Talk about anything: Page 53 - Godot Community Forums

Talk about anything

duane

@fire7side said: They didn't come out and say it, and I don't want to do a spoiler thing. Plus, it's been a few decades since I read it too. Sanderson wrote the last two, but he conferred with Jordan about it. I don't get how you know how it ended but didn't read it.

Ok, I broke down and read the wikipedia summaries of the books, and I'm obviously not remembering them right. I was thinking that the main character had died early in the series and a new incarnation had been introduced, but they mention him in all of the books. I know something turned me off of the series around the seventh or eighth volume, but I forget exactly what.

I've heard people discussing the series for years, but I was coloring it with what I misremembered.

fire7side

@duane said:

@fire7side said: They didn't come out and say it, and I don't want to do a spoiler thing. Plus, it's been a few decades since I read it too. Sanderson wrote the last two, but he conferred with Jordan about it. I don't get how you know how it ended but didn't read it.

Ok, I broke down and read the wikipedia summaries of the books, and I'm obviously not remembering them right. I was thinking that the main character had died early in the series and a new incarnation had been introduced, but they mention him in all of the books. I know something turned me off of the series around the seventh or eighth volume, but I forget exactly what.

I've heard people discussing the series for years, but I was coloring it with what I misremembered.

That might have been when the people came from across the sea and kind of chained the women that had the powers. I didn't mind it. It was kind of a big change he threw in later in the series. Really, I think bringing in Sanderson to finish it would have been the best no matter what the circumstances. Sad that he died early of cancer, though.

some_lame_kid

Trying to read these books in middle school is what made me realise how much I don't like high fantasy. It wasn't because the books were bad, I just couldn't read them without getting bored. Sci-fi however, I love sci-fi. But mostly the grounded stuff.

fire7side

@some_lame_kid said: Trying to read these books in middle school is what made me realise how much I don't like high fantasy. It wasn't because the books were bad, I just couldn't read them without getting bored. Sci-fi however, I love sci-fi. But mostly the grounded stuff.

Everyone kind of leans one way or the other. I think I like fantasy because of the magic. Sci Fi tries to be so believable that it isn't always interesting. Some of it definitely is, but some gets caught up in details of explaining everything. It's kind of Star Wars against Star Trek. Star Wars was this unexplained power, Star Trek was more technological advancement. Star Trek did it right though, and made the technology only a vehicle for the story. Star Wars did well with the Force in that it wasn't all powerful. It was only an enhancement and has a weakness. People go to the darkside if they don't live an almost monastic life. Jordan was a character author and his stories kept sprawling out, kind of like George RR Martin. Has that never ending feeling.

duane

@some_lame_kid said: Trying to read these books in middle school is what made me realise how much I don't like high fantasy. It wasn't because the books were bad, I just couldn't read them without getting bored. Sci-fi however, I love sci-fi. But mostly the grounded stuff.

I feel you. I never could make it through the Shannara books, the Foundation series, or even Dune. I did manage to force my way through the Silmarillion. (It was painful, but I'm a Tolkien fan.)

The first novel I ever read was A Princess of Mars (with the Frazetta cover -- you can see why it appealed to a youngster), and I still think of that as more sci-fi than fantasy. I actually got started on "high" fantasy in middle school, when we were told to read The Hobbit in english class. Best assignment I ever got.

I think the most realistic stuff I've read were alien invasion stories, like Footfall and Worldwar. I loved the Project Orion spaceship in Footfall.

And, speaking of books made into movies, I've been waiting for forty years for a movie/tv adaptation of Ringworld. Niven is my all-time favorite author, and I've read nearly all of his Known Space books. At one point, the sci-fi channel was talking about adapting it -- the thought still makes me cringe. Does anyone remember the ham-handed movie they made of Riverworld?

some_lame_kid

i've seen sci-fi that explain too much. It gets boring pretty quick. The best sci-fi sets up a believable-ish future setting and focuses on a specific piece of technology, letting the story take it from there to make you think.

fire7side

@duane said:

I feel you. I never could make it through the Shannara books, the Foundation series, or even Dune. I did manage to force my way through the Silmarillion. (It was painful, but I'm a Tolkien fan.)

I would have loved an assignment like that in school. I was skipping my assignments and reading those books. I never read a book till I was in 5th grade. I just pretended I did and changed the wording on the blurb on the book jacket. Got by with it till I got a man teacher in 5th grade. He made me stay after and read any book I chose from the library. After that I couldn't stop.

cybereality

I was always more into sci-fi. For some reason fantasy never did it for me, I don't want to go back to old times. But I also didn't enjoy Star Trek either, I thought it was too far into the future. I like sci-fi that's in the near future, but within our lifetime, something believable. When I was a kid I used to real Michael Crichton religiously. His books were great, because they were mostly based on real science and not anything magical or fantastical. Like Jurassic Park was totally believable, and we even have the technology today to it. So that was more fun for me.

duane

Still one of my favorites. "Eight seconds to spare. Hardly even exciting."

Edit: I remember watching this in a convention, years ago. The climax still got applause, even though it was already decades old.

fire7side

@cybereality said: I was always more into sci-fi. For some reason fantasy never did it for me, I don't want to go back to old times. But I also didn't enjoy Star Trek either, I thought it was too far into the future. I like sci-fi that's in the near future, but within our lifetime, something believable. When I was a kid I used to real Michael Crichton religiously. His books were great, because they were mostly based on real science and not anything magical or fantastical. Like Jurassic Park was totally believable, and we even have the technology today to it. So that was more fun for me.

I didn't read Jurassic Park, but there wasn't much depth of story there if you ask me. More sensationalism than anything. I also saw Timeline, which I didn't think was very good. I can't even remember the story. Jurassic Park was basically just running away from monsters. It's like a superman movie or something. The characters don't really learn anything or grow in some way. It's really just Godzilla done over and over with different types of monsters, some of them environmental, some of them physical. I remember reading this one book where this girl is escaping and the author made you feel and deal with her completely split personalities. Later it turned out she was kind of bred that way so she could fly a ship through a wormhole or something like that without going crazy. That was impressive to me.

cybereality

Well the Jurassic Park movie wasn't much good, the book was way better. It was way more philosophical. Andromeda Strain was great, never saw the old film but they made a remake around 2009 that was decent. My favorite was Sphere. It was sort of like that movie Event Horizon. Crazy book.

Megalomaniak

@fire7side said: It's kind of Star Wars against Star Trek.

huh, those both always seemed like space magic fantasy settings to me. I never consideered either of them to be sci fi.

some_lame_kid

@cybereality you know a bunch of godot books don't you? Do you know any that explains the shader portion? Do I need to take a course on computer graphics or something to get this?

cybereality

None of the Godot books I read explained shaders at all. However Godot shader code is almost exactly GLSL (with some small differences) so any OpenGL book or website should be good enough.

You can try this book: https://www.amazon.com/OpenGL-Shading-Language-Cookbook-high-quality-ebook-dp-B07HXYJ9VT/dp/B07HXYJ9VT

Or the tutorials here: https://learnopengl.com/

Just understand that the OpenGL setup parts are vastly more complex than Godot, so you may want to skip just to the shader portions (or read them anyway, it may let you understand how Godot works better).

some_lame_kid

Thanks, dude.

Megalomaniak

Don't forget this useful page on godot docs: https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/tutorials/shaders/converting_glsl_to_godot_shaders.html

Erich_L

@jbskaggs where you at m8

cybereality

@Erich_L said: @jbskaggs where you at m8

He's alive but he was on a long road trip so I guess he hasn't been on the forum.

fire7side

@Megalomaniak said:

@fire7side said: It's kind of Star Wars against Star Trek.

huh, those both always seemed like space magic fantasy settings to me. I never consideered either of them to be sci fi.

I'm not sure I actually like Sci Fi like Clarke 2001. That is dry stuff. I think I read 2010, yawn. I thought Asimov was somewhat readable. I might have read 2 or 3 of his books, but he still had a character focus. That's the kind of stuff where the environment far out weighs the character interaction. Yeah, I don't consider that anything at all. A futuristic documentary maybe.

DaveTheCoder

Next generation Wikipedia (under development):

https://encyclosearch.org/ https://encyclosphere.org/

It's purpose is to solve the problem of Wikipedia's having become dominated and controlled by biased political viewpoints. For more details, read: https://encyclosphere.org/intro

« Previous Page Next Page »