Re:Still only so many paths
on
Game Writing
·
· Score: 1
"if you could imagine a game with an infinite number of interactive elements (down to the chemical composition), you could claim there MUST be a solution to the problem, then the programmer's job would be done, and could just write your character to get locked in a solid steel room in a straight jacket, and say, "There's a way out, in theory."
That's pretty much exactly what I imagined, but I'm sure it's not that easy to implement. Back "in the day", all we had to worry about was getting the big, fat pixels on the screen (Atari 2600); everything else was just gravy.
Re:Still only so many paths
on
Game Writing
·
· Score: 1
I admit it's been a long, long time since I've played any non-arcade style games so my comments may be obsolete, but the central puzzle of these adventure-style games seems to be to guess what the game designer was thinking at the time. Wouldn't it be great if you could solve problems in ways that the writers never anticipated? Or are there games that really allow that today and I just don't know about them?
Re:Storytelling Ability Is the Primary Requirement
on
Game Writing
·
· Score: 1
"Developers always spend a lot of time worrying about the technical aspects of Game Writing. In fact, coding is the easy part. Storytelling, the art of making us care about the game play and become engaged in the story, is the central problem."
I would say gameplay is the most important aspect of a game. You can have a wonderful story, but that doesn't mean it's going to make a great game. Even if you think storytelling is the most important part, that doesn't make coding "the easy part". It may be true that there are fewer good writers than good programmers, but that doesn't mean the writer's job is harder than a programmer's.
Ah, but you're forgetting Borland Sidekick and other TSR utilities that allowed copy/paste across DOS applications. And yes, it was a kludge because cross-app copy/paste wasn't a native feature of DOS although the TSR capability was. This is very similiar to the kludge of doing web apps in a browser since many non-native features are worked-around by using javascript.
If you think that we couldn't copy/paste across applications in the 1980s on the PC you either have a very bad memory or you were too young to use a computer then (assuming you were born at all).
The dot-com craze proved that you can make a lot of money on stocks with a bad business model (at least for a while). So the question isn't whether a MYSQL company will be succesful in the long term, but whether there are enough people out there who believe it will to make it at least a good short-term investment.
"You are assuming a premise that any additional features that weren't part of the original design must necessarily compromise the design of that software."
No, he really isn't. He's saying that adding certain features to browsers to allow functionality that the original design didn't anticipate compromises the value and usefulness of that functionality relative to a design that included the functionality from the start.
"Last I heard, nothing was being done to regulate Microsoft anymore. I don't know for a fact, but it's my understanding that there are current deals with major OEMs that if they don't advertise Windows in certain ways, or if they give alternatives equal billing, then they don't qualify as some sort of "favored partner" to receive special pricing."
I'm sure that one hears all kinds of anti-MS rumors from anti-MS folks. I think this is a case where people believe what they want to believe and no facts will convince them otherwise. If you have real evidence of a post-judgement agreement between an OEM and MS that violates the judgement I suggest you contact the US Justice Department.
"Also, I'm not sure of the cause, but there is the strange case of Dell. They sell systems without operating systems, but those systems cost more than identical systems with Windows installed. It seems awfully suspicious."
If this is true, it's probably because they have a standard procedure for setting up PC's and any deviation from that procedure requires special handling that ends up costing them more. In addition, the lack of an OS complicates waranty issues and support issues.
"According to the deals that Microsoft has struck with OEMs, if OEMs offer machines with an alternative OS or no OS depending on how they offer it and advertise it, Microsoft will increase the price per copy of Windows."
That may have been true in the past, but the government won't allow them to do that now. Quoting from the final judgement:
"Microsoft shall not take or threaten any action adversely affecting any OEM (including but not limited to giving or withholding any consideration such as licensing terms; discounts; technical, marketing, and sales support; enabling programs; product information; technical information; information about future plans; developer tools or developer support; hardware certification; and permission to display trademarks or logos) based directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, on any actual or contemplated action by that OEM:
(1) to use, distribute, promote, license, develop, produce or sell any product or service that competes with any Microsoft product or service; or
(2) to exercise any of the options or alternatives provided under this Final Judgment. "
Good Post. In addition, I'll bet that a lot of serious Linux users that do care about the elegant aspects of Linux don't spend a lot of time digging around and recompiling applications unless they have to to maintain their system or it is directly relevent to their jobs. Professionals use their tools to get their work done and that rarely involves tweaking tools that already work.
Not only that, but it was that "unconvicted" monopolist turned open-source hero IBM who actually is responsible for determining how much memory could be used in the PC.
I guess if IBM had chosen the 68000 rather than the 8088, Slashdotter's would be claiming that Gates said "15 MB ought to be enough for anybody" (assuming IBM set aside 1MB for other purposes).
I was talking about amateur in the sense of being unpaid, not in the sense of unskilled. The point is that the existance of value doesn't directly translate into a market share. I think the report's valuations illustrate that fact.
If you took all the amateur musicians, artists, actors etc in the world and assumed that they were all being paid for their work, surely the amount would greatly exceed the value of the world's professionals, but I don't think successful professionals have much to worry about.
Slashdot Mirror
"if you could imagine a game with an infinite number of interactive elements (down to the chemical composition), you could claim there MUST be a solution to the problem, then the programmer's job would be done, and could just write your character to get locked in a solid steel room in a straight jacket, and say, "There's a way out, in theory."
That's pretty much exactly what I imagined, but I'm sure it's not that easy to implement. Back "in the day", all we had to worry about was getting the big, fat pixels on the screen (Atari 2600); everything else was just gravy.
I admit it's been a long, long time since I've played any non-arcade style games so my comments may be obsolete, but the central puzzle of these adventure-style games seems to be to guess what the game designer was thinking at the time. Wouldn't it be great if you could solve problems in ways that the writers never anticipated? Or are there games that really allow that today and I just don't know about them?
"Developers always spend a lot of time worrying about the technical aspects of Game Writing. In fact, coding is the easy part. Storytelling, the art of making us care about the game play and become engaged in the story, is the central problem."
I would say gameplay is the most important aspect of a game. You can have a wonderful story, but that doesn't mean it's going to make a great game. Even if you think storytelling is the most important part, that doesn't make coding "the easy part". It may be true that there are fewer good writers than good programmers, but that doesn't mean the writer's job is harder than a programmer's.
The browser provides an environment where a web app's UI can be implemented, but it isn't the UI itself. If it were, no HTML would have to be written.
Ah, but you're forgetting Borland Sidekick and other TSR utilities that allowed copy/paste across DOS applications. And yes, it was a kludge because cross-app copy/paste wasn't a native feature of DOS although the TSR capability was. This is very similiar to the kludge of doing web apps in a browser since many non-native features are worked-around by using javascript.
If you think that we couldn't copy/paste across applications in the 1980s on the PC you either have a very bad memory or you were too young to use a computer then (assuming you were born at all).
The dot-com craze proved that you can make a lot of money on stocks with a bad business model (at least for a while). So the question isn't whether a MYSQL company will be succesful in the long term, but whether there are enough people out there who believe it will to make it at least a good short-term investment.
Fine, let's look at it your way, then. The current design sucks. Happy now?
"You are assuming a premise that any additional features that weren't part of the original design must necessarily compromise the design of that software."
No, he really isn't. He's saying that adding certain features to browsers to allow functionality that the original design didn't anticipate compromises the value and usefulness of that functionality relative to a design that included the functionality from the start.
"But the browser has brought one very important thing to the table and that is a description language for form presentation.
Well, it allows formating of content by people who can't program. Whether that's good or bad is a matter of opinion.
I was quoting from the wrong version of the Final Judgement. I believe the correct version is here http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f218300/218339.htm.
"Last I heard, nothing was being done to regulate Microsoft anymore. I don't know for a fact, but it's my understanding that there are current deals with major OEMs that if they don't advertise Windows in certain ways, or if they give alternatives equal billing, then they don't qualify as some sort of "favored partner" to receive special pricing."
I'm sure that one hears all kinds of anti-MS rumors from anti-MS folks. I think this is a case where people believe what they want to believe and no facts will convince them otherwise. If you have real evidence of a post-judgement agreement between an OEM and MS that violates the judgement I suggest you contact the US Justice Department.
"Also, I'm not sure of the cause, but there is the strange case of Dell. They sell systems without operating systems, but those systems cost more than identical systems with Windows installed. It seems awfully suspicious."
If this is true, it's probably because they have a standard procedure for setting up PC's and any deviation from that procedure requires special handling that ends up costing them more. In addition, the lack of an OS complicates waranty issues and support issues.
"According to the deals that Microsoft has struck with OEMs, if OEMs offer machines with an alternative OS or no OS depending on how they offer it and advertise it, Microsoft will increase the price per copy of Windows."
That may have been true in the past, but the government won't allow them to do that now. Quoting from the final judgement:
"Microsoft shall not take or threaten any action adversely affecting any OEM (including but not limited to giving or withholding any consideration such as licensing terms; discounts; technical, marketing, and sales support; enabling programs; product information; technical information; information about future plans; developer tools or developer support; hardware certification; and permission to display trademarks or logos) based directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, on any actual or contemplated action by that OEM:
(1) to use, distribute, promote, license, develop, produce or sell any product or service that competes with any Microsoft product or service; or
(2) to exercise any of the options or alternatives provided under this Final Judgment. "
Really? And how exactly do they know what improvements I want?
Sure, there's thousands of coders waiting by the phone for my call so they can improve my computer at no charge.
So in other words, if you classify helicopters as non-aircraft you may be right.
"Iraqi Army, which used to threaten our aircraft patrolling North (Kurds) and South (Shia) of the country, is disbanded."
Sure, because our aircraft are much safer flying over Iraq now, right?
Good Post. In addition, I'll bet that a lot of serious Linux users that do care about the elegant aspects of Linux don't spend a lot of time digging around and recompiling applications unless they have to to maintain their system or it is directly relevent to their jobs. Professionals use their tools to get their work done and that rarely involves tweaking tools that already work.
"The main issue with the non-free systems is that you cannot tinker with them, but most users do not even realize what they are missing."
You mean they're missing the opportunity to tinker their way to disaster?
Not only that, but it was that "unconvicted" monopolist turned open-source hero IBM who actually is responsible for determining how much memory could be used in the PC.
I guess if IBM had chosen the 68000 rather than the 8088, Slashdotter's would be claiming that Gates said "15 MB ought to be enough for anybody" (assuming IBM set aside 1MB for other purposes).
People have been talking about how TV will be revolutionized in the next 5 years for at least the last 10 years.
Yes, but Bill and Steve will still be doing their laughing on the way to bank.
"I bet it could be made a million times more stable, secure, and compatible than any Windows products."
So an emulator for an OS can be a million times more compatible with the OS than the OS it emulates is with itself?
I was talking about amateur in the sense of being unpaid, not in the sense of unskilled. The point is that the existance of value doesn't directly translate into a market share. I think the report's valuations illustrate that fact.
If you took all the amateur musicians, artists, actors etc in the world and assumed that they were all being paid for their work, surely the amount would greatly exceed the value of the world's professionals, but I don't think successful professionals have much to worry about.