 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)recycle ...and 158 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2618642 Today 1 Topics 127849 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Since this is a videogame messageboard, I just wanted to say that this game sucks even though it still goes for 60 bucks and seems to be in demand. This game is for the snackybear system 2000. My vagina balls hurt. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes or no |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I choose or. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
try smearing peanut butter on them. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Thanks for the eag ae. My pet turtle will lick off this sauerkraut which isn't working. SNAPPY! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sorry sir but you are incorrect. this game does not suck. in fact, it rules. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It might be a good basis for a game if it wasn't needlessly getting in its own way by being 3d, and if more intricate game rules/elements were added. Or maybe I could enjoy it if my vagina balls didn't hurt. Give the finger to rock n roll singer as he's dancing upon your paycheck the sales climb high through the garbage pale sky like a giant dildo crushing the sun |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's simple, but addictive. More damaging to it, though, is the fact that it's SHORT. This is not a good thing for any puzzle game. It's not the greatest puzzle game ever, but those who've played it may consider themselves lucky. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
< crimson room |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so called 'puzzle games' generally rule because they don't limit themselves by putting on a layer of characters/storyline/etc but just rely on geometric shapes/behavior/etc. My favorite puzzle game for awhile has been 'super puzzle fighter 2 turbo' for ps1 (on a side note I have to admit the characters make it more fun) the only puzzle bobble type game for ps1 I played was boring/lame. tetris is good, but shouldn't be hailed as something that can't be easily topped. Everyone says Lumines or something is good but I haven't played it. 'roll away' for ps1 is very good and long, way the hell better than intelligent qube I think. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
how about ? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I can't figure out how to install fash player in the time of my attention span to do so. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
how about the movie hypercube? i recently tried to imagine a fourth dimension going over the specifics of a hypercube (), in half sleepy state i could almost do it. the easiest way is just to imagine a point and draw in three different directions and then imagine you draw into a fourth there's a big thread on imdb about living in a four dimensional invironment, however i think the people in the movie just walk around in the 8 3d cubes that are the 'sides' of a hypercube this is the thread: http://imdb.com/title/tt0285492/board/nest/9860458 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and this is a cool post in it, from some book: Ok. Inhabitants of "flatland" would have trouble imagining a cube. If you told them it was bounded by six squares, twelve line segments and eight points, they would say there is no such figure, and besides, a square can't bound anything, since it fills 2D space. If you said you generated a cube by moving a square in a perpendicular direction, they would tell you there is no such direction. You could show them an unfolded cube (image shown below), and tell them that these six squares can be folded up into a cube, with each square rotating about a line segment it borders on. http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v75/level_91/4Dtess/Fig 1.gif They would say that there is no way to rotate about a line segment. You could show them projections of a cube, both without perspective (image shown below) and with it (the 2nd and 3rd images shown below). http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v75/level_91/4Dtess/Fig 2.gif http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v75/level_91/4Dtess/Fig 3a.gif http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v75/level_91/4Dtess/Fig 3b.gif These last two might confuse them, and lead them to ask why the one square is sometimes inside the other and sometimes isn't. You would have to tell them that the one square is never inside the other, because this is only a projection. You would probably also have to remind them that all the oddly shaped quadrilaterals in the pictures were in fact true squares, with right angles and equal sides. The Flatlanders would probably be confused by this. Now what if hyperbeings came to us to tell us about the hypercube? If they told us it was bounded by eight cubes, twenty-four squares, thirty-two line segments and sixteen points, we would say there is no such figure, and besides, a cube can't bound anything, since it fills 3D space. If they said you generated a hypercube by moving a cube in a perpendicular direction, they would tell you there is no such direction. They could show us an unfolded hypercube (image shown below), and te |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Now what if hyperbeings came to us to tell us about the hypercube? If they told us it was bounded by eight cubes, twenty-four squares, thirty-two line segments and sixteen points, we would say there is no such figure, and besides, a cube can't bound anything, since it fills 3D space. If they said you generated a hypercube by moving a cube in a perpendicular direction, they would tell you there is no such direction. They could show us an unfolded hypercube (image shown below), and tell us that these eight cubes can be folded up into a cube, with each cube rotating about a square it borders on. http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v75/level_91/4Dtess/Fig 4.gif We would say that there is no way to rotate about a square. They could show us projections of a hypercube, both without perspective (image shown below) and with it (the 2nd image shown below). http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v75/level_91/4Dtess/Fig 5.gif http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v75/level_91/4Dtess/Fig 6.gif These last two might confuse us, and lead us to ask why the one cube is sometimes inside the other and sometimes isn't. They would tell us that the one cube is never inside the other, because this is only a projection. They would probably also have to remind us that all the oddly shaped hexahedrons in the pictures were in fact true cubes, with right angles and square faces. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I saw a flash type thing that tried to visually explain hyper cubes once. I actually think there is no such thing as '2d'.. maybe in another universe but not anywhere in our 3d universe. Ex. draw a line on the chalkboard and say it is 2d.. well the chalk particles have a thin layer of 3d mass. Computer pixels are thin 3d lights, etc. The same might be true for the supposed 4d, 5d etc.. (I wonder if 'dimension' has a concrete widely accepted definition, because some consider time a dimension). Though wondering about a different universe potentially having a 8d construction or something is interesting. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
as any dimensions higher then 3D would be in a form that is beyond our current capacity to visualise i would think that it would be impossible to fully define what a dimension is. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yea 2d only exists in mathematical theory. you make a good point, prolly 3d won't really exist in a 4d world. thefore the people in that movie can't really be there.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
some more excellent explanations by biggiesmartypants here: http://imdb.com/title/tt0285492/board/nest/42948570?d=50023 077#50023077 http://imdb.com/title/tt0285492/board/nest/35766824?d=50019 517#50019517 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but the idea of dimensions at all might be founded on a false base.. saying 'it was a 2d drawing' or something is useful in everyday language just to describe the nature of it (ie on a flat piece of paper with no illusion of 3d) to someone who couldn't see it or something, but as stated in previous post a 1d 'point' on a chalkboard is actually 3d chalk particles, etc. Stuff floating on top of water generally only move on the surface (ignoring 3d waves) so it might be useful to think of them as '2d' but everything that is '2d' is just a thin layer of 3d. So maybe ONLY 3d exists, which would be a misleading term since the term 'dimension' would then be meaningless. now a flash image of a 4d hypercube... is a thin layer of 3d on a screen that is thin enough to be defined as conventionally 2d yet is providing the illusion that it is 4d. You could almost add something like 'color' as a dimension. For example when trying to graph a point on a 3d cube, you could say: x = 12 y = -6 z = 54 but then add the 'time dimension' as an extra detailed thing to graph more specifically. t = 8:35 pm then add color as an extra detailed thing to graph more specifically c = green In fact maybe you could have, say, a solid red square. You could define it as 1d because there is only 1 color. Then make it green and red checkered and say it is 2d, then add some blue and say it is 3d, etc. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a point has 0 dimension, a line is 1d a plane 2d maybe in 3d a 4d cube can be better represented |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a 4d cube cant be represented though because it would be impossible to see. the fourth dimension is outside of the limit of our vision because we only see in a three dimensional way. i.e. you cant see time. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but you can feel it... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a 3d cube can be represented on 2d of a screen or paper.. see here for several 2d representations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
dimensions are properties we define things as having, not separate existances which contain the objects we have defined as having that dimension as a property. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so we would have to discover this fourth dimension to define it? if that were the case we would have to be able to know of the existance of the fourth dimension meaning that our entire representation of every other dimension would become null and void wouldnt it? thats would mean we would look at things in a different way and that the fourth dimensioncould THEN be represented, but we wouldnt see things in three dimensions any more. sorry if this is all rubbish this is a bit over my head! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you can't discover something that doesn't exist, or rather, if you do so, you are wrong. my point was that the "dimensions" are something we have constructed, and although certainly useful at times, it can't be said to be the objective truth about anything that it exists in three or four dimensions. also, disregarding string theory bullshit, the fourth dimension is defined as time; that something lasts, and in that sense, everything that has the property of "lasting" for even more than the smallest amount of time, is something we can describe in four dimensions. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thanks mastah i understand a bit better now! is this the kind of thing you studied? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the fourth dimension is not time, or rather: you can call it time but then you can call it anything you want like gravity for instance. the fourth dimension is theoretical and you can have as many dimensions beyond that as you want |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the fourth dimension i was talking about |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah.. I study philosophy. big: in normal physics and normal everyday life, the fourth dimension is by standard called time. of course you can fill in whatever you'd like, and add as many as you want to (as long as you don't tell people it's the truth and you're just using it as an ad hoc hypothesis to explain away certain observational data that don't fit your normal paradigm), but if you ask a normal person, the fourth dimension will most likely be time. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
also, it isn't just the fourth dimension that is theoretical; they all are. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
calling it time is just philosophy |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
let's call it Norbertus! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
