>>1063189
"The modern audience is the one that will exist in the future, so that's the one they are grooming"
>>1063191
>The truth cannot be changed
Societal opinion on what is the truth can be (and so can be the actual scientific understanding, which is more or less what was meant by "scientific truth" here; one difference is that the new theory must perform better, and the old one won't suddenly perform worse than it had).
The statement is not about the truth; it's about how stubborn people are in retaining their once established outlook. And Max Planck was talking about experts in a precise science with relation to their supposed area of expertise. Now replace that with anyone who plays video games and has a desire to express their thrice unnecessary opinion on the internet.
>>1063196
>And what it's calling "truth" is actually another word for "indoctrination".
Less indoctrination, more established beliefs regardless of how they were formed. Which is why indoctrinating them young is so efficient.
>>1063450
>The concept he was talking about is quantum physics, back then still called nuclear physics and how weird it was, due to which many, including einstein, dismissed it as madness.
Oh, they couldn't dismiss the accurate predictions. Einstein, mind you, had his Nobel Prize officially attributed to "explaining the photoelectric effect" which was done via quantum mechanics (in truth, these attributions are followed by "and other contributions to science"). Planck, too, was in denial about the whole theory, despite being the one to suggest the original quantization assumption while trying to explain the blackbody radiation spectrum. Many of them were doing research while claiming that the underlying ideas must be rubbish; then again, trying to disprove it all is an old source of confirming evidence (Karl Popper's concept of trying to falsify wasn't there yet, but that's what all these physicists were doing anyway).
>Of course, once someone figures out a theory that explains these things even better, the old will try to keep quantum physics, while the new will employ the new theory due to its simplicity and ability to explain yet unexplained phenomena.
That they will, although perceiving it as simple is already a matter of being used to the theory. But previous theories will not give worse predictions than before; we still use Newtonian mechanics even for planes and artillery (not for satellite clock synchronization, however).
Thank you all for listening to my TED talk.
<t. once had to wait for months while my own thesis advisor was coming up to terms with the evidence that my model was correct.
Now watch me try to be on topic:
>>1063235
>The purpose of making games is to fucking play them, not to use them as a tool to convince other people.
Make games that are good. That will convince people all by itself.
>There is in fact no better person for the job than the one who appreciates games at their fullest.
Even if all game developers are avid gamers (as it was in the beginning), most gamers will still not be game developers. Wanting to make games without wanting to play games is industry cancer; wanting to play (good) games without wanting to make them yourself is just being part of the unavoidable majority. To reduce it to absurd, we do not expect every driver to make his own car, nor every soldier to design his own weaponry, nor every last man to grow his own food.