Response to Kidd:

I absolutely loved this article.  I'm not completely sure I understand what it
is trying to say, but whatever it is, it says it extremely well.  What
immediately struck me about this article - presumably the most obvious thing,
but notable nonetheless - is that it barely gives you enough information to
figure out what is going on.  After the first page it is impossible to really
grasp the scene or follow the symbolism.  The result of this, for me, was
immediate intrigue.  I was challenged, and determined to read on until I pieced
things together.  It wasn't until a few seconds after I had reached the end of
the article, after I had figured out what was going on, after I had felt so
victorious, that I had learned something.  While I searched so determinedly for
one thing, something else had slipped - without my conscious awareness - into
my pocket.

I, personally, found nothing difficult or problematic with the article.
However, I suspect others may find the very thing I enjoyed so much about the
article off-putting.  Not everyone enjoys a puzzle as much as I do, and I
suspect some may become flustered at the context-less information.

Response to Hicky:

The most interesting thing I found about this article was in fact at the very
beginning and far from any point the author was trying to make.  After reading
the first paragraph, I realized that I had not only visualized the movements of
the basketball players in my mind, but also their pacing.  The movements were
quick.  Yet at no time did Hickey actually write to explicitly say this.  I
suspect that part of this was due to the fact that I was already familiar with
how such scenes play out in reality and played back this knowledge while
reading.  It seems that was not all: the author appears to have purposefully
used short sentences or sentences composed of short segments.  The staccato
rhythm of reading the work seems to contribute to the staccato motion of the
players in my mind.

Again I am hard pressed to find anything that I found difficult or problematic
with the article.  Since I have to say something, I will point out that some of
the enjoyment of this work hinges on sharing an interest with the author.
While I've seen numerous basketball games, I have yet to find myself able to
get swept up in excitement as others do and, thus, have a difficult time
relating to the author, making most of the article slightly boring where it was
explicitly intended to be exciting.

Response to Weschler:

The entire article was about the nuances of pictures of which, I found,
only one was shown.  This seems like it would be hugely detrimental.  I was
pleasantly surprised to find my pessimism about the feasibility of this work
was misplaced, as the author did manage to conjure up the images in my mind
with adequately textual description.

The author noted several times that he did not believe the goal of creating a
realistically looking computer generated image character was attainable,
without ever putting any justification forward other than the fact that - at
the time of writing - people are still having some difficulty with some parts
of it.  I found this off-putting.  How could anyone see the tremendous progress
the industry has made and come to the same conclusion?  I'm okay with a
differing opinion, but the lack of justification threw me off.

Oh, and the Final Fantasy film to which the article was referring was
significantly lacking in respect other than graphical prowess.  I'd look at
issues such as plot and character development first before making any claims
about it failing due to not providing sufficiently realistic-looking images.