My only comment to that is what about fields that aren't quite defined in the gaming industry, such as the one I'm trying to break into, the role of the art technician, or technical artist in some cases. They're supposed to bridge the gap between programmers and artists, and yet, going to college, there is no real way to emphasize something that is so set in the middle. College will help with the specialized notions, but for those of us that are diverse in our skills, we're penalized for being diverse. Don't mind me, I'm just an irate, out-of-work college graduate.
It seems like many people are addressing what appears to be stereotypes of artists and programmers. e.g. programmers make money, artists don't.
In the game industry these days, a career path that has emerged is the Technical Artist, or Art Tech in some companies. These people are usually go betweens for artists and programmers and has an understanding of the programming side as well as the artistic side. The result is that they can help the programmers understand exactly what tools are necessary for artists and they can help artists understand the tools that they use as well as the limitations that the artists need to work within.
This is a particular career path that I am interested in and as such, I have a traditional art degree, but also have experience programming in various languages. I don't wish to program for a living, and drawing day in and day out doesn't appeal to me either. Technical Artists help people on both sides of the fence, making game development more efficient.
I thought Kaga boycotted that episode because it was a collective 3-9 losing streak, or something to that effect. I remember vaguely hearing the reason.
Of course, it was totally dramatic since near the end, the announcer was like, "We have a report that Chairman Kaga is somewhere hiding in the studio!" Then the cameraman showed Kaga hiding behind a pillar, peeking at the competitors, holding a glass of wine.
When they announced that the IC won, he took a careful, grateful sip of his wine, almost overjoyed that the IC had won. Great acting... lol
Unfortunately, if you don't have Food Network, you're SOL. You can always petition your cable provider.:)
I went over to a friends house last weekend to watch Iron Chef because he assured me he had Food Network. He ends up scanning through all 500 channels of his digital cable to finally say, "Oops, thought we had it."
We resigned ourselves to watching "The Matrix" on HBO.
As I've stated earlier, there are rarely purely n-person zero-sum and non zero-sum games, because most games require you to cooperate in some way or another as well as compete. In the case of INWO, it is possible to play the game as a non zero-sum game. Depending on who you play, your utility function will determine what winning is to you.
If you're the Bavarians, then by all means, might makes right, but if you're Shangri-La, you win (or rather, all Shangri-La win) if there are the given number of peaceful groups in play. The main thing is to DEFINE WHAT IT MEANS TO WIN.
Granted, I did learn my underlying principles well, however, I'm not quite sure how to handle the aspects of C++ that weren't covered in Pascal, namely, object-oriented behavior. It's that level of confusion and I'm not quite sure how to handle it with respect to the Pascal knowledge I have.
To clarify certain games:
Taken from "Game Theory: A Nontechnical Introduction"
Games like chess, checkers, tick-tack-toe, and the Japanese game of Go are called games of perfect information because everyone knows exactly what is going on at all times. These games offer few conceptual problems, and they won't be discussed here. In games like poker and bridge the players are, to some extent, kept in the dark, and in this sense the games are more complex. Even as trivial a game as matching pennies in which each player must choose a strategy without knowing what an adversary is doing has this added dimension of complexity.
Board games like the ones listed above are zero-sum games, but more so, they have perfect information and as such, aren't very intersting on particular level. Granted, they are still excellent games, but for this discussion, they probably don't need to be considered.
It's appropriate that you should mention Nomic, because the inventor, Peter Suber, created Nomic, his main goal was to emulate the government system. He wanted to "make a playable game that models this particular situation." Hence the need for the 2-tiered rule system.
I think one major thing that needs to be considered when discussing zero-sum and non zero-sum games is the definition of winning and losing. In game theory, this is described as the utility function.
Most any game can be considered zero-sum if the goals are set as such, but most any game can also be non zero-sum by setting goals in that direction.
Taken from "Game Theory: A Nontechnical Introduction" by Morton D. Davis, he states:
For convenience, let's regard all two-person games as lying in a continuum, with the zero-sum games at one extreme. In a two-person game, there are generally both competitive and cooperative elements: the interests of the players are opposed in some respects and complementary in others. In the zero-sum game, the players have no common interests. In the completely cooperative game at the other extreme, the players have nothing but common interests... Games with both cooperative and competitive elements are generally more complex, more interesting, and encountered more frequently in everyday life than pure competitive and cooperative games...In each of these games the players have mixed motives."
I don't think the goal is to find a perfectly non zero-sum game, but to find a game that has more elements of cooperation than competition.
It would seem to me that n-person game would be more likely to have cooperative elements in it, as opposed to a 2-person game, where the opponent is clearly defined.
The prisoner's dilemna primarily shows a viable strategy to employ in a simple non-zero sum game. The strategy being, tit-for-tat. No messages may be sent, but the message that is being sent to the other person is, whatever you did to me lsat round, I'll do it to you this round.
You're so right on this mark. I have the dubbed anime as well as the manga, and I must say that the depth that the manga goes into is fathoms beyond the anime. The anime has some nice qualities and imagery, but it glances over characters that are actually quite significant in the manga.
For instance, the priestess woman (name escapes me right now). She shows up in about 20 seconds of screen time in the anime as a building is falling, but in the manga, she provides sanctuary to Kay and reveals secrets to her. It's been a while since I read/watched it, so forgive me if I'm hazy here.
I would have liked to see Akira done as a series or mini series, so that they could expand on the sheer vastness of the characters and plots and sub-plots. And we would get to hear more of Col. McGruff the Crimedog.
IMO, for a study such as this, you'd want to pick several games, so as to even out inconsistencies due to skewing. Starcraft would be a good choice, if you go by the assumption that the users are computer savvy enough to keep track of all the units. Some of the best people at strategy aren't necessarily good at the reactionary nature of RTS games these days. Granted, on-the-fly adapability is important, but it sounds like you're looking for a more cerebral interaction.
Seeing as how you're using business students, I'm going to guess that they've had some study in economic/game theory, and as such, would probably do quite well in a turn-based strategy game.
One thing that might affect the results is if the students can make that leap between academics and games. Supposing that they've studied game theory, you could present the game to them as a n-person zero sum situation.
In thinking more about it, the important thing is to see if THEY can make the leap between the two. After all, knowledge unapplied is worthless.
As for game suggestions, for the multiplayer side, I'd say something by Sid Meier. Civ3, Antietam or Alpha Centauri.
One thing to make note of is interest level relating to ability. If the students aren't interested, they won't be motivated to excel at the game, no matter how brilliant they are.
The one really great CS instructor I had was in my Junior and Senior Year of High School by the name of Hannelore Maddox. What made her so great was the fact that she cared about her students. It wasn't just lip service that she said she cared, it was that her entire being said she cared. Her license plates at the time were "HUGAKID" and "HUG1KID." When she gave exams, she understood that having the material sink in was more important than the grade, but the grade was what most anxious high school students are looking at! So to compensate, she would give exams on a Thursday or Friday. That Friday night or Saturday night, our class and a class from another school she taught at would get together and have a study session, using the exams that we had taken earlier. Most of the people would have mediocre scores, while others had excellent scores. We would do peer teaching to make sure that everyone understood the material, then we'd take a make-up exam when we were ready. The make-up exam would then overwrite the mediocre scores. People would have good scores and also know the material. Since it was an AP class, we'd all take the AP test at the end of the year. It wasn't uncommon to have everyone score 4s and 5s. The only unfortunate thing is that when I took her class, she was teaching Pascal, which has fallen by the wayside. Sure could use a teacher like her in my efforts to learn C++ and Java.
I wonder how this corresponds to the program that was listed in Slashdot before, which was the game university located in Britain. Similar curriculum? I also find it interesting that in order to give a degree in a new field, new "standards" have to be set, standards which those creating the degree may or may not have met. Case in point, with my degree track, Digital Media, an art degree, my instructors have told me that they've never taken an art history class in their life. But because they created the degree, they can deem it necessary to have everyone after them take the classes they see fit. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the extra classes, which I see as an opportunity to learn, but I find it extremely interesting to see what kind of precedent will be set to ensure the qualified creation of a game designer.
You can't patent something that you didn't discover. The law is that if it's been known and in the public for more than a year, you're screwed, you can't get a patent on it. So if you read about something in a book or magazine, it's probably too late - the idea is out there, it's taken. You can't get a patent. The only way around it is if it's only been publically known for a year or less, and you can prove that you invented the thing before that. As for water, the wheel, the abacus, etc., they've been known about for a long time - too late.
You cannot patent ideas. All patents have to be attached to some tangible thing, like an automobile or a chair or a stick. According to patent law, you can't patent mathematical formulas or scientific theories. You can't charge people for thinking. Believe me - I work in patent law.
Slashdot Mirror
My only comment to that is what about fields that aren't quite defined in the gaming industry, such as the one I'm trying to break into, the role of the art technician, or technical artist in some cases. They're supposed to bridge the gap between programmers and artists, and yet, going to college, there is no real way to emphasize something that is so set in the middle. College will help with the specialized notions, but for those of us that are diverse in our skills, we're penalized for being diverse. Don't mind me, I'm just an irate, out-of-work college graduate.
Let's not forget my personal favorite, PvP!
It seems like many people are addressing what appears to be stereotypes of artists and programmers. e.g. programmers make money, artists don't.
In the game industry these days, a career path that has emerged is the Technical Artist, or Art Tech in some companies. These people are usually go betweens for artists and programmers and has an understanding of the programming side as well as the artistic side. The result is that they can help the programmers understand exactly what tools are necessary for artists and they can help artists understand the tools that they use as well as the limitations that the artists need to work within.
This is a particular career path that I am interested in and as such, I have a traditional art degree, but also have experience programming in various languages. I don't wish to program for a living, and drawing day in and day out doesn't appeal to me either. Technical Artists help people on both sides of the fence, making game development more efficient.
I thought Kaga boycotted that episode because it was a collective 3-9 losing streak, or something to that effect. I remember vaguely hearing the reason.
Of course, it was totally dramatic since near the end, the announcer was like, "We have a report that Chairman Kaga is somewhere hiding in the studio!" Then the cameraman showed Kaga hiding behind a pillar, peeking at the competitors, holding a glass of wine.
When they announced that the IC won, he took a careful, grateful sip of his wine, almost overjoyed that the IC had won. Great acting... lol
Unfortunately, if you don't have Food Network, you're SOL. You can always petition your cable provider. :)
I went over to a friends house last weekend to watch Iron Chef because he assured me he had Food Network. He ends up scanning through all 500 channels of his digital cable to finally say, "Oops, thought we had it."
We resigned ourselves to watching "The Matrix" on HBO.
For those of you interested in seeing Iron Chef now, go to Food Network . It has the upcoming episode's time and ingredient. Enjoy.
As I've stated earlier, there are rarely purely n-person zero-sum and non zero-sum games, because most games require you to cooperate in some way or another as well as compete. In the case of INWO, it is possible to play the game as a non zero-sum game. Depending on who you play, your utility function will determine what winning is to you.
If you're the Bavarians, then by all means, might makes right, but if you're Shangri-La, you win (or rather, all Shangri-La win) if there are the given number of peaceful groups in play. The main thing is to DEFINE WHAT IT MEANS TO WIN.
Granted, I did learn my underlying principles well, however, I'm not quite sure how to handle the aspects of C++ that weren't covered in Pascal, namely, object-oriented behavior. It's that level of confusion and I'm not quite sure how to handle it with respect to the Pascal knowledge I have.
Taken from "Game Theory: A Nontechnical Introduction"
Board games like the ones listed above are zero-sum games, but more so, they have perfect information and as such, aren't very intersting on particular level. Granted, they are still excellent games, but for this discussion, they probably don't need to be considered.
It's appropriate that you should mention Nomic, because the inventor, Peter Suber, created Nomic, his main goal was to emulate the government system. He wanted to "make a playable game that models this particular situation." Hence the need for the 2-tiered rule system.
Most any game can be considered zero-sum if the goals are set as such, but most any game can also be non zero-sum by setting goals in that direction.
Taken from "Game Theory: A Nontechnical Introduction" by Morton D. Davis, he states:
I don't think the goal is to find a perfectly non zero-sum game, but to find a game that has more elements of cooperation than competition.
It would seem to me that n-person game would be more likely to have cooperative elements in it, as opposed to a 2-person game, where the opponent is clearly defined.
The prisoner's dilemna primarily shows a viable strategy to employ in a simple non-zero sum game. The strategy being, tit-for-tat. No messages may be sent, but the message that is being sent to the other person is, whatever you did to me lsat round, I'll do it to you this round.
You're so right on this mark. I have the dubbed anime as well as the manga, and I must say that the depth that the manga goes into is fathoms beyond the anime. The anime has some nice qualities and imagery, but it glances over characters that are actually quite significant in the manga.
For instance, the priestess woman (name escapes me right now). She shows up in about 20 seconds of screen time in the anime as a building is falling, but in the manga, she provides sanctuary to Kay and reveals secrets to her. It's been a while since I read/watched it, so forgive me if I'm hazy here.
I would have liked to see Akira done as a series or mini series, so that they could expand on the sheer vastness of the characters and plots and sub-plots. And we would get to hear more of Col. McGruff the Crimedog.
IMO, for a study such as this, you'd want to pick several games, so as to even out inconsistencies due to skewing. Starcraft would be a good choice, if you go by the assumption that the users are computer savvy enough to keep track of all the units. Some of the best people at strategy aren't necessarily good at the reactionary nature of RTS games these days. Granted, on-the-fly adapability is important, but it sounds like you're looking for a more cerebral interaction.
Seeing as how you're using business students, I'm going to guess that they've had some study in economic/game theory, and as such, would probably do quite well in a turn-based strategy game.
One thing that might affect the results is if the students can make that leap between academics and games. Supposing that they've studied game theory, you could present the game to them as a n-person zero sum situation.
In thinking more about it, the important thing is to see if THEY can make the leap between the two. After all, knowledge unapplied is worthless.
As for game suggestions, for the multiplayer side, I'd say something by Sid Meier. Civ3, Antietam or Alpha Centauri.
One thing to make note of is interest level relating to ability. If the students aren't interested, they won't be motivated to excel at the game, no matter how brilliant they are.
That is all.
The one really great CS instructor I had was in my Junior and Senior Year of High School by the name of Hannelore Maddox. What made her so great was the fact that she cared about her students. It wasn't just lip service that she said she cared, it was that her entire being said she cared. Her license plates at the time were "HUGAKID" and "HUG1KID." When she gave exams, she understood that having the material sink in was more important than the grade, but the grade was what most anxious high school students are looking at! So to compensate, she would give exams on a Thursday or Friday. That Friday night or Saturday night, our class and a class from another school she taught at would get together and have a study session, using the exams that we had taken earlier. Most of the people would have mediocre scores, while others had excellent scores. We would do peer teaching to make sure that everyone understood the material, then we'd take a make-up exam when we were ready. The make-up exam would then overwrite the mediocre scores. People would have good scores and also know the material. Since it was an AP class, we'd all take the AP test at the end of the year. It wasn't uncommon to have everyone score 4s and 5s. The only unfortunate thing is that when I took her class, she was teaching Pascal, which has fallen by the wayside. Sure could use a teacher like her in my efforts to learn C++ and Java.
I wonder how this corresponds to the program that was listed in Slashdot before, which was the game university located in Britain. Similar curriculum?
I also find it interesting that in order to give a degree in a new field, new "standards" have to be set, standards which those creating the degree may or may not have met. Case in point, with my degree track, Digital Media, an art degree, my instructors have told me that they've never taken an art history class in their life. But because they created the degree, they can deem it necessary to have everyone after them take the classes they see fit. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the extra classes, which I see as an opportunity to learn, but I find it extremely interesting to see what kind of precedent will be set to ensure the qualified creation of a game designer.
You can't patent something that you didn't discover. The law is that if it's been known and in the public for more than a year, you're screwed, you can't get a patent on it. So if you read about something in a book or magazine, it's probably too late - the idea is out there, it's taken. You can't get a patent. The only way around it is if it's only been publically known for a year or less, and you can prove that you invented the thing before that. As for water, the wheel, the abacus, etc., they've been known about for a long time - too late.
You cannot patent ideas. All patents have to be attached to some tangible thing, like an automobile or a chair or a stick. According to patent law, you can't patent mathematical formulas or scientific theories. You can't charge people for thinking. Believe me - I work in patent law.