So, I suppose that finishing a story that at least some of the gaming populace finds interesting doesn't play into it? Seriously, I understand your cynicism, but this is a series of games that many people enjoy; that's/why/ it will sell more XBox 360s.
Moreover, it seems as though your rhetoric could be applied to any exclusive title from any gaming company. Why do yet another Zelda? Because it'll sell Wiis(and did). If Lair was actually, you know,/good/, it'd be doing the same thing for PS3s.
If Halo 3 were a weak representation in its series smashed out with the hammer of formula, I'd agree with your point, since, at that point, you'd be continuing the story just to sell some consoles. That does not appear to be the case with Halo 3. It seems to extend the concepts that made Halo a success(great multiplayer, an engaging single-or-co-op campaign storyline, etc). It's not innovative by any stretch of the imagination, but to suggest that they're just hammering out a game to 'sell the console' seems unwarrented.
Because, you know, nobody'd heard of Halo 3 before Mr. Thompson took an interest. This is actually reflective of the reverse-- Thompson's not going to address The Darkness, despite its graphic depictions of heart rending and whatnot. Rather, he's going to target the most popular franchises which feature significant violence-- Halo being amongst those, this is hardly surprising.
Taking your analogy, let's say that the food processor had a mechanism that allowed its motor to be refined remotely. A seperate entity copies the food processor, replicating every piece involved, but removes that self-updating functionality...It requires registration with the home office so they know where you are, and obviously you don't want your copied processor phoning home. They put these in the hands of consumers.
The problem is identified, and the parent company tweaks all the motors still under via its magical remote control, and so those machines no longer produce noxious gases. However, the copied processors still plague the environment.
How does it logically follow that the manufacturer should resolve the issues with processors that were, in essence, produced by someone else? That's the situation with the pirated copies of a proprietary OS-- you have individuals who have altered it in a manner that allows it to be distributed freely, frequently(and in this case, actually) at the expense of updatability. The OS in question has typically been altered(avoiding WGA, etc). It's unrealistic for a vendor to support a patch level that they did not themselves produce. Actually, many Microsoft service packs and hotfixes are available/even without/ genuine approval via download etc...You just can't use the auto-updating tools, so you'd have to rely on the person utilizing the pirated software to do the updating. This is usually where they fall down.
I am not a fan of Microsoft. I'm a best-tools developer, and they produce mediocre tools at best, and they've been draconian in the past. This, however, is not an example of them being "evil".
What I'm trying to establish here is just why it's Microsoft's responsibility to deal with these particular machines. Their software is being used without their permission. Moreover, given some of the reaction to WGA and other attempts by Microsoft to exclude pirates from their services, wouldn't we likely be blasting them for being draconian tactics?
I don't think that Microsoft actually can solve this problem so long as piracy exists. As I'm not actually anti-pirate, I'd suggest that a community response would likely be necessary to resolve this issue on pirated machines...Pirate-spun patches, etc, would be helpful. I don't like the virus idea for the same reasons other benevolent viruses are generally a bad thing...They frequently have unintended consequences.
I agree with you principally on one point-- this is everybody's problem-- but realistically, how is Microsoft going to support owners of pirated software? Let's assume for a moment that they don't just download a version of the OS that's already rooted by something nasty...By the very nature of the thing, these OSs aren't going to be consuming automated updates and thus maintaining a current patch level.
There also seems to be a disconnect here-- if pirated Windows machines are presenting a problem that everyone has to face, why do we blast Microsoft for its desire to see these machines taken offline? Moreover, why are we putting "stolen software" in quotes when we're talking about people who're actually willfully using unlicensed software?
Is the idea here that pirates are "good" because they're not playing the "evil" Microsoft's game? Is Microsoft still more "evil" because they aren't improving the security of machines that are already well out of the bounds of their support model?
You're probably correct-- the developers are new to doing it "right". Given that that's the case, is it really good business to force them to adopt new control strategies, good or bad, before they're really ready for them? By doing so, it seems to me that a) many potentially good games will suffer for these directives and b) the merits of these control schemes in general may be unfairly called into question due to bad experiences with these games.
IMO, motion sensitive controls work best when we're capturing a motion that is at least an analog of some real activity. That's the "fun". Things tend to miss the mark the more abstract the symbols become, partly because the motions themselves may "blur" into others, causing a lack of precision(Lair, I'm looking directly at you).
What's really needed is a better balance between the motion controlled elements and the 'traditionally' controlled elements. I haven't played all of the games you've referenced in their Wii incarnations, but from what I've read, I'd suggest that these games strike such a balance and thus are relatively successful.
Having a single "server" doesn't necessarily imply single instances of individual zones, and those instances/the zones can be distributed to multiple physical servers. 1 million subscribers might technically be in the same 5 zones, but there may be 30 instances of those zones. They may not all be occupying the same virtual space, but they would have the capacity to trade with any player on the server, co-exist in guilds with anyone on the server, etc...You would never have the experience of running into an old friend, finding out you play the same game, and then discovering that you've invested your time on different servers, thus preventing you from playing together.
Yeah, the 360 definitely does that, partly by virtue of, you know,/having some/. This brings up a good point, though, with regards to the two consoles. The 360 is targeted at the hardcore gamer segment, and those individuals are probably far more likely to buy(or at least rent) most 'important' games on the console. I would think that Wii owners, if they're actually budget conscious etc(as it's been suggested they are), might invest in less games over the same period of time. Obviously, this is all just speculation, but it'll be interesting to see how it plays out in real numbers when the Wii's library grows. There's plenty of room for both consoles to succeed, and I think that they both have done so, but the interesting bit is how each strategy will really play out in the long run...Clearly, the Wii is 'winning' from the hardware perspective, but software is where the real money usually is. All of this could really affect what the next generation of consoles looks like.
I think that, primarily, people(not just slashdotters) optimistically believes that the law reflects logic, common sense, and the will of the people, that the 'obvious' conclusion should always be reached, even in the face of so much evidence that this is not actually so. IANAL, and I'd definitely hire one were I taken to court over even a trivial matter lest I wind up suffering due to a technicality.
Actually, it didn't do that well commercially when it was released, which is what I was referring to. It's one of those games that a ton of people went dumpster diving for, however, so a bajillion people have actually played it, unlike the original SS. It was seriously hyped, though, and I've often wondered if its relative difficulty made it a hard initial sell.
I agree, it was very different in tone...I don't know if I'd call it a 'vanilla' shooter, though...I can't think of another memorable shooter from that day and age which had any concept of character advancement, nevermind the funky "choose your career path" stuff at the beginning...Or, heck, inventory management, for that matter. Most shooters were still in the "HOLY CRAP, MONSTERS" category back then.:) If you really want to nerd it up, this is pretty interesting and speaks a bit to the relationship between Looking Glass and Irrational back at the time-- Jonathan Chey breaks it down.
I absolutely loved SS2(and SS, for that matter), and I'd suggest that the difficulty has become easier with each new game. This actually probably correlates rather nicely with the volume sales of those games-- SS wasn't anything like the hardest game I've played, but it had some pretty baroque systems unless you like your hacking modelled in a Lawnmower Man-esque 3D environment. It was a great game, but the FPS genre wasn't exactly refined in 1994, nevermind the weird hybrid that is the Shock series.
However, as things have grown easier, the pacing has (in my estimation) grown better-- I hated the literal hunt for (easter) eggs in SS2, as an example. Bioshock, narratively, is a superior game in this regard if you remove from the equation the SS games' main 'cool' bit-- SHODAN.
Re: the replay value, I agree there to a point...It's interesting, though, in that some of the elements of hacking/etc seem to work better in this game. Letting the environment do my work for me is much more interesting. I imagine that somebody who played it through like a normal shooter might play through again hacking etc...It's not a common mechanic in other shooters/other/ than those coming from The Artists Formerly Known as Looking Glass. Most shooters are mindlessly repetative death fests, so this is refreshing when compared against/them/ even if one can look back at other works by the same people and say 'oh, yeah, that was more surprising at the time'. Most people missed System Shock 2, and like 5 people played the voice-inclusive CDR version of System Shock the first go-around.
I think that it's entirely reasonable for livejournal to hold its users responsible for the links associated with their blogs. If I knowingly link to goatse on my own blog, I will, likely, remove some remaining shred of innocence from my readers. If I hide it behind an innocuous link, well, shame on me. I wish/I/ had never seen that picture. Even if I advertise clearly what the link is, I am taking an action that exposes others to it. Unless you're taking the position that you're a random linking machine making no choices about what you present in your blog(right, sure), you do have some responsibility for those links.
The part that crosses the line here, though, is that the action taken against the users in question is the immediate lockout of their blogs. Users should be provided the opportunity to remove the questionable content before being banned. In the case of the fellow whose link was suddenly directed to porn, he should have been afforded the opportunity to either correct or remove the link. Blogs are a fire-and-forget medium. It's not reasonable to expect users to test every link associated with their posts on a daily basis lest a vagina should somehow be exposed there.
The fact is, links, cuts, and various other methods are used as a sort of quasi-policing system in many fan fic and otherwise alt communities with the idea that they are somehow "fine" from a legal standpoint if it's not sitting directly on the page front. The theory is that the reader, by clicking a link, is 'willingly' entering the forbidden zone, so the poster must be in the clear. While IANAL, this may or may not be the case. It's definitely true that pornographic works involving children are illegal in the US. Rather than deal with the possible legalities themselves, since, as the host of the content, LJ might well be viewed as being culpable, they're striking the offending content. It seems to me that the "oh, I didn't know what was there!" argument only holds so long as the originating blogger truly was naive of the page's contents.
I'm very much in favor of free speech, but, so long as there is such a thing as illegal content, companies are within their rights to take whatever steps they need to take to be in compliance with the law. LJ has become too aggressive, removing innocent users as well as their likely intended targets, and they may suffer for it since their community may feel betrayed. However, it seems unlikely that they "don't understand how the web works." I think that they're simply far more concerned with how the/law/ works.
Yeah, I've found that most of the games she actually enjoys on the console don't really have a multiplayer option. Still, better a great single player experience than having everything with everything done in mediocre fashion.
The whole 'backseat playing' bit is pretty amusing, though. "Hit B! Hit B! You're going to die hit, aaaa, B!!!!!"
I wouldn't dismiss anything that's 'better along all dimensions' personally, but one thing that's definitely interesting about Bioshock relative to most other action games(not just in the FPS genre) is that there're frequently many, many possible solutions to a given problem. Since I'm a big fan of letting other game elements do my work for me, I spend a lot of time in the game sneaking around and hacking every single piece of security that I encounter. Frequently, I'll have moved along, and I'll hear the whine of a security alarm and the sound of some enemy getting killed...It's good, grim fun. Add that to the ability to lay actual mines and other traps and you may spend relatively little time actually 'shooting' in this game, depending on your playstyle.
It's also interesting how various abilities chain together-- setting an enemy on fire with your plasmids and then shooting a heat seeking rocket at it is quite satisfying. I've played shooters where "Magic" is a part of the whole, but very few where abilities complement each other so well.
Lastly, and a-typically for an FPS, although the plot is relatively linear(you move along and open various areas sequentially, you usually have a goal that shuttles you around to different parts of said areas), there're large side areas for exploration that have no direct purpose beyond adding tone. Frequently, there'll be a little payoff in the form of a recording from a resident of Rapture or perhaps an unusual tonic, but mostly, they're just there to add to the fun of the game. It's a decent balance...You're not as clearly pushed in a direction as you are even in a decent shooter like Half Life 2.
Bioshock is the only game that I've played which actually inspires my spouse to sit beside me, totally enthralled as events unfold. She practically begs me to play so she can see what's going to happen next. All in all, my feeling is that this is a game that shouldn't be missed.
I agree. The barrier to entry into the field is getting progressively weaker. That said, until we have computers that actually program themselves/can translate very simple English instructions("computer, give me a report that shows me what I want to know"), you're at the very least going to have to have enough foundation in basic logic to produce even inefficient algorithms...Certain kinds of thought don't seem to be natural to most people.
Still, you're right-- in 20 years, this/might/ be solved by technology to some degree, assuming the global economy keeps ticking/we don't find people refusing to trade with us because they really do control/all/ the manufacturing.:)
You're right, but my point was that so much manufacturing is being pushed overseas that it's difficult to get manufacturing jobs here/period/, regardless of how difficult or easy that work is. I don't think that it's become so easy to program that the simplicity you're describing applies to IT. Maybe I'm missing the thrust of your point?
Is it really easy for most people without any additional education coming out of our public high schools to get jobs in either the programming or design fields? Mind, I actually did something like that...My degree is decidedly not in C.S...But I haven't encountered many people in the industry who have had any real success without at least/some/ college in their background.
That's true to a degree, but it's troubling in that it highlights the continuing degradation of the US's manufacturing capabilities. We've clearly shifted more towards a service-oriented economy, but that's only increasing the size of our unskilled underclass...There simply aren't as many good career paths for a high school graduate with no additional training. "Trade deficits" are not necessarily a problem in and of themselves, but they can be symptomatic of actual issues of concern.
That's really dependent on how your options were set on Monster, right? I wonder how many of these are nameless/faceless CVs...I know that I always post resumes anonymously. Presumably, unless Monster violates its own privacy terms(which would, imo, be a big deal), recruiter access would not give the thiefs in question access to the address/name/phone/etc information for those who do choose that anonymous option.
Also, I'm curious what it did with uploaded resumes/cover letters.
I'd say that I also fall in the generalist category(degree? english. languages programmed professionally? 7), and I have to disagree with you strongly...It's been good for my career.
First, being a generalist has meant that I have been steadily employed through several minibursts in the local tech economy. I've always found something that suited/me/ when more specialized friends have not.
Second, being a "generalist" has allowed me to keep well ahead on many learning curves than my "specialist" colleagues. Very rarely does any single technology, language, or platform remain en vogue for more than a year or two. As the next big thing comes along, I have been able to adapt faster due to my broader perspective, typically being responsible for instruction of more static peers.
The reason this is possible isn't some innate superiority-- it's simply by virtue of my generalized experience. I've programmed in various managed and unmanaged languages on various platforms and in various industries. Back when I was a consultant, frequently many of each at once. "New" is rarely new unless it's a specialized platform.
The thing is, that fellow who "does a little bit of everything" seems to be rising more consistently towards the technical lead level at my organization. "Matrixing" is the new buzzword of the moment, which really just means flexible resource allocation. Since seniority is generally preserved, such leads generally can't be specialists...One week, you may be leading a team of web developers, the next designing the schema for a database.
My suggestion is that you analyze your work environment and see if, perhaps, there is some other limiting factor on your career. Are you a "dump" for any problem that "doesn't quite fit the box" on your team rather than a valued asset? Are you in a top heavy organization? Do your immediate superiors appreciate your ability to make their lives easier?
Given that you apparently have to put a "perfect" lens between the two attractors in order to cause the reversal, this doesn't seem to have an obvious weapon application.
I think that part of the issue here is that they've both confused the concept of procedural programming(and I'd be shocked if most games weren't programmed procedurally) with procedural generation then proceded to give a better description of the first.
It's not that they're wrong that Spore is innovative this way(assuming it's ever more than vaporware), but rather that they do an exceptionally poor job of describing the way it works...The distinction here isn't between gated logic trees and 'actions', it's between static and dynamic content.
Slashdot Mirror
Moreover, it seems as though your rhetoric could be applied to any exclusive title from any gaming company. Why do yet another Zelda? Because it'll sell Wiis(and did). If Lair was actually, you know, /good/, it'd be doing the same thing for PS3s.
If Halo 3 were a weak representation in its series smashed out with the hammer of formula, I'd agree with your point, since, at that point, you'd be continuing the story just to sell some consoles. That does not appear to be the case with Halo 3. It seems to extend the concepts that made Halo a success(great multiplayer, an engaging single-or-co-op campaign storyline, etc). It's not innovative by any stretch of the imagination, but to suggest that they're just hammering out a game to 'sell the console' seems unwarrented.
Because, you know, nobody'd heard of Halo 3 before Mr. Thompson took an interest. This is actually reflective of the reverse-- Thompson's not going to address The Darkness, despite its graphic depictions of heart rending and whatnot. Rather, he's going to target the most popular franchises which feature significant violence-- Halo being amongst those, this is hardly surprising.
Taking your analogy, let's say that the food processor had a mechanism that allowed its motor to be refined remotely. A seperate entity copies the food processor, replicating every piece involved, but removes that self-updating functionality...It requires registration with the home office so they know where you are, and obviously you don't want your copied processor phoning home. They put these in the hands of consumers.
The problem is identified, and the parent company tweaks all the motors still under via its magical remote control, and so those machines no longer produce noxious gases. However, the copied processors still plague the environment.
How does it logically follow that the manufacturer should resolve the issues with processors that were, in essence, produced by someone else? That's the situation with the pirated copies of a proprietary OS-- you have individuals who have altered it in a manner that allows it to be distributed freely, frequently(and in this case, actually) at the expense of updatability. The OS in question has typically been altered(avoiding WGA, etc). It's unrealistic for a vendor to support a patch level that they did not themselves produce. Actually, many Microsoft service packs and hotfixes are available /even without/ genuine approval via download etc...You just can't use the auto-updating tools, so you'd have to rely on the person utilizing the pirated software to do the updating. This is usually where they fall down.
I am not a fan of Microsoft. I'm a best-tools developer, and they produce mediocre tools at best, and they've been draconian in the past. This, however, is not an example of them being "evil".
I don't think that Microsoft actually can solve this problem so long as piracy exists. As I'm not actually anti-pirate, I'd suggest that a community response would likely be necessary to resolve this issue on pirated machines...Pirate-spun patches, etc, would be helpful. I don't like the virus idea for the same reasons other benevolent viruses are generally a bad thing...They frequently have unintended consequences.
There also seems to be a disconnect here-- if pirated Windows machines are presenting a problem that everyone has to face, why do we blast Microsoft for its desire to see these machines taken offline? Moreover, why are we putting "stolen software" in quotes when we're talking about people who're actually willfully using unlicensed software?
Is the idea here that pirates are "good" because they're not playing the "evil" Microsoft's game? Is Microsoft still more "evil" because they aren't improving the security of machines that are already well out of the bounds of their support model?
IMO, motion sensitive controls work best when we're capturing a motion that is at least an analog of some real activity. That's the "fun". Things tend to miss the mark the more abstract the symbols become, partly because the motions themselves may "blur" into others, causing a lack of precision(Lair, I'm looking directly at you).
What's really needed is a better balance between the motion controlled elements and the 'traditionally' controlled elements. I haven't played all of the games you've referenced in their Wii incarnations, but from what I've read, I'd suggest that these games strike such a balance and thus are relatively successful.
Having a single "server" doesn't necessarily imply single instances of individual zones, and those instances/the zones can be distributed to multiple physical servers. 1 million subscribers might technically be in the same 5 zones, but there may be 30 instances of those zones. They may not all be occupying the same virtual space, but they would have the capacity to trade with any player on the server, co-exist in guilds with anyone on the server, etc...You would never have the experience of running into an old friend, finding out you play the same game, and then discovering that you've invested your time on different servers, thus preventing you from playing together.
Yeah, the 360 definitely does that, partly by virtue of, you know, /having some/. This brings up a good point, though, with regards to the two consoles. The 360 is targeted at the hardcore gamer segment, and those individuals are probably far more likely to buy(or at least rent) most 'important' games on the console. I would think that Wii owners, if they're actually budget conscious etc(as it's been suggested they are), might invest in less games over the same period of time. Obviously, this is all just speculation, but it'll be interesting to see how it plays out in real numbers when the Wii's library grows. There's plenty of room for both consoles to succeed, and I think that they both have done so, but the interesting bit is how each strategy will really play out in the long run...Clearly, the Wii is 'winning' from the hardware perspective, but software is where the real money usually is. All of this could really affect what the next generation of consoles looks like.
I think that, primarily, people(not just slashdotters) optimistically believes that the law reflects logic, common sense, and the will of the people, that the 'obvious' conclusion should always be reached, even in the face of so much evidence that this is not actually so. IANAL, and I'd definitely hire one were I taken to court over even a trivial matter lest I wind up suffering due to a technicality.
I agree, it was very different in tone...I don't know if I'd call it a 'vanilla' shooter, though...I can't think of another memorable shooter from that day and age which had any concept of character advancement, nevermind the funky "choose your career path" stuff at the beginning...Or, heck, inventory management, for that matter. Most shooters were still in the "HOLY CRAP, MONSTERS" category back then. :) If you really want to nerd it up, this is pretty interesting and speaks a bit to the relationship between Looking Glass and Irrational back at the time-- Jonathan Chey breaks it down.
However, as things have grown easier, the pacing has (in my estimation) grown better-- I hated the literal hunt for (easter) eggs in SS2, as an example. Bioshock, narratively, is a superior game in this regard if you remove from the equation the SS games' main 'cool' bit-- SHODAN.
Re: the replay value, I agree there to a point...It's interesting, though, in that some of the elements of hacking/etc seem to work better in this game. Letting the environment do my work for me is much more interesting. I imagine that somebody who played it through like a normal shooter might play through again hacking etc...It's not a common mechanic in other shooters /other/ than those coming from The Artists Formerly Known as Looking Glass. Most shooters are mindlessly repetative death fests, so this is refreshing when compared against /them/ even if one can look back at other works by the same people and say 'oh, yeah, that was more surprising at the time'. Most people missed System Shock 2, and like 5 people played the voice-inclusive CDR version of System Shock the first go-around.
The part that crosses the line here, though, is that the action taken against the users in question is the immediate lockout of their blogs. Users should be provided the opportunity to remove the questionable content before being banned. In the case of the fellow whose link was suddenly directed to porn, he should have been afforded the opportunity to either correct or remove the link. Blogs are a fire-and-forget medium. It's not reasonable to expect users to test every link associated with their posts on a daily basis lest a vagina should somehow be exposed there.
The fact is, links, cuts, and various other methods are used as a sort of quasi-policing system in many fan fic and otherwise alt communities with the idea that they are somehow "fine" from a legal standpoint if it's not sitting directly on the page front. The theory is that the reader, by clicking a link, is 'willingly' entering the forbidden zone, so the poster must be in the clear. While IANAL, this may or may not be the case. It's definitely true that pornographic works involving children are illegal in the US. Rather than deal with the possible legalities themselves, since, as the host of the content, LJ might well be viewed as being culpable, they're striking the offending content. It seems to me that the "oh, I didn't know what was there!" argument only holds so long as the originating blogger truly was naive of the page's contents.
I'm very much in favor of free speech, but, so long as there is such a thing as illegal content, companies are within their rights to take whatever steps they need to take to be in compliance with the law. LJ has become too aggressive, removing innocent users as well as their likely intended targets, and they may suffer for it since their community may feel betrayed. However, it seems unlikely that they "don't understand how the web works." I think that they're simply far more concerned with how the /law/ works.
Just give it a little time.
The whole 'backseat playing' bit is pretty amusing, though. "Hit B! Hit B! You're going to die hit, aaaa, B!!!!!"
It's also interesting how various abilities chain together-- setting an enemy on fire with your plasmids and then shooting a heat seeking rocket at it is quite satisfying. I've played shooters where "Magic" is a part of the whole, but very few where abilities complement each other so well.
Lastly, and a-typically for an FPS, although the plot is relatively linear(you move along and open various areas sequentially, you usually have a goal that shuttles you around to different parts of said areas), there're large side areas for exploration that have no direct purpose beyond adding tone. Frequently, there'll be a little payoff in the form of a recording from a resident of Rapture or perhaps an unusual tonic, but mostly, they're just there to add to the fun of the game. It's a decent balance...You're not as clearly pushed in a direction as you are even in a decent shooter like Half Life 2.
Bioshock is the only game that I've played which actually inspires my spouse to sit beside me, totally enthralled as events unfold. She practically begs me to play so she can see what's going to happen next. All in all, my feeling is that this is a game that shouldn't be missed.
Still, you're right-- in 20 years, this /might/ be solved by technology to some degree, assuming the global economy keeps ticking/we don't find people refusing to trade with us because they really do control /all/ the manufacturing. :)
You're right, but my point was that so much manufacturing is being pushed overseas that it's difficult to get manufacturing jobs here /period/, regardless of how difficult or easy that work is. I don't think that it's become so easy to program that the simplicity you're describing applies to IT. Maybe I'm missing the thrust of your point?
Is it really easy for most people without any additional education coming out of our public high schools to get jobs in either the programming or design fields? Mind, I actually did something like that...My degree is decidedly not in C.S...But I haven't encountered many people in the industry who have had any real success without at least /some/ college in their background.
No no, he's shouting louder than I am. He must be correct!
As opposed to being a fry cook or simply unemployed? Absolutely.
That's true to a degree, but it's troubling in that it highlights the continuing degradation of the US's manufacturing capabilities. We've clearly shifted more towards a service-oriented economy, but that's only increasing the size of our unskilled underclass...There simply aren't as many good career paths for a high school graduate with no additional training. "Trade deficits" are not necessarily a problem in and of themselves, but they can be symptomatic of actual issues of concern.
Also, I'm curious what it did with uploaded resumes/cover letters.
First, being a generalist has meant that I have been steadily employed through several minibursts in the local tech economy. I've always found something that suited /me/ when more specialized friends have not.
Second, being a "generalist" has allowed me to keep well ahead on many learning curves than my "specialist" colleagues. Very rarely does any single technology, language, or platform remain en vogue for more than a year or two. As the next big thing comes along, I have been able to adapt faster due to my broader perspective, typically being responsible for instruction of more static peers.
The reason this is possible isn't some innate superiority-- it's simply by virtue of my generalized experience. I've programmed in various managed and unmanaged languages on various platforms and in various industries. Back when I was a consultant, frequently many of each at once. "New" is rarely new unless it's a specialized platform.
The thing is, that fellow who "does a little bit of everything" seems to be rising more consistently towards the technical lead level at my organization. "Matrixing" is the new buzzword of the moment, which really just means flexible resource allocation. Since seniority is generally preserved, such leads generally can't be specialists...One week, you may be leading a team of web developers, the next designing the schema for a database.
My suggestion is that you analyze your work environment and see if, perhaps, there is some other limiting factor on your career. Are you a "dump" for any problem that "doesn't quite fit the box" on your team rather than a valued asset? Are you in a top heavy organization? Do your immediate superiors appreciate your ability to make their lives easier?
Given that you apparently have to put a "perfect" lens between the two attractors in order to cause the reversal, this doesn't seem to have an obvious weapon application.
It's not that they're wrong that Spore is innovative this way(assuming it's ever more than vaporware), but rather that they do an exceptionally poor job of describing the way it works...The distinction here isn't between gated logic trees and 'actions', it's between static and dynamic content.