this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2025
1139 points (99.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

23899 readers
1718 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

The giant is easy. The ground is easy. The lava though... Do you want the particles to stick together? To visually connect? To collide with each other? To interact with dynamic objects?

[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 29 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (3 children)

https://xkcd.com/1425

Alt text: In the 60s, Marvin Minsky assigned a couple of undergrads to spend the summer programming a computer to use a camera to identify objects in a scene. He figured they'd have the problem solved by the end of the summer. Half a century later, we're still working on it.


Edit: seems I'm the third person to comment this! :')

[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 4 points 7 hours ago

I love how this is actually an example of progress. These days, ML can be used for this kinda thing and it's not too bad at it even.

[–] Giloron@programming.dev 2 points 7 hours ago

https://code.flickr.net/2014/10/20/introducing-flickr-park-or-bird/

This page about it still exists, but I guess the identification site died with Flickr.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 12 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Only in 3D. In 2D, you slap some pixels on top and there's your scarf:

[–] Charzard4261@programming.dev 7 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

I tend to find it's the other way around. Once you've got a scarf modelled and rigged, it'll work* for all animations, but for animated 2D sprites you have a lot more things to do.

* May have visual artifacts like clipping

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

and add a couple of frames to the sprite sheet in order to animate the scarf if that's required.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

Sure. Player character? No.

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 21 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

There’s already a codebase for bursting from the ground in an explosion of lava. Everyone wants that.

You’re the first person asking for a scarf, and our system doesn’t even know what a neck is.

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 8 points 9 hours ago

Time for the old NPC-with-a-train-for-a-hat trick.

[–] tiredofsametab@fedia.io 15 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Player? Easy. Scarf? Easy. Wearing a scarf? That depends on a lot of factors such as which part of the body, how the models were made and rigged, etc.

[–] Baggie@lemmy.zip 3 points 13 hours ago

And if it like blows in the wind that's a whole jigglebone system and wind simulation that's a lot of stuff going on

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 42 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Way back in the 90s I did a contract job at MS Research on a project called "V-Worlds" - a world simulator similar to the Doom or Quake engine, but it was browser-based and everything was a script, so changing how the world worked didn't mean you had to restart a server, just change the scripts and new stuff would appear right in front of you.

Anyway the concept of adding accessories to the player's avatar and even having a pet follow you around came up, and I remember there was an involved discussion of how difficult/impossible that would be. The player's avatar was a special object class that represented a user, and didn't have the same capabilities as ordinary objects in the world. I remember asking, "Why isn't the avatar just a world object the player happens to control? Then you could do all kinds of cool stuff like let the player transform into something else just by switching objects, or let another player run your character." Dead silence. I was just a contractor, what did I know?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 182 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] tja@sh.itjust.works 99 points 1 day ago (10 children)

This comic is so old, that both should be rather easy now

[–] kerf@lemmy.world 163 points 1 day ago (4 children)

She did get her research team after all :)

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 57 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Game director : we’re gonna add interact-able doors with proper door opening animations for the characters

The game designers:

The programmers and artists:

The producers:

[–] propitiouspanda@lemmy.cafe 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Legend of Zelda did it well.

Honestly, I think a major issue with doors is that they just slow down gameplay.

It's like coming across a ladder only every building has one.

Almost all game-slowing doors are just hidden loading screen baked into the gameplay.

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 27 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Now we need to decide in the case of collisions if:

  • Doors violently push anyone out of the way, possibly "crushing" them into walls or
  • Force themselves back closed, turning any random NPC / obstacle on the other side into an unbeatable lock or
  • Just trap an unfortunate NPC in a corner on the other side, or
  • If they use the physics system to swing open, in which case they'll look smooth but possibly bonk the player/actor going through them a few times and could potentially (and comically) insta-kill them if physics is feeling grumpy.

The frustratingly comedic unintended results of any choice makes for great organic marketing though.

Gamedev is magical.

Aside: Know what did this really well though? Resident Evil games after RE:4.

The ability to "slowly quietly open", and then at any time decide to violently action-hero kick it open to send a zombie on the other side flying, was genius.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] tiredofsametab@fedia.io 6 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Granted. All door animations are now forced cutscenes.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 93 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (18 children)

Well yeah, we have a character model for the giant demon and the giant demon has a huge use case.

A scarf? That's a model extension. Either you're asking me to create a whole new character with a scarf baked into the mesh that will deform weirdly as the character moves, or you're asking me to implement an accessory-anchor system all for the sake of a scarf (albeit other accessories might use this new framework) which will then need a physics/cloth sim to even look half good.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] frezik@midwest.social 42 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Always have to remind myself of this when managers ask me if something could be done. If it's easy, I naturally get a little annoyed that they're even asking. But knowing that is my job, not theirs, and it's good that they ask. There's lots of places where they assume and things go badly.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 12 hours ago

Remember the phrase "it's not in-pattern". Another one is "it's possible, but expensive"

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›