Procrastinato on 02 October 2009
| Lord Flashheart said: Procrastinato Maybe you should read up on the tech before commenting. (or you should? Perhaps you could post a link to the research papers MS has published on it) Especially as now you're a programmer doing this sort of thing. (am I?) Basic guesturing in co-op? Seriously? For someone claiming to do research into this to post "So Halo: Natal will recognize hand gestures in the shape of a pistol, and listen for you to say "pow pow!" or "zap!" to recognize when you fire? That will be awesome to see. Awesome in a really funny way, I mean. Shooter games will become much more entertaining and light hearted. Casual Halo... hmm." Or "They aren't going to be able to combine the two interfaces. The idea is that its a control-less interface, not an augmentation." shows how little scope you have (uh, what?) and how your research will never come to much with you at the helm (okay...). The fact you're trolling and making this up is immaterial (or so you say, and we should all believe you). They have shown it to you but you refuse to see it. (um... they showed it to me? I saw some demos that were utterly unimpressive)) You have you're mind made up and nothings going to change it but keep telling us how much it wont work then saying that you hope it will prove you wrong so it looks like you're impartial. (I didn't say it wouldn't work. I said it seems unproven, and that I doubt MS' claims. You take them at their word... good for you.. I guess) Also at the Mike thing, Lmfao. Yes it is a British thing. We call everyone Mike and not Dave. Your credibility is zero. (if you say so. I guess that makes my credibility, as a percentage of yours, undefined... 0/0) |
I have no comeback for this utterly uninformed comeback with no actual backing, other than some 2D single-player tech demos in custom-lit environs which are easily accomplished with an average video camera. You win... Mike.
Just for fun, let me ask you a question any vision expert.. and their dog, would know the answer to.
Name someone who didn't get a PhD at Carnegie Mellon, because their research wasn't "revolutionary enough", yet whose revolutionary work is the basis of a great number of modern vision techniques. Careful not to wikipedia too awful much. ;)
EDIT: In 24 hours or so, I'll give you an additional clue, to help you jog your memory.
