I'm not a big car guy but it looks good.
You can really tell it's using Frostbite 2.0 by the neon blue color and the lighting in the tunnels.

reminds me of APB, the way the socializing seems to be happening, meeting up for a random race etc... if they could only support 100 person servers.

but yeah, GTA style game with DICE sized levels, detail, and omfg soundengine. sounds like a win.

Alright, Ill make a game were you can join up and sit in an completely empty room and every person who joins the server will be represented by a tiny black spec. Of course this game will support 100 players per server and slick will buy it.

OMG THAT GAME SOUNDS AWESOME, can the dots move around at all?

also i'll make sure all of you poor saps buy it too. haha suckers

No they can't move, and you can't see anyone either. You just have to trust they are there and that they are better than you.

alls i see is the lingering mist in the night sky, droplets like gouda wedge

lol @ cheese, you just have to trust that they are better then you

if you really think about it though, at the atomic level, all we are is wide-open space with some protons, neutrons and electrons possibly flying all over the place. maybe.

what if i don't think about that, do those laws cease to exist? *matrix music* and if i do think about it, have i altered my own composition by having the thought of observing it? *bullet time dodge*

interesting theory dr slick, if by not observing urself can u not achieve the impossible?

yeah, that actually rings a bit like a tibetan monk proverb. if by not observing the self is the only truely defy and surpass yourself.

you don't have to think about yourself to exist. as long as you are observed by something else, you are. its a mixture of descartes and quantum theory.

i think that's the heisenberg uncertanty principle, although the descartes is news to me. never made it that far in the book learnings.

heisenberg's principle is part of quantum mechanics.

descartes is the guy who kinda said, "i think therefore i am." but again, YOU don't have to think about yourself to exist. the fact that someone else can observe something means that it exists.

oooh yeah, that asshole. the i think therefore i am clown.

i mean i get it, and i can understand it. it just seems a bit exclusionary to animals saying that since we can observe our own exitance, we are. just cause cute furry little woodland creatures don't have the same gamut of emotions as we do, doesn't mean we know shit about their level of consciousness.

the way i see it, you'd have to be able to put an exact age which a human child becomes aware, and what are they before that? less than human?

a rock exists even though it has no consciousness. you know it exists simply by observing it.

a squirrel that observes a rock knows in some sense that the rock exists, because the squirrel has observed it.

consciousness isn't a requirement for observation. observation itself might seem mystical when thinking in terms of quantum mechanics, but the whole point is that something doesn't have a definite state or location unless it is observed, whether it is a computer, an intelligent being, or a squirrel that is observing.

"light" as a photon/wave is just an idea until you observe it. while you may know that "light" exists, until a particular photon is observed (by whatever observer) it simply doesn't exist.

in fact, how can anything exist if it is never observed?

well, dark matter, and dark energy.

both have not been observed, and yet still are still "proven" to be there.

you're talking aboot quantum physics and the problem with those models is that they break down after leaving the very microscopic scale, without a grand unifying theory between micro and macro, the classical newtonian theories still apply to all objects larger than atoms. the probabilities average out to a defined state weather it is observed or not.

also descartes i have it on good authority was batshit crazy and all of his theories about planetary movement were ridiculous, cause he did absolutely no observation, cause you know you don't have to, when you think therefore you is. at least Kepler's crazy planetary movement theories were based partly on observation, and newton was able to extract 3 nuggets of truth from the rabble and refine them, turning them into kepler's 3 laws of which he's remembered for, not the bullshit geometric shapes that the skies are made of etc.

i think what error's talking about is more philosophy, but philosophy is dead

dark matter is just an arbitrary name applied to "extra" gravity that has to exist, else galaxies wouldn't form. we know this because of math, and can witness it if we study distant galaxies. but mainly, it's the math. observation doesn't require you to "see" something. observation can be done with a pencil, paper, and mathematical equations. don't get caught up in how the word "observation" is used in everyday speech. that would be a fundamental mistake when discussing science.

also, quantum mechanics breaks down about as much as the theory of gravity. wait, no, i take that back. quantum mechanics is only applied to quantum objects, because that is the theory regarding quantum objects. note well that this conversation started while discussing atoms, not planetary bodies. i'm not sure what your point is about quantum mechanics breaking down at a larger scale, since that is the only theory applicable to this conversation. nevermind the fact that quantum mechanics breaks down the same way that the standard model breaks down once you try to explain anything outside of it (as presently understood).  trying to use one model "breaking down" as evidence that the other model is superior just doesn't make sense. gravity affects non-quantum things, and is irrelevant (as far as we know now) on the quantum level. quantum forces affect everything, regardless of size. the reason why you die jumping off a 20 story building isn't gravity. it's the strong nuclear force holding atoms together stopping you from simply falling into the ground. concrete is hard because of the strong nuclear force. the weak nuclear force is how we made japan a hyper-western doppleganger of the US. electro-magnetism...thats how magnets work. put a paperclip on a table, then hold a magnet above it. watch as that little tiny itsy-bitsy force is able to overcome the gravity of the entire planet to make the paperclip move up against gravity. quantum mechanics in no way "breaks down" above the quantum level. it simply doesn't apply the same way gravity does. 

in fact, i'd say that gravity is the outlier that has to be made to fit with quantum mechanics, not vice versa. the rest of the forces of nature (strong force, weak force, and electro-magnetism) are all explained quite well by quantum mechanics. gravity isn't explained by quantum mechanics. yet. there's this thing, though, over in europe that cost about $9,000,000,000 that might just show how gravity fits into the rest of quantum mechanics. i don't think you should count quantum mechanics out quite yet.

in fact, the disconnect that most people have with quantum mechanics arises only because once you get down to that "tiny" of a level, reality has almost no relation to what you see/hear/taste/feel/smell on an everyday basis. whereas the standard model is just accepted because you can look through a telescope and see the moon orbiting the earth. personally, i find the standard model to be as interesting as quantum mechanics simply because the quantum level defies explanation with simple words; it can only really be explained with math and unfortunately, i decided not to study math at that level. trust me, that is one thing i'd love to fix if i ever have the spare money and time.

that expensive european experiment...the large hadron collider...was built so scientists could finally explain gravity...in regards to quantum mechanics. a lot of science today is waiting on how gravity fits in with quantum physics, and not the other way around. if you want to build an atomic bomb, you're going to need to understand quantum mechanics. there are atomic bombs, so lets not get caught up in which model is "better". both have their uses. some grand unifying theory would be great, but if i had to guess, quantum mechanics will take in gravity, and not the other way around.

my mentioning of descartes has nothing to do with any of his theories involving planetary motion. i simply stated that much like quantum mechanics, his overarching point is that observation is the key. without it, you know nothing. literally, nothing. i could care less whether descartes is considered by a "good authority" to be batshit crazy. ever heard of a guy named edison? he was also crazy. ever heard of nikola Tesla? also "batshit crazy". should we stop using electricity because both men were likely insane at some level? 

i'm not sure what you're talking about with regards to newton or how that applies to Descartes, or quantum mechanics, except that like descartes and quantum mechanics, newton's observation was the key to understanding gravity. that kinda means you agree with me. newton was the first person to explain gravity, even though he didn't actually understand it. he was able to observe it with math. in fact, he was actually mistaken about how gravity itself worked. einstein finally explained how and why gravity works. so, newton got the math right; einstein got the principles behind gravity right. and that forms a nice segue to my next point...

philosophy is the mother, father, and womb of science. philosophy provides science with principles and a base from which to start. without it, all a scientist can do is plug numbers into an existing equation and hope for the best (and uh, where did that original equation spring from?). philosophy allows a scientist to think about things "outside the box". ever read about how einstein "discovered" relativity? try to come to terms with his analogy of space-time as a fabric. like everything else worth discussing in the universe (pun absolutely intended), it started out as a philosophical exercise. want an example of how powerful philosophy is? theories that einstein put forward are still being proven correct today with new data. his theories started as philosophy, grew into mathematical models and are just now finally being observed. 

are you sure you know what philosophy is? because i don't think that word means what you think it means. in fact, the reason that society and culture today is so stagnant is because we've (well, not me, but most people) have been led to believe that philosophical exercises are useless. we've been led to believe this because the people in charge want you and i to be just smart enough to push buttons in the correct order to allow the rich and powerful to continue being rich and powerful. they certainly don't want us pondering why they are in charge, or whether they should be in charge in the first place.

philosophy, whether used in science, or everyday life, is a dangerous thing. it can cause whole paradigm shifts in how humanity sees itself and guides itself in relation to everything else. it is, in fact, the act of attempting to understand and explain consciousness. and only through consciousness can we try to explain what the universe is, how it works, and what our place is within it. or as it is more commonly referred to: science.

if philosophy is dead, than so is science and humanity. if philosophy is dead, then we are simply robots performing the functions we've been trained to perform, until we're told to stop, or we die.

i'm not a fucking robot. are you?

Haha, see how popular my game idea is? Im gonna go public now.