When I was a young, mischievous programmer, I had an excellent way to deal with the more pushy, unethical sort of recruiters. I said, "Hey, that sounds like an excellent opportunity! How about we talk about it over lunch?" I picked my favorite nearby (expensive) seafood restaurant, and we went out and grabbed a meal. The recruiter would then proceed to lavish me with praise, and tell me about all the great opportunities out there for me, while I was busy enjoying the rich, saffron-infused Portuguese fisherman's stew. Then, I would go back to my office, and ignore all contact from that recruiter for the next month.
Sometimes, you could even get the same recruiter to take you to lunch more than once. "Oh, I'm sorry I haven't gotten back to you. I've been SUPER busy. Hey, but this new opportunity sounds really interesting. Can we talk about it over lunch?"
l3mr is giving good advice. I've used Ogre3D, and I've used some big name professional graphics engines, and I can tell you, Ogre3D is remarkably fully-featured. In fact, I've even found a couple of things I think they did better than the pro engines I've used. Seriously!
Oh, surely, it's a "graphics engine" and not a "game engine." That's their focus, and it's not going to change. In all honesty, if you have a wide variety of sorts of things you want to make, a "game engine" might not be the best thing, anyway. Game engines often end up being more useful for one sort of game than another. E.g. a game engine that was originally made for a shooter is going to be really good for making... well, shooters. A lot of people have mentioned ODE as a possible physics solution, but don't miss out on Bullet -- a marvelous open-source physics lib which was just released recently (and is both Blender and COLLADA friendly).
I, and the other neighborhood kids, used to play on the big green transformer box in the next-door neighbor's front yard. We sat on it all the time when we were outside, playing. Nobody once told us back then that we were being exposed to "dangerous" radiation. There were 6 of us, and among the group, there has been no cancer, and all of the children born to this group have been perfectly normal.
1.) Yes, high tension power lines can cause leukemia... very rarely. 2.) Household EMFs, however, don't. 3.) At extremely high doses, there is some cellular damage -- but not genetic. 4.) High-dose EMF + carcinogens cause breast cancer in animals, but EMF alone does not otherwise seem to cause cancer in animals. 5.) High-dose EMF causes some behavioral abnormalities in animals.
If that was the first answer she could think of, she should consider a different career.:P
"QA skills don't really transfer to any other type of game industry job."
I never said they did. That's not why you work in QA.
"I worked at a large publisher for a while (in marketing) and I only ever saw one guy move from QA into anything else."
Again, it totally depends on the company. While I think smaller ones are better for lateral mobility, I've seen people get into design and programming from QA even at a Large International Publisher I Won't Name.
"Worse than that, most of the testers that left the company ended up out of the industry all together - mostly by choice, because QA is an awful, awful job."
I've seen half a team of programmers wash out of the industry, before. Any job in the industry can be awful, depending on where you're working.
"But those that I know that did try to move on within the industry had to end up getting the same kind of training and experience as they would have had they not worked in QA."
Even if a highly esteemed Lead Designer wanted to be a programmer, she'd still have to get the skills. Anybody who expects to magically absorb game development skills through osmosis isn't going to get very far.
"In short, being a tester doesn't help, and can burn you out on the industry prematurely."
So, I was just imagining all the times I've seen people get jobs because they knew the right people at the right time? Skill acquisition isn't the only way that someone benefits from working at a job.
"Testers are rarely seen or heard from by most of the company; at least that was the case where I worked."
I tend to work at smaller companies. It makes a big difference. I can name every internal tester I've ever worked with, and even one particularly exceptional outside beta tester.:)
"Testing is the game industry equivalent to flipping burgers."
As I said in another branch off this thread, "Good QA requires discipline, patience, attention to detail, excellent technical writing and analysis skills, and an extremely high tolerance for repetitive activities." It should be a respected career, in its own right. Unfortunately, the industry just doesn't take testing seriously enough. Regardless, it sure as hell is not a burger-flipping job, and any producer who treats it that way deserves the bloody mess that follows.
"If you are regarded as important by QA then QA may not allow you to transfer out."
Yeah, I've seen a lot of QA folks change departments by changing companies. They still have a better chance at a job in another department at another company than they would if they were coming from the outside. Just having a game company on your resume and knowing people in the industry makes a huge difference.
"QA is separated from the other departments and there is a horrible stigma against them so in the off chance that you do actually get to talk to someone from another department they are immediately looking at you as just a tester and not as, well, human really."
That totally depends on the company. I'm a senior programmer, and I work three doors down from QA. We talk and even play games together. I assure you, they are quite human.:P
"QA works just as much crunch as other departments. So your free time is very limited."
In my last job before I entered the industry, I was crunching quite often, and was even found sleeping under my desk, at times. Yet, somehow, I found time to build a demo. But, then, I'm kind of crazy that way!
Honestly, I think it's bad that the game development industry treats QA like an entry-level position. This isn't the damn mail room, for Pete's sake. Good QA requires discipline, patience, attention to detail, excellent technical writing and analysis skills, and an extremely high tolerance for repetitive activities. Talented QA staff may strike terror into the hearts of the programmers, but they are absolutely worth their weight in gold. Personally, I'd go insane, doing that kind of work.
However, some people are going to find that it's an easier entry point than other tracks. This is especially true if they're trying to get into something like Design -- where almost no outsiders are ever hired. It's a bit like getting a job as a film director, really. Who is going to believe that you can direct a film if you've never even been involved with one?
That said, I think there are other worthwhile paths to look into for would-be designers, such as production, community relations, and level design. Programmers can sometimes needle their way in from programming in other industries (but outside study and a demo is essential). An artist with a strong portfolio and relevant skills can also get straight into an art job, under ideal circumstances. But, in all cases, it's hard to even get a resume onto somebody's desk, if it doesn't have a game company's name on it. Moreover, there are countless industry jobs that are never advertised, and strictly go to people who know the right people. A foot in the door can make a huge difference.
I've seen artists and programmers get out of QA. It happens. It depends a lot on both the company and the people in question. Also, in about half these cases, the people transitioned out of QA by changing companies. Even if you never transfer out of QA at your current position, just having worked in the industry (and knowing people in the industry) will make a huge difference when looking for that next job.
In the above statement, your "best" certainly doesn't mean "easiest." Breaking in as an artist, designer, or programmer is substantially harder than breaking in on other tracks. These positions have huge pools of outside applicants, and there is a sufficient amount of domain-specific knowledge required that companies almost always hire people who are already inside the industry. This is not to say that it's impossible to break into one of these positions, but it creates an extra hurdle, in addition to the already high one you're facing just to break in.
The real best way to get into the industry is through an internship, but obviously, that isn't available to just anyone.
QA is certainly not an ideal way to get in, but it's better than banging your head against a wall you can't get over. Here is my advice for those who take this path:
1.) Do your QA job well. It may not be the one you wanted, but if you don't do it well, the only place you're going is the unemployment office. The company's perception of your competence will be important if you want to get into another department.
2.) Network, network, network. Get to know the people in the department you want to be in. Make friends. You might even find a mentor.
3.) Work on your skills in your chosen field in your free time. If you want to be an artist, beef up your portfolio. If you want to be a programmer, work on a demo. If you're a designer, work on some design docs, make a board game, or find a wannabe programmer to team up with for a demo.
The important thing to remember is: There's no game dev fairy who is going to flutter down and wave her magic wand and get you out of QA. Sitting on your butt and doing the minimal work isn't going to cut it. You've got to put in the effort, or you're just wasting your time.
Copying a package that already existed would only make sense if there was ANYTHING out there which even approached conforming to established UI standards. I have yet to see a serious 3D modeling package that did. I don't see any point in an open source project that sets out to duplicate somebody else's idiotic UI quirks.
I've used a few different 3D packages, including TrueSpace, Softimage XSI, 3DStudioMax, and Blender. Of all of them, Softimage and Blender are the ones with which I have the most experience. My impression is that they ALL have bizarre violations of UI convention, features that can only be reached via arcane combinations of actions that you may or may not remember at the moment when you need them (often with no alternative route to hunt them down), and numerous other problems.
Blender, for one, requires an extremely steady hand, lest your menus all disappear before you can select an item. I wish I had a dollar for every time I have accidentally veered off of a menu or verification dialog in Blender. I've even failed to save files on occasion, because I accidentally rolled off of the microscopic save verification dialog, before I managed to click on it. That doesn't make me feel very confident. I don't care why they did it this way; it's not defensible.
Now, I appreciate the fact that 3D modeling packages are extremely domain-specific, and require some interface techniques not present in most applications, but why-oh-why don't any of these packages even seem to have a standard file selection dialog box? Why can't they build even the most fundamental components, present in almost every other kind of application, in a standard way? Why do they have to go off and do something radically weird all the time? People make much ado about how these applications aren't so bad to use once you learn them, but people would learn them a hell of a lot faster, if they didn't have to relearn how to use even the simplest controls. Just yesterday, I watched a friend have difficulty just using the file selection dialog in Blender, because it wasn't behaving in a standard way. There is really no excuse for wasting users' time this way, in this day and age.
Depending on the location of the offender, a crime MAY have been committed, but that crime was not rape.
If the offender was in the United States, for example, he (or she) could be found in violation of US Code Title 47,223 -- "Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications":
Consider: "Whoever-- (1) in interstate or foreign communications-- (A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly-- (i) makes, creates, or solicits, and (ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;"
However, we should NEVER use the word "rape" for this sort of offense. I don't care how goddamn upset someone was about it. It's NOT the same thing, and we should not dilute the word by extending it to obscene harassment.
We just take for granted that desensitization to violence is a bad thing. I'm not so sure that I agree. Do we ever question a war veteran's character, because his war experience may have desensitized him to violence?
People make the mistake of thinking that desensitization implies apathy. It does, indeed, imply that one has a less visceral reaction to violence. But, is a visceral reaction to violence necessary to make appropriate moral judgements, or to take action when it must be stopped? I think a visceral response may, in fact, be detrimental. I would venture to argue that when people ignore violence in front of them, it's usually not apathy that keeps them from intervening. No, it's a deep, old dread. It's the adrenaline gnawing at their stomachs. It's their senses of self-preservation kicking in. Their hands are stilled not by apathy, but by fear.
When we are in crisis situations, we need to keep a level head and take action. When confronted with a mass shooter, would you choose to be the person petrified by fear, or would you choose to be the person heroically barricading the doors?
We are civilized, but our world is still dangerous. People are still sent to war. People still face crime. People still face domestic violence. These threats aren't going away anytime soon. We can't afford to be shocked when confronted with danger. We have to be prepared to act with courage and strength of purpose.
I'm going to say something shocking here, but bear with me: Computer Science is not Programming.
Moreover, programming is not to computer science as math problems are to mathematics.
Computer Science includes programming, and many people who wish to become programmers do wisely choose to study Computer Science, but Computer Science and Programming are not the same thing. While many people who decide to study Computer Science would like to think of it as a Programming major, it absolutely is not. I've seen decent coders wash out of Bachelor's programs in CS. I've also seen Master's students who couldn't code their way out of a wet paper bag. Moreover, I've met career programmers who didn't really discover the joys of programming until they reached college. Being able to hack together a few lines of java doesn't necessarily prepare anyone for a real Theory of Computation course. It's not necessarily a bad thing to consider programming as only a part of a larger picture.
That said, I don't think the gender disparity is a university's battle to win. I was one of only two girls in my high school's AP Computer Science course, years ago. What that says to me is that college is really too late. If you want to influence attitudes about computer science, you have to start a lot younger. Sure, maybe I decided I wanted to be a programmer when I was punching in source code from magazines as a little girl, but back then, I didn't know any boys who programmed, so it never would've occurred to me for a minute that anyone might think of it as a "boy" thing. For me, it was just a hell of a fun power trip to get the computer to do what I wanted. So, I made games about... um, horses. Girls will be girls.:P
I didn't switch from "exclusive" to "best known as." I was clarifying why "first" isn't necessarily that relevant. ajs318 brought up the same points you did, and we had a very good discussion about it. I recommend saving us both some time and joining the discussion over there, so neither of us have to rehash old counterpoints.;)
Heh, fair point. But, I already knew about the Toaster. We worked with a toaster at one of my previous jobs, long ago, and I've also worked with a guy who used to work at Newtek.;)
I was mostly curious about what was done with the hardware, with respect to games, that was different. Not just "better looking" graphics, either. For a kind of lame example, the Amiga version of "Lemmings" allowed more lemmings on the screen. I imagine that the other platforms couldn't quite hack it.:)
You're missing the point. "Doom" was best known as a PC game. But, would you call "Grand Theft Auto" an "influential PC game"? Probably not. It's just an "influential game." The fact that it was originally an MS-DOS game is kind of irrelevant.
I had a few responses like this, but you went the furthest to substantiate your points (which I appreciate), so I'll reply to yours.:)
I guess that I have a couple of issues with the whole idea of the article -- some of which I didn't bring up.
I'm in the game industry, and honestly, I can't think of anybody I currently know who has ever mentioned having owned an Amiga, and we DO geek out about the gear we had when we were younger. Most of the "Syndicate" fans I know were Mac owners, to be honest. I'm afraid that some of these games would have been far less influential, had they not been ported. Did the Japanese designers who were influenced by "Another World" play it on the Amiga, or did they play it on the Super Nintendo? Given that Amiga was selling slower than Macs in Japan, unless they were using an Amiga at work, they probably played it on another machine first.
(Ironically, I think that the Amiga software that most influenced the game industry was a tool! Many computer artists had a passionate love affair with "Deluxe Paint II" pretty much right up until that pesky "Photoshop" took over. Hardened art department veterans will still wax nostalgic if you speak those magic words anywhere near them. It did eventually get ported to the PC, but "Deluxe Paint II" was indisputably an Amiga program. You can tell, because the name "Amiga" always comes up in any conversation about it, today. The same cannot be said of "Lemmings.")
I'll be honest with you: I'm not sure being the first platform is the big deal you're making it out to be. I mean, seriously, "Grand Theft Auto" first appeared as an MS-DOS game. Yet, you would probably get some funny looks if you called it an "influential PC game." It was influential, yes, but the fact that it appeared first on the PC was kind of irrelevant to much of anything, including its influence.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking the Amiga. The machine was way the hell ahead of its time. It was a quantum leap ahead in graphics quality of anything else in the consumer market, at the time. My Dad more than once had to drag me away from Amigas at computer shows, because I was transfixed. But, as you rightly point out, good stuff comes at a price, and the Amiga just didn't move as many units as it needed to. I'd have to say that the Amiga's greatest influence was in showing us what was possible. Even if you never owned one, it convinced you that there was something better, and that it wasn't out of reach. It was the swift kick in the rump we needed to get to where we are today.
I'm afraid that there's not a single one of these ten "innovative entries in the Amiga game canon" that was exclusive to the Amiga. If you don't believe me, look it up. It would've been MUCH more interesting, to me (not having been able to afford an Amiga in high school), to see what sort of innovative things people did using Amiga's fancy hardware -- especially since this is in the HARDWARE category and not the GAMES category. Instead, the article sort of leaves me scratching my head, and not caring much.
I use an HDTV as a monitor for my desktop computer. I NEED those pixels, man. 1280x720 is worse than my laptop resolution. I'll take 1920x1080, and not even think twice about it.
Do NOT advise him to get a degree from a certificate-factory, if he has the option of getting a real 4-year degree. UnknownSoldier touches on many of the reasons, but I'll address a few more:
1.) NO ONE can guarantee that you will get into the industry. At least if you have a CS degree, you can still get a job, if you don't. 2.) Some studios WILL NOT EVEN LOOK AT YOUR RESUME if you don't have a 4-year degree. Why shoot yourself in the foot like that? 3.) Universities teach things other than just programming. There are a lot of things you can learn outside your field that are beneficial for game development. Getting outside of the geek-culture echo chamber sometimes is a GOOD thing.
If you are worried that your CS program didn't cover much that you felt was useful for game programming, fear not. Every year, more Universities start up new game specialization programs. For example, Rensselaer JUST started up a degree program in Game and Simulation Arts and Sciences. There are other Universities that have had programs running for years. (SMU has the GuildHall, and CMU has their ETC program, etc., etc.). Get on the ball: You and your cousin should do some research into good academic programs.
I don't know where Forbes got their numbers from on that. Historically, the percentage I've heard quoted for developers is MUCH lower. It may have changed for this generation (development costs have arguably increased more than publishing costs), but I still find the number surprising.
I agree. A traditional Bachelor's in CS will not give you a lot of what you need. I have a traditional Bachelor's in Computer Science, and I had to self-teach a ton of stuff, before entering the industry. Things you can find at a regular University program that could be of use, depending on your focus: Linear algebra, psychology, physics, C++, algorithms, spatial data structures, databases, network programming, and software engineering. Things a conventional BS will probably need to learn on her own: 3D graphics, graphics hardware pipeline, Windows programming, GPU/shader programming, essential game algorithms, game software architecture, teamwork. Also, if you can't play nicely with artists and other creative types, just don't even bother. Plus, you should have a demo, whatever it takes.
And, you can't fall apart under pressure in a challenging interview. Technical interviewers WILL put you through the meat grinder, but they usually don't expect you to answer everything perfectly. They just want to put their foot on the gas, and see how fast this baby can go. If you display good general competency on the things they're quizzing you on, you'll be fine. If you spend the entire interview saying, "Duuuuuuhh, we didn't cover that in school," you're toast. Be honest about what you can do, but also don't be afraid to hazard an educated guess at the answer to something you don't know. Sometimes, the reasoning behind your guesses can be more interesting (and even more impressive) to the interviewer than the correct answer would have been. For example, a slowly derived solution may be more impressive than a quickly remembered one, because the interviewer can see that the candidate understands the underlying principles, and is not merely regurgitating bullets from a book. So, don't be afraid to think things through, and illustrate your thought process, if you're uncertain about something.
It's the simplest linear algebra there is, and yet I've still encountered numerous game programming interviewees who couldn't answer the most rudimentary dot product question.
If you really WANT to program games, you need to LEARN these things. It's not that hard, and if you think it is, you belong in a different career.
Slashdot Mirror
When I was a young, mischievous programmer, I had an excellent way to deal with the more pushy, unethical sort of recruiters. I said, "Hey, that sounds like an excellent opportunity! How about we talk about it over lunch?" I picked my favorite nearby (expensive) seafood restaurant, and we went out and grabbed a meal. The recruiter would then proceed to lavish me with praise, and tell me about all the great opportunities out there for me, while I was busy enjoying the rich, saffron-infused Portuguese fisherman's stew. Then, I would go back to my office, and ignore all contact from that recruiter for the next month.
Sometimes, you could even get the same recruiter to take you to lunch more than once. "Oh, I'm sorry I haven't gotten back to you. I've been SUPER busy. Hey, but this new opportunity sounds really interesting. Can we talk about it over lunch?"
l3mr is giving good advice. I've used Ogre3D, and I've used some big name professional graphics engines, and I can tell you, Ogre3D is remarkably fully-featured. In fact, I've even found a couple of things I think they did better than the pro engines I've used. Seriously!
Oh, surely, it's a "graphics engine" and not a "game engine." That's their focus, and it's not going to change. In all honesty, if you have a wide variety of sorts of things you want to make, a "game engine" might not be the best thing, anyway. Game engines often end up being more useful for one sort of game than another. E.g. a game engine that was originally made for a shooter is going to be really good for making... well, shooters. A lot of people have mentioned ODE as a possible physics solution, but don't miss out on Bullet -- a marvelous open-source physics lib which was just released recently (and is both Blender and COLLADA friendly).
I, and the other neighborhood kids, used to play on the big green transformer box in the next-door neighbor's front yard. We sat on it all the time when we were outside, playing. Nobody once told us back then that we were being exposed to "dangerous" radiation. There were 6 of us, and among the group, there has been no cancer, and all of the children born to this group have been perfectly normal.
I recommend this openbook, Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields (1997). Given its age, it doesn't address modern wireless, but it provides good aggregate information from a broad array of studies. The upshot is that:
1.) Yes, high tension power lines can cause leukemia... very rarely.
2.) Household EMFs, however, don't.
3.) At extremely high doses, there is some cellular damage -- but not genetic.
4.) High-dose EMF + carcinogens cause breast cancer in animals, but EMF alone does not otherwise seem to cause cancer in animals.
5.) High-dose EMF causes some behavioral abnormalities in animals.
So, there you have it. Weird.
See, this is one of the reasons I keep my resume in RTF.
(On a quick survey of the last three resumes I received from job candidates, none of them dropped the ball. Bravo!)
"If you are regarded as important by QA then QA may not allow you to transfer out."
:P
Yeah, I've seen a lot of QA folks change departments by changing companies. They still have a better chance at a job in another department at another company than they would if they were coming from the outside. Just having a game company on your resume and knowing people in the industry makes a huge difference.
"QA is separated from the other departments and there is a horrible stigma against them so in the off chance that you do actually get to talk to someone from another department they are immediately looking at you as just a tester and not as, well, human really."
That totally depends on the company. I'm a senior programmer, and I work three doors down from QA. We talk and even play games together. I assure you, they are quite human.
"QA works just as much crunch as other departments. So your free time is very limited."
In my last job before I entered the industry, I was crunching quite often, and was even found sleeping under my desk, at times. Yet, somehow, I found time to build a demo. But, then, I'm kind of crazy that way!
Honestly, I think it's bad that the game development industry treats QA like an entry-level position. This isn't the damn mail room, for Pete's sake. Good QA requires discipline, patience, attention to detail, excellent technical writing and analysis skills, and an extremely high tolerance for repetitive activities. Talented QA staff may strike terror into the hearts of the programmers, but they are absolutely worth their weight in gold. Personally, I'd go insane, doing that kind of work.
However, some people are going to find that it's an easier entry point than other tracks. This is especially true if they're trying to get into something like Design -- where almost no outsiders are ever hired. It's a bit like getting a job as a film director, really. Who is going to believe that you can direct a film if you've never even been involved with one?
That said, I think there are other worthwhile paths to look into for would-be designers, such as production, community relations, and level design. Programmers can sometimes needle their way in from programming in other industries (but outside study and a demo is essential). An artist with a strong portfolio and relevant skills can also get straight into an art job, under ideal circumstances. But, in all cases, it's hard to even get a resume onto somebody's desk, if it doesn't have a game company's name on it. Moreover, there are countless industry jobs that are never advertised, and strictly go to people who know the right people. A foot in the door can make a huge difference.
I've seen artists and programmers get out of QA. It happens. It depends a lot on both the company and the people in question. Also, in about half these cases, the people transitioned out of QA by changing companies. Even if you never transfer out of QA at your current position, just having worked in the industry (and knowing people in the industry) will make a huge difference when looking for that next job.
In the above statement, your "best" certainly doesn't mean "easiest." Breaking in as an artist, designer, or programmer is substantially harder than breaking in on other tracks. These positions have huge pools of outside applicants, and there is a sufficient amount of domain-specific knowledge required that companies almost always hire people who are already inside the industry. This is not to say that it's impossible to break into one of these positions, but it creates an extra hurdle, in addition to the already high one you're facing just to break in.
The real best way to get into the industry is through an internship, but obviously, that isn't available to just anyone.
QA is certainly not an ideal way to get in, but it's better than banging your head against a wall you can't get over. Here is my advice for those who take this path:
1.) Do your QA job well. It may not be the one you wanted, but if you don't do it well, the only place you're going is the unemployment office. The company's perception of your competence will be important if you want to get into another department.
2.) Network, network, network. Get to know the people in the department you want to be in. Make friends. You might even find a mentor.
3.) Work on your skills in your chosen field in your free time. If you want to be an artist, beef up your portfolio. If you want to be a programmer, work on a demo. If you're a designer, work on some design docs, make a board game, or find a wannabe programmer to team up with for a demo.
The important thing to remember is: There's no game dev fairy who is going to flutter down and wave her magic wand and get you out of QA. Sitting on your butt and doing the minimal work isn't going to cut it. You've got to put in the effort, or you're just wasting your time.
Copying a package that already existed would only make sense if there was ANYTHING out there which even approached conforming to established UI standards. I have yet to see a serious 3D modeling package that did. I don't see any point in an open source project that sets out to duplicate somebody else's idiotic UI quirks.
I've used a few different 3D packages, including TrueSpace, Softimage XSI, 3DStudioMax, and Blender. Of all of them, Softimage and Blender are the ones with which I have the most experience. My impression is that they ALL have bizarre violations of UI convention, features that can only be reached via arcane combinations of actions that you may or may not remember at the moment when you need them (often with no alternative route to hunt them down), and numerous other problems.
Blender, for one, requires an extremely steady hand, lest your menus all disappear before you can select an item. I wish I had a dollar for every time I have accidentally veered off of a menu or verification dialog in Blender. I've even failed to save files on occasion, because I accidentally rolled off of the microscopic save verification dialog, before I managed to click on it. That doesn't make me feel very confident. I don't care why they did it this way; it's not defensible.
Now, I appreciate the fact that 3D modeling packages are extremely domain-specific, and require some interface techniques not present in most applications, but why-oh-why don't any of these packages even seem to have a standard file selection dialog box? Why can't they build even the most fundamental components, present in almost every other kind of application, in a standard way? Why do they have to go off and do something radically weird all the time? People make much ado about how these applications aren't so bad to use once you learn them, but people would learn them a hell of a lot faster, if they didn't have to relearn how to use even the simplest controls. Just yesterday, I watched a friend have difficulty just using the file selection dialog in Blender, because it wasn't behaving in a standard way. There is really no excuse for wasting users' time this way, in this day and age.
Depending on the location of the offender, a crime MAY have been committed, but that crime was not rape.
If the offender was in the United States, for example, he (or she) could be found in violation of US Code Title 47,223 -- "Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications":
Consider:
"Whoever--
(1) in interstate or foreign communications--
(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly--
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;"
However, we should NEVER use the word "rape" for this sort of offense. I don't care how goddamn upset someone was about it. It's NOT the same thing, and we should not dilute the word by extending it to obscene harassment.
We just take for granted that desensitization to violence is a bad thing. I'm not so sure that I agree. Do we ever question a war veteran's character, because his war experience may have desensitized him to violence?
People make the mistake of thinking that desensitization implies apathy. It does, indeed, imply that one has a less visceral reaction to violence. But, is a visceral reaction to violence necessary to make appropriate moral judgements, or to take action when it must be stopped? I think a visceral response may, in fact, be detrimental. I would venture to argue that when people ignore violence in front of them, it's usually not apathy that keeps them from intervening. No, it's a deep, old dread. It's the adrenaline gnawing at their stomachs. It's their senses of self-preservation kicking in. Their hands are stilled not by apathy, but by fear.
When we are in crisis situations, we need to keep a level head and take action. When confronted with a mass shooter, would you choose to be the person petrified by fear, or would you choose to be the person heroically barricading the doors?
We are civilized, but our world is still dangerous. People are still sent to war. People still face crime. People still face domestic violence. These threats aren't going away anytime soon. We can't afford to be shocked when confronted with danger. We have to be prepared to act with courage and strength of purpose.
nacturation, your metaphor is flawed.
:P
I'm going to say something shocking here, but bear with me: Computer Science is not Programming.
Moreover, programming is not to computer science as math problems are to mathematics.
Computer Science includes programming, and many people who wish to become programmers do wisely choose to study Computer Science, but Computer Science and Programming are not the same thing. While many people who decide to study Computer Science would like to think of it as a Programming major, it absolutely is not. I've seen decent coders wash out of Bachelor's programs in CS. I've also seen Master's students who couldn't code their way out of a wet paper bag. Moreover, I've met career programmers who didn't really discover the joys of programming until they reached college. Being able to hack together a few lines of java doesn't necessarily prepare anyone for a real Theory of Computation course. It's not necessarily a bad thing to consider programming as only a part of a larger picture.
That said, I don't think the gender disparity is a university's battle to win. I was one of only two girls in my high school's AP Computer Science course, years ago. What that says to me is that college is really too late. If you want to influence attitudes about computer science, you have to start a lot younger. Sure, maybe I decided I wanted to be a programmer when I was punching in source code from magazines as a little girl, but back then, I didn't know any boys who programmed, so it never would've occurred to me for a minute that anyone might think of it as a "boy" thing. For me, it was just a hell of a fun power trip to get the computer to do what I wanted. So, I made games about... um, horses. Girls will be girls.
I didn't switch from "exclusive" to "best known as." I was clarifying why "first" isn't necessarily that relevant. ajs318 brought up the same points you did, and we had a very good discussion about it. I recommend saving us both some time and joining the discussion over there, so neither of us have to rehash old counterpoints. ;)
Ah, that's a really good point, snurf23. Yeah, I'm in the US!
Heh, fair point. But, I already knew about the Toaster. We worked with a toaster at one of my previous jobs, long ago, and I've also worked with a guy who used to work at Newtek. ;)
:)
I was mostly curious about what was done with the hardware, with respect to games, that was different. Not just "better looking" graphics, either. For a kind of lame example, the Amiga version of "Lemmings" allowed more lemmings on the screen. I imagine that the other platforms couldn't quite hack it.
You're missing the point. "Doom" was best known as a PC game. But, would you call "Grand Theft Auto" an "influential PC game"? Probably not. It's just an "influential game." The fact that it was originally an MS-DOS game is kind of irrelevant.
I had a few responses like this, but you went the furthest to substantiate your points (which I appreciate), so I'll reply to yours. :)
I guess that I have a couple of issues with the whole idea of the article -- some of which I didn't bring up.
I'm in the game industry, and honestly, I can't think of anybody I currently know who has ever mentioned having owned an Amiga, and we DO geek out about the gear we had when we were younger. Most of the "Syndicate" fans I know were Mac owners, to be honest. I'm afraid that some of these games would have been far less influential, had they not been ported. Did the Japanese designers who were influenced by "Another World" play it on the Amiga, or did they play it on the Super Nintendo? Given that Amiga was selling slower than Macs in Japan, unless they were using an Amiga at work, they probably played it on another machine first.
(Ironically, I think that the Amiga software that most influenced the game industry was a tool! Many computer artists had a passionate love affair with "Deluxe Paint II" pretty much right up until that pesky "Photoshop" took over. Hardened art department veterans will still wax nostalgic if you speak those magic words anywhere near them. It did eventually get ported to the PC, but "Deluxe Paint II" was indisputably an Amiga program. You can tell, because the name "Amiga" always comes up in any conversation about it, today. The same cannot be said of "Lemmings.")
I'll be honest with you: I'm not sure being the first platform is the big deal you're making it out to be. I mean, seriously, "Grand Theft Auto" first appeared as an MS-DOS game. Yet, you would probably get some funny looks if you called it an "influential PC game." It was influential, yes, but the fact that it appeared first on the PC was kind of irrelevant to much of anything, including its influence.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking the Amiga. The machine was way the hell ahead of its time. It was a quantum leap ahead in graphics quality of anything else in the consumer market, at the time. My Dad more than once had to drag me away from Amigas at computer shows, because I was transfixed. But, as you rightly point out, good stuff comes at a price, and the Amiga just didn't move as many units as it needed to. I'd have to say that the Amiga's greatest influence was in showing us what was possible. Even if you never owned one, it convinced you that there was something better, and that it wasn't out of reach. It was the swift kick in the rump we needed to get to where we are today.
I'm afraid that there's not a single one of these ten "innovative entries in the Amiga game canon" that was exclusive to the Amiga. If you don't believe me, look it up. It would've been MUCH more interesting, to me (not having been able to afford an Amiga in high school), to see what sort of innovative things people did using Amiga's fancy hardware -- especially since this is in the HARDWARE category and not the GAMES category. Instead, the article sort of leaves me scratching my head, and not caring much.
I use an HDTV as a monitor for my desktop computer. I NEED those pixels, man. 1280x720 is worse than my laptop resolution. I'll take 1920x1080, and not even think twice about it.
I can think of at least 8 million people who might disagree with his assertion. World of Warcraft does not run in a web browser.
Do NOT advise him to get a degree from a certificate-factory, if he has the option of getting a real 4-year degree. UnknownSoldier touches on many of the reasons, but I'll address a few more:
1.) NO ONE can guarantee that you will get into the industry. At least if you have a CS degree, you can still get a job, if you don't.
2.) Some studios WILL NOT EVEN LOOK AT YOUR RESUME if you don't have a 4-year degree. Why shoot yourself in the foot like that?
3.) Universities teach things other than just programming. There are a lot of things you can learn outside your field that are beneficial for game development. Getting outside of the geek-culture echo chamber sometimes is a GOOD thing.
If you are worried that your CS program didn't cover much that you felt was useful for game programming, fear not. Every year, more Universities start up new game specialization programs. For example, Rensselaer JUST started up a degree program in Game and Simulation Arts and Sciences. There are other Universities that have had programs running for years. (SMU has the GuildHall, and CMU has their ETC program, etc., etc.). Get on the ball: You and your cousin should do some research into good academic programs.
I don't know where Forbes got their numbers from on that. Historically, the percentage I've heard quoted for developers is MUCH lower. It may have changed for this generation (development costs have arguably increased more than publishing costs), but I still find the number surprising.
I agree. A traditional Bachelor's in CS will not give you a lot of what you need. I have a traditional Bachelor's in Computer Science, and I had to self-teach a ton of stuff, before entering the industry. Things you can find at a regular University program that could be of use, depending on your focus: Linear algebra, psychology, physics, C++, algorithms, spatial data structures, databases, network programming, and software engineering. Things a conventional BS will probably need to learn on her own: 3D graphics, graphics hardware pipeline, Windows programming, GPU/shader programming, essential game algorithms, game software architecture, teamwork. Also, if you can't play nicely with artists and other creative types, just don't even bother. Plus, you should have a demo, whatever it takes.
And, you can't fall apart under pressure in a challenging interview. Technical interviewers WILL put you through the meat grinder, but they usually don't expect you to answer everything perfectly. They just want to put their foot on the gas, and see how fast this baby can go. If you display good general competency on the things they're quizzing you on, you'll be fine. If you spend the entire interview saying, "Duuuuuuhh, we didn't cover that in school," you're toast. Be honest about what you can do, but also don't be afraid to hazard an educated guess at the answer to something you don't know. Sometimes, the reasoning behind your guesses can be more interesting (and even more impressive) to the interviewer than the correct answer would have been. For example, a slowly derived solution may be more impressive than a quickly remembered one, because the interviewer can see that the candidate understands the underlying principles, and is not merely regurgitating bullets from a book. So, don't be afraid to think things through, and illustrate your thought process, if you're uncertain about something.
Amen, brother.
It's the simplest linear algebra there is, and yet I've still encountered numerous game programming interviewees who couldn't answer the most rudimentary dot product question.
If you really WANT to program games, you need to LEARN these things. It's not that hard, and if you think it is, you belong in a different career.