Slashdot Mirror
UK Industry Group Boss: Study Arts So Games Are Not Designed By 'Spotty Nerds'
nickweller writes: John Cridland is the leader of the Confederation of British Industry, a group that represents over 100,000 UK businesses. In a recent interview, he spoke about his enthusiasm for adding arts education to more traditional STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) programs. Here's how he chose to express that: "One of the biggest growth industries in Britain today is the computer games industry. We need extra coders — dozens and dozens of them but nobody is going to play a game designed by a spotty nerd. We need people with artistic flair." Cridland also expressed support for an increased emphasis on foreign language education: "If we’re not capable of speaking other people’s languages, we’re going to be in difficulties. However, there is far too much emphasis placed on teaching French and German. The language we most need going forward is Spanish (the second most frequently spoken language in the world). That and a certain percentage need to learn Mandarin to develop relations with China."
this should not end well
Said no person with a functioning brain ever.
Go ahead and walk into ANY game design studio. There will be slight differences, like the foosball table is on the left instead of the right. But one thing remains static across all of them.
Pasty pale, slightly overweight SPOTTY NERDS have built all of this infrastructure, not to even mention gaming specifically. What an ass hat. Coding is art, game design is art.
What an asshat
were created by the "spotty nerds" of their day.
No thanks, we don't want our games designed by PHB's. Go back to your own job of creating... uhm... what do PHB's actually create?
Game art is already designed by designers and artists. Game music is composed by musicians and composers. Game design is created by people who understand that mere game art and music alone does not make a good game.
Considering the size of the gaming industry, I guess plenty of people are happily playing games designed by those "spotty nerds".
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
after that don't complain about the avalanche of COD clones all with the same engine but sporting "engaging storyline" which will probably include: explosions, sex, cars and stupid stereotypes in the same line of Hollywood blockbusters. Or perhaps colored puzzles that annoy all your friends with stupid requests.
I wonder who's responsible for the latest trend in UX-tardedness? Spotty nerds or almost-a-barista arts grads? Could be both. Whoever is responsible needs a talking to (followed by an ass-whooping).
WTF does the term "Spotty Nerds" translate to in America. I have no clue what personality trait is being bashed here.
He can suck my spotty dick.
All we need to do is look at GNOME 3, Firefox 4+ and Windows 8 to see what happens when "artistic" types get involved with software development.
The end result is always a huge fucking disaster!
The old UIs, developed mainly by programmers, may have been deemed "ugly", but they were consistent and highly usable. You could use them to get real work done quickly and efficiently.
The new UIs, developed mainly by "UI designers" and "UX artisans" may be deemed pretty by such people, but they are really goddamn inconsistent and fucking unusable. You can't get work done with these, because you'll waste all of your time trying to figure out how the fuck to use the software.
Gedit is an obvious example of how these "artistic designers" completely fuck up perfectly good software UIs. Gedit used to look like this, where it had a traditional, consistent, and highly usable UI. Newer versions of Gedit look like this disaster. Yes, it's true, the GNOME 3 developers somehow managed to fuck up the user interface of a simple text editor!
We need to go back to "ugly" UIs developed by real programmers, not today's "pretty" UIs developed by terrible "designers" and "artists".
Cridland also expressed support for an increased emphasis on foreign language education
Why do people in English speaking countries keep thinking those countries will ever be motivated to develop really good foreign language education programs when every other country is busting ass trying to get its citizens to be better at speaking English?
I'm sure there'd be personal and probably some cultural benefits if it worked, but until other countries stop trying so hard to learn English, the people in charge in English speaking countries will keep saying that the money and effort required to make a great language education system aren't worth it.
"One of the biggest growth industries in Britain today is the computer games industry... but nobody is going to play a game designed by a spotty nerd. "
Is it just me, or do these two ideas seem contradictory?
Attempt to Manufacture Outrage for Clicks. Now that's Foxy!
Hey feminists, see that? That's how people treat us.
Frankly, I don't see a problem.
Have gnu, will travel.
1v1 me bro, i rek yo ass.
The design that moves the titlebar and menubar into the toolbar, which you referred to as "this disaster", gains two lines of vertical space in the document compared to the old UI. With 16:10 and portrait displays hard to find especially in laptops, how else is the user supposed to make the best use of vertical space?
And when did it change? You give a screenshot of 3.11.92, while a Gedit 3.10.4 user on another forum offers this screenshot that has the old UI. Did it change between 3.10 and 3.11? The user also says the screenshot is from "Gnome in Classic mode."
I'm convinced that this phase of computer history is going to be remembered as the "UX Revolution." Seriously, even Linux distributions' GUIs have turned into iOS clones. Windows 10, while better than 8, is still a disaster because Microsoft is still convinced that people want to run a phone/tablet OS on their desktop PC.
It's the deadly combination of:
- Everything is a touch screen, so UI elements have to be massive and convey no meaning unless you know what the symbol means.
- Millions more "normal" people have computers in their pockets now, so even if "spotty nerds" want to use them, the UI can't be made functional because it has to be dumbed down for everyone.
I agree that just letting the developers do a user interface would probably leave us at slightly above the verbosity level of vi, and a complexity level of emacs, but there's a happy medium. Not everything needs to be rendered in a flat, featureless Jony Ive rounded rectangle style. Seriously, if people who are used to computers have to look at a user interface for more than a few seconds to figure out what performs an action, and where that action is located, than form has won over function.
I'd rather have an ugly, functional UI any day. AS/400 style green screens are hideously ugly and primitive, but they're laid out well, the intelligent use of color highlights important things, and they're easy to stare at for long periods of time. I'm absolutely sick of web pages and app screens that have bright white backgrounds and tiny light grey text, chosen simply because it's pretty.
The most galling fallacy in this short statement isn't that he thinks "geeks" aren't creative; it's that he thinks art education makes people creative. Here's some news for you: it doesn't.
The MOST an art class can teach you is to learn how to follow the design memes of people who came before you. However, this is not necessarily a good thing. Those design features may have been very creative and engaging when they first started being incorporated into works, but if they are used in such a widespread way as to be monotonous, it actually makes a product *worse* to start throwing them in.
Consider, for instance, how many games have a soundtrack that is extremely similar to every other game in their genre. It's not similar enough to lead to a copyright infringement lawsuit -- usually -- but it's "generic" in the sense that it borrows 90% of its design features from past works, whether previous titles from the same developer or competitors. These soundtracks often receive poor reviews when they don't stand out in any particular way from the other games that came before, and players tend not to remember the music after they stop playing the game.
On the other hand, the best, most memorable and enjoyable game music soundtracks that have existed have all been extremely original, with major innovative design features that give a distinct "feel" or "sound" to the title. This can be VERY powerful and greatly boost the sales of the product.
Similar comparisons can be made of visual assets in games, of course.
The problem is, even though you can teach someone to mimic what's been done in the past and grade them on their ability to do so, you can't teach people to be able to come up with entirely new design features or concepts on their own. And if you tried to grade an art class based on how unique or original the design features were, most students at the high school and 4-year degree level would fail the class because they couldn't think of anything creative that was also good (you could technically consider any random selection of features to be "unique", but not all things that are unique are beautiful, appreciable, or easily digestible by the person accessing (reading/viewing) the work.)
Most truly creative, novel design features that win awards and universal acclaim happen *spontaneously*, without any sort of directed methodology used to derive the aspects chosen. Sure, the creator may digest some existing art aspects of the game as "input" when trying to determine how to come up with more assets (textures, sounds, music), but even with that input, there are numerous ways you could go with creating the new content that seem equally viable from the outset. It's not until you get others to experience your content that you start to get feedback, like, "wow, this is incredible!" or "this sounds very generic".
So yeah, throw away money, making coders spend extra hours bored in art class doing watercolor paintings, as if that's going to make England's creative output any better. People who are born to be creators tend to do whatever they love doing on their own, without having to be forced to sit in a class to do it. You really can't force creativity, or the "forced-ness" of it becomes obvious in the content that's been created. That's just the way it is.
And don't even get me started on the stereotype that "geeks" are lacking in creativity. Coding shops used to ask people in interviews what their creative outlet is, whether it's singing, playing instruments, drawing, etc. - and those who didn't have any to speak of were often passed over in favor of candidates who had a creative passion. I imagine that type of thinking is even more prevalent in game studios, though I've never worked at one.
study arts in place where you don't get killed by loans so even you if end at mc job or 7-11 you are thing about If just where to rob the joint I can make them go a way.
"Those gamer nerds just aren't our kind of people, and don't believe what we do, so let's treat them with ridicule and contempt."
I've become a fan of casual flash/unity games of the type that are on Kongregate, and I've learned to avoid the ones with lots of "art" because they usually suck. Big budget games can be different, but I find that artistry usually is no indicator of whether the game is any fun to play. In fact, I've found a severe drop in average UX since games have gone the also-console route, valuing look over usability. Look at the attractive but infuriating inventory system of Borderlands, for example. They need more UX people, not more artists.
I, for one, welcome our art overlords.
... take down the flag and stuff.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Engineers, and programmers are most certainly engineers, tend to have certain personality traits. In the USA, bosses try to nurture such people, and thus the USA has become the home of much of the computer revolution. In the UK, home of some of the GREATEST engineers and scientists in Human History, the bosses EXPLOIT what they see as the psychological weaknesses of the engineering classes.
The hatred has a class basis, originating from the time when the rich OWNED the talent of everyone below them in Britain, and kept their power and money by becoming PERFECT PARASITES. In comparison, the same bosses LIKE the arty types, and find them droll company. The tradition, of course, is the dinner party of NOBS including the odd writer and artist to 'amuse' them. The cliche of the engineer, on the other hand, is a 'BORE' who sends every listener to sleep by wittering on about the minutiae of their field of study. You can see the same cliche depicted in modern films and TV shows.
Computer Games represent quite unique art. Most frequently, according to the rule 'FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION' the 'artistic' expression in a computer game follows the technology that makes the game work. Take shoot-em-ups, like Space Invaders or Galaxians. Or platform games like Donkey Kong or Manic Miner.
Much later we had Quake, with its distinctive style driven by the engineering choices of Carmack and Abrash. Modern open-world games look as they do due to the engineering behind the 3D rendering and lighting- the 'art' follows the engineering.
Art-driven games tend to be flash-in-the-pan shallow shit that appeal to Apple loving journalists. Today the SJW crown has jumped on the bandwagon, since these types CANNOT think or program for shit, and thus must explot the fundamental work of vastly smarter Humans for their own perverted ends. A SJW that 'creates' a game by paying others to slap a layer of crap on a pre-existing engine will claim responsibility for everything, INCLUDING the engine.
Pop stars are FAMOUS. Blockbuster movie directors are quite famous. The programming talent behind the world's best video games is 99.99% utterly INVISIBLE. A person like Carmack is the exception that 'proves' (tests in Old English) the rule, and even Carmack is only known to fellow nerds.
I'm a relatively high end techno nerd and don't have a tv so had to fill up my spare time by reading a few bookshelves of history books (mostly early 20th century). I think this is a much easier route than getting a history degree and trying to learn differential geometry and calculus of variations on my own. But I'm pretty lazy, so maybe that's just me.
now enforcing dress codes
Nice try, but a nerd in a suit is still a nerd.
Just as it should be.
Good luck with your mission to compel everyone to fit into your mold. Some parting words to think about: "swear allegiance to the flag, whatever flag they offer".
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I told you, I can't spell.
While I disagree with his premise regarding games I believe he has a valid point. Probably very unintentionally, but I have to be fair. Should Nerds/Geeks be learning Arts too? Absolutely they should. The classical education system worked so well because people learned a bit of everything while they also specialized. Our industrial education system does not work because it focuses on testing on two subjects (mostly). People might be able to find a rounded education outside of the public system, but you won't find it within.
Where I do think he's wrong is pushing for Mandarin based games. Unless China revolts somehow, they will still be a 2 class system with the majority living in extreme poverty. It does not matter how many people speak the same language a game is released with, if they can't afford the product.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Many software houses are now enforcing dress codes
I'm not aware of a single *game* studio that is enforcing a dress code.
There is no place for them anywhere. Just as it should be. :)
What have you got against spotty nerds?
We don't need games designed by nerds who have a sometimes rather weird sense of "fun". Granted. But at least those games would get played by nerds. Games designed by artists who have no connection with games would be played by NOBODY because, yes, they are artistically pleasing and maybe they will one day end up in some review of the "most beautiful games of the past", but an artist that has no idea what makes a game fun will not create a good game.
What we need is people who have an idea what makes games fun. What makes games interesting. Why people play them. And why people play THOSE games and not the ones over there. What made Kerbal Space Program a great game that was generally praised and Hatred a bad game that was generally panned? Don't bother answering, pretty much EVERYONE here knows the answer.
At least if they play games!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I always laugh in the faces of the morons who tell me that bs.
Mandarin, 14.4% of world population, spoken in: China, Taiwan, Singapore, and Malaysia
Spanish, 6.15%, spoken in: Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Spain, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Western Sahara.
English, 5.43%, spoken in: United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, Ireland and New Zealand.
Thanks, but I'll stick with the DOLLARS and POUNDS rather than try my luck with those yen or peso.
We need more Steam!?
http://www.independent.co.uk/i...
This is the same mentality which leads to so much being added to the curriculum that neither the teacher nor the student can handle it. Rather than having every special interest trying to get their bits into the curriculum, decide what is important in a particular field and focus on that. Then give the learner the option to pursue a STEM, arts, or blended education. The arts aren't going to die off because everyone is interested in STEM, because you're never going to run into a situation where everyone is interested in STEM. Likewise, STEM isn't going to die off because of the arts. You're even going to have people who are interested in a mix of the two because no one completely fits into those silos.
> I personally hope this extends into requiring that people have well rounded educational backgrounds
That may work nicely for generating lots of well rounded people, but stuff gets done be people focused on the thing they do. You wouldn't have any communication security if it wasn't for people who obsessed over mathematics for their entire lives. You wouldn't have pretty game graphics if it wasn't for people who obsessed over datapath architecture. You wouldn't have nice game music if it wasn't for people who focused on music their whole lives. You can live wide & shallow or deep & narrow or both or neither. The world will get by, but don't imagine it would be ok if everyone followed the wide & shallow path.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
I don't speak British - is spotty some kind of mean insult? Or does he just mean unreliable as in a spotty paint job.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I disagree with the nerdy statement, the challenging games come from them, look at Elite Dangerous for example. simulating the milkyway first, then put gameplay in it.
These days the WORST software comes from the commercial focussed groups like EA with 0 day dlc, crashes, bad support and bad programming. If we need to lose anything it is them.
n/t
Tell that to this guy.
Right, You are the well rounded ones. Despite not taking a single non remedial math or science course.
We do understand the world better than those who don't bother studying math or physics. That is just a simple fact. You are blind and don't know it.
Every time I go anywhere near anything that makes the real world operate I see groups of techno nerds making it happen.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Some of the greatest games of the 8 and 16 bit era were conceived, designed, and programmed by those spotty nerds, in their bedroom, on their own. The concepts and ideas of those games live on today, and those programmers are the reason that Britain still has a thriving games industry today.
They had more talent than this blowhard will ever have.
Well this explains a lot about the sorry state of the AAA title industry. Like their obsessions with 'professional' looks and dress codes, their games are often expensive affairs that are all flash and no substance: Nice graphics, piss poor gameplay, and plenty of showstopper bugs. I submit that people who think shit like dresscodes are important are the ones who are 'spotty', at least in terms of self-esteem, and that insecurity is probably justified.
You mention pop music as though it's an improvement to those long haired dudes who can play guitar... I just don't know what to say to that.
This is why companies of Tale of Tales are the new wave. No one wants boring games like DotA or stupid fighting games like LoL. They want walking simulators of visceral glory, of characters of depth and poignancy with their own agency. Fun is irrelevant, it's about the social and artistic experience. This is the tomorrow today!
...what do you mean the company failed harder than Crystal Pepsi?
Next big game: Zitters Revenge!
Table-ized A.I.
We don't need to create things. We rule those who do.
I've crossed paths with the CBI a number of times in a work context over the last decade and a bit. To be honest, I've never seen anything come out of them that wasn't either a) blindingly obvious or b) completely stupid.
They're a bit of an artifact from another age, really. They were founded in mid-1960s, at a time when UK Governments tended to be much more hostile to business and often at the beck and call of the trades unions. The CBI was set up as a counter-point to that; to act, as it were, for a union for big business. And to be fair, that was a perfectly valid objective in the circumstances of the times and remained so throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s.
Today, of course, British business is hardly cowering from the union menace and the CBI, like a lot of other institutions of the cold war era, is left without a clear purpose. With a divided and often disinterested membership, it mostly seems to exist largely only to perpetuate its own existence, which it does by making ponderous announcements on whatever vaguely business-related issue happens to be topical at the time. As I said above, sometimes it points out the obvious, sometimes it says something ridiculous.
It would be harmless enough if it weren't for the fact that, for legacy reasons, it still commands more press attention than it deserves. It can be an absolute godsend for lazy BBC journalists who can't be bothered going out to talk to actual industry; get a CBI rent-a-quote to say something and present it as the voice of business on any given story.
They're outsourcing all the obsessing over datapath architecture.
You are welcome on my lawn.
First off. F-You, John Cridland, for the 'spotty nerd' insult. And F-You for insinuating that coders aren't artistic and that coding isn't an art form.
The whole point of promoting STEM is because Art degrees are waste of time and resources. You may be personally fulfilled getting your Masters Degree in 18th Century French Poetry but it's not going to help make you a productive member of society.
As to game design, you have the game designer who designs the gameplay, then you have the coder who writes the code to implement the gameplay and then you have artist who creates the graphics (and sounds/music) for the game (among numerous other people). Game design is a team effort and everyone needs their own specific skills.
That you think coders need to be able to draw really shows that you have no idea of how the video-game industry works.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
Doom was designed by spotty nerds, for spotty nerds. It was a colossal hit and changed the industry.
Of course, changing the industry meant bringing in lots of non-spotty nerds, and then complaining about the "lack of diversity" in games. :-P
Based on the horrible ports, shitty optimization, and general trend of game coding getting shittier and shittier, we need more competent programmers and game devs. People who actually know how to make a game run well, play well, and look good at the same time.
Non-conformists tend to operate on the default assumption that they are automatically superior to those who conform. This is obvious arrogance. It's also self-contradictory, since most non-conformists still conform more than not.
It's true that there isn't anything intrinsically correct or moral about conformity for its own sake. But, the trends that form do so because there is something valuable about them. Going with the flow tends to work much better all-around. Those who can't see that will suffer for their blindness.
dozens and dozens of them but nobody is going to play a game designed by a spotty nerd.
That's neo-impressionist nerd, you insensitive, art ignorant clod!
He needs to learn how to speak English without putting down half of his audience and without putting his foot in his mouth. Perhaps he needs to go back to business school and get more practice in the fine art of public speaking.
It'll be fully compliant with everything possible, but does nothing in terms of functionality.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Oh, should they? Will conscription be involved?
Awfully sorry old chap, we're already 2% over quota for frog, and don't even ask about kraut. I'm afraid it's either tiddlywink or the firing squad.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Fuck you too...
Like academic "artists" actually can do art. Right.
One of the reasons the art of videogames is so innovative is because of its significant lack of academic bullshitters involved in it.
Even the biggest, most successfull studios (Eidos Montreal comes to mind) still have that 80ies underground subculture vibe to them. They all have more in common with street art than academia - luckyly. They don't give a flying f*ck wether you have academic rank or not. They're actually interested in your art and wether you can deliver or not.
That's why games make billions and modern academic conceptional bullshit art doesn't and can only survive as some bizar sort of giant scam in rich societies with too much money.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
You sound like the most boring fuck on Earth and I'm happy to not know you.
Imagine if all you knew about Cinema was the occasional trailer for a Michael Bay movie. Lets say you never actually watched movies. Ever. lets say all you knew was the trailers.
Cinema would be crap right?
Okay lets say all you knew about literature was whatever was in the airport book stand. That is what you thought books were. A collection of romance novels, spy thrillers, self help books, and other assorted shit.
Literature would be crap as well, no?
The first mistake this little twat made was in suggesting that game makers are not real artists. Anyone that has seen the work put into character design, modeling the various objects, creating the sound effects, etc... there are lots of artists in gaming and they're as good or better than the artists in other industries.
The second mistake he made was projecting HIS desires for what gaming should be without understanding what gaming is already. He probably wants the equivalent of art house movies in games. What he doesn't grasp is that first we already have those and second just like in film they're not very popular because they either are only of interest to a small demographic or they are outright boring. If its wrong for me to judge all movies by Michael Bay movies then where does this fuck come off thinking he can judge all games by grand thief auto etc?
And it was upon seeing this second error that I just rolled my eyes and stopped reading. If the man wants to talk about gaming then he can sit down and learn something about it. He knows nothing.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I've had enough nerd games. You specky little gits need to take your LOL/DOTA2 rubbish and sod off.
>> We need extra coders
Is it just me..or does anyone else also feel REALLY insulted when someone describes a graduate level software engineer's job as "coder"?
If one of the biggest growth industries in the UK is computer games, doesn't that imply the Spotty Nerds are already doing it right, and that the games "nobody wants to buy" are being bought?
I completely agree with you that this guy's comments are insulting and don't necessarily make a lot of sense. However...
The whole point of promoting STEM is because Art degrees are waste of time and resources. You may be personally fulfilled getting your Masters Degree in 18th Century French Poetry but it's not going to help make you a productive member of society.
This is unnecessarily narrow-minded as well. First, while college degrees seem largely about "job training" for most folks today, for most of the 1000+ year history of universities, the assumption was that getting a degree was also about "broadening one's mind" and acquiring a breadth of skills that may be useful in various ways.
Someone who has a master's degree in 18th-century French poetry may not find a lot of jobs outside academia that value that very specific field. But there are loads of related skills that could be useful -- mastery of another language has practical use, historical perspective means an ability to think outside of one's current situation (a skill which can be helpful when trying to understand other people and other ideologies and perspectives), poetic analysis requires certain levels of creativity and abstract thinking (particularly outside one's native tongue), understanding rhetorical structure of language can be helpful in crafting everything from good reports to persuasive speeches, etc. And there are even specific benefits perhaps from this particular field: 18th-century France was the home of the so-called Enlightenment, whose philosophy has shaped our modern world, from science to political systems and law. Surely a grasp of some of the background to the place and time which gave birth to our modern pragmatic, scientific culture might be helpful at some point.
I know a LOT of people who have degrees at various levels in the humanities and make very successful careers in various fields. And those experiences they received by pursuing a humanities education often allows them to confront problems with different perspectives than someone with a STEM degree. This is NOT to say that that STEM degrees aren't "creative" -- obviously they can be. But there are different thinking and creative skills developed by different disciplines, and sometimes having someone working from a different set of background assumptions can be really helpful.
Thus, I'm not saying that we should all go out and pursue humanities degrees. But they're not necessarily "a waste of time and resources" either.
Dress codes do serve a purpose. In industries that aren't 99% male, they keep people from bitching about each other over what someone was wearing or how slutty or not some person is. It keeps complains down about poor hygiene and about people leaving body marks on chairs. A basic dress code reduces a huge amount of HR work. That said, way too many companies go too far the other way. Fabric that can be easily used to strangle you should never be required.
At least it helps when evaluating another company and it's people. The fancier they dress the less trust worthy they are. People dress more formal to artificially impress other people but it also artificially inflates their self-worth. Studies show time and time again that people with higher self delusions steal more and are more corrupt. They think they deserve more than the 'little people' so they take it regardless of the morals of doing so.
...and he looks like a limp-wristed boarding school poof to me. If Brits want to know why you lost the empire, look no further.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
for most of the 1000+ year history of universities, the assumption was that getting a degree was also about "broadening one's mind" and acquiring a breadth of skills that may be useful in various ways.
And for most of that history, universities were for the gentry and the clergy, not for people who actually had to make any worthwhile contribution to their fellow man.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Looking at his Wikipedia page, he "studied Indian and African history", joined the Confederation of British Industry as a policy advisor at 21, and was director at 30... and has done nothing else and is now 54. Does anyone find this strange? No business or industrial background at all. And clearly no knowledge either. Yet making pronouncements struggling to sound relevant.
My conclusion: cronyism. But then what else would you expect from a rent-seeking organization.
Techno nerds at least match their brackets.
Its a fucking game, it's already noise.
They formed the Ancien Régime, which is a way of saying they ran the country.
While I do not particularly promote the old social order and politics, the nobles and clergymen were the ones to do worthwile contributions to physics, chemistry, medicine and all other things etc., simply because they could afford to, what with not having to work and being able to get educated instead. :) ) no one needs to do a meaningful contribution anymore : you don't need to be noble anymore to get welfare.
After the second industrial revolution when child labor was replaced by mandatory schooling then the general populace could get a slim chance at joining the people not having to make any worthwile contribution, and that got increasingly better till now, where (sarcasm
https://www.academia.edu/14935... http://roknasala1.blogspot.com... https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/... http://kenanaonline.com/users/... http://shahine8787.tumblr.com/... https://storify.com/shahine878... https://delicious.com/shahine8... Reply
It doesn't explain anything, because it's not true.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
We don't need games designed by nerds who have a sometimes rather weird sense of "fun". Granted. But at least those games would get played by nerds. Games designed by artists who have no connection with games would be played by NOBODY because, yes, they are artistically pleasing and maybe they will one day end up in some review of the "most beautiful games of the past", but an artist that has no idea what makes a game fun will not create a good game.
What we need is people who have an idea what makes games fun. What makes games interesting. Why people play them. And why people play THOSE games and not the ones over there. What made Kerbal Space Program a great game that was generally praised and Hatred a bad game that was generally panned? Don't bother answering, pretty much EVERYONE here knows the answer.
At least if they play games!
No.
First off: "Fun" is subjective. What you find "fun" others may not. So off the bat, what you are asking is not possible because there isn't a universally accepted measure or definition of "fun".
Second off: Gamers make bad game designers. They have a penchant to make games they want to play. That may not necessarily make for good sales and sales are what keep the game makers paid. It also falls back on point 1: Their version of "fun" may not be what others consider "fun".
Finally: A lot of Gamers quickly become "Not Gamers" after a few games they created. They no longer see the "fun" in a game, but rather the vector points, trigger events, and critical paths in every game they play. Which the number of games they play dwindles fast after a game publish or two.
I am sure though there is a few gamers that are successful game designers but they are the exception, not the rule. Most game designers are part artist, part "spotty nerd" like the ass clown in the article calls them, and part psychologist to get the balance between "too hard" and "too easy" right. They see and assemble the worlds what you play through a different set of eyes that gamers may have difficulty seeing through. If they do, they lose the suspension of disbelief in the same way knowing how a magician does all their tricks.
FTFY. I'd say that for most people, conformity is a facade they show other people. The illusion is best shattered by considering just about any politician's hypocrisy.
Bulloney.
Dress codes don't fix that. They just refocus it to smaller and even less relevant differences. If your employees are spending most of their time bitching about clothing and their sex lives instead of working then get rid of them. I don't care what sex they are. Hygiene has nothing to do with dress codes. Dirty laundry smells no matter how expensive it was. Ditto with dirty bodies no matter how much they're paid.
Clothing has little bearing on the trustworthiness of a company since, as you've already learned, people can choose to overdress to compensate for lack of true capability and honesty. Of course, this only works if the targets are also similarly insecure and irrational. Slackers come in all shapes and dressed in all kinds of clothing. So do hard workers.
Gotta take that gender-studies class, not to mention African historic art class so you can make more... progressive games, goyim!
http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png