I think that's a great point. I remember playing the old "Wizardry" games where the objective was exclusively just that.
1) Create a bunch of characters. (And only keeping the ones with freakish initial attribute values).
2) Get your party together to go down into the dungeon and whoop some ass.
3) Get out of the dungeon bloodied and battered, but with some XP and, with any luck, some unique magical booty.
4) Level up and heal.
5) Rinse and repeat going into deeper and more dangerous depths every time.
But I tell you what. I played the hell out of that game and loved it. It was only just a level up grind, but I appreciated leveling up, gaining spells and new equipment and then testing out the new and improved me against the next set of baddies.
It was a sad day when I finally defeated Werdna and really had nothing left to do, but wait for the next installment.
What was interesting about Wizardry is that the goal of the game was purely the grind and the feeling of accomplishment. I think the satisfaction that I felt was because my expectations were totally aligned with the objective of the game.
Now, if the game makes you feel like you are trying to solve a puzzle (e.g. How do I open the door to this damn castle?), and you end up feeling like you are forced to endure a grind in order to accomplish that, then I can definitely see that being a pain.
Maybe the problem with some RPG's is that they are setting one set of expectations and delivering something different. The old, Satisfaction = Expectations - Reality equation.
You have to agree that some of science's interesting advancements have come from unintended experimental results. That's what science is, right? Testing hypothesis. Scientists aren't sure what is going to happen with their experiments. If they did, then there wouldn't be much value in them. And sometimes those results still have value even though they prove to be inconsistent with the original hypothesis.
The article makes it very clear that the results of Dr. Schaefer's tests were unintended:
1) She was experimenting on drugs to treat inflammation. Not cancer at all.
2) Heck, the experiment wasn't even carried out as planned. It was based on a miscalculated quantity of the compound.
3) She may not have furthered her investigation of the compound had she not mentioned her disappointment, that the cancer cells died, in passing to a colleague.
4) It appears that the mechanism of how the compound kills the cancer cells is now understood, but not why.
I think the comment of "typical science" is condescending to the community and the efforts involved with scientific advancements. But I think the analogy of "you put your peanut butter in my chocolate" isn't too far off the mark in this case.
And as many people have stated earlier, isn't too far off the mark in many scientific discoveries.
It sounds like the offense is more in reponse to the insuation that typical scientific progress is due to complete chance. Which I agree is not true.
The seed of this discovery did indeed occur by chance. But I think it is safe to assume the continued research of this compound as a cancer treatment will not continue by randomly mixing it with chocolate and peanut butter. This is where the expertise and experience of Dr. Schaefer and her colleagues will come in handy.
Who knows? As they continue researching this, they may stumble up a breakthrough for inflamed colon's afterall. Or a sugary treat more delectable peanut butter cups.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point :)
How about this:
Satisfaction = Reality / Expectations
where anything >= 1 is good :)
I think that's a great point. I remember playing the old "Wizardry" games where the objective was exclusively just that.
1) Create a bunch of characters. (And only keeping the ones with freakish initial attribute values).
2) Get your party together to go down into the dungeon and whoop some ass.
3) Get out of the dungeon bloodied and battered, but with some XP and, with any luck, some unique magical booty.
4) Level up and heal.
5) Rinse and repeat going into deeper and more dangerous depths every time.
But I tell you what. I played the hell out of that game and loved it. It was only just a level up grind, but I appreciated leveling up, gaining spells and new equipment and then testing out the new and improved me against the next set of baddies.
It was a sad day when I finally defeated Werdna and really had nothing left to do, but wait for the next installment.
What was interesting about Wizardry is that the goal of the game was purely the grind and the feeling of accomplishment. I think the satisfaction that I felt was because my expectations were totally aligned with the objective of the game.
Now, if the game makes you feel like you are trying to solve a puzzle (e.g. How do I open the door to this damn castle?), and you end up feeling like you are forced to endure a grind in order to accomplish that, then I can definitely see that being a pain.
Maybe the problem with some RPG's is that they are setting one set of expectations and delivering something different. The old, Satisfaction = Expectations - Reality equation.
Any thoughts?
"All this time I've been trying to cure plaster."
You have to agree that some of science's interesting advancements have come from unintended experimental results. That's what science is, right? Testing hypothesis. Scientists aren't sure what is going to happen with their experiments. If they did, then there wouldn't be much value in them. And sometimes those results still have value even though they prove to be inconsistent with the original hypothesis.
The article makes it very clear that the results of Dr. Schaefer's tests were unintended:
1) She was experimenting on drugs to treat inflammation. Not cancer at all.
2) Heck, the experiment wasn't even carried out as planned. It was based on a miscalculated quantity of the compound.
3) She may not have furthered her investigation of the compound had she not mentioned her disappointment, that the cancer cells died, in passing to a colleague.
4) It appears that the mechanism of how the compound kills the cancer cells is now understood, but not why.
I think the comment of "typical science" is condescending to the community and the efforts involved with scientific advancements. But I think the analogy of "you put your peanut butter in my chocolate" isn't too far off the mark in this case.
And as many people have stated earlier, isn't too far off the mark in many scientific discoveries.
It sounds like the offense is more in reponse to the insuation that typical scientific progress is due to complete chance. Which I agree is not true.
The seed of this discovery did indeed occur by chance. But I think it is safe to assume the continued research of this compound as a cancer treatment will not continue by randomly mixing it with chocolate and peanut butter. This is where the expertise and experience of Dr. Schaefer and her colleagues will come in handy.
Who knows? As they continue researching this, they may stumble up a breakthrough for inflamed colon's afterall. Or a sugary treat more delectable peanut butter cups.