Wow, I must be in a foul mood. That just sounded terrible, ha!
My point is that our definition of habitable is going to change dramatically as we get more information. My knee jerk reaction to the summary was how limiting the thinking was to narrow what was possible to a tiny fraction of what was out there. Our concept of lifeforms and "earth-like lifeforms" are distinctions of their own and I hope I'm around to see how they get applied to whatever is discovered.
"...the scientists running it are fully confident that it will find Earth-like planets in some star's habitable zone"
Good to see that we're keeping a nice and closed mind about any lifeforms that might be outside the box. Just because we're so stuck on the definition of life that works here on our planet doesn't mean we won't find a lifeform that completely redefines "habitable zone".
You might want to try the following and see if it helps:
Disable all your addons, first and foremost.
Then, go into your World of Warcraft directory and delete the WTF directory (this resets your settings to default and fixes most problems).
If that doesn't work, delete the Cache directory too.
You should be able to get back into the game then. Hurry, Wintergrasp starts in 3 more mins!!!1!1one!!1!
I love it that he's finally realizing the huge budget over producerized games are too expensive. That's good for me, the small developer. As soon as EA stops thinking that a game has to be massive to be a success, little dev houses will start getting deals from EA again.
That's a good thing.
For me;)
5 years ago, I would have agreed with you completely. And I'm glad you said most. But in today's development world of middleware, I have to disagree.
When developing games now, I rely up prototyping to completely prove my game design and all it's fun factors before we commit to a technology base. I also make it a point (it's actually a directive) that our games are not just glorified tech demos. I try and treat the platform itself as just that, a platform for delivering the experience I'm looking for.
I've got a game that is in it's design and prototype phase now and has been since '99. I've had it testing on one of the old Lithtech platforms where we do the balancing and design tweaks. When the game is actually finished (or at least a lot closer than it is now) we'll shop all the engines that are available and port the game logic and data.
By developing this way, I can really take the time needed to get the designs right. The platform is developed by an external vendor, and when I'm ready I'll select one specifically to avoid my game from being obsolete before it ships.
I understand that this is not the norm in the industry, but it's working for us and I'd like to think that other dev teams out there do it too.
Bug fixes.
AI. It's horrible. You can STILL repeat the same play over and over again and score TDs.
Coaching switches for decision making instead of the all or nothing switch.
Options on the rules of the games (there are some, but it's hardly fully realized).
Better playbook management / editing.
Better accuracy with actual game rules.
Interface improvements.
I could go on.
Really. I don't care if they never add another game mode. I want what's already there (in 2004) to be finished first.
The major evolution I'm holding out for in MMOs is the shift from building experiences for users as opposed to systems for the users. Right now all the games are building zones and areas as tailored experiences that are gamed and completed. UO was actually a game that made systems first, and the experiences were up to the players. Sure, there were dungeons and all, but the majority of the game play was created by the users.
Static content creates static experiences. It's also really expensive. Think of all the art, code and design resources that went into the Onyxia raid, and then think of the bang for the buck. Players go on it over and over again, rolling the dice for drops but getting the same experience every time. It further gets stagnated by the fact that anyone can go to a number of sites and read complete walk throughs of the entire encounter.
A shift to creating systems would generate dynamic experiences. For example, what if the environment was a system that generated dragons. The dragon then became a target for the players, because they hear about it when the random player spotted it flying through a zone. The players then can set the tone of how to approach it and the experience as a whole is different every time.
As a designer, this is a challenge I'm taking on now. It's really not that hard, as we have lots of really good examples of how to do it (traditional RPGs are the best place).
The bigger challenge is convincing the publishers to fund it.
EA is not going to be gone for good, but they are learning a lesson about "the model" that they gravitated towards over the last decade (big, huge franchises only, massive marketing campaigns and huge bloated budgets to cover the asses of the people working on the game). It's that model that makes people around here get sick when they see "Standard EA Sports game '08". It makes a ton of money, minimizes risks and the exclusive relationships they forge protect that success as long as they can hang on. It works, but it kills the evolution of the games and makes it more and more difficult for innovation (look at the last two Maddens for example, they actually went BACKWARDS in features).
As another poster said above, the success of the Wii is opening the doors for smaller developers and publishers to earn some money without "the model". That's really exciting for me, as a small scale game developer that there is a platform I can develop on that will actually get looked at by a publisher with me having to prove I have a $5 million PR campaign, Saturday morning cartoon and $50 million dollar dev budget.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, I must be in a foul mood. That just sounded terrible, ha!
My point is that our definition of habitable is going to change dramatically as we get more information. My knee jerk reaction to the summary was how limiting the thinking was to narrow what was possible to a tiny fraction of what was out there. Our concept of lifeforms and "earth-like lifeforms" are distinctions of their own and I hope I'm around to see how they get applied to whatever is discovered.
"...the scientists running it are fully confident that it will find Earth-like planets in some star's habitable zone"
Good to see that we're keeping a nice and closed mind about any lifeforms that might be outside the box. Just because we're so stuck on the definition of life that works here on our planet doesn't mean we won't find a lifeform that completely redefines "habitable zone".
You might want to try the following and see if it helps: Disable all your addons, first and foremost. Then, go into your World of Warcraft directory and delete the WTF directory (this resets your settings to default and fixes most problems). If that doesn't work, delete the Cache directory too. You should be able to get back into the game then. Hurry, Wintergrasp starts in 3 more mins!!!1!1one!!1!
I love it that he's finally realizing the huge budget over producerized games are too expensive. That's good for me, the small developer. As soon as EA stops thinking that a game has to be massive to be a success, little dev houses will start getting deals from EA again. That's a good thing. For me ;)
5 years ago, I would have agreed with you completely. And I'm glad you said most. But in today's development world of middleware, I have to disagree.
When developing games now, I rely up prototyping to completely prove my game design and all it's fun factors before we commit to a technology base. I also make it a point (it's actually a directive) that our games are not just glorified tech demos. I try and treat the platform itself as just that, a platform for delivering the experience I'm looking for.
I've got a game that is in it's design and prototype phase now and has been since '99. I've had it testing on one of the old Lithtech platforms where we do the balancing and design tweaks. When the game is actually finished (or at least a lot closer than it is now) we'll shop all the engines that are available and port the game logic and data.
By developing this way, I can really take the time needed to get the designs right. The platform is developed by an external vendor, and when I'm ready I'll select one specifically to avoid my game from being obsolete before it ships.
I understand that this is not the norm in the industry, but it's working for us and I'd like to think that other dev teams out there do it too.
Bug fixes.
AI. It's horrible. You can STILL repeat the same play over and over again and score TDs.
Coaching switches for decision making instead of the all or nothing switch.
Options on the rules of the games (there are some, but it's hardly fully realized).
Better playbook management / editing.
Better accuracy with actual game rules.
Interface improvements.
I could go on.
Really.
I don't care if they never add another game mode. I want what's already there (in 2004) to be finished first.
The major evolution I'm holding out for in MMOs is the shift from building experiences for users as opposed to systems for the users. Right now all the games are building zones and areas as tailored experiences that are gamed and completed. UO was actually a game that made systems first, and the experiences were up to the players. Sure, there were dungeons and all, but the majority of the game play was created by the users.
Static content creates static experiences. It's also really expensive. Think of all the art, code and design resources that went into the Onyxia raid, and then think of the bang for the buck. Players go on it over and over again, rolling the dice for drops but getting the same experience every time. It further gets stagnated by the fact that anyone can go to a number of sites and read complete walk throughs of the entire encounter.
A shift to creating systems would generate dynamic experiences. For example, what if the environment was a system that generated dragons. The dragon then became a target for the players, because they hear about it when the random player spotted it flying through a zone. The players then can set the tone of how to approach it and the experience as a whole is different every time.
As a designer, this is a challenge I'm taking on now. It's really not that hard, as we have lots of really good examples of how to do it (traditional RPGs are the best place).
The bigger challenge is convincing the publishers to fund it.
At least, that's my challenge. hehe.
EA is not going to be gone for good, but they are learning a lesson about "the model" that they gravitated towards over the last decade (big, huge franchises only, massive marketing campaigns and huge bloated budgets to cover the asses of the people working on the game). It's that model that makes people around here get sick when they see "Standard EA Sports game '08". It makes a ton of money, minimizes risks and the exclusive relationships they forge protect that success as long as they can hang on. It works, but it kills the evolution of the games and makes it more and more difficult for innovation (look at the last two Maddens for example, they actually went BACKWARDS in features). As another poster said above, the success of the Wii is opening the doors for smaller developers and publishers to earn some money without "the model". That's really exciting for me, as a small scale game developer that there is a platform I can develop on that will actually get looked at by a publisher with me having to prove I have a $5 million PR campaign, Saturday morning cartoon and $50 million dollar dev budget.