I'd really tits be hopeful tits for a future in which tits your thoughts result directly tits in all kinds of work without further input tits. Imagine GIGANTIC ASSES being able to stop a malfunctioning machine part tits from causing damage without needing to scramble tits for the controls or quickly punch in code, safely and assurately. Communicating when tits you'll arrive somewhere shit did anybody see me do that can happen while driving without the need to tits take your eyes off the road to interface with your phone, making orders ass online could be a snap, the opportunities are limitless.
Jesus christ, League of Legends AND Extra Credit? In some countries that could be considered a challenge to armed combat.
Yes, the design is irrelevant. The point was that games are inherently advantageous. I don't give a shit what godawful designers are doing to ruin their game's presentations.
It's not. Sports broadcasts have been laden with effects and embellishments for ages. Even if they hadn't connected these traits with video games the inherent benefits have nevertheless been understood.
Dota team fans exhibit a lot of national pride. The fact that Dota is so popular in China makes a lot of big tournaments a clash of egos between Chinese and western fanbases.
It's a consequence of being computer generated, the games can damn well have any visual and audio effects the developers please. Sports on the other hand are affected by the unfortunate circumstance of awkward silence and distant perspective. A game's shit design has nothing to do with it.
In other words dicking around is okay, so long as one doesn't drop the pretentious nonchalant act. Otherwise the girls at school will see how much fun you have and the jocks will tease you for it. Anything but that.
Video games are better to spectate than sports. Broadcasters have known this for decades, doing what they could to compensate. Gimmicks won't stall change forever though, sooner than later they'll have to face this fact. The real interesting stuff will be the cultural shift when video games start to challenge the popularity of athletic sports.
Ignoring the petulance of some of the comments here (there's no point addressing them) the reception the article got isn't entirely unreasonable. Wu speaks with an undeserved sense of authority, comes across as a smug supremacist hand waving away criticism. She uses the article as a platform to broadcast her frustrations and masquerades it as a piece on culture. She can decide not to take her audience seriously if she likes, but sulking over the response is demanding you have your cake and eat it, too.
You're a good statistician and sociologist. Strongly persuaded by the narrow anecdote you used to support your loosely worded presumptuous conclusion. This is the quality bullshit comment systems were invented for.
I abhor the use of personal resources to aid any specific group of people for any reason. People should spend their money only in ways that further my own interest, I'm too insecure to have it any other way.
People trying to help others overcome inequality makes me sick.
If labor is abolished in the future she can kick back and lounge around in her underwear all day eating junk food and watching Netflix. It's what I do.
You're talking in circles because you're making a point that was already raised and addressed. Going back to it doesn't further this discussion.
It's irrelevant because it's only tangentially related and mentioned only as an antecedent to a completely different point. I'm not going to address your argumentum ad populum.
You can make a city as elaborate as you like, it does nothing to determine your success as far as the game's win/lose conditions are concerned. It's just dicking around, the gameplay itself is incredibly unimpressive. Dwarf Fortress, by comparison, actually does involve the designs the player manages to come up with directly in determining their success or failure, and is by far the better game.
Actually I hadn't even considered Portal. It's an entertaining game but offers a rather narrow difficulty curve.
I don't really care if a game is linear or not, infinite spawns, etc. All that really matters is what options the game puts in the player's hands and how well opportunities presented by those options are exploited by the game itself. I think the game could have been improved in a number of ways (in particular, the acceleration curves found throughout the game were awkward. Vehicle sections could have tested a player's attention to detail, instead you just awkwardly flop from point A to B. Rockets also seemed random but this i s a minor point.) but in general it was solidly designed, particularly with regards to weapon diversity and how each affected your positioning and timing in each engagement.
Valve knows how to find skilled developers and put them in an environment in which they can be creative but still focused. Dota 2, CS:GO, Left 4 Dead, these games show a lot of attention to detail while being embellished by unobtrusive fluff.
> Outside of Valve I don't think many developers... pay enough attention to game design to consistently produce quality games
That's because a game is too dependent on Art + Tech. You can have the world's greatest designer but if they don't understand how to capitalize on Tech & Art _tailored_ for their project you're dead in the water.
There are few Game Designers that are recognized as delivering the goods. Sid Meier, Shigeru Miyamoto, Will Wright, etc. How many of these game designers do the general public even know??
I don't see how that matters, the point is games are homogenized for the sake of market friendliness.
> Games are an awkward state of limbo these days,
AAA games maybe, but not indie.
Okay.
Content creation costs are spiraling out of control.
Why did you bold that and then not follow up on it
People are getting fed up with grind-for-gear ooh shiny with shallow gameplay.
...pay enough attention to game design to consistently produce quality games. Not that they can't, mind you, but it seems pretty clear to me that game devs tend to have their attention split between designing a game's mechanics and appealing to a broad audience. You end up with a game that isn't too far afield of what you tend to see these days, but that tries to compensate by having gameplay features designed to be marketed as 'innovative' and conducive to creative and emergent gameplay. A good example is Watch Dogs, marketed as a game centered around hacking but designed as a GTA clone with a hacking gimmick.
Games are an awkward state of limbo these days, publishers know they have to start pushing out the impression of creativity and devs try to figure out how to do that without alienating the average player. The mentality sticks, and developers everywhere end up glossing over technical details, focusing instead on the impression a game will make.
Exclusivity deals aren't a problem either. This strategy is not hidden from consumers, as in the case of, say, a manufacturer lowering the quality of the materials in their products while taking steps to maintain the appearance of the former product. In this case consumer consent is necessary, the opportunity to obfuscate facts is not presented from the idea in question. The information consumers use in assessing whether the product is worth the cost goes unaffected.
Gamestop is depending on a market with idiosyncratic practices. These practices may themselves seem strange or senseless, but if one is to take these as cultural shortcomings then the fault lies with the consumer, not Gamestop. This is an industry where the cozy relationship between critics and publishers is no secret, where being excited regarding an event consisting entirely of three days of advertisements is considered normal. If this idea seems exploitative, it's only because they're serving a demographic that wants to be exploited.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd really tits be hopeful tits for a future in which tits your thoughts result directly tits in all kinds of work without further input tits. Imagine GIGANTIC ASSES being able to stop a malfunctioning machine part tits from causing damage without needing to scramble tits for the controls or quickly punch in code, safely and assurately. Communicating when tits you'll arrive somewhere shit did anybody see me do that can happen while driving without the need to tits take your eyes off the road to interface with your phone, making orders ass online could be a snap, the opportunities are limitless.
The statements are not analogous and, more often than not, require context anyway. Your cheap shot isn't clever.
have my imaginary mod point and/or mixed race babies
You're just repeating what I said.
Jesus christ, League of Legends AND Extra Credit? In some countries that could be considered a challenge to armed combat.
Yes, the design is irrelevant. The point was that games are inherently advantageous. I don't give a shit what godawful designers are doing to ruin their game's presentations.
It's not. Sports broadcasts have been laden with effects and embellishments for ages. Even if they hadn't connected these traits with video games the inherent benefits have nevertheless been understood.
Dota team fans exhibit a lot of national pride. The fact that Dota is so popular in China makes a lot of big tournaments a clash of egos between Chinese and western fanbases.
It's a consequence of being computer generated, the games can damn well have any visual and audio effects the developers please. Sports on the other hand are affected by the unfortunate circumstance of awkward silence and distant perspective. A game's shit design has nothing to do with it.
In other words dicking around is okay, so long as one doesn't drop the pretentious nonchalant act. Otherwise the girls at school will see how much fun you have and the jocks will tease you for it. Anything but that.
http://www.esportsearnings.com...
It's not nearly as big an issue as you'd assume
Video games are better to spectate than sports. Broadcasters have known this for decades, doing what they could to compensate. Gimmicks won't stall change forever though, sooner than later they'll have to face this fact. The real interesting stuff will be the cultural shift when video games start to challenge the popularity of athletic sports.
Ignoring the petulance of some of the comments here (there's no point addressing them) the reception the article got isn't entirely unreasonable. Wu speaks with an undeserved sense of authority, comes across as a smug supremacist hand waving away criticism. She uses the article as a platform to broadcast her frustrations and masquerades it as a piece on culture. She can decide not to take her audience seriously if she likes, but sulking over the response is demanding you have your cake and eat it, too.
Either you're implying that you really don't know how "so" works as a conjunction or you're backpedaling. I'd believe either at this point.
You're a good statistician and sociologist. Strongly persuaded by the narrow anecdote you used to support your loosely worded presumptuous conclusion. This is the quality bullshit comment systems were invented for.
I abhor the use of personal resources to aid any specific group of people for any reason. People should spend their money only in ways that further my own interest, I'm too insecure to have it any other way.
People trying to help others overcome inequality makes me sick.
If labor is abolished in the future she can kick back and lounge around in her underwear all day eating junk food and watching Netflix. It's what I do.
You're talking in circles because you're making a point that was already raised and addressed. Going back to it doesn't further this discussion.
It's irrelevant because it's only tangentially related and mentioned only as an antecedent to a completely different point. I'm not going to address your argumentum ad populum.
Some games aren't necessarily built around win/lose conditions. Some games are sandlot building games.
You're talking in circles.
54 million in sales says that you aren't representative of everyone.
Irrelevant.
/I/ had literally hundreds of hours of enjoyable gameplay from my $15 purchase. By far one of my best ever game purchases.
Well I am very happy for you.
You can make a city as elaborate as you like, it does nothing to determine your success as far as the game's win/lose conditions are concerned. It's just dicking around, the gameplay itself is incredibly unimpressive. Dwarf Fortress, by comparison, actually does involve the designs the player manages to come up with directly in determining their success or failure, and is by far the better game.
Actually I hadn't even considered Portal. It's an entertaining game but offers a rather narrow difficulty curve.
I don't really care if a game is linear or not, infinite spawns, etc. All that really matters is what options the game puts in the player's hands and how well opportunities presented by those options are exploited by the game itself. I think the game could have been improved in a number of ways (in particular, the acceleration curves found throughout the game were awkward. Vehicle sections could have tested a player's attention to detail, instead you just awkwardly flop from point A to B. Rockets also seemed random but this i s a minor point.) but in general it was solidly designed, particularly with regards to weapon diversity and how each affected your positioning and timing in each engagement.
Valve knows how to find skilled developers and put them in an environment in which they can be creative but still focused. Dota 2, CS:GO, Left 4 Dead, these games show a lot of attention to detail while being embellished by unobtrusive fluff.
Just reached. Sales are continuing.
> Outside of Valve I don't think many developers ... pay enough attention to game design to consistently produce quality games
That's because a game is too dependent on Art + Tech. You can have the world's greatest designer but if they don't understand how to capitalize on Tech & Art _tailored_ for their project you're dead in the water.
There are few Game Designers that are recognized as delivering the goods. Sid Meier, Shigeru Miyamoto, Will Wright, etc. How many of these game designers do the general public even know??
I don't see how that matters, the point is games are homogenized for the sake of market friendliness.
> Games are an awkward state of limbo these days,
AAA games maybe, but not indie.
Okay.
Content creation costs are spiraling out of control.
Why did you bold that and then not follow up on it
People are getting fed up with grind-for-gear ooh shiny with shallow gameplay.
Minecraft just reach 54 million across all platforms.
https://twitter.com/pgeuder/st...
Well that's a contradictory statement if I've ever seen one.
...pay enough attention to game design to consistently produce quality games. Not that they can't, mind you, but it seems pretty clear to me that game devs tend to have their attention split between designing a game's mechanics and appealing to a broad audience. You end up with a game that isn't too far afield of what you tend to see these days, but that tries to compensate by having gameplay features designed to be marketed as 'innovative' and conducive to creative and emergent gameplay. A good example is Watch Dogs, marketed as a game centered around hacking but designed as a GTA clone with a hacking gimmick.
Games are an awkward state of limbo these days, publishers know they have to start pushing out the impression of creativity and devs try to figure out how to do that without alienating the average player. The mentality sticks, and developers everywhere end up glossing over technical details, focusing instead on the impression a game will make.
Exclusivity deals aren't a problem either. This strategy is not hidden from consumers, as in the case of, say, a manufacturer lowering the quality of the materials in their products while taking steps to maintain the appearance of the former product. In this case consumer consent is necessary, the opportunity to obfuscate facts is not presented from the idea in question. The information consumers use in assessing whether the product is worth the cost goes unaffected.
Gamestop is depending on a market with idiosyncratic practices. These practices may themselves seem strange or senseless, but if one is to take these as cultural shortcomings then the fault lies with the consumer, not Gamestop. This is an industry where the cozy relationship between critics and publishers is no secret, where being excited regarding an event consisting entirely of three days of advertisements is considered normal. If this idea seems exploitative, it's only because they're serving a demographic that wants to be exploited.