I'm a Blizzard fanboy I'll tell you straight out, and yeah they've had poor uptime since release, at first from usual mmorpg release headaches... and then what?
I have a conspiracy theory though. I have always respected Blizzard and felt they were very receptive and communicative to their fanbase, and feel that has been somewhat demonstrated even facing the apparently overwhelming popularity 'problems' of WoW, and so them seemed somewhat tight lipped about things in general makes me think it part of their contracts.
Aren't they using IBM's database for WoW, for example? The DB backend is involved in every aspect of the game, and say there was an undocumented flaw or heck even documented flaw with their DB backend they are grappling with. I would imagine they way they are implementing things isn't exactly old hat either, we haven't had massively popular mmorpgs for aeons in the computer world. If IBM's DBAs and programmers are even having problems resolving the issues, Blizzard can't turn around and say 'Yeah we're doing all we can but our IBM DB sucks, buy IBM.' If it's instead a network issue with AT&T, again I'm sure part of their corporate contracts involve 'not talking about how much their internet sucks ass'
How can he list Warcraft 3: The Frozen Throne in his 'games played' at the top, yet not mention it in his article? Even if he thought war3x had no improvements for the RTS genre, it deserved a passing mention even for its lack of 'innovation'.
I know its a large topic that would take a long time to discuss, but I just want to add that I think arguably there has been innovation in RTS, especially with Blizzard's games. Take war3's 'hero' concept, for better for worse, and I think there is SO much thinking and planning that goes into game balance for RTS that it is an innovation in itself, and may appear to be conservative design when in fact its not.
I agree with some previous posters, it seems like the article was not really thought out well at all, as much as I want to like something written by another avid sc2 fan.
I run a teamspeak server for Planetside, it has great. I have been running it on a win2k server and it has run with no noticable memory leak or crashes. Since I moved it between servers it has been up stright, 22 days, it has sent 7.5GB of data and had 2500 logins, not one problem.
The best feature I think it has it that its a relatively clean, simple program that has a nice set of audio codecs. It has been very easy to use, and when you're using the higher end codecs, its just like you are talking on the phone with somebody.. or with many people. The only problem I think people run into with it is trying to serve multiple people voicechat on a line that can't support the outgoing traffic it needs.
Even further, in the support of standards, Qmail is distributed with default instructions for mbox format to maintain compatilibility.
Qmail has not been distributed specifically antagonisitic to current mbox users, considering it has to convert mbox users to become a useful ubiquitous standard.
I think good ground for GUI research is in games these days. Games have room to be artistic and to try new things that a mainstream OS can't get away with. There are many types of game GUIs/UIs and the data or whatnot that games interface with is very diverse as well. I was just discussing with friends how ingeniously Blizzards has put together UIs. Have you seen Diablo I? Have you seen Diablo II, and how the improved on Diablo I's interface, and the new features they have added to it to make the game easier to play? In Diablo II it's childs play to customize your two mouse buttons, even during tense situations, and it is necessary during gameplay to do so. With a couple clicks you completely change the way you interact with the program. There is even a fully customizable keyboard map so you can choose something with just a keystroke.
Starcraft, as well, I believe is ingeniously engineered. With only two mouse buttons and with maybe 50 unique 'units' to control, each with an average of 4 or 5 commands, the game is set so selecting a unit in the game and right clicking gives the unit an implicit command, and it depends on the situation. If you select a unit and right click on a space, he goes there. Right click on an enemy, you attack it; on a transport, you try and get inside it. Yet again, there are keybord shortcuts and buttons for about everything, with 'tooltip' help texts that tell you what a button does, with the keyboard shortcut highlighted. These help the situations that implicit commands don't cover.
What about other games? What do people think about the UI in Everquest, for example. It'd 3d, but it doesn't have to be as responsive and Quake3, and so works differently and has different commands, things it expects from the user. Modern games are the petrie dishes for UI, AI, and 3D programming, but people are only usually looking at the 3D part.
My company does alot of video editing. We have demo'd Dicreet Systems, AVID systems, and have an NT toaster of our own, and two DVRex systems, one an RT. My educated opinion in one sentence is if you have money, the Discreet systems are great whole packages in one, but are quite expensive. For the software by itself, it is thousands of dollars. Others prefer AVID. Notably AVID's new low end DV editing system Uses the Canopus DVRaptor card in an IBM Intellistation. After everything we have seen, we believe the Canopus Products are the way to go, specifically a DVRex machine. We have a live-in techie who does his best to keep the machines running, and we do not see any benefits that the discreet systems have over a souped up PC w/ a DVRex. This is because we have a technician to mind the machines when they have problems, and assemble them in the first place. If you don't have a techie, or do not wish to invest the man hours and increased problems a homebrew system has, then I suggest a Discreet. Do NOT buy an emonster. The hardware requirements and upgradability should not be possible in a machine from a low-end consumer PC supplier. ( I wouldn't go to Walmart to buy a GOOD stereo...) most people will tell you their Emachines SUCK, if they know anything. I have many more opinions on this topic =), and tales from our experience, so to keep this short if you wanna chat email jonathan@mpctexas.com Lastly, check out http://www.canopuscorp.com's user forums. They are an amazing resource for much more than their product tech support, which is superb. Their forums and support by themselves are large reason we recommend them.
Just because Windows components are 'built in' so that Windows will not function if they are not present does not mean they are _necessary_ for the Operating System to function. I could put in some sort of hook that would make Windows look for notepad.exe, and if it didn't exist in the right place, crash. This makes notepad.exe necessary for Windows to function. Notepad is not necessary an integral part of the operating system.
"Because Windows won't work without it" is not justification that the component is part of the OS.
Hey, we'd never even know if M$ had such code existing already.... But I guess we do, don't we? "You don't have IE components on the system? Screw You: BSOD"
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a Blizzard fanboy I'll tell you straight out, and yeah they've had poor uptime since release, at first from usual mmorpg release headaches... and then what?
I have a conspiracy theory though. I have always respected Blizzard and felt they were very receptive and communicative to their fanbase, and feel that has been somewhat demonstrated even facing the apparently overwhelming popularity 'problems' of WoW, and so them seemed somewhat tight lipped about things in general makes me think it part of their contracts.
Aren't they using IBM's database for WoW, for example? The DB backend is involved in every aspect of the game, and say there was an undocumented flaw or heck even documented flaw with their DB backend they are grappling with. I would imagine they way they are implementing things isn't exactly old hat either, we haven't had massively popular mmorpgs for aeons in the computer world. If IBM's DBAs and programmers are even having problems resolving the issues, Blizzard can't turn around and say 'Yeah we're doing all we can but our IBM DB sucks, buy IBM.' If it's instead a network issue with AT&T, again I'm sure part of their corporate contracts involve 'not talking about how much their internet sucks ass'
How can he list Warcraft 3: The Frozen Throne in his 'games played' at the top, yet not mention it in his article? Even if he thought war3x had no improvements for the RTS genre, it deserved a passing mention even for its lack of 'innovation'.
I know its a large topic that would take a long time to discuss, but I just want to add that I think arguably there has been innovation in RTS, especially with Blizzard's games. Take war3's 'hero' concept, for better for worse, and I think there is SO much thinking and planning that goes into game balance for RTS that it is an innovation in itself, and may appear to be conservative design when in fact its not.
I agree with some previous posters, it seems like the article was not really thought out well at all, as much as I want to like something written by another avid sc2 fan.
I run a teamspeak server for Planetside, it has great. I have been running it on a win2k server and it has run with no noticable memory leak or crashes. Since I moved it between servers it has been up stright, 22 days, it has sent 7.5GB of data and had 2500 logins, not one problem.
The best feature I think it has it that its a relatively clean, simple program that has a nice set of audio codecs. It has been very easy to use, and when you're using the higher end codecs, its just like you are talking on the phone with somebody.. or with many people. The only problem I think people run into with it is trying to serve multiple people voicechat on a line that can't support the outgoing traffic it needs.
Even further, in the support of standards, Qmail is distributed with default instructions for mbox format to maintain compatilibility.
Qmail has not been distributed specifically antagonisitic to current mbox users, considering it has to convert mbox users to become a useful ubiquitous standard.
I think good ground for GUI research is in games these days. Games have room to be artistic and to try new things that a mainstream OS can't get away with. There are many types of game GUIs/UIs and the data or whatnot that games interface with is very diverse as well. I was just discussing with friends how ingeniously Blizzards has put together UIs. Have you seen Diablo I? Have you seen Diablo II, and how the improved on Diablo I's interface, and the new features they have added to it to make the game easier to play? In Diablo II it's childs play to customize your two mouse buttons, even during tense situations, and it is necessary during gameplay to do so. With a couple clicks you completely change the way you interact with the program. There is even a fully customizable keyboard map so you can choose something with just a keystroke.
Starcraft, as well, I believe is ingeniously engineered. With only two mouse buttons and with maybe 50 unique 'units' to control, each with an average of 4 or 5 commands, the game is set so selecting a unit in the game and right clicking gives the unit an implicit command, and it depends on the situation. If you select a unit and right click on a space, he goes there. Right click on an enemy, you attack it; on a transport, you try and get inside it. Yet again, there are keybord shortcuts and buttons for about everything, with 'tooltip' help texts that tell you what a button does, with the keyboard shortcut highlighted. These help the situations that implicit commands don't cover.
What about other games? What do people think about the UI in Everquest, for example. It'd 3d, but it doesn't have to be as responsive and Quake3, and so works differently and has different commands, things it expects from the user. Modern games are the petrie dishes for UI, AI, and 3D programming, but people are only usually looking at the 3D part.
My company does alot of video editing. We have demo'd Dicreet Systems, AVID systems, and have an NT toaster of our own, and two DVRex systems, one an RT. My educated opinion in one sentence is if you have money, the Discreet systems are great whole packages in one, but are quite expensive. For the software by itself, it is thousands of dollars. Others prefer AVID. Notably AVID's new low end DV editing system Uses the Canopus DVRaptor card in an IBM Intellistation. After everything we have seen, we believe the Canopus Products are the way to go, specifically a DVRex machine. We have a live-in techie who does his best to keep the machines running, and we do not see any benefits that the discreet systems have over a souped up PC w/ a DVRex. This is because we have a technician to mind the machines when they have problems, and assemble them in the first place. If you don't have a techie, or do not wish to invest the man hours and increased problems a homebrew system has, then I suggest a Discreet. Do NOT buy an emonster. The hardware requirements and upgradability should not be possible in a machine from a low-end consumer PC supplier. ( I wouldn't go to Walmart to buy a GOOD stereo...) most people will tell you their Emachines SUCK, if they know anything. I have many more opinions on this topic =), and tales from our experience, so to keep this short if you wanna chat email jonathan@mpctexas.com Lastly, check out http://www.canopuscorp.com's user forums. They are an amazing resource for much more than their product tech support, which is superb. Their forums and support by themselves are large reason we recommend them.
Just because Windows components are 'built in' so that Windows will not function if they are not present does not mean they are _necessary_ for the Operating System to function. I could put in some sort of hook that would make Windows look for notepad.exe, and if it didn't exist in the right place, crash. This makes notepad.exe necessary for Windows to function. Notepad is not necessary an integral part of the operating system.
"Because Windows won't work without it" is not justification that the component is part of the OS.
Hey, we'd never even know if M$ had such code existing already.... But I guess we do, don't we? "You don't have IE components on the system? Screw You: BSOD"