This one is based on data for U.S. developers. All main positions are covered from entry to "director" for programming/engineering, production, art, etc. They do this annually around Fall and report in Winter/Spring of the next year. IMO, one of the regularly anticipated features each year just to see how you'd stack up against folks in/among the industry.
With some digging around I'm sure someone can find the 2004 survey.
Has anyone actually seen "Metro3D?" Some quick google searches just turn up a developer company (one that doesn't even appear to make PC games) and not an actual game.
There's been stuff out there for several years now.
A lot of the "small form factor" barebone cases by Shuttle, Biostar, Soltek, etc. might fit your spec.
Most of those cases are still at least four times bigger than a Mac Mini to accomodate full-size AGP/PCI-Express/PCI cards and 3.5" and 5.25" bays but then they are probably four times smaller than a regular PC tower. Price-wise they are somewhat more expensive than a DIY PC.
Sam & Max was intuitive? Reaching into a cat's throat to get something right at the beginning of the game was NOT intuitive even to my creative/twisted mind as a child when I played this game!
It did set the tone, though!
That's because the video game review system is setup like a grade school report card system where anywhere around 50% or less (district varying!) will result in a failure (F).
So yes, you will get some "skewed" results that overwhelmingly use the upper half of the scale and reserve the bottom half for miserable universally-scathed games.
Why isn't that post modded up? I've had very limited work with PlanetLab at school, but this was not the Intel corporate brainchild the blurb makes it out to be. There are, however, some companies with research divisions that supply PlanetLab nodes (and probably other sorts of funding) like Intel, HP, AT&T, etc. that coincide with the numerous academic institutions offering nodes.
Read: http://www.planet-lab.org/php/overview.php
The BBC article has the Intel CTO mentioning PlanetLab as an example of where the company's vision of a future internet is going -- that is, into overlay networks.
While similarities are going to be drawn between the Generals and Battlefield 2 "setup," they are made by two different studios (EA Pacific and DICE, respectively) despite having the same publisher (EA).
Generals never laid claim to being a "realistic" RTS. The Battlefield series never claimed to be a "realistic" FPS, either. With the exception of being in an actual world setting (Generals even claims to be set in the near future to include the more fictional/exotic units) and using a number of modern weapons and vehicles, the gameplay mechanics in both games were never featured or advertised as being realistic -- at least, nowhere near the extent of games like America's Army, Ghost Recon, or the Rainbow Six series.
And yes, I did check the Generals, BF1942 and BF:V feature pages on their respective websites to verify the statements (or lack thereof) regarding realistic gameplay.
A discerning gamer should never base their game impression (and ultimate decide on whether to buy... or sadly, pirate) solely on these singular values because they abstract away all the qualitative properties of a game. That said, *-star ratings and final numbers/10 or/100 or percentages are all there to give a very quick and summative value on a product.
As someone mentioned earlier, many people want a general impression of what they're about to read. Personally, I like how sites like Gamespot and Gamespy throw the rating right up front, whereas a place like Firingsquad with its insightful yet girthy reviews requires navigating through a drop-down list to check out the "final verdict." I suspect most would rather spend time reading and learning about a "4-star" game than a "1-star" one.
Of course, that leads to the perceived notion that there is some grand quantitative scale when you see something like 79 and 81 / 100. Is the 81 game really better than the 79 reviewed on another site? Ultimately it's up to the reader. It's sometimes good to have bias -- if you're a hardcore genre or platform player, you may be more inclined to accept the given idiosyncrasies (i.e. directed linear levels vs. free-roaming, checkpoint saves vs. save anywhere, etc.).
These are ordinal values at heart, and should not be compared at interval levels.
Now with respect to that article, the author makes a good point about reinforcing the qualitative, descriptive muses of the reviewer. However, it's often preferential to give different abstraction levels of your information to pull in a greater volume of readers. The rating/percentage is a good start. It's doubtful that many readers will engage a lengthy game review (no matter how elegantly written) without having a hint of the final mark. Why read eight pages if it's a really crusty game? Conversely, why do that with a game that's already known from other sources to be great? Just a quick check to verify assumptions, and you're off to go get it. Game reviewers are not supposed to write elaborate and astounding essays for which its effect will fail if abstracted into a single value. They are supposed to aid in (and perhaps entertain) the decision to acquire a game for which the player will ultimately decide whether or not it is of good or sufficient quality.
It's necessary to have and utilize both a summative value and a qualitative review. Relying exclusively on a single value leads to game misconceptions, while a written piece alone cannot realistically convey your information to all but the committed (or bored) readers.
Maybe I'm looking at it from a narrow perspective, but I never understood why 3Dfx had to be so aggressive in their marketing. They were doing just fine with being a chip-only manufacturer and distributing them to 3rd party companies.
Well, at least they can admit to mistakes. Now they have to start reaping in the money again... $4 3Dfx stocks don't sound too hot.:p
Slashdot Mirror
1 lb = 0.454kg
A 2003 copy of the survey the IGN article refers to:
0 1.shtml (free registration required)
2003 Game Development Salary Survey
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20040211/olsen_
This one is based on data for U.S. developers. All main positions are covered from entry to "director" for programming/engineering, production, art, etc. They do this annually around Fall and report in Winter/Spring of the next year. IMO, one of the regularly anticipated features each year just to see how you'd stack up against folks in/among the industry.
With some digging around I'm sure someone can find the 2004 survey.
Just wait for the retina scan!
You ain't seeing nothin' no more...
Has anyone actually seen "Metro3D?" Some quick google searches just turn up a developer company (one that doesn't even appear to make PC games) and not an actual game.
There's been stuff out there for several years now.
A lot of the "small form factor" barebone cases by Shuttle, Biostar, Soltek, etc. might fit your spec.
Most of those cases are still at least four times bigger than a Mac Mini to accomodate full-size AGP/PCI-Express/PCI cards and 3.5" and 5.25" bays but then they are probably four times smaller than a regular PC tower. Price-wise they are somewhat more expensive than a DIY PC.
But yes, someone has thought of this.
Sam & Max was intuitive? Reaching into a cat's throat to get something right at the beginning of the game was NOT intuitive even to my creative/twisted mind as a child when I played this game! It did set the tone, though!
http://www.easports.com/articles/afl.jsp
That's because the video game review system is setup like a grade school report card system where anywhere around 50% or less (district varying!) will result in a failure (F).
So yes, you will get some "skewed" results that overwhelmingly use the upper half of the scale and reserve the bottom half for miserable universally-scathed games.
Um, Mutant League Football was made by EA.
u efootball/
http://www.gamespot.com/genesis/sports/mutantleag
Already exists (unfortunately).
The crappy Street Fighter game based on the awful movie which was based on the Capcom franchise during its peak.
Really... where do you live exactly? ;)
Yes.
Why isn't that post modded up? I've had very limited work with PlanetLab at school, but this was not the Intel corporate brainchild the blurb makes it out to be. There are, however, some companies with research divisions that supply PlanetLab nodes (and probably other sorts of funding) like Intel, HP, AT&T, etc. that coincide with the numerous academic institutions offering nodes.
Read: http://www.planet-lab.org/php/overview.php
The BBC article has the Intel CTO mentioning PlanetLab as an example of where the company's vision of a future internet is going -- that is, into overlay networks.
Yeesh. Talk about trolling a moot point.
While similarities are going to be drawn between the Generals and Battlefield 2 "setup," they are made by two different studios (EA Pacific and DICE, respectively) despite having the same publisher (EA).
Generals never laid claim to being a "realistic" RTS. The Battlefield series never claimed to be a "realistic" FPS, either. With the exception of being in an actual world setting (Generals even claims to be set in the near future to include the more fictional/exotic units) and using a number of modern weapons and vehicles, the gameplay mechanics in both games were never featured or advertised as being realistic -- at least, nowhere near the extent of games like America's Army, Ghost Recon, or the Rainbow Six series.
And yes, I did check the Generals, BF1942 and BF:V feature pages on their respective websites to verify the statements (or lack thereof) regarding realistic gameplay.
Yes, and General Tso will be an unlockable hero character.
A discerning gamer should never base their game impression (and ultimate decide on whether to buy... or sadly, pirate) solely on these singular values because they abstract away all the qualitative properties of a game. That said, *-star ratings and final numbers /10 or /100 or percentages are all there to give a very quick and summative value on a product.
As someone mentioned earlier, many people want a general impression of what they're about to read. Personally, I like how sites like Gamespot and Gamespy throw the rating right up front, whereas a place like Firingsquad with its insightful yet girthy reviews requires navigating through a drop-down list to check out the "final verdict." I suspect most would rather spend time reading and learning about a "4-star" game than a "1-star" one.
Of course, that leads to the perceived notion that there is some grand quantitative scale when you see something like 79 and 81 / 100. Is the 81 game really better than the 79 reviewed on another site? Ultimately it's up to the reader. It's sometimes good to have bias -- if you're a hardcore genre or platform player, you may be more inclined to accept the given idiosyncrasies (i.e. directed linear levels vs. free-roaming, checkpoint saves vs. save anywhere, etc.).
These are ordinal values at heart, and should not be compared at interval levels.
Now with respect to that article, the author makes a good point about reinforcing the qualitative, descriptive muses of the reviewer. However, it's often preferential to give different abstraction levels of your information to pull in a greater volume of readers. The rating/percentage is a good start. It's doubtful that many readers will engage a lengthy game review (no matter how elegantly written) without having a hint of the final mark. Why read eight pages if it's a really crusty game? Conversely, why do that with a game that's already known from other sources to be great? Just a quick check to verify assumptions, and you're off to go get it. Game reviewers are not supposed to write elaborate and astounding essays for which its effect will fail if abstracted into a single value. They are supposed to aid in (and perhaps entertain) the decision to acquire a game for which the player will ultimately decide whether or not it is of good or sufficient quality.
It's necessary to have and utilize both a summative value and a qualitative review. Relying exclusively on a single value leads to game misconceptions, while a written piece alone cannot realistically convey your information to all but the committed (or bored) readers.
Maybe I'm looking at it from a narrow perspective, but I never understood why 3Dfx had to be so aggressive in their marketing. They were doing just fine with being a chip-only manufacturer and distributing them to 3rd party companies.
:p
Well, at least they can admit to mistakes. Now they have to start reaping in the money again... $4 3Dfx stocks don't sound too hot.
...Saving you the trouble of clicking through multiple screens and re-entering personal data that you've already typed and retyped a million times.
:)
Sheesh- Talk about hyperbole. Someone's gotta calm down those marketing dept. animals.
And who's purchased stuff from their store once, anyways?