Question to all "in the Know" RPG'ers
on
A 1974 Review of D&D
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Where would you say is a good site to look at reviews and analysis of various rulesets for pen and paper RPG's? I was struck by the comment (of the review in the original submission) about needing simplification. However I once again am reminded of how the entire idea behind much of the D&D ruleset was to avoid having a team of dice rollers, another team of rule lawyers with handy shelves full of indexed rules and then another team of ref's to look over the entire process and ensure compliance and "fun." I always felt that computers could aid in much of that, thus bringing back much needed complexity and richness of results without actual complexity of use. I have seen some set up small programs that did just that, adding very complex calculations including things like encounter scaling, NPC reactions, goal generation and adaptation and of course combat modifiers (especially for critical success/failure outcomes).
However, I feel let down when computer game developers merely throw the pen and paper system onto a computer. Since so much more is put into the prettiness of the game than in the actual gameplay and mechanics then I am left wanting so much more. So, what is a scalable ruleset that can more easily be expanded if computing equipment is used (whether just as number crunching or being an actual interactive gameworld) or simplified as needed for tabletop play? What I am looking for is a guide and cheat sheet for judging what tool (the ruleset or assisting calculator) is best for what need. While I believe in using the right tool for the job at hand I do not feel like getting a law degree in RPG & Action/Adventure rulesets just to find the basis for a ruleset I can use and even then have to start adapting and expanding it. Who would ever program if they had to manually create from scratch their own compilers each time they wanted a build to distribute?
here is a clue for those not "in the know." Government contracting is based upon a business model that does not factor in things like the quality, efficiency or effectiveness (actually works AND provides what the end user needs) of the product or service in question. What is more important than anything is the ability to schmooze your way to the top and bring in that business (on the contracting side) while on the government side what is important is that you equally schmooze your way up the ladder by repeatedly demonstrating an amazing lack of care, concern or knowledge about the impact of poor development practices, confusion of personal and professional relationships, buzz words versus any actual understanding of the systems (and the systems' objectives) or any sort of ethical concern for actually being a good steward of both the tax payer's money and of the warfighter.
In a free market economy the consumer has the option of making choices based on any number of factors including price, quality, speed/efficiency, convenience, and just plain old personal taste. However, in any system that shuts out all but the most deep pocketed (and well connected personally) companies then you had better be willing to pay more for less. Furthermore if the weights of the value of a product, service or the company that renders it has moved from the above factors (price, quality, etc) to that of the prettiest proposals, the slick talkingest (reverting to my Yosemite Sam mode) company personnel and the prettiness of words and documents presented then you will inevitably end up with less quality. Competition has then moved completely to the realm of draft picks for the cheerleader squad. It doesn't matter if they do nothing but look pretty and say stupid repetitive cheers... hey! they look pretty.
Bullshit artistry is _THE_ factor in government contracting, as a track record of proven quality does not factor in. Now to be fair, there is the SEI system in place (Systems Engineering and Integration) which mostly inherits from the ISO 9001 system. With five levels (1 - 5, no zero... 1 is granted to anyone whether they can find their ass with either hand or not) you have a criteria of process quality by which you can judge an organization. However, with all the money and obvious effort that went into creating and maintaining this system the Achilles heel is no different than in any other of the "best laid systems and plans" to date. That my friend is the factor of non-compliance to the very processes that define who is granted what level. In other words, they don't use it like it was intended thus rendering it as just another acronym. The ironic thing (but typical in entrenched bureaucracy) is that even though pretty much anyone will admit (if you ask them lightly in the break room over coffee) that the system is rather broken most of those will still puff up with pride (if contractor) if they are a talking head of an organization with higher than SEI Level 2 or will speak with awe and wonder (if government) of an organization with SEI Level 2 or higher.
What I fail to understand is why some will defend this bastardization on the grounds that those organizations with an undeserved SEI level are "Working Towards it." Well, that is good... really, however that is illogical when you look at the fact that the SEI system is not a projection but a grant of current operational status. I somehow doubt that there would be much validity in being granted a good bill of health after being shot 10 times if it was based on the fact that the surgical staff would "Soon fix me up good." No, instead I should be labeled as "In Critical Condition" and any other status be viewed as such. (Hmmm, is THAT what STAT comes from... meaning right NOW? I sure don't know) Back to IT work, if I was the customer then I would not care one damn bit of a system in place that is not consistently applied. The minute it becomes acceptable practice to arbitrarily award the SEI Levels is the same instance that such levels loose their meaning.
Now some might say (who lack working neurons) that this is exactly what happens with capitalist Evil Corporations (TM) yet in reality we see that it is the government itself that creates this system. If the government would place individuals in decision making roles that had both a sense of ethics as well as refined professionalism then you would find that requirements would soon show a dramatic shift towards the quality of the products and services rendered. Networked people are important, to that there is no question. Yet a professional organization will correctly view those connected personnel as one of the many factors involved in doing business. ("Professional" defined here not just as "they get paid to do X" but referring the the ethical and motivational set of standards and practices they employ) Some actually believe that without business developers sliming their way through the system, charming the customer and confusing them when they question bad quality, that there would be no business. Perhaps in some cases there would be less, but there have been entirely too many cases in history (large and small) that show that if there is a need on one end and a supplier on the other than things can work out just fine. The middle man is nothing more than a facilitator of this process... a catylist (sp) but since they themselves do not do any real work they are expendable in reality. Before them business happened at perhaps a slower rate. Without them business adapts. Without those providing the actual product and service than there is nothing to be made of the best of deals. Take out the bullshit artists in the government and soon you will find that their contractual counterparts will begin to vanish as well.
On a different but very much related note: Has anyone ever done a study of the percentage of commercials split up by radio, television and print (including the net) that actually advertise the uniqueness of the product, its advantages over competitors and why you should buy it? Don't get me wrong, I LOVE those beer commercials usually. However when so many commercials have become little sitcoms or tools of the "arteest" then I really fail to see how I as a consumer am supposed to do anything but ignore them and focus on doing research (to include ratings). I rarely see any commercial that is useful however that could just be where I live.
what do griefers do in that game?
on
Sim-Dud?
·
· Score: 1
Seriously though, I do wish I knew someone who played that so I could watch over their shoulder and see how things are. I personally am unwilling to spend the money or time on it, but I have heard (from game dev's of other online games) that what is expected is an advancement in well... simulated reality and the "AI" that goes along with it. Such things would be very useful if refined and augmented for use in MMOG's of the RPG and strategy sort. I wouldn't mind seeing the technology behind it myself but I just can't bring myself to be interested in the actual game. Odd.
upon first reading Starship Troopers, my first experience of this great author, I was amazed at how he so quickly assaulted me the reader with actual story, plot and general content. His descriptions and actually his in story use of technology and gadgets was downplayed as it is in real life. He found much better ways of explaining certain elements of "modern" (thus fictional futuristic to us) life much as we today would discuss the latest virus hitting the email servers and little Johnny's recent MRI results.
Remember in Airplane II, how they made such great fun of the general Sci Fi and specifically Star Trek method of overdoing the gadgets, technobabble and future "stuff" there for its own sake? This might have caused laughs in many and perhaps anger in some, but it was not heeded obviously. If you wanted to tell a story, like in Dune, that simply had to be set in the future because of the circumstances then you will need to provide a backdrop that includes some history. (we obviously do not have 10 thousand years of detailed history about industrialized society, much less I can't recall ever hearing about any colony on another planet) However, this would be to SUPPORT your STORY as opposed to simply finding fluff and filler to give excuse to fire the latest cool looking beam/particle weapon, hear (as in "HEAR" hahaha) the latest big, cool, aerodynamic and multicolored ship, see the neat effects of the transporter for this movie and see some nifty "uniforms" that often would not pass for a prisoner's work clothes, much less a dignified uniform of a professional group of military entities (hmmm, as opposed to the vast array that the DoD produces of well tailored (if not often fat) dandy's with no more the military mind than is had by a 4 year old girl playing house... hmmmm).
I enjoy special effects. Often I will browse the web looking for those nifty fantasy and sci-fi paintings and graphics, bookmark the site and go back when it strikes my fancy again. However, when I read a book or watch a show I want a story. I care nothing about the gadgets unless the story is actually centered around gadgets (perhaps a Star Trek episode or movie staring folks who are Star Fleet's ordinance gang, that would be rather cool)
the really sad thing is that in the past you had many sci-fi content producers that expanded the horizons of your imagination even to the point of being "correct" in their colorful pseudo-predictions of things to come (and how they will actually be utilized and integrated in society). This had a chain reaction of ideas and inspiration for many. Now we are inspiring sloth and pretty words over actual hard facts and engineering. Technobabble is the literary buzz fest and it is only getting worse. Even before the Columbia was tragically lost many had simply lost faith in the idea of space travel as well as just lost interest in anything related to it as well. Yet if you walk the halls of NASA you will find more empty degrees, suits and plaques of buzz... no real innovation, dedication or vision exists there. Vigilance has been replaced with complacent acceptance of policy. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would be sick... were their bodies not already dust I suppose. They were great thinkers and DO'ERS. You didn't ever hear of Ben Franklin backing out of his latest passion because of worry over who could possibly be pointed to if something goes a bit wrong... even though it is R&D. The common theme between the obvious government/big business system I allude to here and story writing is that they are just the same. It is a result of laziness coupled with more laziness and then covered by a thick coating of policy and credentialism.
The solution isn't easy... vigilance never is but it is one of those cheesy things involving each individual doing what they believe in regardless of worrying more about what they will look like. Hell, what we call Founding Fathers in the US were once labled as Rebels and Traitors. Yet I believe that the idea of republican democracy caught on even to a degree (haha, j/k) in the UK.
most would associate that phrase with a signature or even photo of someone when a kid (or just not when they are famous). With some it comes true and can provide an interesting insight into the human behind the celebrity.
With that serious sounding intro in mind, I ask you to ponder this. My brother and I (on more than one occasion) thought it the highlight of humor to record the sound of our farting (and background laughter). It even on occasion became "necessary" to attempt a recording of taking a dump... oh the years of stupidity. So I have to ask myself if the next Nobel prize winner, victorious General or the person who eventually steps foot upon another planet will still have such memorabilia lying around in some format for future generations to laugh at. Come to think of it, I still find that very amusing and so I will dub myself still just as crass and stupid.
Just an opinion (as if these all aren't here) but it seemed to me for a while that Hilary Rosen was less the "head" in the sense of any real leadership but more just the spokesman. In her case she may be one of these that "sorta" believes in what she spews but is really just a puppet. Regardless, my feeling from this is that they will soon present someone who is either more of a shark or more of a snake. In other words, someone who is overt in attacks or a politician with smooth words and an ability to charm the common sense right out of the masses.
Or she just wants to take up basket weaving, who knows?
Besides the price and quality (dpi, ppm, actual quality of output, etc) I look at the cost of ink. I make it a rule to not buy any printer that the cost of black and white or color is more than 10 and 18 cents respectively. It is annoying when you have to buy the inflated prices of the ink cartridge's sold by that particular vendor. What's next, me only being able to buy official Iomega brand zip disks? The sad thing is that many refill kits cause more problems than they solve as they are watered down resulting in leakage and gumming up of the printer. However, it is also rather pathetic to look at how these printers all seem to have different shaped cartridges. Why is that? Seems to me that most printers still have plenty of clearance left over so space saving is not the issue and the other cartridges fit space wise but slot wise to not fit. Conspiracy theory suggests they do this on purpose... yet when Lexmark (or HP, Cannon, etc) sues those who make cartridges then I have to wonder.
So in the end, I begin to wonder if the printer industry has a business model similar to that of the console gaming industry. (Although I would find it odd if they sold the printers at a loss as consoles often do initially)
I agree with your assessment and ask many of the same questions (my RPG past is similar). I laughed outloud when I read your comment on the guy with a short sword and his buddy who has a minigun. FF has never really done a good job at roleplaying or having any sort of RPG "realism" from what I have seen. In fact it is safe to say that FF has been one of the stereotypical "bad RPG's" in terms of the silliness like having a fat king with a wooden scepter take a full hit from a bazooka, then a claymore, then a laser blaster, then a shotgun blast to his unarmoured head for "1 point of damage" because of that emperor of all stupid CRPG elements... levels. Yet his wooden scepter can fell the battle hardened knight in one blow (who has full armour, btw).
This is much akin to the situation where you have this static list of "spells" for wizards and yet your "level 30 wizard" doesn't ever seem to have access to the spells and magical capability that the wizards (evil and good) have in cutscenes. Funny, if a lower level "student" wizard teleports directly to my position with potions and a note that he will bring your best robes, then I expect myself to be able to do exactly the same thing at the very least. And that does not mean that I get some cheesy "can randomly teleport on screen" or "can teleport within line of sight (of the screen)"
Do you want to wait that long for animals to do that? While hunting and eating animals is not an unreasonable request, I really don't see a practicle reason to waste time programming animal breeding cycles into a game, when it serves no practical purpose unless you become an animal breeder, or something.
that is a very literal interpretation of what was requested! LOL How about just tracking of trends and change so that instead of the insta-spawn method you have thresholds of various variables and stimulus like base breeding population, health of critters (which is usually a result of factoring things in the environment and random elements), locations of food and shelter, as well as the ability to secure these and of course we should not forget gestation periods (averages not fixed) and groupings of the opposite sex.
So the example he gave about frogs and snakes could be estimated and give a feel of having an effect on the game world. I agree that you should eliminate much of the tedium of time and effort for simple tasks. I really do not desire my avatar to have to take a dump. Perhaps instead of focusing on this we could focus on the interaction (char with char, char with environment, etc) within the game and not the support features like crapping and wearing clean underwear. I really don't think I will like the Sims online but it will be fascinating to see how it evolves both as a game and as a culture (the real life elements).
As for repeating quests, I think that having thresholds and variants would go along way to adding spice to the questing systems as well as avoiding the empty quest syndrom. Where your action means absolutely nothing in the game world. There are those that are looking into the ability for players of sufficient level to create quests based upon the context of their "powers." For example, a Captain of the guards assigned at a fishing town that has been raided by pirates (NPC or player, it doesn't matter) can create bounties, commmision officers to hunt them directly, commission ship builders, alter the economic requirements (import more wood, iron and gunpowder) and so forth. It is not easy to implement I admit but much we do today in the game industry was possible 10 years ago.
you share many of the same ideas as I and a whole heap of others. This line especially hits at the very heart of the matter of what makes a ROLE playing game especially in a persistent, multiplayer world.
I always hear the excuse from coders that it's just not practical to code all this stuff in when it doesn't add to the game play. But it does affect the game play.
Regardless of whether it is a game, business/information portal, simulator or frankly any system utilizing a scriptable event, object, or action separate from the core engine/logic, this is something that should be heeded. What makes a good scriptable system is not just the syntactical or semantic design. What is the most important is that the entire interactive/dynamic aspects of the game are setup so that there are really only limits which are the result of the designers.
How many times have you played a game in which the overly painful clues and hints might lead you to take a more practical, logical or just emotionally desired approach to solving the problem, only to be restricted by a very artificial and "unnatural" limit. What you then end up doing throughout the game is applying only those solutions the programmers wish you to use. Gee, how fun!</sarcasm>
No, what you hit on is very important indeed. Like with a simulator, it is important to actually not limit the very immersion and interaction elements which include the challenges, problems, solutions and variations which would very well give a more realistic result set. Often what is taken is the "Scenario vs. Script" approach so that an unfavorable approach is not solved or integrated but is treated like a bug and removed. A bug in a program would not be a particular image that caused a memory leak but would be the actual error inside the code that led to the memory leak. Yet this coverup of the symptom instead of solving the problem (or curing the disease if you will) is the normal approach that development/producing organizations take.
The argument of "Great Quality, cheap cost and quick development time... pick one" is valid except what is defined as "quality" is the problem here. The very things that are hard coded, cut out, canned, whatever... those are the very limits that end up both making the game less immersive and making it harder for the designers and programmers. What the developers should actually do is embrace that unpredictability and openness as part of the gaming experience. That will require of course that the entire engine (static) and object/event/action (dynamic) elements of the system be designed to work as simple, working components instead of more complex components. An analogy would be to look at an assembly line of an automobile factory where the parts while designed to work for that specific vehicle are going to be, for the most part, minor variants upon a stock collection of parts using standard "interfaces." What you won't get normally is a collection of large complex parts that do everything. Sort of like if humans were made up of only about 5 very large cells instead of the billions it is made up of that work in synergy.
Here is my stock example... it may or may not be a good one, but work with me:) In a persistent RPG world (MMORPG) let us assume we have a situation where raw materials are required along with skill to create various objects for use in the game, in this case shields and other armor. However, mining is tough and requires a boat load of other resources and labor to make usable raw materials (ingots) for the actual end product. Like any other resource, this will be in demand by many who are unscrupulous as well as our little mining friends might be seen as convenient slave labor by various monster races (or food for that matter). Yet why would we then allow the placement of permanent, invulnerable salesmen, structures, equipment, etc? Lets say that a tribe of Orcs decides to raid the growing mining encampment or even better to raid the supply wagons bringing in supplies or exporting the ore or ingots. Wouldn't it then make sense to place the smithies there? Well only if you have an ample supply of water around. Oh and don't forget the food for the people, as well as guards for the caravans of exports. These people might want a place to live and drink so that would be a possibility to look into. However, this is where it gets crappy, IMNSHO. The result in many games is a system where there are no incentives (quests, rewards, adventure, etc) to be had by many players except the craftsmen and the ones raiding them. Yet ironically you might have within the very same game a canned quest or two that deals with "saving the local miners from the hoard" (of which the mining camp is canned and static as well). So if a thousand players all partake in these quests they will NEVER notice a change. They have no impact on the world. Personally I would like to see about raiding the town and taking it over. That would fill my coffers to the max and I get to fill my evil desires to control others (what can I say, I guess I am a marxist at heart).
Any ability to actually "Role Play" the parts of villian, mayor, craftsman, hero or guard are only allowed if the developers implemented a crude and hard coded "class system" that with such you can kiss any chances of creativity goodbye. I could go into how this effects the actual crafted items, the economy, warfare, guilding systems, tactics and overall strategy but it is really much the same.
The biggest issue here is about waying what the game is about. Personally, I am tired of seeing "pretty hacks" out there and not engineered systems. That means you need to PLAN and ARCHITECT the system not just throw some crap together and hope to make some money. However the financial reality is that as it stands now... that tactic works, and works well! Just look at the money side of the game industry and how things break down and you will see this. This is because there is no real competition. With persistent worlds, we are very slowly seeing some pop up that offer different ways to play. However, until you have a situation in which one can say confidently, "I am making this game, with this goal and these parameters" instead of the "Lets make something with superficial elements of everything so that we can attract as much market share as possible" you will have this crap. However that is a chicken and egg issue as well, so lets just be proactive and stick to our niches and make them well. Stop trying to be everything, or at least applying all the colors of the rainbow of "market appeal" like a poor paint job to the game systems. Start engineering these things with the long term in mind. After the inevitable saturation occurs in the MMORPG arena, then it will be easier to have niche based games I believe.
Basically, lets approach these things more as an environment or simulation and build the gaming elements on top of that. (this is analogous to movies who's plot is an afterthought after the special effects and other superficial makeup is applied)
...to use a grain analogy. Salt was once valuable enough and over a large enough area to be used itself as money from what I was told. Internal to these games there is the possibility of creating a virtual world that really can transport you to another place. A place where odd things can happen and the world be completely alien or parellel reality to various degrees. Artificial (in the context of gameplay not concepts of suspension of belief really) restrictions and limitations within these games serve to sever this possibility. Some would not want this or at least not in all games. However I personally would like a fantasy world that can evolve on its own and require less of a retooling to get it back in line. That would mean no levels, classes, or any other preset limits like that (obviously within reason unless we suddenly have clusters of quantum processors).
I would also just like to say that it is sad how our way of life has become a dependency to many instead of merely a convenience. Many would not know the basics of real life survival if it came up and bit them in their PDA. Technology isn't bad... but lets remember to not let it make us slaves. Shoot, a skill based RPG could teach us that! LOL
Normally I am deeply warry of tightly integrated or embedded systems simply because in the past it has made me either loose the apps I like, doesn't allow me to integrate on various levels with them (and thus use them but suck it up), or if I do stick with them I might have extra bloat on the suite that is never fully removed (from a diskspace, latency and memory perspective).
That being said however, I have been trying out the entire Mozilla suite (1.2 now) to see how it fares. However, since I have been using webmail for so long and rarely chat anymore on IRC, and newsgroups are a thing of the past unfortunately... I suppose I have nothing to lose, right? I guess my question is, what are good products for each of these areas: IRC, Newsgroups, Mail, Addressbook maintenance... and on both Windows and any Linux? Also, where is a good site to review these apps? Hardware always seems so easy to find reviews for but while there are so many sights that half-heartedly review various software apps there seems to be no good search engine/site for these that I know of (throw me a freak'n bone here:)
Second question (group of questions I suppose): How easy is it to integrate these (non-Mozilla)apps with the Mozilla browser?
while it would be nearly impossible to justify the cost of this for a family even with any cost savings from fuel (that is opening up another can of assumptions though), I wonder what this baby's towing capacity is. Shipping companies might find a more refined version of this very affordable and actually worth the money. Note that refined assumes that as a production vehicle with a bit of shake down time under its belt and about 10-20% lower cost. Existing semi's cost a pretty penny as it is, so perhaps this technology could see useful application sooner than foretold by many.
The MVP initiative will be a big part of Microsoft's efforts to promote a sense of "community" among users and developers, connecting its own product developers with the users most in touch with product issues.
While this would be a very wise thing for them to do, I wonder if they trully realize that their tactics and strategies in the past are part of the problem. Developers being in the equation also includes the companies that sponser and employ them. Last November, MS commented about its current community that frankly was showing its true colors (meaning there was no loyalty or trust, but merely a wait and see attitude).
Personally, I think they have a LONG way to go in changing their business ethos, otherwise even the best layed plans will turn to crap after a short time (its like giving cars to monkeys, if they don't care or know how to upkeep them then while they will look more sophisticated and advanced to outward observers at first, it will soon become apparent that they were just not meant for devices like that).
When asked about Linux being a platform for MS products, Ballmer answered no. Ironically however, the reason stated in this article is about MS's "reluctance to accept legal liability for OpenSource Software." Does that mean that they have been accepting legal liability for other vendor's software, much less their own? I remember one time last year on the news there was a reporter doing a rundown of many of the "neglected" portions of the DoJ and friends' case(s) against MS. One of them was to establish an open door for end users and companies (especially small ones) who had lost significant amounts of money due to negligence on the part of MS. Have people been getting cash back or free support for MS created problems? (I don't want to start a debate here, most people know that no software is perfect so this assumption is based on that tenet)
Next we have,
And IBM, arguably the No. 1 player in the Linux market, promotes Linux to big users, but does not actually sell Linux: "It's weird. IBM says 'Hey British Aerospace! Buy Linux...from SuSE.'"
Here I had to laugh... some more. This seems to be a window into Ballmer's and Microsoft's way of thinking about software and Operating Systems. IBM is not selling an operating system, they are selling hardware and an entire computing suite/environment. Can someone use RedHat instead of Suse? I think so. Can someone take advantage of the (arguably) more efficient, modular, secure and extensible nature of Linux to tailor it for their own needs? (including scaling BACK to make leaner systems) I believe that is one of the selling points. (I could be wrong, but I have seen a few ads that touted such things recently) I sincerely hope for Ballmer's and MS shareholder's sake that what he said was either quoted way out of context or is just fronting BS. What integration companies (and even just regular non-IT companies) have been moving to non-MS solutions for was to allow THEM to have the choice in the system (among other reasons of course). People don't really like to either be restricted in choices or be presented with only options that force payment for services unwanted and unrendered (I consider services rendered to mean it WORKS).
What if, when you went to a grocery you were ONLY presented with "Value Packs" that they had very few differing combinations but all of them had about 70% of the same items between them (the Store Brand(tm)). You might not like the store brand. You may remember using some other brand that you liked and that the store no longer carries it (because it magically became "Incompatable" after the Grocery Store bought out one of the competitor's (of your favorite brand) factory. You may also get tired of finding that the food items are often spoiled, leaking, smashed etc yet in order to get assistance you are actually CHARGED by the Grocery Store. Then you hear about how other small grocery stores (or makers of particular grocery items) are strongarmed into going out of business, accepting only MS as a distributor, or being bought out. Hell, even the local farmers won't look you in the eye anymore because of their shame at being whipped.
Now would this work? Well it would if people were stupid, the vendors were spineless and short sighted and all around everyone was too busy making excuses and looking for Mighty Big Brother to once again tell them what to do, how to think, etc. (in other words, to save them from their own stupidity)
So, with this in mind... if the IT community (meaning end users, company procurement, developers, etc) let themselves be led into this once again then it will be real hard not to just let them rot in the jail they made for themselves. If MS is interested in technological solutions then they will HAVE to change their internal thinking about strategy and operational tactics. Or, they could just continue to focus more on marketing and litigation... however I doubt that solution will work for much longer. Some people are slowly waking up (sorta like the Matrix I guess...) and seeing the mess they let be made. Hmm, the big flaw in this is not 'the people' it is bureacrats. These empty headed monkeys will be the problem as ever before. They will blindly put foolishly to action, those things that can clearly be seen as harmful for long term capital. The business world has been riding on this forward wave of progress that if said progress shifts (to another market) or begins to depend on Process Improvement instead of raw technical prowess they will flounder and die. That will hurt a lot of people so I hope they will pull their collective heads out of their red-tape puckered arses soon.
GTK works good, if your system can interpret it. SUre I can get a windows version (that basically translates) but I can't help but wonder that if we already have these layers, then why not abstract them better so that for example you have a generic UI API independent of any actual library or API a system uses (like win32/GDI, GTK, or xdm). The actual syntax could be whatever (use what works well, not what is the 'coolest' feature wise) Upon install of these apps, the user could be presented with options to configure it for certain platforms and applications. Example: I install an IRC client on WindowsXP. I can choose among straigh text, text with ASCII/GUI, the win32/GDI gui, Java, HTML or even HTML with things like javascript. From that point I will be able to access the app from many different locations or situations. (perhaps it could also come with support code to make it easy to integrate inside a webpage of use sidebars like Mozilla) Now this could be slow if not done right, so why not actually use dynamic libraries that instead of actually translating, actually directly take calls (meaning the UI API does not have to be runtime) allowing anyone for example, to make a win32 only version on their system that is just as fast as had the app been written for windows in the first place.
I don't know if this is possible (I am not really a interface man) but I am trying something on a low level myself just for practice. If something like this already exists then I will look at it first, but I need the practice so who cares if i reinvent the wheel this time?
I would think that this system would make it much easier allow a global skinnig scheme, as well as for people to provide good front ends for various apps that are not hard coded to only that app.
I am 27, and it sucks even more when some 20 year olds come in that have no skills, degrees, etc. yet get 15000 more than me. Then when you find out that in order for them to do their job they require about 19000 in training. Damn, thats like winning the lottery!
I think that besides the usual BS that spews from many a development manager as relates to requirements, features, timelines, task assignment, goals, etc. there is also a sort of dual personality that exists within the top rungs of not just the companies and organizations (customers) involved, but actually on the development team itself. Meaning: that this problem occurs sometimes without direct cause by higher ups in the chain (the suits, if you will).
Obvious Guy pointed out how there is the idea of good design first then implementation, but in reality it is much different. However, lets not accept that attitude and practice anymore than we would accept the regular practice of someone robbing your house when you leave during the day and saying it was simply 'a sad reality we must learn to live with.' I have sadly worked for some of the worst managers and development teams that you can get... these people make disorganized and pr0n addled teenagers hacking together a toy look like the giants in the industry as far as coordination, collaboration, actual planning and consistency are concerned. This problem of short time delays ends up forcing horrible hack jobs that we call proof of concepts, which predictably leads to being told to turn it into a formal prototype with only about a month, then told there that said prototype is now the system once we use the 2 months to harden it. Those time periods include the testing and documentation as well. Result? Most often a very hard coded, fragile, spit and bubblegum system that only causes massive heartache and money to maintain, extend and adapt not just a year later but often immediately following release. (most often because of adaptations to particular environments, platform settups, security requirements, etc of various end sights) When questioned on this, the pavlovian response of the decision makers is that the needs dictated this and they "could not" wait. Its been my experience that this is either an outright lie or is just extremely poor judgement. Consider how a project could be hurried up like this and end up a mess, yet when you look at the actual tasking orders that led to the project it clearly states (well clearly for bureacrats) that this is an advanced proof of concept to be fleshed out and refined before being adopted officially. Hmmm, does that mean that they want crap that takes 2.5 times the original development effort to turn into a useful and robust? (extensible, maintainable, efficient, buzz buzz buzz)
I put this under the category of 'never learns from mistakes' as this happens so regularly yet so many on both sides (especially on the user side) complain about the lack of interoperability, extendability, and integration worthiness of these projects. So, to make a long post short... (too late, I know) what kind of book, cbt, cute PowerPoint slide, or dancing furry vendor mascot will get the point across the program managment and self labled 'system engineers' that it is both cheaper and more productive in the mid to long term to really plan, design and implement an actual piece of engineering rather than these hack jobs held together by dirty bandaids and mucous. I know that as an integrator it would make my job easier:) As a customer of various products though, I would be extremely happy and of course its not like I never have to maintain, much less develop in an environment that while contains talented programmers is not held together by anyone (or any ideology) that will coordinate, motivate and lead everyone to a satisfying conclusion. Actually its been so long sense I have been able to say, "Yeah I worked my tail off but we did our best, produced some impressive results and can be proud of the work we produced" Hmmm, lets check Monster.com now:)
I haven't done the homework on the game since its release, but just remember that early on Bioware said it would most likely be using a P2P based system for its multiplayer. This was asked because of the horrible performance many experienced (pulled from forums and word of mouth) due to the client-server method they used, as well as the poor player who was actually playing on the machine acting as a server.
So, did they end up using such a system? I know that they included actual servers to help alleviate the problem of playing on the server machine and causing lag to all, but what is the method for multiple clients connecting without the server explicitly setup? Did they stick with the old method and just make it so that the 'master' game machine is the server?
I am curious about both a postmortem analysis of implementing this and an early performance/approval rating of this method. Somebody please set me straight (I can't seem to connect to their site right now or I would gladly look for technical details)
On a side but related note... outside of P2P for the use of filesharing only, what is a good library and/or toolset for creating P2P apps, as well as a good modularly designed and well documented system that can be scaled for P2P uses?
I think that the first game that really is a framework that supports players' ability to create their own adventures within, will be a blockbuster. I dont just mean modules, although I love that concept. I refer to a very large game world where what you do matters as much as need be... if you are a murdering scumbag, then your rampage of death will cause either an outflux of NPC's and players (and trade, economy, etc) or will force people to bring in goons and gaurds to track you down. If the gameplay, rulesets and mechanics allow you to really be whoever you want to be then I think people will create a great virtual existence where you can do all the things you can't or won't do in RL. As it is now, designers are stuck in this mode where they see my statement of 'be anything you can be' and say, "Hey! he wants us to add more classes and extend level times." Just as NWN is (in theory at least) a platform for creating adventures with the toolsets, I wait for a game that is the equivelent platform for actual gaming and involvement.
that the term 'roleplay' is thrown around like an old dirty sock (yeah, that 'special sock':)
Many forget that levels, as well as many other aspects now termed as defining Roleplaying, where merely implemented to simplify the gameplay while attempting to salvage as much realism as possible. That works great on paper. Look at how D&D evolved and branched. Many advanced sub-rule sets were adopted that really added a lot of depth to the game whilst keeping to the original rules. e.g. I played with a rather horendously 'accurate' and complicated critical hit/miss calculation method. It was great but required a lot more time and effort to implement than the core rules. Some people wrote detailed programs that would calculate this for you, but as they themselves became more complex it took a while simply to enter the correct input. I read on a forum however that there were some great programs out there that acted like DM assistants in which you fed in things like locations of items, players, monsters, etc. So since much of the data was there already the time and effort to input data was reduced. Of course there are MUDS, MOOS, etc, but those were more automated games I guess than assistants. (never played that many)
Personally, I wish the focus would be on gameplay and robust rulesets instead of graphics. Thing is, we have these lovely 3D graphics cards and great API's to make much of the rendering work easier and take off cycles from the CPU, yet the AI, immersion, etc has seemed to dwindle actually. I remember an advertisement for an early nVidia card that said, "Now you can free up your code and your processor for things like AI, gameplay and immersion" Well... I am still waiting:)
I agree that as they evolve, MMG's are fostering more of a community aspect of gaming than what we are familiar with currently in interactive games.
What I would add is this: first, there are different mixtures if community and game that should be recognized, IMHO. This is an aspect of not just the game but the type of gamer. Many really do play for the community. There are many online chat communities that have an almost occult following, yet there is no interactive gaming. Look at the old BBS's. They added some games as afterthoughts, and when they did good it was usually because of a well designed (or just luck) integration and use of said community into the game itself.
Which leads to my second comment. I feel that many of these games are a horribly made collage instead of a well engineered system of parts. While it is not new for this (movies and single player games) method of plugging in something as an afterthought in the hopes of attracting more people, the aspect of community is just now beginning to dawn on many designers' minds. Again... my opinion. (I feel I have to say that because of lurking trolls and other over sensitive folk:)
To date, I have felt like these games are basically a graphical click fest game, overlaid with a chat room. That is great for many, but what about a true immersive world? Instead of a lame situation of "Hey, lets go raid Dungeon X" to which thousands of raids have already happened, along with current raids yet the environment never seems to acknowledge this, how about raiding a group of orcs that are players (most of them maybe)? They will definitely react to continual raids by dying, leaving or changing tactics like fortifying and having patrols.
Basically, the problem I see is that the MMG's created to date are entirely too inflexible, limited and predictable so as to not work with the community aspect. It seems all the focus has been placed on things like shield symbols, colors of clothes and little cute floaty name things that tell what 'Guild' you are in. However, what about making a real community? I think that making it more natural and cutting back on the 'safety net' of unrealistic protections for players and their property is the main problem. Imagine if you will a mountain that is found to have rich veins of gold and high quality iron. Soon, many miners will settle there. However, where will they keep their stuff when selling unless a trade and logistics system is setup. Those trade carts sure are easy picking for evil characters/npc's! So they will need guards, or even better clear the surrounding areas. Soon, depending on choices and the environment an entire town will emerge that could become a kingdom based on its control of arms and trade in the region.
Now compare this situation to what has been presented mostly to date. You have a very fake system of housing to where once you plop that house down, it invulnerable to harm, intrusion, etc. You just eliminated some naturally occurring quests and fun because of that. Sure you might have some static NPC that besides never leaving the same spot EVER and repeating their dialog/mantra endlessly without change will give a fake quest to find the 'orcish burgler' and return his magic gem of village shielding. Yet when you perform this mission, you are given a coin or two and NOTHING CHANGES. You will come across that orc later, as will someone else.
Making a truly dynamic questing system is hard, but they make it harder because they hard code it all. Instead of just feeling for the game environment, the quests should integrate with it and be a part of the change. Quests should be based perhaps on economy, or security, or such, not hard coded to one particular 'named critter.'
Well that is my rant and raving on this, forgive me if it is too odd or too long.
in retribution, they might send some infiltrator in to knock out the robot with funny rubber coated disks that bounce off the walls. My advice is to put more snipers up in the courtyard... and actually train them this time.
If you don't get it, don't worry. I doubt I could remember the name of this game if I tried:(
Its 'Ludicrous': if your not careful you could go plaid!
KEEP FLAMING, ASSHOLES!
utilization of new technology and API's
on
AGP4X vs. AGP8X
·
· Score: 1
warning! this is probably stupid but I am sleep deprevated and rambling...
since many will say that one of the big issues with any large leap like 4x to 8x is utilization of that technology, I wonder about the fact that there does not seem to be an indication of significant slowdown of these types of HW advances. In the face of this (as if that is a startling revelation) I wonder if API's (and the drivers written to support them) would be best served by making forward compatible designs. For example: the directx design allows any release of directx to work with older versions called on it.
That is good, however because of the WAY that the calls are written (and among these is the very annoying factor of inconsistency between versions) it is rarely an easy task to upgrade directx versions (or even sub versions) within a program. It would seem silly then to go in and do an equivelent amount of work within the code base who's goal was to 'buff up' the pipeline and storage method.
Now I am probably wrong... but as far as I know (haven't honestly messed with any directx past 7) there is no 'bandwidth detection' that is trully open ended, thus allowing a maximal optimization of texture and object transfer based on the [usable] bandwidth. I know memory is checked (optional), but what about the bandwidth? Would an external library that acts as a API of API's work, in which you could store the algorithm implementations and constants that, say... in the case of some great hardware advance would either already recalculate (with a config routine) or be patched that gives those with the new HW toys something to play with? Would this significantly slow down the program with an added lookup layer (or more)?
I only ask this because I am toying with a graphics rendering engine (toying being the key) that while 'could' be used for gaming will most likely be for rendering architecture crud. Because I am lazy, and for the sheer pleasure of seeing if it can be done, I would like to see an easier way to upgrade programs to make use of new technologies. Perhaps this could simply be a build time only API/tool that is a developing framework... ah, who knows?!
However (assuming this does not get modded down for [stupidity]) if anyone knows of such an existing process, toolset or API please respond.
Slashdot Mirror
However, I feel let down when computer game developers merely throw the pen and paper system onto a computer. Since so much more is put into the prettiness of the game than in the actual gameplay and mechanics then I am left wanting so much more. So, what is a scalable ruleset that can more easily be expanded if computing equipment is used (whether just as number crunching or being an actual interactive gameworld) or simplified as needed for tabletop play? What I am looking for is a guide and cheat sheet for judging what tool (the ruleset or assisting calculator) is best for what need. While I believe in using the right tool for the job at hand I do not feel like getting a law degree in RPG & Action/Adventure rulesets just to find the basis for a ruleset I can use and even then have to start adapting and expanding it. Who would ever program if they had to manually create from scratch their own compilers each time they wanted a build to distribute?
In a free market economy the consumer has the option of making choices based on any number of factors including price, quality, speed/efficiency, convenience, and just plain old personal taste. However, in any system that shuts out all but the most deep pocketed (and well connected personally) companies then you had better be willing to pay more for less. Furthermore if the weights of the value of a product, service or the company that renders it has moved from the above factors (price, quality, etc) to that of the prettiest proposals, the slick talkingest (reverting to my Yosemite Sam mode) company personnel and the prettiness of words and documents presented then you will inevitably end up with less quality. Competition has then moved completely to the realm of draft picks for the cheerleader squad. It doesn't matter if they do nothing but look pretty and say stupid repetitive cheers... hey! they look pretty.
Bullshit artistry is _THE_ factor in government contracting, as a track record of proven quality does not factor in. Now to be fair, there is the SEI system in place (Systems Engineering and Integration) which mostly inherits from the ISO 9001 system. With five levels (1 - 5, no zero... 1 is granted to anyone whether they can find their ass with either hand or not) you have a criteria of process quality by which you can judge an organization. However, with all the money and obvious effort that went into creating and maintaining this system the Achilles heel is no different than in any other of the "best laid systems and plans" to date. That my friend is the factor of non-compliance to the very processes that define who is granted what level. In other words, they don't use it like it was intended thus rendering it as just another acronym. The ironic thing (but typical in entrenched bureaucracy) is that even though pretty much anyone will admit (if you ask them lightly in the break room over coffee) that the system is rather broken most of those will still puff up with pride (if contractor) if they are a talking head of an organization with higher than SEI Level 2 or will speak with awe and wonder (if government) of an organization with SEI Level 2 or higher.
What I fail to understand is why some will defend this bastardization on the grounds that those organizations with an undeserved SEI level are "Working Towards it." Well, that is good... really, however that is illogical when you look at the fact that the SEI system is not a projection but a grant of current operational status. I somehow doubt that there would be much validity in being granted a good bill of health after being shot 10 times if it was based on the fact that the surgical staff would "Soon fix me up good." No, instead I should be labeled as "In Critical Condition" and any other status be viewed as such. (Hmmm, is THAT what STAT comes from... meaning right NOW? I sure don't know) Back to IT work, if I was the customer then I would not care one damn bit of a system in place that is not consistently applied. The minute it becomes acceptable practice to arbitrarily award the SEI Levels is the same instance that such levels loose their meaning.
Now some might say (who lack working neurons) that this is exactly what happens with capitalist Evil Corporations (TM) yet in reality we see that it is the government itself that creates this system. If the government would place individuals in decision making roles that had both a sense of ethics as well as refined professionalism then you would find that requirements would soon show a dramatic shift towards the quality of the products and services rendered. Networked people are important, to that there is no question. Yet a professional organization will correctly view those connected personnel as one of the many factors involved in doing business. ("Professional" defined here not just as "they get paid to do X" but referring the the ethical and motivational set of standards and practices they employ) Some actually believe that without business developers sliming their way through the system, charming the customer and confusing them when they question bad quality, that there would be no business. Perhaps in some cases there would be less, but there have been entirely too many cases in history (large and small) that show that if there is a need on one end and a supplier on the other than things can work out just fine. The middle man is nothing more than a facilitator of this process... a catylist (sp) but since they themselves do not do any real work they are expendable in reality. Before them business happened at perhaps a slower rate. Without them business adapts. Without those providing the actual product and service than there is nothing to be made of the best of deals. Take out the bullshit artists in the government and soon you will find that their contractual counterparts will begin to vanish as well.
On a different but very much related note: Has anyone ever done a study of the percentage of commercials split up by radio, television and print (including the net) that actually advertise the uniqueness of the product, its advantages over competitors and why you should buy it? Don't get me wrong, I LOVE those beer commercials usually. However when so many commercials have become little sitcoms or tools of the "arteest" then I really fail to see how I as a consumer am supposed to do anything but ignore them and focus on doing research (to include ratings). I rarely see any commercial that is useful however that could just be where I live.
Seriously though, I do wish I knew someone who played that so I could watch over their shoulder and see how things are. I personally am unwilling to spend the money or time on it, but I have heard (from game dev's of other online games) that what is expected is an advancement in well... simulated reality and the "AI" that goes along with it. Such things would be very useful if refined and augmented for use in MMOG's of the RPG and strategy sort. I wouldn't mind seeing the technology behind it myself but I just can't bring myself to be interested in the actual game. Odd.
Remember in Airplane II, how they made such great fun of the general Sci Fi and specifically Star Trek method of overdoing the gadgets, technobabble and future "stuff" there for its own sake? This might have caused laughs in many and perhaps anger in some, but it was not heeded obviously. If you wanted to tell a story, like in Dune, that simply had to be set in the future because of the circumstances then you will need to provide a backdrop that includes some history. (we obviously do not have 10 thousand years of detailed history about industrialized society, much less I can't recall ever hearing about any colony on another planet) However, this would be to SUPPORT your STORY as opposed to simply finding fluff and filler to give excuse to fire the latest cool looking beam/particle weapon, hear (as in "HEAR" hahaha) the latest big, cool, aerodynamic and multicolored ship, see the neat effects of the transporter for this movie and see some nifty "uniforms" that often would not pass for a prisoner's work clothes, much less a dignified uniform of a professional group of military entities (hmmm, as opposed to the vast array that the DoD produces of well tailored (if not often fat) dandy's with no more the military mind than is had by a 4 year old girl playing house... hmmmm).
I enjoy special effects. Often I will browse the web looking for those nifty fantasy and sci-fi paintings and graphics, bookmark the site and go back when it strikes my fancy again. However, when I read a book or watch a show I want a story. I care nothing about the gadgets unless the story is actually centered around gadgets (perhaps a Star Trek episode or movie staring folks who are Star Fleet's ordinance gang, that would be rather cool)
the really sad thing is that in the past you had many sci-fi content producers that expanded the horizons of your imagination even to the point of being "correct" in their colorful pseudo-predictions of things to come (and how they will actually be utilized and integrated in society). This had a chain reaction of ideas and inspiration for many. Now we are inspiring sloth and pretty words over actual hard facts and engineering. Technobabble is the literary buzz fest and it is only getting worse. Even before the Columbia was tragically lost many had simply lost faith in the idea of space travel as well as just lost interest in anything related to it as well. Yet if you walk the halls of NASA you will find more empty degrees, suits and plaques of buzz... no real innovation, dedication or vision exists there. Vigilance has been replaced with complacent acceptance of policy. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would be sick... were their bodies not already dust I suppose. They were great thinkers and DO'ERS. You didn't ever hear of Ben Franklin backing out of his latest passion because of worry over who could possibly be pointed to if something goes a bit wrong... even though it is R&D. The common theme between the obvious government/big business system I allude to here and story writing is that they are just the same. It is a result of laziness coupled with more laziness and then covered by a thick coating of policy and credentialism.
The solution isn't easy... vigilance never is but it is one of those cheesy things involving each individual doing what they believe in regardless of worrying more about what they will look like. Hell, what we call Founding Fathers in the US were once labled as Rebels and Traitors. Yet I believe that the idea of republican democracy caught on even to a degree (haha, j/k) in the UK.
With that serious sounding intro in mind, I ask you to ponder this. My brother and I (on more than one occasion) thought it the highlight of humor to record the sound of our farting (and background laughter). It even on occasion became "necessary" to attempt a recording of taking a dump... oh the years of stupidity. So I have to ask myself if the next Nobel prize winner, victorious General or the person who eventually steps foot upon another planet will still have such memorabilia lying around in some format for future generations to laugh at. Come to think of it, I still find that very amusing and so I will dub myself still just as crass and stupid.
Or she just wants to take up basket weaving, who knows?
So in the end, I begin to wonder if the printer industry has a business model similar to that of the console gaming industry. (Although I would find it odd if they sold the printers at a loss as consoles often do initially)
This is much akin to the situation where you have this static list of "spells" for wizards and yet your "level 30 wizard" doesn't ever seem to have access to the spells and magical capability that the wizards (evil and good) have in cutscenes. Funny, if a lower level "student" wizard teleports directly to my position with potions and a note that he will bring your best robes, then I expect myself to be able to do exactly the same thing at the very least. And that does not mean that I get some cheesy "can randomly teleport on screen" or "can teleport within line of sight (of the screen)"
So the example he gave about frogs and snakes could be estimated and give a feel of having an effect on the game world. I agree that you should eliminate much of the tedium of time and effort for simple tasks. I really do not desire my avatar to have to take a dump. Perhaps instead of focusing on this we could focus on the interaction (char with char, char with environment, etc) within the game and not the support features like crapping and wearing clean underwear. I really don't think I will like the Sims online but it will be fascinating to see how it evolves both as a game and as a culture (the real life elements).
As for repeating quests, I think that having thresholds and variants would go along way to adding spice to the questing systems as well as avoiding the empty quest syndrom. Where your action means absolutely nothing in the game world. There are those that are looking into the ability for players of sufficient level to create quests based upon the context of their "powers." For example, a Captain of the guards assigned at a fishing town that has been raided by pirates (NPC or player, it doesn't matter) can create bounties, commmision officers to hunt them directly, commission ship builders, alter the economic requirements (import more wood, iron and gunpowder) and so forth. It is not easy to implement I admit but much we do today in the game industry was possible 10 years ago.
How many times have you played a game in which the overly painful clues and hints might lead you to take a more practical, logical or just emotionally desired approach to solving the problem, only to be restricted by a very artificial and "unnatural" limit. What you then end up doing throughout the game is applying only those solutions the programmers wish you to use. Gee, how fun!</sarcasm>
No, what you hit on is very important indeed. Like with a simulator, it is important to actually not limit the very immersion and interaction elements which include the challenges, problems, solutions and variations which would very well give a more realistic result set. Often what is taken is the "Scenario vs. Script" approach so that an unfavorable approach is not solved or integrated but is treated like a bug and removed. A bug in a program would not be a particular image that caused a memory leak but would be the actual error inside the code that led to the memory leak. Yet this coverup of the symptom instead of solving the problem (or curing the disease if you will) is the normal approach that development/producing organizations take.
The argument of "Great Quality, cheap cost and quick development time... pick one" is valid except what is defined as "quality" is the problem here. The very things that are hard coded, cut out, canned, whatever... those are the very limits that end up both making the game less immersive and making it harder for the designers and programmers. What the developers should actually do is embrace that unpredictability and openness as part of the gaming experience. That will require of course that the entire engine (static) and object/event/action (dynamic) elements of the system be designed to work as simple, working components instead of more complex components. An analogy would be to look at an assembly line of an automobile factory where the parts while designed to work for that specific vehicle are going to be, for the most part, minor variants upon a stock collection of parts using standard "interfaces." What you won't get normally is a collection of large complex parts that do everything. Sort of like if humans were made up of only about 5 very large cells instead of the billions it is made up of that work in synergy.
Here is my stock example... it may or may not be a good one, but work with me :)
In a persistent RPG world (MMORPG) let us assume we have a situation where raw materials are required along with skill to create various objects for use in the game, in this case shields and other armor. However, mining is tough and requires a boat load of other resources and labor to make usable raw materials (ingots) for the actual end product. Like any other resource, this will be in demand by many who are unscrupulous as well as our little mining friends might be seen as convenient slave labor by various monster races (or food for that matter). Yet why would we then allow the placement of permanent, invulnerable salesmen, structures, equipment, etc? Lets say that a tribe of Orcs decides to raid the growing mining encampment or even better to raid the supply wagons bringing in supplies or exporting the ore or ingots. Wouldn't it then make sense to place the smithies there? Well only if you have an ample supply of water around. Oh and don't forget the food for the people, as well as guards for the caravans of exports. These people might want a place to live and drink so that would be a possibility to look into. However, this is where it gets crappy, IMNSHO. The result in many games is a system where there are no incentives (quests, rewards, adventure, etc) to be had by many players except the craftsmen and the ones raiding them. Yet ironically you might have within the very same game a canned quest or two that deals with "saving the local miners from the hoard" (of which the mining camp is canned and static as well). So if a thousand players all partake in these quests they will NEVER notice a change. They have no impact on the world. Personally I would like to see about raiding the town and taking it over. That would fill my coffers to the max and I get to fill my evil desires to control others (what can I say, I guess I am a marxist at heart).
Any ability to actually "Role Play" the parts of villian, mayor, craftsman, hero or guard are only allowed if the developers implemented a crude and hard coded "class system" that with such you can kiss any chances of creativity goodbye. I could go into how this effects the actual crafted items, the economy, warfare, guilding systems, tactics and overall strategy but it is really much the same.
The biggest issue here is about waying what the game is about. Personally, I am tired of seeing "pretty hacks" out there and not engineered systems. That means you need to PLAN and ARCHITECT the system not just throw some crap together and hope to make some money. However the financial reality is that as it stands now... that tactic works, and works well! Just look at the money side of the game industry and how things break down and you will see this. This is because there is no real competition. With persistent worlds, we are very slowly seeing some pop up that offer different ways to play. However, until you have a situation in which one can say confidently, "I am making this game, with this goal and these parameters" instead of the "Lets make something with superficial elements of everything so that we can attract as much market share as possible" you will have this crap. However that is a chicken and egg issue as well, so lets just be proactive and stick to our niches and make them well. Stop trying to be everything, or at least applying all the colors of the rainbow of "market appeal" like a poor paint job to the game systems. Start engineering these things with the long term in mind. After the inevitable saturation occurs in the MMORPG arena, then it will be easier to have niche based games I believe.
Basically, lets approach these things more as an environment or simulation and build the gaming elements on top of that. (this is analogous to movies who's plot is an afterthought after the special effects and other superficial makeup is applied)
I would also just like to say that it is sad how our way of life has become a dependency to many instead of merely a convenience. Many would not know the basics of real life survival if it came up and bit them in their PDA. Technology isn't bad... but lets remember to not let it make us slaves. Shoot, a skill based RPG could teach us that! LOL
Normally I am deeply warry of tightly integrated or embedded systems simply because in the past it has made me either loose the apps I like, doesn't allow me to integrate on various levels with them (and thus use them but suck it up), or if I do stick with them I might have extra bloat on the suite that is never fully removed (from a diskspace, latency and memory perspective).
That being said however, I have been trying out the entire Mozilla suite (1.2 now) to see how it fares. However, since I have been using webmail for so long and rarely chat anymore on IRC, and newsgroups are a thing of the past unfortunately... I suppose I have nothing to lose, right? I guess my question is, what are good products for each of these areas: IRC, Newsgroups, Mail, Addressbook maintenance... and on both Windows and any Linux? Also, where is a good site to review these apps? Hardware always seems so easy to find reviews for but while there are so many sights that half-heartedly review various software apps there seems to be no good search engine/site for these that I know of (throw me a freak'n bone here :)
Second question (group of questions I suppose): How easy is it to integrate these (non-Mozilla)apps with the Mozilla browser?
while it would be nearly impossible to justify the cost of this for a family even with any cost savings from fuel (that is opening up another can of assumptions though), I wonder what this baby's towing capacity is. Shipping companies might find a more refined version of this very affordable and actually worth the money. Note that refined assumes that as a production vehicle with a bit of shake down time under its belt and about 10-20% lower cost. Existing semi's cost a pretty penny as it is, so perhaps this technology could see useful application sooner than foretold by many.
While this would be a very wise thing for them to do, I wonder if they trully realize that their tactics and strategies in the past are part of the problem. Developers being in the equation also includes the companies that sponser and employ them. Last November, MS commented about its current community that frankly was showing its true colors (meaning there was no loyalty or trust, but merely a wait and see attitude).
Personally, I think they have a LONG way to go in changing their business ethos, otherwise even the best layed plans will turn to crap after a short time (its like giving cars to monkeys, if they don't care or know how to upkeep them then while they will look more sophisticated and advanced to outward observers at first, it will soon become apparent that they were just not meant for devices like that).
When asked about Linux being a platform for MS products, Ballmer answered no. Ironically however, the reason stated in this article is about MS's "reluctance to accept legal liability for OpenSource Software." Does that mean that they have been accepting legal liability for other vendor's software, much less their own? I remember one time last year on the news there was a reporter doing a rundown of many of the "neglected" portions of the DoJ and friends' case(s) against MS. One of them was to establish an open door for end users and companies (especially small ones) who had lost significant amounts of money due to negligence on the part of MS. Have people been getting cash back or free support for MS created problems? (I don't want to start a debate here, most people know that no software is perfect so this assumption is based on that tenet)
Next we have,
Here I had to laugh... some more. This seems to be a window into Ballmer's and Microsoft's way of thinking about software and Operating Systems. IBM is not selling an operating system, they are selling hardware and an entire computing suite/environment. Can someone use RedHat instead of Suse? I think so. Can someone take advantage of the (arguably) more efficient, modular, secure and extensible nature of Linux to tailor it for their own needs? (including scaling BACK to make leaner systems) I believe that is one of the selling points. (I could be wrong, but I have seen a few ads that touted such things recently) I sincerely hope for Ballmer's and MS shareholder's sake that what he said was either quoted way out of context or is just fronting BS. What integration companies (and even just regular non-IT companies) have been moving to non-MS solutions for was to allow THEM to have the choice in the system (among other reasons of course). People don't really like to either be restricted in choices or be presented with only options that force payment for services unwanted and unrendered (I consider services rendered to mean it WORKS).What if, when you went to a grocery you were ONLY presented with "Value Packs" that they had very few differing combinations but all of them had about 70% of the same items between them (the Store Brand(tm)). You might not like the store brand. You may remember using some other brand that you liked and that the store no longer carries it (because it magically became "Incompatable" after the Grocery Store bought out one of the competitor's (of your favorite brand) factory. You may also get tired of finding that the food items are often spoiled, leaking, smashed etc yet in order to get assistance you are actually CHARGED by the Grocery Store. Then you hear about how other small grocery stores (or makers of particular grocery items) are strongarmed into going out of business, accepting only MS as a distributor, or being bought out. Hell, even the local farmers won't look you in the eye anymore because of their shame at being whipped.
Now would this work? Well it would if people were stupid, the vendors were spineless and short sighted and all around everyone was too busy making excuses and looking for Mighty Big Brother to once again tell them what to do, how to think, etc. (in other words, to save them from their own stupidity)
So, with this in mind... if the IT community (meaning end users, company procurement, developers, etc) let themselves be led into this once again then it will be real hard not to just let them rot in the jail they made for themselves. If MS is interested in technological solutions then they will HAVE to change their internal thinking about strategy and operational tactics. Or, they could just continue to focus more on marketing and litigation... however I doubt that solution will work for much longer. Some people are slowly waking up (sorta like the Matrix I guess...) and seeing the mess they let be made. Hmm, the big flaw in this is not 'the people' it is bureacrats. These empty headed monkeys will be the problem as ever before. They will blindly put foolishly to action, those things that can clearly be seen as harmful for long term capital. The business world has been riding on this forward wave of progress that if said progress shifts (to another market) or begins to depend on Process Improvement instead of raw technical prowess they will flounder and die. That will hurt a lot of people so I hope they will pull their collective heads out of their red-tape puckered arses soon.
I don't know if this is possible (I am not really a interface man) but I am trying something on a low level myself just for practice. If something like this already exists then I will look at it first, but I need the practice so who cares if i reinvent the wheel this time?
I would think that this system would make it much easier allow a global skinnig scheme, as well as for people to provide good front ends for various apps that are not hard coded to only that app.
I am 27, and it sucks even more when some 20 year olds come in that have no skills, degrees, etc. yet get 15000 more than me. Then when you find out that in order for them to do their job they require about 19000 in training. Damn, thats like winning the lottery!
Obvious Guy pointed out how there is the idea of good design first then implementation, but in reality it is much different. However, lets not accept that attitude and practice anymore than we would accept the regular practice of someone robbing your house when you leave during the day and saying it was simply 'a sad reality we must learn to live with.' I have sadly worked for some of the worst managers and development teams that you can get... these people make disorganized and pr0n addled teenagers hacking together a toy look like the giants in the industry as far as coordination, collaboration, actual planning and consistency are concerned. This problem of short time delays ends up forcing horrible hack jobs that we call proof of concepts, which predictably leads to being told to turn it into a formal prototype with only about a month, then told there that said prototype is now the system once we use the 2 months to harden it. Those time periods include the testing and documentation as well. Result? Most often a very hard coded, fragile, spit and bubblegum system that only causes massive heartache and money to maintain, extend and adapt not just a year later but often immediately following release. (most often because of adaptations to particular environments, platform settups, security requirements, etc of various end sights) When questioned on this, the pavlovian response of the decision makers is that the needs dictated this and they "could not" wait. Its been my experience that this is either an outright lie or is just extremely poor judgement. Consider how a project could be hurried up like this and end up a mess, yet when you look at the actual tasking orders that led to the project it clearly states (well clearly for bureacrats) that this is an advanced proof of concept to be fleshed out and refined before being adopted officially. Hmmm, does that mean that they want crap that takes 2.5 times the original development effort to turn into a useful and robust? (extensible, maintainable, efficient, buzz buzz buzz)
I put this under the category of 'never learns from mistakes' as this happens so regularly yet so many on both sides (especially on the user side) complain about the lack of interoperability, extendability, and integration worthiness of these projects. So, to make a long post short... (too late, I know) what kind of book, cbt, cute PowerPoint slide, or dancing furry vendor mascot will get the point across the program managment and self labled 'system engineers' that it is both cheaper and more productive in the mid to long term to really plan, design and implement an actual piece of engineering rather than these hack jobs held together by dirty bandaids and mucous. I know that as an integrator it would make my job easier :) As a customer of various products though, I would be extremely happy and of course its not like I never have to maintain, much less develop in an environment that while contains talented programmers is not held together by anyone (or any ideology) that will coordinate, motivate and lead everyone to a satisfying conclusion. Actually its been so long sense I have been able to say, "Yeah I worked my tail off but we did our best, produced some impressive results and can be proud of the work we produced" Hmmm, lets check Monster.com now :)
So, did they end up using such a system? I know that they included actual servers to help alleviate the problem of playing on the server machine and causing lag to all, but what is the method for multiple clients connecting without the server explicitly setup? Did they stick with the old method and just make it so that the 'master' game machine is the server?
I am curious about both a postmortem analysis of implementing this and an early performance/approval rating of this method.
Somebody please set me straight (I can't seem to connect to their site right now or I would gladly look for technical details)
On a side but related note... outside of P2P for the use of filesharing only, what is a good library and/or toolset for creating P2P apps, as well as a good modularly designed and well documented system that can be scaled for P2P uses?
I think that the first game that really is a framework that supports players' ability to create their own adventures within, will be a blockbuster. I dont just mean modules, although I love that concept. I refer to a very large game world where what you do matters as much as need be... if you are a murdering scumbag, then your rampage of death will cause either an outflux of NPC's and players (and trade, economy, etc) or will force people to bring in goons and gaurds to track you down. If the gameplay, rulesets and mechanics allow you to really be whoever you want to be then I think people will create a great virtual existence where you can do all the things you can't or won't do in RL. As it is now, designers are stuck in this mode where they see my statement of 'be anything you can be' and say, "Hey! he wants us to add more classes and extend level times." Just as NWN is (in theory at least) a platform for creating adventures with the toolsets, I wait for a game that is the equivelent platform for actual gaming and involvement.
Many forget that levels, as well as many other aspects now termed as defining Roleplaying, where merely implemented to simplify the gameplay while attempting to salvage as much realism as possible. That works great on paper. Look at how D&D evolved and branched. Many advanced sub-rule sets were adopted that really added a lot of depth to the game whilst keeping to the original rules. e.g. I played with a rather horendously 'accurate' and complicated critical hit/miss calculation method. It was great but required a lot more time and effort to implement than the core rules. Some people wrote detailed programs that would calculate this for you, but as they themselves became more complex it took a while simply to enter the correct input. I read on a forum however that there were some great programs out there that acted like DM assistants in which you fed in things like locations of items, players, monsters, etc. So since much of the data was there already the time and effort to input data was reduced. Of course there are MUDS, MOOS, etc, but those were more automated games I guess than assistants. (never played that many)
Personally, I wish the focus would be on gameplay and robust rulesets instead of graphics. Thing is, we have these lovely 3D graphics cards and great API's to make much of the rendering work easier and take off cycles from the CPU, yet the AI, immersion, etc has seemed to dwindle actually. I remember an advertisement for an early nVidia card that said, "Now you can free up your code and your processor for things like AI, gameplay and immersion" Well... I am still waiting :)
What I would add is this: first, there are different mixtures if community and game that should be recognized, IMHO. This is an aspect of not just the game but the type of gamer. Many really do play for the community. There are many online chat communities that have an almost occult following, yet there is no interactive gaming. Look at the old BBS's. They added some games as afterthoughts, and when they did good it was usually because of a well designed (or just luck) integration and use of said community into the game itself.
Which leads to my second comment. I feel that many of these games are a horribly made collage instead of a well engineered system of parts. While it is not new for this (movies and single player games) method of plugging in something as an afterthought in the hopes of attracting more people, the aspect of community is just now beginning to dawn on many designers' minds. Again... my opinion. (I feel I have to say that because of lurking trolls and other over sensitive folk :)
To date, I have felt like these games are basically a graphical click fest game, overlaid with a chat room. That is great for many, but what about a true immersive world? Instead of a lame situation of "Hey, lets go raid Dungeon X" to which thousands of raids have already happened, along with current raids yet the environment never seems to acknowledge this, how about raiding a group of orcs that are players (most of them maybe)? They will definitely react to continual raids by dying, leaving or changing tactics like fortifying and having patrols.
Basically, the problem I see is that the MMG's created to date are entirely too inflexible, limited and predictable so as to not work with the community aspect. It seems all the focus has been placed on things like shield symbols, colors of clothes and little cute floaty name things that tell what 'Guild' you are in. However, what about making a real community? I think that making it more natural and cutting back on the 'safety net' of unrealistic protections for players and their property is the main problem. Imagine if you will a mountain that is found to have rich veins of gold and high quality iron. Soon, many miners will settle there. However, where will they keep their stuff when selling unless a trade and logistics system is setup. Those trade carts sure are easy picking for evil characters/npc's! So they will need guards, or even better clear the surrounding areas. Soon, depending on choices and the environment an entire town will emerge that could become a kingdom based on its control of arms and trade in the region.
Now compare this situation to what has been presented mostly to date. You have a very fake system of housing to where once you plop that house down, it invulnerable to harm, intrusion, etc. You just eliminated some naturally occurring quests and fun because of that. Sure you might have some static NPC that besides never leaving the same spot EVER and repeating their dialog/mantra endlessly without change will give a fake quest to find the 'orcish burgler' and return his magic gem of village shielding. Yet when you perform this mission, you are given a coin or two and NOTHING CHANGES. You will come across that orc later, as will someone else.
Making a truly dynamic questing system is hard, but they make it harder because they hard code it all. Instead of just feeling for the game environment, the quests should integrate with it and be a part of the change. Quests should be based perhaps on economy, or security, or such, not hard coded to one particular 'named critter.'
Well that is my rant and raving on this, forgive me if it is too odd or too long.
If you don't get it, don't worry. I doubt I could remember the name of this game if I tried :(
KEEP FLAMING, ASSHOLES!
warning! this is probably stupid but I am sleep deprevated and rambling...
since many will say that one of the big issues with any large leap like 4x to 8x is utilization of that technology, I wonder about the fact that there does not seem to be an indication of significant slowdown of these types of HW advances. In the face of this (as if that is a startling revelation) I wonder if API's (and the drivers written to support them) would be best served by making forward compatible designs. For example: the directx design allows any release of directx to work with older versions called on it.
That is good, however because of the WAY that the calls are written (and among these is the very annoying factor of inconsistency between versions) it is rarely an easy task to upgrade directx versions (or even sub versions) within a program. It would seem silly then to go in and do an equivelent amount of work within the code base who's goal was to 'buff up' the pipeline and storage method.
Now I am probably wrong... but as far as I know (haven't honestly messed with any directx past 7) there is no 'bandwidth detection' that is trully open ended, thus allowing a maximal optimization of texture and object transfer based on the [usable] bandwidth. I know memory is checked (optional), but what about the bandwidth? Would an external library that acts as a API of API's work, in which you could store the algorithm implementations and constants that, say... in the case of some great hardware advance would either already recalculate (with a config routine) or be patched that gives those with the new HW toys something to play with? Would this significantly slow down the program with an added lookup layer (or more)?
I only ask this because I am toying with a graphics rendering engine (toying being the key) that while 'could' be used for gaming will most likely be for rendering architecture crud. Because I am lazy, and for the sheer pleasure of seeing if it can be done, I would like to see an easier way to upgrade programs to make use of new technologies. Perhaps this could simply be a build time only API/tool that is a developing framework... ah, who knows?!
However (assuming this does not get modded down for [stupidity]) if anyone knows of such an existing process, toolset or API please respond.
hehehe, perfect example!