You're beautiful examples succinctly summarize the problem! The two phrases you are looking for are:
* The Red Herring of Realism * Suspension of Disbelief, or Immersion
Sadly, too many gamers and game designers cry for more realism not understanding the tradeoffs associated with it. As soon as players start noticing "the physics are not 'quite' right" you've broken the first rule of game design: immersion.
This was less of an issue with 2D because players "knew" it was only a game; the move to 3D now has a lot of gamers-armchair-designers crying "that's not realistic" -- Um, buddy, when was the last time you saw a dragon flying to go whining about how its not moving realistic?" Why do players do that?
The most important issue in 3D worlds are:
* consistency * expectations
Players "import" into the meta-game the rules and behavior of the Real World into the virtual one. It is OK to have a different set of physics as long as you follow the above 2 guidelines. i.e. If everyone can fly in your game players will "buy into" it as long as you introduce the concept, and are consistent with it in the game design. The indie games "Braid", or "Shift" are good example of "alternative" physics.
Similar to how we have an "Uncanny Valley" for graphics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley ) we also have an "Unexpected Physics" as we better approximate the real-world physics in computer games.
And this right here is the problem. Your "Entitlement" attitude. Why should some be forced to pay for the stupidity of others? Yeah, let's rob from Paul to pay for Peter -- except that Paul eventually goes broke from supporting all the free-loader / leeches on society.
Only an idiot would ignore the elephant in the room: "Social Security is *broke*"
That's because you are not viewing from a game design perspective.
While it can be a fun toy at times, it has a lot of bad game design principles; the ONLY reason being because they want to keep customers paying and paying.
The biggest problem with MMO's and Social Games is the total disrespect for the player.
Summary: Blizzard has raised the bar so high with essential MMOs features that everybody else just half-asses it and wonders why the players aren't there...
WOW while having a good UI, is a bad MMO; every one else is significantly worse in both fronts.:-(
> If he had been armed with a knife, or sword, cross bow, etc. the death toll would surely have been less And that is supposed to make the victim families feel any better?? "Hey look, at least he didn't use a gun to kill even more people!" The _quantity_ is NOT the issue, even 1 person killed is 1 too many.
MEMO: _ANY_ tool can be use for good OR evil -- the problem is WHY did some spiritual immature person feel the need to kill others?
Only an retard blames an inanimate _object_ for the mis-responsibility of another person.
The problem is with the LACK of TEACHING of RESPECT for others. But go ahead and keep focusing on the symptoms never solving the problem...
While it is true Hollywood likes to milk as much money from trilogies it is a bit of a stretch to call Peter Jackson must-constantly-fuck-with-all-films-Lucas
Besides 24 fps is crap. The ideal framerate is 60 - 120 fps; long pans look stuttery on shit 24 Hz.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
Being *forced* to pay for other people's mismanagement of their health and wealth is NOT sustainable.
By 2036, the program's actuaries predict, Social Security will have exhausted its reserves and will only be able to pay 77% of promised benefits.
by 2033, 21 years from now, the so-called "Social Security trust fund" will be empty.... Is a Ponzi scheme - which is basically theft by deception - lawful just because the government runs it? The Supreme Court has said yes.
> it's an intergenerational contract that works for everyone provided that it survives. So how did people survive for the few hundred years *before* Social Insecurity was created in 1935?
How has India managed to survive without Security Insecurity for the ~4,000 years prior to 1952? www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v16n5/v16n5p11.pdf
Do you want to tell that to all the people that died for WW1 or WW2 ?
It is unfortunate that people have to die, but sometimes that is the only way to get others to listen -- that certain concepts, such as freedom are MORE important then one man's life.
Not really. They valued convenience over freedom. That is the antithesis of GPL / BSD. Once you start compromising your values for freedom it becomes easier to justify the convenience.
To paraphrase Ben Franklin: "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
At some point this short-sightedness will come back to haunt them.
I share you love of SimCity too. Simcity 2K was the best version;-) We'll see if EA fucks it up or groks the essence of SimCity without Will Wright:-/
From a gamer's perspective you are absolutely right -- they doesn't care what the hell the thing is called as long as they are having fun!
But us game designers *do* care -- How can you make something more fun if you don't understand the nature of the problem, the domain, and solutions? Simulators tend to be boring for most people? Why? By being able to answer that question you can remove the 'unfun' bits and add the 'fun' bits to the games one designs.
> those toy 2d simulators of gravity of stars and planets: start with a chaotic configuration, let it evolve for some time, and see how the stuff often evolves in one big central blob with possibly some circular orbits and short lived elliptical ones
In order for the simulator to work properly, every simulator has to use a hack: gravity has infinite speed, which contradicts the mainstream assumption that gravity is limited to the speed of light.
> Games do not by definition, have a winning state and conversely a losing state. Many do, to be sure. You might want to read up on the philosophy of games a bit
I quite well aware of the history and philosophy of games for the past 200,000 years. No offense, but let me know when *you* have shipped a few games because you clearly don't seem to understand the difference between what makes something an amusement, puzzle, a toy, or a game. If you are relying on Wikipedia for authoritative definitions no wonder you are confused.
Now I agree there is a lot of overlap between "Entertainment", "Digital Arts" and "Games" but again unless you can *clearly* separate between all 4 (amusement, puzzle, toy, and game) you don't really understand the domain nor the definitions. You are basically arguing that something interactive or amusement is a game. So watching TV is now called game?/sarcasm Please.
Calling a toy a game doesn't make it so. That is like the media calling a programmer a hacker. They are of course related but two *separate* things.
Let's took a look at Will Wright, someone whose games have sold 100 million copies and generated more than $1 billion in sales.
"Spore gives users unprecedented freedom to bring their imaginations to some semblance of digital life. In that sense Spore is probably the coolest, most interesting toy I have ever experienced. But itâ(TM)s not a great game, and that is something quite different."
Why would its *creator* and *designer* call it a toy and not a [good] game, when the public does? Because he understands the *differences* between what makes something a toy and a game.
Other game designers say the same thing. Jonathan Blow creator of Braid had this said about him:
plans to do nothing less than establish the video game as an art form - a medium capable of producing something far richer and more meaningful than the brain-dead digital toys currently on offer.
First, you are under the delusion that dictionaries are somehow magically authoritative. New *words* get invented all the time and it takes dictionaries *years* to add them. Dictionaries just report the status quo.
Second, you seem to ignore the context of computer games, I'm not talking about sports, or other non-computer activities. You can call a toy or fun a game all you want but that doesn't make it so.
I know you were being funny but MMOs are NOT games, they are toys. A lot gamers will go "Whaaat?"
A game by *definition* has a winning state (and conversely) a losing state. There is way to "win" at WOW. (Yeah some would joke that the only way to win is not play.:-/ )
Sure you can die but that is orthogonal to the definition. You can also die in Team Fortress 2 -- the effects are not long-lasting -- but TF2 has closure, unlike WOW.
Both games and toys along with this sandbox mode can be a lot of fun! But please stop abusing and diluting the terminology.:-)
P.S. Ironically, Social Games are neither Social nor Games either! If there is enough interest I can post why.
As an Apple ][ fan myself I appreciate you giving him the benefit of the doubt but technically he could also be Vic20, C64, Atari 2600 / 800, or BBC micro user.:-/ *boo!*:-)
> Inconsistent password policies for length, characters and expiry date.
We _really_ need standards for passwords & passphrases: minimum LENGTH and SYMBOLS included.
If you site can't handles passwords / passphrases around ~ 96 characters long with the characters (space) 0x20 - 0x7E, your site is *broken*.
The same crap with usernames. Stop limiting me to a max username length of 12 characters A-Z,a-z because your shitty architect / programmer / DB guy doesn't have a clue about security.
I propose a multi-tiered system with a schema like:
NAME#@%
PASS#@%
Where
# is the max length allowed * 16
@ represents which glyphs are allowed to be. Higher is better, which each level including the characters from the previous set A = A-Z (0x41-0x5A) B = a-z (0x61-0x7A) C = 0-9 (0x30-0x39) D = space,!-/ (0x20-0x2F) E =:-@ (0x3A-0x40) F = [-` (0x5B-0x60) G = {-~ (0x7B-0x7E) % is the number of months the password is valid for.
Examples: NAME1C0 is 16 characters, in range: A-Z,a-z,0-9, 0 = never expires PASS6G3 is 6*16 = 96 characters, in range 0x20.. 0x7E, expires in 3 months
Then we flame & shame the idiots, er sites, that use crappy username and password polices.
Slashdot Mirror
When you have TONS of explosions going off, TONS of lighting effects, you want the MINIMUM frame rate to stay ABOVE 60.
BY targeting such a high frame you have a nice SAFETY MARGIN for when the engine needs to start rendering additional (special) effects.
No offense, but you're an idiot.
Go play some BF:BC2 or BF3 on High Quality until you learn why 60+ fps is important.
Resolution, yes.
Gamut, not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut
You're beautiful examples succinctly summarize the problem! The two phrases you are looking for are:
* The Red Herring of Realism
* Suspension of Disbelief, or Immersion
Sadly, too many gamers and game designers cry for more realism not understanding the tradeoffs associated with it. As soon as players start noticing "the physics are not 'quite' right" you've broken the first rule of game design: immersion.
This was less of an issue with 2D because players "knew" it was only a game; the move to 3D now has a lot of gamers-armchair-designers crying "that's not realistic" -- Um, buddy, when was the last time you saw a dragon flying to go whining about how its not moving realistic?" Why do players do that?
The most important issue in 3D worlds are:
* consistency
* expectations
Players "import" into the meta-game the rules and behavior of the Real World into the virtual one. It is OK to have a different set of physics as long as you follow the above 2 guidelines. i.e. If everyone can fly in your game players will "buy into" it as long as you introduce the concept, and are consistent with it in the game design. The indie games "Braid", or "Shift" are good example of "alternative" physics.
Similar to how we have an "Uncanny Valley" for graphics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley ) we also have an "Unexpected Physics" as we better approximate the real-world physics in computer games.
You've forgotten part of history: Windows 2000
Only on /. do you get down-voted for stating the obvious facts:
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
And this right here is the problem. Your "Entitlement" attitude. Why should some be forced to pay for the stupidity of others? Yeah, let's rob from Paul to pay for Peter -- except that Paul eventually goes broke from supporting all the free-loader / leeches on society.
Only an idiot would ignore the elephant in the room: "Social Security is *broke*"
We must come up with a *better* system.
> I'm not sure WoW is a bad MMO.
That's because you are not viewing from a game design perspective.
While it can be a fun toy at times, it has a lot of bad game design principles; the ONLY reason being because they want to keep customers paying and paying.
The biggest problem with MMO's and Social Games is the total disrespect for the player.
If I'm understanding you correctly ...
Summary: Blizzard has raised the bar so high with essential MMOs features that everybody else just half-asses it and wonders why the players aren't there ...
WOW while having a good UI, is a bad MMO; every one else is significantly worse in both fronts. :-(
> If he had been armed with a knife, or sword, cross bow, etc. the death toll would surely have been less
And that is supposed to make the victim families feel any better?? "Hey look, at least he didn't use a gun to kill even more people!" The _quantity_ is NOT the issue, even 1 person killed is 1 too many.
MEMO: _ANY_ tool can be use for good OR evil -- the problem is WHY did some spiritual immature person feel the need to kill others?
Only an retard blames an inanimate _object_ for the mis-responsibility of another person.
The problem is with the LACK of TEACHING of RESPECT for others. But go ahead and keep focusing on the symptoms never solving the problem ...
Agreed. The problem is most people are too stupid to demand a simple solution.
While it is true Hollywood likes to milk as much money from trilogies it is a bit of a stretch to call Peter Jackson must-constantly-fuck-with-all-films-Lucas
Besides 24 fps is crap. The ideal framerate is 60 - 120 fps; long pans look stuttery on shit 24 Hz.
What's with the mods on crack?
Parent is correct about the history of the Apple 2 and Lisa.
Mods, lay off the crack pipe. The parent answered the question (indirectly.)
> Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme,
Bullshit.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
Being *forced* to pay for other people's mismanagement of their health and wealth is NOT sustainable.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/09/08/is-social-security-a-ponzi-scheme/
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/04/26/social-security-iisi-ponzi-scheme/
> it's an intergenerational contract that works for everyone provided that it survives.
So how did people survive for the few hundred years *before* Social Insecurity was created in 1935?
How has India managed to survive without Security Insecurity for the ~4,000 years prior to 1952?
www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v16n5/v16n5p11.pdf
Do you want to tell that to all the people that died for WW1 or WW2 ?
It is unfortunate that people have to die, but sometimes that is the only way to get others to listen -- that certain concepts, such as freedom are MORE important then one man's life.
> but calling them 'traitors' is a bit much.
Not really. They valued convenience over freedom. That is the antithesis of GPL / BSD. Once you start compromising your values for freedom it becomes easier to justify the convenience.
To paraphrase Ben Franklin: "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
At some point this short-sightedness will come back to haunt them.
I share you love of SimCity too. Simcity 2K was the best version ;-) We'll see if EA fucks it up or groks the essence of SimCity without Will Wright :-/
From a gamer's perspective you are absolutely right -- they doesn't care what the hell the thing is called as long as they are having fun!
But us game designers *do* care -- How can you make something more fun if you don't understand the nature of the problem, the domain, and solutions? Simulators tend to be boring for most people? Why? By being able to answer that question you can remove the 'unfun' bits and add the 'fun' bits to the games one designs.
> those toy 2d simulators of gravity of stars and planets: start with a chaotic configuration, let it evolve for some time, and see how the stuff often evolves in one big central blob with possibly some circular orbits and short lived elliptical ones
The technical term is called N-Body simulation/problem and is impossible to solve an exact solution with our current mathematics and computers where N > 3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_simulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem
I found one demo here ...
http://michael.peopleofhonoronly.com/dev/nbody.html
In order for the simulator to work properly, every simulator has to use a hack: gravity has infinite speed, which contradicts the mainstream assumption that gravity is limited to the speed of light.
Another anomaly is that the the galaxy "seems" to rotate in lock-step.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve
It "appears" the orbits of the planets also seem to be quantized.
Celestial Mechanics is not going to be "solved" anytime soon.
1. an amusement or pastime: children's games.
So watching TV, eating, or having sex is now a game? I don't think so.
Methinks you are trying to justify a crappy and extremely nebulous definition.
> Games do not by definition, have a winning state and conversely a losing state. Many do, to be sure. You might want to read up on the philosophy of games a bit
I quite well aware of the history and philosophy of games for the past 200,000 years. No offense, but let me know when *you* have shipped a few games because you clearly don't seem to understand the difference between what makes something an amusement, puzzle, a toy, or a game. If you are relying on Wikipedia for authoritative definitions no wonder you are confused.
Now I agree there is a lot of overlap between "Entertainment", "Digital Arts" and "Games" but again unless you can *clearly* separate between all 4 (amusement, puzzle, toy, and game) you don't really understand the domain nor the definitions. You are basically arguing that something interactive or amusement is a game. So watching TV is now called game? /sarcasm Please.
Calling a toy a game doesn't make it so. That is like the media calling a programmer a hacker. They are of course related but two *separate* things.
Let's took a look at Will Wright, someone whose games have sold 100 million copies and generated more than $1 billion in sales.
Why would its *creator* and *designer* call it a toy and not a [good] game, when the public does? Because he understands the *differences* between what makes something a toy and a game.
Other game designers say the same thing. Jonathan Blow creator of Braid had this said about him:
Games have
* Rule(s)
* Goal(s)
If have no way of winning you have a toy.
References:
* http://www.income-outcome.com/blog/bid/29552/GAMES-vs-TOYS
* http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/10/will-wright-toys-stupid-fun-club.html
* http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/the-most-dangerous-gamer/8928/?single_page=true
* http://www.raphkoster.com/2012/03/13/x-isnt-a-game/
* http://gamasutra.com/view/feature/167418/what_makes_a_game.php
* http://gamasutra.com/view/feature/172587/a_way_to_better_games_.php
First, you are under the delusion that dictionaries are somehow magically authoritative. New *words* get invented all the time and it takes dictionaries *years* to add them. Dictionaries just report the status quo.
Second, you seem to ignore the context of computer games, I'm not talking about sports, or other non-computer activities. You can call a toy or fun a game all you want but that doesn't make it so.
I know you were being funny but MMOs are NOT games, they are toys. A lot gamers will go "Whaaat?"
A game by *definition* has a winning state (and conversely) a losing state. There is way to "win" at WOW. (Yeah some would joke that the only way to win is not play. :-/ )
Sure you can die but that is orthogonal to the definition. You can also die in Team Fortress 2 -- the effects are not long-lasting -- but TF2 has closure, unlike WOW.
Both games and toys along with this sandbox mode can be a lot of fun! But please stop abusing and diluting the terminology. :-)
P.S.
Ironically, Social Games are neither Social nor Games either! If there is enough interest I can post why.
As an Apple ][ fan myself I appreciate you giving him the benefit of the doubt but technically he could also be Vic20, C64, Atari 2600 / 800, or BBC micro user. :-/ *boo!* :-)
> Inconsistent password policies for length, characters and expiry date.
We _really_ need standards for passwords & passphrases: minimum LENGTH and SYMBOLS included.
If you site can't handles passwords / passphrases around ~ 96 characters long with the characters (space) 0x20 - 0x7E, your site is *broken*.
The same crap with usernames. Stop limiting me to a max username length of 12 characters A-Z,a-z because your shitty architect / programmer / DB guy doesn't have a clue about security.
I propose a multi-tiered system with a schema like:
NAME#@%
PASS#@%
Where :-@ (0x3A-0x40)
# is the max length allowed * 16
@ represents which glyphs are allowed to be. Higher is better, which each level including the characters from the previous set
A = A-Z (0x41-0x5A)
B = a-z (0x61-0x7A)
C = 0-9 (0x30-0x39)
D = space,!-/ (0x20-0x2F)
E =
F = [-` (0x5B-0x60)
G = {-~ (0x7B-0x7E)
% is the number of months the password is valid for.
Examples: .. 0x7E, expires in 3 months
NAME1C0 is 16 characters, in range: A-Z,a-z,0-9, 0 = never expires
PASS6G3 is 6*16 = 96 characters, in range 0x20
Then we flame & shame the idiots, er sites, that use crappy username and password polices.
Maybe time for RFC ?
> trying to read a 25+ character password with symbols, numbers, etc.
Why aren't you using a passphrase?? MUCH easier to remember, and just as hard to crack.
Oblg. http://xkcd.com/936/