Let him deal with it. That's why he makes more than you do.
There has been a lot of good, sensible advice here, including this. Unfortunately rhe reality in some places it that your boss doesn't care about your problem with having too much to do, they just want it done at any cost. I know I've worked in situations like that, and no amount of documenting and explaining will change it. On one project I was told, "We will make these deadlines even if we have to cut every corner there is, I want it done."
When you're in a situation like that where you're not going to get support from your management, you really only have two choices. Quit, or stay and work 70 hours a week to try to get things done, turning yourself miserable and bitter and cultivating an intense hatred for everyone around you in the workplace.
That's pure comedy gold right there.
The only difference between Old Man Murray and so-called "real" game reviewers is they work hard to try to maintain an illusion that they're professional, legitimate journalists, when the fact is rarely does a game review ever reflect the experiences of the people playing it.
The "start to crate" benchmark? That right there is funny. Why? Because it's so damn true.
It was a fun game. I know many didn't like it, but it had a good few weeks of enjoymenet for me, and then another couple weeks of playing with the editor/mod tools. Only a month or so enjoyment out of a game? Yeah, sounds about right to me.
I think the repetitiveness felt worse because the levels were so long. They could have broken it up a litttle more so you weren't travelling through the same area for hours and it would have helped immensely. If nothing else I hope they learned from the level design of the first one.
They shot themselves in the foot with online play when you couldn't save your progress as a party together. I know there were changes to that eventually, but at launch it was a waste of time to play with other people online because as soon as you quit you had to start all over again from the beginning.
The article is completely right, except for the conclusion. All of the outlined problems do exist. They don't stop people from playing, however. To say the future of online gaming is dim goes against all of the evidence we already have. People will play bad games, get treated like crap, AND pay for it in droves. Sure, there's plenty of people who say they quit such and such a game because of the poor service. Then there's the hundreds of thousands of other people who are still shelling out their money month after month, and are showing no signs of stopping now. The only thing that will hurt online gaming will be bad games. And the only thing that will hurt is the individual game, people will happily keep paying someone else.
I still say the most fun games I had were on the Commodore 64, and Pirates is one of my all time favorites. It and Ultimate IV were the first games I played through all hours of the night. I just had to find the next silver train and rescue another sister, or cousin, or whatever relative managed to get captured by those "evil Spaniards."
I first played it in 1988, and never got tired of it.
I was afraid I was the only person who ever had the misfortune of playing Journey Escape on the Atari 2600. No one I ever mention it to has ever heard of it, never mind played it. I'll never get the, "Shifty Eyed Promoters" out of my mind forever.
The worst part is I played it, a lot. It was the only came besides, "Combat" I had at one point.
While everyone was going all gaga over Doom, I got sucked into Descent. Descent combined the feeling of flying dogfights with the indoor underground deathmatch of Doom. Once I had four player Descent matches in a complete 3d environment I could never go back to running around on the ground. It was just so much more fun for me to be able to move in three dimensions, roll, rotate, and spin than just run back and forth. Even today I'd rather play against people in Descent/Descent2 or something like Forsaken, than Q3 or CS.
That may or may not be true. There is something to be said for the theory that Apple could gain software marketshare by focusing on OS and app sales for the x86 platform, which has a vastly larger install base. So sure you lose a good portion of your hardware sales, but you would increase OS sales by a huge jump if people decide they'd like to use OS X and Mac apps on their own hardware.
Whether or not that translates to higher overall sales for Apple is the question. Whether or not Jobs could take what he'd perceive as a blow to the ego is probably the bigger one.
http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/story.php?Artic leID=5869 "Mac OS X EverQuest players will not be able to play against (or with) the PC players of the game, due to server incompatibilities. Also, Sony will be watching the sales of Mac EverQuest very closely, to evaluate whether ports of other titles such as EverQuest 2 and Star Wars Galaxies will be worthwhile."
Slashdot Mirror
There has been a lot of good, sensible advice here, including this. Unfortunately rhe reality in some places it that your boss doesn't care about your problem with having too much to do, they just want it done at any cost. I know I've worked in situations like that, and no amount of documenting and explaining will change it. On one project I was told, "We will make these deadlines even if we have to cut every corner there is, I want it done."
When you're in a situation like that where you're not going to get support from your management, you really only have two choices. Quit, or stay and work 70 hours a week to try to get things done, turning yourself miserable and bitter and cultivating an intense hatred for everyone around you in the workplace.
That's pure comedy gold right there.
The only difference between Old Man Murray and so-called "real" game reviewers is they work hard to try to maintain an illusion that they're professional, legitimate journalists, when the fact is rarely does a game review ever reflect the experiences of the people playing it.
The "start to crate" benchmark? That right there is funny. Why? Because it's so damn true.
It was a fun game. I know many didn't like it, but it had a good few weeks of enjoymenet for me, and then another couple weeks of playing with the editor/mod tools. Only a month or so enjoyment out of a game? Yeah, sounds about right to me. I think the repetitiveness felt worse because the levels were so long. They could have broken it up a litttle more so you weren't travelling through the same area for hours and it would have helped immensely. If nothing else I hope they learned from the level design of the first one. They shot themselves in the foot with online play when you couldn't save your progress as a party together. I know there were changes to that eventually, but at launch it was a waste of time to play with other people online because as soon as you quit you had to start all over again from the beginning.
The article is completely right, except for the conclusion. All of the outlined problems do exist. They don't stop people from playing, however. To say the future of online gaming is dim goes against all of the evidence we already have. People will play bad games, get treated like crap, AND pay for it in droves. Sure, there's plenty of people who say they quit such and such a game because of the poor service. Then there's the hundreds of thousands of other people who are still shelling out their money month after month, and are showing no signs of stopping now. The only thing that will hurt online gaming will be bad games. And the only thing that will hurt is the individual game, people will happily keep paying someone else.
I still say the most fun games I had were on the Commodore 64, and Pirates is one of my all time favorites. It and Ultimate IV were the first games I played through all hours of the night. I just had to find the next silver train and rescue another sister, or cousin, or whatever relative managed to get captured by those "evil Spaniards." I first played it in 1988, and never got tired of it.
I was afraid I was the only person who ever had the misfortune of playing Journey Escape on the Atari 2600. No one I ever mention it to has ever heard of it, never mind played it. I'll never get the, "Shifty Eyed Promoters" out of my mind forever. The worst part is I played it, a lot. It was the only came besides, "Combat" I had at one point.
While everyone was going all gaga over Doom, I got sucked into Descent. Descent combined the feeling of flying dogfights with the indoor underground deathmatch of Doom. Once I had four player Descent matches in a complete 3d environment I could never go back to running around on the ground. It was just so much more fun for me to be able to move in three dimensions, roll, rotate, and spin than just run back and forth. Even today I'd rather play against people in Descent/Descent2 or something like Forsaken, than Q3 or CS.
That may or may not be true. There is something to be said for the theory that Apple could gain software marketshare by focusing on OS and app sales for the x86 platform, which has a vastly larger install base. So sure you lose a good portion of your hardware sales, but you would increase OS sales by a huge jump if people decide they'd like to use OS X and Mac apps on their own hardware. Whether or not that translates to higher overall sales for Apple is the question. Whether or not Jobs could take what he'd perceive as a blow to the ego is probably the bigger one.
http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/story.php?Artic leID=5869
"Mac OS X EverQuest players will not be able to play against (or with) the PC players of the game, due to server incompatibilities. Also, Sony will be watching the sales of Mac EverQuest very closely, to evaluate whether ports of other titles such as EverQuest 2 and Star Wars Galaxies will be worthwhile."