No, you're right, I misused the terminology. It's the VS.NET (the IDE) that makes things "easier" in the way it was described originally (dropping controls on a form). When I was coding Swing, it was in Notepad, since I did not like any of the Swing GUI builders at the time (this was several years ago).
I'm not trying to say VS.NET or.NET is better or worse than any of the Java counterparts. In my daily work, I do not do as much programming as I used to do anymore, so I haven't explored much of what is or isn't possible in VS.NET. (Nowdays, I just hack together tools when we need them, and do it quickly) And I haven't had the time to re-explore the Java universe, when I left it last. So I'm not going debate that one is better than the other, which is what you seem to want to do.
But if they're going to insist on making tools that pretend that it's possible for people who don't know how to code, to write code, then they could at least hold their hand a little bit more, and get them to write at least acceptable code.
Well, that's the part that I disagree with. I don't think the VS team is intentionally trying to make a product to allow people who don't know how to code, to write code. If that's what you're seeing a lot of, then I don't know for sure why that's the case. Maybe novices choose VS.NET because the IDE happens to be so easy to learn, or because they have to use C# for some reason, or because there's no decent IDE for the language they wanted to use. (Side note... when I was a Java junkie, I ended up using TextPad for all my development, since I hated all of the Java-based IDEs that were available at the time. I don't know if there's anything comparable to VS.NET for Java, nowadays. My biggest beef was that the IDEs were just so slow)
You're right that there can definately be more hand-holding, but I'd argue that I don't want it in VS.NET, at least not on by default. I know how to program, and it'd be annoying as hell if the IDE tried to hand-hold me through everyone. "Yes, I KNOW textbox1 is a bad variable name. I'm going to change it, but don't bug me now. I'm trying to do something here."
A version of VS.NET for Students might be handy, where the IDE can be scaled from newbie-mode to professional-mode. Although I can also see the argument that it's wasted work, and that more time should just be spent on creating better documentation, books, and classes for students. If you're serious about learning how to program, that's where you should go first. Diving straight into code without proper education can set you up badly for the future. It seems to me that a lot of bad coders are that way because they got into bad habits early on, and never educated themselves not to do things the way that you're supposed to. Improving the IDE for those individuals might help them, but it may also hinder the professional developers that's arguably your main audience.
What you're describing, with the filling in of default values, is not something new with.NET. I saw it first-hand with earlier versions of VB.
On that note, I can agree that automatically filling in objects with "textbox1" can be dangerous. I worked on a VB project with someone who wasn't a programmer and ran across these default names everywhere. When I had to re-write the code, it was difficult to read. But you know what? Bad coders are going to do bad things, no matter the language or development environment provides. If it wasn't filled in as "textbox1", he would have renamed it after some letter of the alphabet. I'll take "textbox1" over "x" anyday. (And sure enough, any variable that wasn't a UI object was named after letters in the alphabet)
I've worked a lot with UI development in both Java (Swing) and C#. I can definately say that the.NET Framework makes things a lot easier. Yes, there's the added danger of "Joe User" now thinking that they're a super programmer, but does that mean language designers are supposed to make it languages difficult to use? That's just absurd. In any case, you could very well have the same thing in a non-.NET language as well (and I'm pretty sure there were some Java IDEs that did something very similar to what VS.NET does, in terms of UI drag-and-drop)
If you think.NET is all about Microsoft trying to bring programming to the masses, I think you need to re-examine what it is about. You can easily argue the same thing with Java, or any other managed language. My take on the goals of these languages is to make development BETTER. "Easier" is a part of it, thanks to the elimination of "difficult-to-comprehend" concepts like pointers, and the addition of automatic garbage collection. Good programmers (and I'd like to think I'm one), could live forever in the C/C++ world, but having the benefits in.NET and Java are just too attractive. I'd rather worry about more difficult problems like concurrency, than worrying (as much) about memory management, pointer arithmetic, etc.
Re:Nintendo is in trouble with the Revolution
on
Nintendo's New Look
·
· Score: 1
Ahh, you're right. SDTV isn't totally going away. (Although I can imagine that there'll be lots of marketing and store clerks tricking people into thinking that they DO need to get an HDTV right away)
I still think, though, that we're going to see HDTV adoption really grow over the next few years. No, I doubt we're going to see a majority of HDTVs in 5 years, but I think it's going to continue to be the hot ticket item in consumer electronics. Anecdotally, I've noticed a lot of buzz around the last holiday season and even around the Super Bowl, from guys getting HD sets.
I just know that I've been getting my friends to check out our new HDTV and they can only drool.:)
A lot of it has to come with risk vs reward. Coming up with unique, quality product is HARD. And there's no guarantee that the public will even like it. (Otherwise, games like Ico would have sold better, and shows like Firefly would still be around) In the meantime, the same public gobbles up anything with "Grand Theft Auto", "Madden", or "Final Fantasy" in the title. Not all sequels are bad, but it's much easier for developers to be lazy, knowing that you've already gone fans waiting to buy the next version regardless of how good or bad it may be.
So on one hand, making a sequel is certainly a safe thing to do business wise. On the other hand, the developers now have the added problem of being stuck with whatever game lore or gameplay that was established in the first game. Trying to become too creative can draw the ire of your hardcore fanbase. For example, refer to the reaction of many Nintendo fans when the first screenshots of Wind Waker were released. Or how many FF-purists are upset with the new battle mechanics in the FFXII demo. Also, many gamers were upset by the dark tone in the sequels to Price of Persia and Jak & Dexter. (Not that all of these were the best changes to begin with, but you get the idea)
Also, I wouldn't say Nintendo is necessarily the pinnacle of delivering unique entertainment. They have plenty of their own sequels (countless Mario, Zelda, Metroid games), and constantly put their franchise characters (Mario, Samus, Link, etc.) in a constant barrage of spin-offs. The difference is that their games are generally well polished, no matter if they're a sequel, spin-off, or new work.
In the end, I wouldn't say that sequels themselves are bad. I'm guilty as charged for wanting to see the next X-Men movie, or wanting to play the next FF game. It's the bad sequels that really irk us, when the developers get lazy, or don't innovate the series enough, or change it too much. And I don't think anyone would disagree that entirely new games, if done well, are always a good thing.
Wow, reading about the game makes it seem a lot like my favorite BBS door game of all time, TradeWars 2002. That was another slow-paced, space-based game. Every day you only had a limited number of turns. The primarily way of making money was via trading from one port to another (buy low, sell high). Only after a long period of time, could you truly amass a fortune (buying planets, bigger ships, etc.). There was also the notion of corporations with shared assets that could be plundered, if left unguarded (or the defense vaporized).
I wonder how many of EVE-Online's designers played that game. I'd be willing to play EVE, if I weren't already sucked into WoW.
Re:Nintendo is in trouble with the Revolution
on
Nintendo's New Look
·
· Score: 1
Current penetration of HDTV in the US is less than 10%. Current penetration in markets other than the US is less than 1%. Even assuming you can get an HDTV for less than $200 (which you can, but only up to 480p, for a tv that supports resolutions greater than 480p you're still looking at an average of $400), market penetration is not going to increase to greater than 50% in the US within the next 5 years. I work for a cable company, it's taking us forever to get customers to convert from analog to digital service, HDTV isn't going to be any easier. And this is with the government push behind it. Nitnendo is an international company, they're going to try to provide an equal experience to all markets.
I just wanted to point out that in the US, the FCC has mandated changing TV transmissions from analog to digital, starting in 2007. While taxpayers will have the option of getting an adapter that allows them to still watch TV on their SDTV sets, I can imagine that most folks in the next few years will opt to just upgrade. Most people will admit that there is a very noticable difference going from standard TV to HDTV, much the same way users jumped from VHS tapes to DVDs. True, HDTVs are much more expensive than DVD players themselves, but the sets are constantly going down in price. (Then again, the cost of the DVD player and converting your entire movie library from VHS to DVD could probably cost as much as a decent HDTV)
Also, a lot of folks don't realize that HDTVs are available in non-LCD, LCD, or Plasma form. The rear-projection CRTs, while big and bulky, are generally much more affordable. I personally didn't realize this until I started shopping around for an HDTV myself.
Now, I DON'T think there's going to be a migration from DVD to any of the "next gen" DVD formats (HD-DVD or Blu-ray) any time soon (if ever). There's not nearly as obvious a benefit, at least visually. I think the main benefit is just going to be in storage. Instead of 5 LotR DVDs, there may be just 1 HD-DVD or Blu-ray disc. Then again, I can totally see Hollywood churning out even more "special" collectors editions (multiple languages, view angles, cut scenes, etc.), so to get the total package, it still spans multiple discs. They'll know fans will still eat it all up. Anyway, I see Blu-ray and HD-DVD going the way of the Laserdisc. Enthusiasts will pick it up, but the general public will wait for the next revolutionary medium (holo cube anyone?).
But yeah it looks like Nintendo is going after the pirates instead of lumping everyone into one group and assuming they're all pirates. The lack of any major anti-pirating actions since the Lik Sang case seems to support this.
I still can't say that Nintendo is that much different than others when it comes to anti-pirating efforts. Lik Sang (and many/.-ers apparently) disagree that the only folks using their devices were piraters. It sounds much like the claims of P2P creators. Lik Sang's backup devices can be used for legal AND illegal means. But Nintendo chose to lump all of the device users as potential piraters and unleashed their lawyers to prevent Lik Sang from selling anymore of these devices.
It's a very similar to Sony's and Microsoft's claims to modders. Remember, they also sued Lik Sang for producing many of these mod chips. Search the archives for more info. Sure, not EVERYONE who mods their consoles does it for piracy reasons. Quite a few do it to disable region checking (although that's potentially illegal as well). Yet, it's a lot easier to just lump the whole group together and assume that the majority of folks are using it to pirate games. (My hunch would be that it's not far from the truth)
After doing some additional reading and refreshing of memory, I believe that trying to claim that Nintendo is essentially more "pirate friendly" than Sony or Microsoft is just crazy. Just because there weren't any major anti-pirating actions reported in the media last year, doesn't mean that they're more open by any means. If anything, their history shows that they'll always be protective of their content and games, by any means necessary.
I'm not trying to knock Nintendo down by any means. I love their handhelds and was definately a Nintendo "fan-boi" as a kid. Also, I'll actually agree with many of their above actions. If they believe piracy is costing them a decent amount of profit, then I'd much rather see them go after the bad guys than go bankrupt (of course that's incredibly unlikely, given their general profitability). Unfortunately, they're going to hurt legitimate users along the way.
So, going back to the original conversation... no, Nintendo's media apparently doesn't have much copy protection. But I certainly wouldn't call it a sign that they're less restrictive than any other console developer. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Revolution media sports more DRM. You also have to consider that Nintendo is going to be releasing a bunch of retro titles available for download, which will have to be protected in some way. And unfortunately, they may find it a good time to go after emulators again, since there will be a business model for selling old titles. I'm going to have to predict MORE legislation and anti-piracy action over the next few years.
It sounds like Nintendo hasn't really invested much in DRM in the past, but instead chooses to go after sellers, and companies like Lik Sang, which manufactured "backup devices". I agree with the former, but the latter seems like a stretch, and ideally screws over legitamate users of the devices.
I wonder if they'll continue down the same road. Don't bother locking down the media, but go after the pirates themselves, and possibly whatever tools that they use to do the dirty work. (Sony and Microsoft have been doing the same thing, trying to go after modders that open up the box for piracy)
I always thought it was because Nintendo systems didn't use "standard" media, like CDs and DVDs. They used carts up until the GameCube-era, and even then, they had some mini-disc format. (I'm not sure how protected that media was)
When games were in cartridge format, there were various accessories that were sold that let folks read them in and "back up" the games to a separate storage device. Conversely, you could also read from such devices as well, and it opened the door for piracy. I believe (although I'm too lazy to Google), that Nintendo did frown upon that and went after people/groups that did this. I could be mistaken though... it's certainly been a while.
With all the MMORPGs that are out, we definately do need a nice article that sums up the pro's and con's to all the games out there. This article is a nice start, but it's much too short, and misses several games (EVE Online and Guild Wars, to name a few).
It'd also be nice to have an MMO history article of sorts. Quite often I see people (mainly WoW players) complaining why feature X isn't in the game. For example, a few hardcore PvP gamers wonder why we don't have a real PvP world where you can kill someone and loot their actual belongings. I'd love to point them to an article that shows that Ultima Online tried this years ago and it didn't turn out well for the casual player ("Corp Por" anyone?). Or that anybody who complains about long flight times between Auberdine and Theramore (currently clocking at 11 mins) needs to go back to the original Everquest and try doing some travelling in that game.
I wonder if there's a Japanese site that links to some weird game in the US, with the title, "The American-game-to-end-all-American games".:)
Yeah, there are a lot of weird, sexually-theme games in Japan. After all, it's home to many hentai games (hentai is the rough equivalent to porn in the US, although it's in animated form). When I spent some time in Japan as part of a school trip, I often ran into hentai games on the same shelf space as other games. You definately get the feeling that Americans are prude.
Obviously consoles are going to be a lot more locked down than PCs. You can't easily hack into the filesystem (or expect your users to), so any mods are going to have to use whatever tools the game developer makes available. Additionally, using a controller is a lot more annoying than using a mouse to manipulate things.
As for PC games, I agree that they're becoming really very complex. (See Neverwinter Nights for example) Most gamers, with full-time jobs, just aren't going to have the time to dive into mods. So either the tools have to be ridiculously dumbed down, or you just have to hope that there are enough hardcore individuals willing to mod your game, despite how complicated the tools may be.
I think that modding games is quickly becoming one of the best ways to get into the games industry. Heck, a lot of the times, the mod engine/script is developed first and is what the developers use to make the actual game content (so the game is essentially just one huge mod itself). So by modding the game, you're essentially working on it as well. There are certainly lots of examples with the Half-Life engine (Counter-Strike, etc.), where modders got full-time jobs for their efforts.
Be sure to also do research to make sure your great idea hasn't already been done somewhere else. Or if it has, maybe find a way to make it better.
Additionally, there are lots of existing software/web solutions which may provide what you're looking for. You should still get in contact with a "tech geek", but let them see if it's easier to combine/use existing products, rather than re-inventing the wheel. Most often, it's the content that really drives the popularity of a web site, not necessarily how it's designed, its features, etc.
Rip-offs are really common nowadays in the casual game space. I swear, at some point, it seems like all of Popcap and Gamehouse's games were rip-offs of each other. Popcap's Big Money and Gamehouse's Collapse are two obvious examples. (And I wouldn't be surprised if they're rip-offs of some other game as well).
In general, the whole "match 3 or more colors" gameplay has been done many times over. Just take a look at Bejeweled, Zuma, and Hexic.
there is definately room for improvement, in that I agree with you. However I feel that the improvements I'd like to see the most are not technological but social, including how social interaction takes place in these worlds and the importance of players moderating theirselves more closely. What spoils any MMORPG the most for me is the childish and inane chatter in general. In that respect I would be very happy to see an MMO with a minimum age requirement.
I've very much for reducing stupid-talk in General Chat. I don't think a minimum age requirement is the right way, though, since there are a lot of mature children, and a lot of immature adults. But if General Chat were smart enough to weed out all of the stupid banter that goes on between "kids" (especially on an RP server, for example), that alone would be wonderful.
Are you trolling or something? Obviously any feedback/rating system has to take into account things like false positives (maybe the guy really IS that good) or revenge scenarios (griefers trying to abuse feedback systems themselves).
You probably got booted from the server because some jerk admin thought you were using a bot, even though you weren't. But if you put some software in front that does the detection, a la Punkbuster, then you don't have to worry about things like jerk admins. If you still get booted, then you run to Punkbuster forums with a complaint and try to get it fixed.
<rant> Sometimes it seems like your average/.-er is just content with pointing out one potential flaw in any given system, then claiming the whole thing is just bunk. I thought most of us were geeks and engineers. We should be able to see beyond single failures and instead, try to find ways to fix things or build a better design, rather than just tear down an entire premise with a one-line quote and a "it won't work n00b" comment. </rant>
Not that I'm aware of, or probably more likely... the MMOG isn't popular enough. There are plenty of games that don't have the griefer problem that's prevalent in WoW. By many personal accounts, the EQ2 playerbase is more "mature", probably since it's no where as popular as WoW. Then again, when I was playing the first EQ and THAT was the big hit game, there were plenty of griefers there too. Same with UO when it first released.
Arguably there is feedback/moderation system that can't be abused. We all know that the/. system isn't perfect. Yet it's "good enough" for most people. We don't even have that for WoW, because it doesn't really have a system to begin with.
I can't wait till ALL platforms implement something similar to what MS has done with the gamerscore/gamercard system. I'm tired of telling folks and/.-ers that I'm a Japanese RPG fanatic. I'd love to point people to my gamercard and achievements. They can see that I've played most Square-Enix games, many Nippon Ichi titles, have beaten Prinny Baal in Disgaea, really close to beating DQVIII, etc. I'm not ashamed of my gaming heritage at all!
I'm sure the same goes for many other gamers. They WANT people to know that they're the top dog in most flight sims, or that you really don't want to play them in any RTS game, or that they're crazy about DDR. (And for those who don't want to display that, then give them an option to remain anonymous)
Well see, that's the thing. You play in a community that's been well-established (no transfers). Not every server is like that. You also mention that, since you know the community, you know who to pick when doing PUGs, etc. It's very much a rite of passage, and one that I can understand, but that doesn't make it any better to the victim of a ninja or griefer. Not everyone has the benefits that you do. Plus, the goal is to come up with a system such that even new users can benefit from.
I'm not trying to argue that MMORPGs and other online games NEED a feedback system, otherwise they are doomed to fail. But I'm an engineer and this is/. and it's interesting to try to improve upon things. Who knows... maybe some genius will figure it all out and implement it in the next big MMO. Then 10 years later, we'll all be wondering how we ever survived without a system (and doing thought exercises on the "next big improvement").
I certainly know a lot of people complained about travel systems with EQ. A lot of people claimed, at the time, that there's no NEED to improve travel. The world SHOULD be huge and difficult to get around. Then WoW comes along and (arguably) revolutionizes MMORPG travel with easy-to-use flight paths all around the world. Now I find it very hard to go back to earlier MMOs that don't have it. (Some folks may not like this change, but I gather their numbers are much smaller than those who do)
Feedback systems can always be exploited in some way. Nobody would want to give feedback, even if the a$$hole in the group deserves it, in fear of getting negative feedback in return. You'd have every player ask for positive feedback after every dungeon run, which would be annoying, and it would be hard to say "you did alright, but not quite good enough to deserve a positive rating" to mediocre players you got along, but didn't really have a great time, with. Honestly evaluating people may offend them.
Wouldn't the feedback system be anonymous? You wouldn't REALLY know if someone gave you bad feedback, so you wouldn't know who to seek revenge on. Even if it was very apparent (the entire group kicks out player X), you'd have to build the system to expect some revenge aspect to be in play. Player X is going to get 5 negative feedbacks, one from each player. But he can only dish out 1 negative feedback to each of the other players. (You can also limit the number of negative feedback you can provide in a given time)
Basically you'd have to make it so that people aren't afraid of getting ONE negative feedback. If you're truly an asshole, you're going to be that way over a long period of time, to many people. If you just had a bad day and pissed off a few people, that shouldn't tank your reputation for the remainder of the game.
The main problem I see is that the beginning game will still be griefable, as it takes time to accumulate the negative feedback. I think that's acceptable (to a degree). Besides, you have to take into account people that are new to the game, don't know quite what they're doing, etc. But by the middle to end-game, where people spend most of their time, you should be fairly assured that you WON'T run into those asshats anymore.
If someone wants to play nice guy all the way until the end and THEN start ninja-ing like crazy, then hopefully your feedback system can accomodate somehow.
No one said that making a non-abusable feedback system was easy.:)
One easy way to prevent the "mob mentality" is to check to see what affiliations/connections people have when they rate a person. If I'm an asshole, I'm probably going to be an asshole to everyone, NOT just one guild. So theoretically, I should be getting negative feedback from a wide, diverse group of people. The same applies if I'm a nice guy.
So, if a guild tries to work together to boost each other's ratings, or tank someone else's, the feedback system should be able to see the correlation. After a while, the Nth feedback from a person of the same guild as the N-1th feedback, doesn't do anything to the person's rating anymore.
The only problem I see is that some people might be an asshole ONLY to a specific guild. The feedback system would break down here. But that's where you now rely on regular group communication. Guilds can establish their own guild specific blacklists or friend lists. Or better yet, have a guild-level feedback/reputation system. "Captain Jack is friendly to everyone, but really hates the PuzzlePirates guild and their members."
it's called/yell in Ironforge. Seriously though, A MMORPG is such because it's an immersive world where people not only quest for 'phat lewtz' but spend a good amount of time sitting around, idling and chatting. I don't need a feedback system to tell me that X is a ninja or that Y is an excellent healer or tank that I would be happy to have in my party, I know from experience and communication. Jeez it almost sounds like handing out gold stars.
The problem is that AFTER THE FACT, you will find out that X is a ninja or Y is a horrible group player. You might have wasted several hours just to find that out. Okay, so now you place that person on your blacklist, but by then the damage has already been done. Most loot ninjas thrive on the fact that there are always new people to take advantage of, that have never heard of their reputation. That's because in most games (WoW-included), there is no permanent feedback-type system. Sure, I can ask in General Chat, "Is so-and-so a ninja? He asked me to group with him.", but that's obviously time consuming and probably won't be useful (people he ninja-ed before may not be online or in IF at the time).
What I have seen is that some folks start publishing their own blacklists and making them available, either on WoW forums, guild websites, etc. The problem now is that it essentially becomes an unmoderated popularity contest, pitting one person's word against another. What if you AREN'T a ninja, but some asshole in a prominent guild thinks you are?
I think it'd be much better to have the feedback system built into the system from the beginning. Make it solid, not abusable, and broad.
Plus a system like that is open to massive abuse, especially when you put it into the hands of a bunch of 14 year old boys who decide that they don't like a particular player. Sounds like another shitty rep grind. no bloody way.
If you read TFA, they talk about ways to prevent 14-year old boys from "gaming" the system. Obviously any feedback system has to be solid enough so that IT isn't being abused either. That is definately not an easy task, which is probably why we haven't seen anything like this in an MMO yet.
Any company that is able to guarantee a favorable experience in an online game is going to make a lot of money. It's not just MMORPGs that need this, but FPS titles as well. How many times have you played a team-based FPS (like Counter-Strike), only to run into some asshole who thinks that shooting you in the back constantly is "funny"? Many games have tried changing the game mechanic to prevent this from happening (for example, if you cause enough team kills, you get booted from the server), but a lot of those mechanics can be gamed. Or it doesn't do anything about the fact that you had to be TKed three times before the griefer got booted, etc.
Much of the problem comes from the fact that griefers find entertainment in doing the griefing. I happen to know someone who regularly did this in Battlefield games. I asked him, "Why are you such an asshole in the game?" His answer was because he's not very good at them, but he just finds it hilarious the feedback/anger he gets from those he griefs. I've seen the same thing in WoW, where notorious spawn campers, who feed on lower level newbies, delight in the grief that they cause and will even post screenshots on a website of their "conquests".
I've always thought that the Slashdot moderation system is a good start for such a feedback mechanism in games. Obviously, though, it needs a lot of extra work to make it appropriate for a game (and TFA brings up many good points). Better yet, some company needs to be able to make it an overall game service that can be used across a broad spectrum of games. If you're an asshole in one game, you're probably going to be an asshole in another game. If not, then hopefully it's a deterrent that if you like game X, you can't be an asshole in game Y since it'll affect your karma/rating.
You can even extend it beyond just "I don't want to play with griefers". I know role playing enthusiasts would like to be able to rate folks as a "good RPer" or a "bad RPer", so they know who to RP with. Or perhaps ratings like, "Good at PvP" versus "Bad at PvP". (I know plenty of folks who I'd love to group with, when tackling regular monsters/dungeons in WoW, but I know they're horrible when it comes to actual PvP combat... and vice versa)
I, for one, would gladly pay for such a service, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Of course, there'd be a huge backlash from those folks who ARE the assholes to begin with, and also from folks who are generally good players, but object to having labels being slapped on them and being rated constantly (much like the popularity contest that is high school).
Slashdot Mirror
No, you're right, I misused the terminology. It's the VS.NET (the IDE) that makes things "easier" in the way it was described originally (dropping controls on a form). When I was coding Swing, it was in Notepad, since I did not like any of the Swing GUI builders at the time (this was several years ago).
.NET is better or worse than any of the Java counterparts. In my daily work, I do not do as much programming as I used to do anymore, so I haven't explored much of what is or isn't possible in VS.NET. (Nowdays, I just hack together tools when we need them, and do it quickly) And I haven't had the time to re-explore the Java universe, when I left it last. So I'm not going debate that one is better than the other, which is what you seem to want to do.
I'm not trying to say VS.NET or
But if they're going to insist on making tools that pretend that it's possible for people who don't know how to code, to write code, then they could at least hold their hand a little bit more, and get them to write at least acceptable code.
... when I was a Java junkie, I ended up using TextPad for all my development, since I hated all of the Java-based IDEs that were available at the time. I don't know if there's anything comparable to VS.NET for Java, nowadays. My biggest beef was that the IDEs were just so slow)
Well, that's the part that I disagree with. I don't think the VS team is intentionally trying to make a product to allow people who don't know how to code, to write code. If that's what you're seeing a lot of, then I don't know for sure why that's the case. Maybe novices choose VS.NET because the IDE happens to be so easy to learn, or because they have to use C# for some reason, or because there's no decent IDE for the language they wanted to use. (Side note
You're right that there can definately be more hand-holding, but I'd argue that I don't want it in VS.NET, at least not on by default. I know how to program, and it'd be annoying as hell if the IDE tried to hand-hold me through everyone. "Yes, I KNOW textbox1 is a bad variable name. I'm going to change it, but don't bug me now. I'm trying to do something here."
A version of VS.NET for Students might be handy, where the IDE can be scaled from newbie-mode to professional-mode. Although I can also see the argument that it's wasted work, and that more time should just be spent on creating better documentation, books, and classes for students. If you're serious about learning how to program, that's where you should go first. Diving straight into code without proper education can set you up badly for the future. It seems to me that a lot of bad coders are that way because they got into bad habits early on, and never educated themselves not to do things the way that you're supposed to. Improving the IDE for those individuals might help them, but it may also hinder the professional developers that's arguably your main audience.
What you're describing, with the filling in of default values, is not something new with .NET. I saw it first-hand with earlier versions of VB.
.NET Framework makes things a lot easier. Yes, there's the added danger of "Joe User" now thinking that they're a super programmer, but does that mean language designers are supposed to make it languages difficult to use? That's just absurd. In any case, you could very well have the same thing in a non-.NET language as well (and I'm pretty sure there were some Java IDEs that did something very similar to what VS.NET does, in terms of UI drag-and-drop)
.NET is all about Microsoft trying to bring programming to the masses, I think you need to re-examine what it is about. You can easily argue the same thing with Java, or any other managed language. My take on the goals of these languages is to make development BETTER. "Easier" is a part of it, thanks to the elimination of "difficult-to-comprehend" concepts like pointers, and the addition of automatic garbage collection. Good programmers (and I'd like to think I'm one), could live forever in the C/C++ world, but having the benefits in .NET and Java are just too attractive. I'd rather worry about more difficult problems like concurrency, than worrying (as much) about memory management, pointer arithmetic, etc.
On that note, I can agree that automatically filling in objects with "textbox1" can be dangerous. I worked on a VB project with someone who wasn't a programmer and ran across these default names everywhere. When I had to re-write the code, it was difficult to read. But you know what? Bad coders are going to do bad things, no matter the language or development environment provides. If it wasn't filled in as "textbox1", he would have renamed it after some letter of the alphabet. I'll take "textbox1" over "x" anyday. (And sure enough, any variable that wasn't a UI object was named after letters in the alphabet)
I've worked a lot with UI development in both Java (Swing) and C#. I can definately say that the
If you think
Ahh, you're right. SDTV isn't totally going away. (Although I can imagine that there'll be lots of marketing and store clerks tricking people into thinking that they DO need to get an HDTV right away)
:)
I still think, though, that we're going to see HDTV adoption really grow over the next few years. No, I doubt we're going to see a majority of HDTVs in 5 years, but I think it's going to continue to be the hot ticket item in consumer electronics. Anecdotally, I've noticed a lot of buzz around the last holiday season and even around the Super Bowl, from guys getting HD sets.
I just know that I've been getting my friends to check out our new HDTV and they can only drool.
A lot of it has to come with risk vs reward. Coming up with unique, quality product is HARD. And there's no guarantee that the public will even like it. (Otherwise, games like Ico would have sold better, and shows like Firefly would still be around) In the meantime, the same public gobbles up anything with "Grand Theft Auto", "Madden", or "Final Fantasy" in the title. Not all sequels are bad, but it's much easier for developers to be lazy, knowing that you've already gone fans waiting to buy the next version regardless of how good or bad it may be.
So on one hand, making a sequel is certainly a safe thing to do business wise. On the other hand, the developers now have the added problem of being stuck with whatever game lore or gameplay that was established in the first game. Trying to become too creative can draw the ire of your hardcore fanbase. For example, refer to the reaction of many Nintendo fans when the first screenshots of Wind Waker were released. Or how many FF-purists are upset with the new battle mechanics in the FFXII demo. Also, many gamers were upset by the dark tone in the sequels to Price of Persia and Jak & Dexter. (Not that all of these were the best changes to begin with, but you get the idea)
Also, I wouldn't say Nintendo is necessarily the pinnacle of delivering unique entertainment. They have plenty of their own sequels (countless Mario, Zelda, Metroid games), and constantly put their franchise characters (Mario, Samus, Link, etc.) in a constant barrage of spin-offs. The difference is that their games are generally well polished, no matter if they're a sequel, spin-off, or new work.
In the end, I wouldn't say that sequels themselves are bad. I'm guilty as charged for wanting to see the next X-Men movie, or wanting to play the next FF game. It's the bad sequels that really irk us, when the developers get lazy, or don't innovate the series enough, or change it too much. And I don't think anyone would disagree that entirely new games, if done well, are always a good thing.
Wow, reading about the game makes it seem a lot like my favorite BBS door game of all time, TradeWars 2002. That was another slow-paced, space-based game. Every day you only had a limited number of turns. The primarily way of making money was via trading from one port to another (buy low, sell high). Only after a long period of time, could you truly amass a fortune (buying planets, bigger ships, etc.). There was also the notion of corporations with shared assets that could be plundered, if left unguarded (or the defense vaporized).
I wonder how many of EVE-Online's designers played that game. I'd be willing to play EVE, if I weren't already sucked into WoW.
Current penetration of HDTV in the US is less than 10%. Current penetration in markets other than the US is less than 1%. Even assuming you can get an HDTV for less than $200 (which you can, but only up to 480p, for a tv that supports resolutions greater than 480p you're still looking at an average of $400), market penetration is not going to increase to greater than 50% in the US within the next 5 years. I work for a cable company, it's taking us forever to get customers to convert from analog to digital service, HDTV isn't going to be any easier. And this is with the government push behind it. Nitnendo is an international company, they're going to try to provide an equal experience to all markets.
I just wanted to point out that in the US, the FCC has mandated changing TV transmissions from analog to digital, starting in 2007. While taxpayers will have the option of getting an adapter that allows them to still watch TV on their SDTV sets, I can imagine that most folks in the next few years will opt to just upgrade. Most people will admit that there is a very noticable difference going from standard TV to HDTV, much the same way users jumped from VHS tapes to DVDs. True, HDTVs are much more expensive than DVD players themselves, but the sets are constantly going down in price. (Then again, the cost of the DVD player and converting your entire movie library from VHS to DVD could probably cost as much as a decent HDTV)
Also, a lot of folks don't realize that HDTVs are available in non-LCD, LCD, or Plasma form. The rear-projection CRTs, while big and bulky, are generally much more affordable. I personally didn't realize this until I started shopping around for an HDTV myself.
Now, I DON'T think there's going to be a migration from DVD to any of the "next gen" DVD formats (HD-DVD or Blu-ray) any time soon (if ever). There's not nearly as obvious a benefit, at least visually. I think the main benefit is just going to be in storage. Instead of 5 LotR DVDs, there may be just 1 HD-DVD or Blu-ray disc. Then again, I can totally see Hollywood churning out even more "special" collectors editions (multiple languages, view angles, cut scenes, etc.), so to get the total package, it still spans multiple discs. They'll know fans will still eat it all up. Anyway, I see Blu-ray and HD-DVD going the way of the Laserdisc. Enthusiasts will pick it up, but the general public will wait for the next revolutionary medium (holo cube anyone?).
... doesn't find it's way over the PS3 online platform group, if they Sony does intend on beating Xbox Live this console generation.
I know Sony's a large company, so I'm guessing SOE and the group responsible for console development is pretty far apart. Anyone know for sure?
But yeah it looks like Nintendo is going after the pirates instead of lumping everyone into one group and assuming they're all pirates. The lack of any major anti-pirating actions since the Lik Sang case seems to support this.
/.-ers apparently) disagree that the only folks using their devices were piraters. It sounds much like the claims of P2P creators. Lik Sang's backup devices can be used for legal AND illegal means. But Nintendo chose to lump all of the device users as potential piraters and unleashed their lawyers to prevent Lik Sang from selling anymore of these devices.
... no, Nintendo's media apparently doesn't have much copy protection. But I certainly wouldn't call it a sign that they're less restrictive than any other console developer. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Revolution media sports more DRM. You also have to consider that Nintendo is going to be releasing a bunch of retro titles available for download, which will have to be protected in some way. And unfortunately, they may find it a good time to go after emulators again, since there will be a business model for selling old titles. I'm going to have to predict MORE legislation and anti-piracy action over the next few years.
I still can't say that Nintendo is that much different than others when it comes to anti-pirating efforts. Lik Sang (and many
It's a very similar to Sony's and Microsoft's claims to modders. Remember, they also sued Lik Sang for producing many of these mod chips. Search the archives for more info. Sure, not EVERYONE who mods their consoles does it for piracy reasons. Quite a few do it to disable region checking (although that's potentially illegal as well). Yet, it's a lot easier to just lump the whole group together and assume that the majority of folks are using it to pirate games. (My hunch would be that it's not far from the truth)
After doing some additional reading and refreshing of memory, I believe that trying to claim that Nintendo is essentially more "pirate friendly" than Sony or Microsoft is just crazy. Just because there weren't any major anti-pirating actions reported in the media last year, doesn't mean that they're more open by any means. If anything, their history shows that they'll always be protective of their content and games, by any means necessary.
Here are some more articles:
Nintendo Creates Piracy-Proof Console For China
Nintendo Confirms It Will Sue UltraHLE Creators
Nintendo Blocking Counterfeit Game Machines
I'm not trying to knock Nintendo down by any means. I love their handhelds and was definately a Nintendo "fan-boi" as a kid. Also, I'll actually agree with many of their above actions. If they believe piracy is costing them a decent amount of profit, then I'd much rather see them go after the bad guys than go bankrupt (of course that's incredibly unlikely, given their general profitability). Unfortunately, they're going to hurt legitimate users along the way.
So, going back to the original conversation
Nintendo isn't exactly on the forefront of anti-piracy method when you really think about it.
Well, I ended up doing some searching, and it turns out that they've actually tried to crackdown on piracy quite a bit.
Nintendo's Late 2004 Piracy Crackdown
Nintendo Wins Lik Sang Piracy Case
Lik Sang On Nintendo Piracy Judgment
It sounds like Nintendo hasn't really invested much in DRM in the past, but instead chooses to go after sellers, and companies like Lik Sang, which manufactured "backup devices". I agree with the former, but the latter seems like a stretch, and ideally screws over legitamate users of the devices.
I wonder if they'll continue down the same road. Don't bother locking down the media, but go after the pirates themselves, and possibly whatever tools that they use to do the dirty work. (Sony and Microsoft have been doing the same thing, trying to go after modders that open up the box for piracy)
I always thought it was because Nintendo systems didn't use "standard" media, like CDs and DVDs. They used carts up until the GameCube-era, and even then, they had some mini-disc format. (I'm not sure how protected that media was)
... it's certainly been a while.
When games were in cartridge format, there were various accessories that were sold that let folks read them in and "back up" the games to a separate storage device. Conversely, you could also read from such devices as well, and it opened the door for piracy. I believe (although I'm too lazy to Google), that Nintendo did frown upon that and went after people/groups that did this. I could be mistaken though
With all the MMORPGs that are out, we definately do need a nice article that sums up the pro's and con's to all the games out there. This article is a nice start, but it's much too short, and misses several games (EVE Online and Guild Wars, to name a few).
It'd also be nice to have an MMO history article of sorts. Quite often I see people (mainly WoW players) complaining why feature X isn't in the game. For example, a few hardcore PvP gamers wonder why we don't have a real PvP world where you can kill someone and loot their actual belongings. I'd love to point them to an article that shows that Ultima Online tried this years ago and it didn't turn out well for the casual player ("Corp Por" anyone?). Or that anybody who complains about long flight times between Auberdine and Theramore (currently clocking at 11 mins) needs to go back to the original Everquest and try doing some travelling in that game.
I wonder if there's a Japanese site that links to some weird game in the US, with the title, "The American-game-to-end-all-American games". :)
Yeah, there are a lot of weird, sexually-theme games in Japan. After all, it's home to many hentai games (hentai is the rough equivalent to porn in the US, although it's in animated form). When I spent some time in Japan as part of a school trip, I often ran into hentai games on the same shelf space as other games. You definately get the feeling that Americans are prude.
Obviously consoles are going to be a lot more locked down than PCs. You can't easily hack into the filesystem (or expect your users to), so any mods are going to have to use whatever tools the game developer makes available. Additionally, using a controller is a lot more annoying than using a mouse to manipulate things.
As for PC games, I agree that they're becoming really very complex. (See Neverwinter Nights for example) Most gamers, with full-time jobs, just aren't going to have the time to dive into mods. So either the tools have to be ridiculously dumbed down, or you just have to hope that there are enough hardcore individuals willing to mod your game, despite how complicated the tools may be.
I think that modding games is quickly becoming one of the best ways to get into the games industry. Heck, a lot of the times, the mod engine/script is developed first and is what the developers use to make the actual game content (so the game is essentially just one huge mod itself). So by modding the game, you're essentially working on it as well. There are certainly lots of examples with the Half-Life engine (Counter-Strike, etc.), where modders got full-time jobs for their efforts.
Be sure to also do research to make sure your great idea hasn't already been done somewhere else. Or if it has, maybe find a way to make it better.
Additionally, there are lots of existing software/web solutions which may provide what you're looking for. You should still get in contact with a "tech geek", but let them see if it's easier to combine/use existing products, rather than re-inventing the wheel. Most often, it's the content that really drives the popularity of a web site, not necessarily how it's designed, its features, etc.
Rip-offs are really common nowadays in the casual game space. I swear, at some point, it seems like all of Popcap and Gamehouse's games were rip-offs of each other. Popcap's Big Money and Gamehouse's Collapse are two obvious examples. (And I wouldn't be surprised if they're rip-offs of some other game as well).
In general, the whole "match 3 or more colors" gameplay has been done many times over. Just take a look at Bejeweled, Zuma, and Hexic.
there is definately room for improvement, in that I agree with you. However I feel that the improvements I'd like to see the most are not technological but social, including how social interaction takes place in these worlds and the importance of players moderating theirselves more closely. What spoils any MMORPG the most for me is the childish and inane chatter in general. In that respect I would be very happy to see an MMO with a minimum age requirement.
I've very much for reducing stupid-talk in General Chat. I don't think a minimum age requirement is the right way, though, since there are a lot of mature children, and a lot of immature adults. But if General Chat were smart enough to weed out all of the stupid banter that goes on between "kids" (especially on an RP server, for example), that alone would be wonderful.
Are you trolling or something? Obviously any feedback/rating system has to take into account things like false positives (maybe the guy really IS that good) or revenge scenarios (griefers trying to abuse feedback systems themselves).
/.-er is just content with pointing out one potential flaw in any given system, then claiming the whole thing is just bunk. I thought most of us were geeks and engineers. We should be able to see beyond single failures and instead, try to find ways to fix things or build a better design, rather than just tear down an entire premise with a one-line quote and a "it won't work n00b" comment.
You probably got booted from the server because some jerk admin thought you were using a bot, even though you weren't. But if you put some software in front that does the detection, a la Punkbuster, then you don't have to worry about things like jerk admins. If you still get booted, then you run to Punkbuster forums with a complaint and try to get it fixed.
<rant>
Sometimes it seems like your average
</rant>
Not that I'm aware of, or probably more likely ... the MMOG isn't popular enough. There are plenty of games that don't have the griefer problem that's prevalent in WoW. By many personal accounts, the EQ2 playerbase is more "mature", probably since it's no where as popular as WoW. Then again, when I was playing the first EQ and THAT was the big hit game, there were plenty of griefers there too. Same with UO when it first released.
/. system isn't perfect. Yet it's "good enough" for most people. We don't even have that for WoW, because it doesn't really have a system to begin with.
Arguably there is feedback/moderation system that can't be abused. We all know that the
I can't wait till ALL platforms implement something similar to what MS has done with the gamerscore/gamercard system. I'm tired of telling folks and /.-ers that I'm a Japanese RPG fanatic. I'd love to point people to my gamercard and achievements. They can see that I've played most Square-Enix games, many Nippon Ichi titles, have beaten Prinny Baal in Disgaea, really close to beating DQVIII, etc. I'm not ashamed of my gaming heritage at all!
I'm sure the same goes for many other gamers. They WANT people to know that they're the top dog in most flight sims, or that you really don't want to play them in any RTS game, or that they're crazy about DDR. (And for those who don't want to display that, then give them an option to remain anonymous)
Well see, that's the thing. You play in a community that's been well-established (no transfers). Not every server is like that. You also mention that, since you know the community, you know who to pick when doing PUGs, etc. It's very much a rite of passage, and one that I can understand, but that doesn't make it any better to the victim of a ninja or griefer. Not everyone has the benefits that you do. Plus, the goal is to come up with a system such that even new users can benefit from.
/. and it's interesting to try to improve upon things. Who knows ... maybe some genius will figure it all out and implement it in the next big MMO. Then 10 years later, we'll all be wondering how we ever survived without a system (and doing thought exercises on the "next big improvement").
I'm not trying to argue that MMORPGs and other online games NEED a feedback system, otherwise they are doomed to fail. But I'm an engineer and this is
I certainly know a lot of people complained about travel systems with EQ. A lot of people claimed, at the time, that there's no NEED to improve travel. The world SHOULD be huge and difficult to get around. Then WoW comes along and (arguably) revolutionizes MMORPG travel with easy-to-use flight paths all around the world. Now I find it very hard to go back to earlier MMOs that don't have it. (Some folks may not like this change, but I gather their numbers are much smaller than those who do)
Feedback systems can always be exploited in some way. Nobody would want to give feedback, even if the a$$hole in the group deserves it, in fear of getting negative feedback in return. You'd have every player ask for positive feedback after every dungeon run, which would be annoying, and it would be hard to say "you did alright, but not quite good enough to deserve a positive rating" to mediocre players you got along, but didn't really have a great time, with. Honestly evaluating people may offend them.
Wouldn't the feedback system be anonymous? You wouldn't REALLY know if someone gave you bad feedback, so you wouldn't know who to seek revenge on. Even if it was very apparent (the entire group kicks out player X), you'd have to build the system to expect some revenge aspect to be in play. Player X is going to get 5 negative feedbacks, one from each player. But he can only dish out 1 negative feedback to each of the other players. (You can also limit the number of negative feedback you can provide in a given time)
Basically you'd have to make it so that people aren't afraid of getting ONE negative feedback. If you're truly an asshole, you're going to be that way over a long period of time, to many people. If you just had a bad day and pissed off a few people, that shouldn't tank your reputation for the remainder of the game.
The main problem I see is that the beginning game will still be griefable, as it takes time to accumulate the negative feedback. I think that's acceptable (to a degree). Besides, you have to take into account people that are new to the game, don't know quite what they're doing, etc. But by the middle to end-game, where people spend most of their time, you should be fairly assured that you WON'T run into those asshats anymore.
If someone wants to play nice guy all the way until the end and THEN start ninja-ing like crazy, then hopefully your feedback system can accomodate somehow.
No one said that making a non-abusable feedback system was easy. :)
One easy way to prevent the "mob mentality" is to check to see what affiliations/connections people have when they rate a person. If I'm an asshole, I'm probably going to be an asshole to everyone, NOT just one guild. So theoretically, I should be getting negative feedback from a wide, diverse group of people. The same applies if I'm a nice guy.
So, if a guild tries to work together to boost each other's ratings, or tank someone else's, the feedback system should be able to see the correlation. After a while, the Nth feedback from a person of the same guild as the N-1th feedback, doesn't do anything to the person's rating anymore.
The only problem I see is that some people might be an asshole ONLY to a specific guild. The feedback system would break down here. But that's where you now rely on regular group communication. Guilds can establish their own guild specific blacklists or friend lists. Or better yet, have a guild-level feedback/reputation system. "Captain Jack is friendly to everyone, but really hates the PuzzlePirates guild and their members."
it's called /yell in Ironforge. Seriously though, A MMORPG is such because it's an immersive world where people not only quest for 'phat lewtz' but spend a good amount of time sitting around, idling and chatting. I don't need a feedback system to tell me that X is a ninja or that Y is an excellent healer or tank that I would be happy to have in my party, I know from experience and communication. Jeez it almost sounds like handing out gold stars.
The problem is that AFTER THE FACT, you will find out that X is a ninja or Y is a horrible group player. You might have wasted several hours just to find that out. Okay, so now you place that person on your blacklist, but by then the damage has already been done. Most loot ninjas thrive on the fact that there are always new people to take advantage of, that have never heard of their reputation. That's because in most games (WoW-included), there is no permanent feedback-type system. Sure, I can ask in General Chat, "Is so-and-so a ninja? He asked me to group with him.", but that's obviously time consuming and probably won't be useful (people he ninja-ed before may not be online or in IF at the time).
What I have seen is that some folks start publishing their own blacklists and making them available, either on WoW forums, guild websites, etc. The problem now is that it essentially becomes an unmoderated popularity contest, pitting one person's word against another. What if you AREN'T a ninja, but some asshole in a prominent guild thinks you are?
I think it'd be much better to have the feedback system built into the system from the beginning. Make it solid, not abusable, and broad.
Plus a system like that is open to massive abuse, especially when you put it into the hands of a bunch of 14 year old boys who decide that they don't like a particular player. Sounds like another shitty rep grind. no bloody way.
If you read TFA, they talk about ways to prevent 14-year old boys from "gaming" the system. Obviously any feedback system has to be solid enough so that IT isn't being abused either. That is definately not an easy task, which is probably why we haven't seen anything like this in an MMO yet.
Any company that is able to guarantee a favorable experience in an online game is going to make a lot of money. It's not just MMORPGs that need this, but FPS titles as well. How many times have you played a team-based FPS (like Counter-Strike), only to run into some asshole who thinks that shooting you in the back constantly is "funny"? Many games have tried changing the game mechanic to prevent this from happening (for example, if you cause enough team kills, you get booted from the server), but a lot of those mechanics can be gamed. Or it doesn't do anything about the fact that you had to be TKed three times before the griefer got booted, etc.
... and vice versa)
Much of the problem comes from the fact that griefers find entertainment in doing the griefing. I happen to know someone who regularly did this in Battlefield games. I asked him, "Why are you such an asshole in the game?" His answer was because he's not very good at them, but he just finds it hilarious the feedback/anger he gets from those he griefs. I've seen the same thing in WoW, where notorious spawn campers, who feed on lower level newbies, delight in the grief that they cause and will even post screenshots on a website of their "conquests".
I've always thought that the Slashdot moderation system is a good start for such a feedback mechanism in games. Obviously, though, it needs a lot of extra work to make it appropriate for a game (and TFA brings up many good points). Better yet, some company needs to be able to make it an overall game service that can be used across a broad spectrum of games. If you're an asshole in one game, you're probably going to be an asshole in another game. If not, then hopefully it's a deterrent that if you like game X, you can't be an asshole in game Y since it'll affect your karma/rating.
You can even extend it beyond just "I don't want to play with griefers". I know role playing enthusiasts would like to be able to rate folks as a "good RPer" or a "bad RPer", so they know who to RP with. Or perhaps ratings like, "Good at PvP" versus "Bad at PvP". (I know plenty of folks who I'd love to group with, when tackling regular monsters/dungeons in WoW, but I know they're horrible when it comes to actual PvP combat
I, for one, would gladly pay for such a service, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Of course, there'd be a huge backlash from those folks who ARE the assholes to begin with, and also from folks who are generally good players, but object to having labels being slapped on them and being rated constantly (much like the popularity contest that is high school).