insult them. That's what's called a straw man argument.
Okay, maybe there are people out there who actually deny that CO2 level has an impact on the environment. That doesn't mean they represent people who question the impact of anthropogenic global warming.
I'm just saying, I don't blindly throw money at perceived problems. I prefer to verify facts before assuming them to be true.
I'm not being hyperbolic at all, do you know what that word means? I'm simply asking obvious questions that your statement raised. Since you didn't bother to address any of that when you first said it, I had to ask.
So you've determined that there IS some sort of magical amount of CO2 that is best. Too little, no good, too much, no good. So what is the range of "good" for CO2? As I asked before, how do we know that the levels of "good" for CO2 don't change with a changing ecosystem?
There is bacteria that can digest nylon. This bacteria didn't exist 80 years ago. Do you really not understand why I'm asking these questions?
"Like I said, climate changes, and humankind's actions can either turn up or turn down the volume."
Fair enough, but when you say "turn up the volume," you're talking about an additive effect, not a compounding effect. That is, whatever humans add to the climate, they're still just adding to it, and we already know from history that the few degrees of impact humans will have on the climate are completely dwarfed by the substantial changes that have already happened naturally. Whether we turn it up or down, we're still barely nudging the volume.
My point is simply that, while understanding how the climate changes is important, and understanding how we impact it is important, it's a much better idea to spend our dollars trying to figure out ways to survive the inevitable, substantial changes in climate than to spend them counting tailpipe emissions and buying "green" products that have a marginal impact on anything.
As an example, people are buying hybrids and electric vehicles because they think they're doing something environmentally responsible. They're not. The environmentally responsible thing is to do proper maintenance on your current vehicle and keep it for more than five years. That hybrid car takes a ton of energy and resources to create, and a ton more to dispose of it.
When recycling first started getting pushed hard (for bogus reasons, by the way), the slogan was "reduce, reuse, recycle." In my opinion, the order of those words exactly correlates to their order of importance. Nowadays, nobody ever talks about reducing or reusing, it's all about recycling. Recycling sucks. Reducing and reusing doesn't require sending a second garbage truck to my house.
rarson's comments