I have two of those monitors side by side on my desk right now and I have never seen anything sweeter. The best monitor I have ever used, by FAR and hands down. I love being able to use two vertical tab groups in Visual Studio without having to cut off half of each file - it makes browsing/referencing code so much easier.
Also it has all of those nice inputs for my xbox360 dev kit.
Today I'm wearing a pair of basketball shorts, a backwards hat, and an old t-shirt at work. I program video games for a living - Is this how my target audience wants me to dress? I'm comfortable, I'm working hard (I'm waiting for a build right now so no cracks about posting on/.) and I'm happy with the environment.
If times get tough and I end up programming business software or something for a living I have absolutely no idea how I'm going to endure the stranglehold of business casual.
2) They are not written by the people who should be writing them - the designers. Once the designers are done with a game, the last thing they want to do is hang around and write a guide. They are either working on a patch or taking a vacation. They typically give almost no support to the people who actually write the guide whom, aside from writing ability, are no better gamers than the kid who picks the game off the retail shelf, resulting in a whole lot of fluff to fill pages.
That's not always true. The strategy guide for the last game I worked on had considerable input from a designer on the project.
Based on my experience, it would be wonderfull in game development if we could cut down on team size and increase development time. You would think that there is a happy balance here between the cost of the project, the number of people working on it, and the length of the development cycle, but this balance is elusive. Of course the people paying for the projects basically want it done as quickly as possible so that they can get their payoff which basically negates my "longer cycles, less people" plea.
Of course that doesn't make sense to the publisher, but it really would be the way to get the best games as an end result. You would (or maybe wouldn't) be surprised at how much stuff has been cut out of the games that I've worked on, ALWAYS due to lack of time.
Trying to crunch the development cycle pretty much always just perpetuates this lack of time, no matter how many people you have on the project. When people start going fast they make mistakes. Sometimes they make structural mistakes, or don't think systems out enough before they start implementing. This stuff really bites you further down the line. And forget about having time to go back and clean up existing systems, that oppertunity is very very rare.
Of course these things aren't really game specific, I'm sure people in other lines of work have seen similar trends.
"I am often asked what kind of course a prospective games designer should enrol in. While I have no personal experience of working in the industry or attending one of the courses, I tell people to get a degree in English literature, psychology, world religions, history, creative writing or philosophy. This is echoed by a number of long-term jobbing designers I have spoken to, none of whom has a games-related degree."
For what it's worth, I'm a game programmer and the designers that I've worked with have almost all come from other walks of game development life. They start out as QA guys, artists, assistant producers, programmers, etc. and then transition over to design.
I'm still not exactly sold on these game development majors yet. If you want to program games, get a CS degree. If you want to be a game artist, study art. If you want to be a level designer, make levels. If you want to comvince a company to make your next grand idea for a game, well then good luck.
While you're getting your degree, work on game-related projects on the side. It worked for me.
Video game developers manage to do something which Hollywood has never been able to do - The sequels that we make are consistantly BETTER than the previous entry in the series. How many movies can say that?
People love to talk about how so many new games coming out are sequels, and they are - But so what? If the games are high quality and you have fun playing them, then just enjoy! I could understand this a bit more if people were saying "this game sucks", but all they seem to be saying is "this game is a sequel".
I'm not saying that some more original IP wouldn't be nice, but it gets tiring seeing all these blogs/comments/websites/etc stating the obvious.
The article states that there are a million subscribers at $99 each. That's $100 million that Apple makes from.mac - I really have no idea how much money similar ad-based services make, but I would be surprised if more than a few pulled in that much cash.
Apple is a corporation and they want to make money. I think the real question is: "Why WOULD they set.mac free?"
What part of Google charging money for a service that isn't up to par (apparently) don't you get? Who cares if it has the word beta next to the name?
Also the main point in the summary (and through much of the article) is the DRM issue, and that's not something likely to change from beta to release (assuming that they do someday move ahead from beta).
... but it seems to me that people complain far more often about advertisements thinly disguised as stories than they do about lots of submissions coming from the same user(s).
I hate statements which just absolutely state that one form of entertainment is better than another.
Personally, I prefer Futurama over every show that you list there. The only one that comes close is the Simpsons, and that's tough to judge since the Simpsons has 15 (?) seasons worth of material.
Futurama was a strange show. It was always hilarious - but sometimes it was intelligent (Announcer: "And we have a quantum finish!" Professor: "No fair! You changed the outcome of the race by measuring it!"), sometimes it was WAY out there, sometimes it was sad and touching (I dare you to watch the episode with Fry's dog and not tear up a little). And on top of all that, sometimes it was actually REALLY good sci-fi! That's a very rare thing on TV.
Also Zoidburg was friggin hilarious. All he had to do was walk on the screen and I was already laughing.
Can you post your paper somewhere or e-mail it to me or whatever? I loved the.hack games and would be interested in reading it.
steve dot evolution at gmail dot com
This is something that I spend a decent amount of time thinking about/discussing - I'm a game programmer, and once in a while this topic comes up. The real tough part of this problem is defining art.
Can games be beautiful? Absolutely. Look at Doom 3 or Ico, both beautiful in completely different ways. Can games be emotional? Sure. Check out Valkyrie Profile or Final Fantasy or whatever. Can games make you think? Definitely. Do these things combined make them art? I have no clue, mainly because the definition of art is so subjective.
Personally I don't think we should view the games we are making as art. It's really easy to forget with games that we are making a product (software) to sell to a consumer. Any time that we are doing something in the game which does not increase the value of our product to our potential consumer, then we are tilting off course. It seems to me that if the decisions we make are consumer driven, then that tends to lean us away from the 'art' label.
Look at how many people go to see random action movie X, or random college comedy movie Y. New, original, GOOD things are very rare. The difference between movies and video games is that video game sequels are consistently better than the ones that came before them. Movie sequels almost always suck.
And I'm not saying that I wouldn't like some new kinds of game to play, but I think that the reason that the current games-types are popular and sell so well is because they are GOOD. They may be derivative, but that doesn't prevent something from being fun.
If your definition of "diving in the crapper" is being more popular and widespread than ever before, then you need to realize that games are a business to make money. I'm not saying that the article is incorrect, but I'm saying that it seems odd to me to label the industry as "doomed" when we are in the golden age. There is no doubt that the games we are making now are better than ever before. Maybe not as 'innovative', but definitely better. Nostalgia goes a long way towards masking this, but it is true.
Also I have a DS and I'll buy a Revolution, and I paid for Gish so don't give me that "you don't get it" BS.
I always smile a little when I see these articles about how the gaming industry is doomed, how it's only a matter of time until the whole industry comes crashing down.
I guess it's a valid thing to talk about, but look at where we are right now: Video games are actually semi-cool now - they're no longer limited to a nerd's basement, more people are buying games than ever before, and gaming is actually competing with Hollywood. Movies are boilerplate also, and nobody is preaching the impending doom of that industry.
Also the fact that games are becoming cookie-cutter has no bearing on this conversation. If you think that gaming is getting stale now, remember not THAT much has changed since the original Doom.
I work as a game programmer and have done a bunch of interviews, some of which coming from people out of these new game specific programs. Based on this (very small) sample size, I was a bit underwhelmed at the quality of the people coming out of these schools.
To me, the best thing you can do is to get a CS degree and then come out of school with some major, game-related project to show off to people. I was lucky enough to get this experience through a job while I was in school. A lot of people won't be so lucky, so work on a mod or a tech demo or something.
The real think to remember is that there's nothing magical about working on video games. It IS a particularly cool job, but that doesn't change the fact that you are making software for a customer. Be smart, work hard, apply yourself and it will all work itself out.
I'd like to take a second to extend my sincerest congratulations to John Carmack - If it weren't for him then I honestly wouldn't be sitting here still at work right now (FAR after working 8 hours today) trying to get the first person shooter I'm working on to look as cool as the last one he worked on.
In all seriousness, John was a gigantic inspiration to me as I was growing up and as I set my sights on getting into the gaming industry. I know he's not into awards and stuff, but he deserves this more than anybody. Thanks again John!
I've given to this charity each of the last few years - Not only does it give a child something he might not otherwise have been able to enjoy, it also makes me feel better about myself and lastly is more ammunition for use against the Jack Thompsons of the world.
I can remember visiting my grandmother in the hospital a year or so back, and while waiting for her to wake up I took a walk around the hospital and found a group of kids sitting in a recreation room all playing games and having a great time. It's a phenomenal way to keep these kids happy while going through tough times.
The stylus additions were totally unnecessary and really felt added on just to use the feature. Having a map/info up all times on the second screen was nice, but they really should have used the top (nicer) screen for gameplay, and the bottom (not so clear) screen for the map. If they took out the dumb stylus stuff they easily could have done this.
Also if it was on the GBA then I wouldn't have had to deal with the bulky DS which makes my hands hurt after I play for a couple of hours. It really is uncomfortable for me.
Other than those small details the game is typical, excellent Castlevania action.
Slashdot Mirror
Also it has all of those nice inputs for my xbox360 dev kit.
If times get tough and I end up programming business software or something for a living I have absolutely no idea how I'm going to endure the stranglehold of business casual.
(assuming you ignore all that "except where such orders would conflict with the First Law" stuff)
That's not always true. The strategy guide for the last game I worked on had considerable input from a designer on the project.
Of course that doesn't make sense to the publisher, but it really would be the way to get the best games as an end result. You would (or maybe wouldn't) be surprised at how much stuff has been cut out of the games that I've worked on, ALWAYS due to lack of time.
Trying to crunch the development cycle pretty much always just perpetuates this lack of time, no matter how many people you have on the project. When people start going fast they make mistakes. Sometimes they make structural mistakes, or don't think systems out enough before they start implementing. This stuff really bites you further down the line. And forget about having time to go back and clean up existing systems, that oppertunity is very very rare.
Of course these things aren't really game specific, I'm sure people in other lines of work have seen similar trends.
For what it's worth, I'm a game programmer and the designers that I've worked with have almost all come from other walks of game development life. They start out as QA guys, artists, assistant producers, programmers, etc. and then transition over to design.
I'm still not exactly sold on these game development majors yet. If you want to program games, get a CS degree. If you want to be a game artist, study art. If you want to be a level designer, make levels. If you want to comvince a company to make your next grand idea for a game, well then good luck.
While you're getting your degree, work on game-related projects on the side. It worked for me.
I'm pretty sure it's just going to be a laptop.
People love to talk about how so many new games coming out are sequels, and they are - But so what? If the games are high quality and you have fun playing them, then just enjoy! I could understand this a bit more if people were saying "this game sucks", but all they seem to be saying is "this game is a sequel".
I'm not saying that some more original IP wouldn't be nice, but it gets tiring seeing all these blogs/comments/websites/etc stating the obvious.
What are you talking about? AMD chips are very resonably priced - Certainly moreso than the alternative.
Apple is a corporation and they want to make money. I think the real question is: "Why WOULD they set .mac free?"
Also the main point in the summary (and through much of the article) is the DRM issue, and that's not something likely to change from beta to release (assuming that they do someday move ahead from beta).
... but it seems to me that people complain far more often about advertisements thinly disguised as stories than they do about lots of submissions coming from the same user(s).
Personally, I prefer Futurama over every show that you list there. The only one that comes close is the Simpsons, and that's tough to judge since the Simpsons has 15 (?) seasons worth of material.
Futurama was a strange show. It was always hilarious - but sometimes it was intelligent (Announcer: "And we have a quantum finish!" Professor: "No fair! You changed the outcome of the race by measuring it!"), sometimes it was WAY out there, sometimes it was sad and touching (I dare you to watch the episode with Fry's dog and not tear up a little). And on top of all that, sometimes it was actually REALLY good sci-fi! That's a very rare thing on TV.
Also Zoidburg was friggin hilarious. All he had to do was walk on the screen and I was already laughing.
I love Firefly, but it doesn't have either one of those going for it.
Can you post your paper somewhere or e-mail it to me or whatever? I loved the .hack games and would be interested in reading it.
steve dot evolution at gmail dot com
Can games be beautiful? Absolutely. Look at Doom 3 or Ico, both beautiful in completely different ways. Can games be emotional? Sure. Check out Valkyrie Profile or Final Fantasy or whatever. Can games make you think? Definitely. Do these things combined make them art? I have no clue, mainly because the definition of art is so subjective.
Personally I don't think we should view the games we are making as art. It's really easy to forget with games that we are making a product (software) to sell to a consumer. Any time that we are doing something in the game which does not increase the value of our product to our potential consumer, then we are tilting off course. It seems to me that if the decisions we make are consumer driven, then that tends to lean us away from the 'art' label.
And I'm not saying that I wouldn't like some new kinds of game to play, but I think that the reason that the current games-types are popular and sell so well is because they are GOOD. They may be derivative, but that doesn't prevent something from being fun.
If your definition of "diving in the crapper" is being more popular and widespread than ever before, then you need to realize that games are a business to make money. I'm not saying that the article is incorrect, but I'm saying that it seems odd to me to label the industry as "doomed" when we are in the golden age. There is no doubt that the games we are making now are better than ever before. Maybe not as 'innovative', but definitely better. Nostalgia goes a long way towards masking this, but it is true.
Also I have a DS and I'll buy a Revolution, and I paid for Gish so don't give me that "you don't get it" BS.
I guess it's a valid thing to talk about, but look at where we are right now: Video games are actually semi-cool now - they're no longer limited to a nerd's basement, more people are buying games than ever before, and gaming is actually competing with Hollywood. Movies are boilerplate also, and nobody is preaching the impending doom of that industry.
Also the fact that games are becoming cookie-cutter has no bearing on this conversation. If you think that gaming is getting stale now, remember not THAT much has changed since the original Doom.
To me, the best thing you can do is to get a CS degree and then come out of school with some major, game-related project to show off to people. I was lucky enough to get this experience through a job while I was in school. A lot of people won't be so lucky, so work on a mod or a tech demo or something.
The real think to remember is that there's nothing magical about working on video games. It IS a particularly cool job, but that doesn't change the fact that you are making software for a customer. Be smart, work hard, apply yourself and it will all work itself out.
Also play a lot of games, that always helps.
In all seriousness, John was a gigantic inspiration to me as I was growing up and as I set my sights on getting into the gaming industry. I know he's not into awards and stuff, but he deserves this more than anybody. Thanks again John!
It might have had a little bit more horsepower, but it couldn't play DVDs at a time when that was very important to consumers.
I can remember visiting my grandmother in the hospital a year or so back, and while waiting for her to wake up I took a walk around the hospital and found a group of kids sitting in a recreation room all playing games and having a great time. It's a phenomenal way to keep these kids happy while going through tough times.
Anyone want to go in half with me for a PS2?
Never say OO.o again.. I cringe whenever I see something that might possibly be an emoticon.
The stylus additions were totally unnecessary and really felt added on just to use the feature. Having a map/info up all times on the second screen was nice, but they really should have used the top (nicer) screen for gameplay, and the bottom (not so clear) screen for the map. If they took out the dumb stylus stuff they easily could have done this.
Also if it was on the GBA then I wouldn't have had to deal with the bulky DS which makes my hands hurt after I play for a couple of hours. It really is uncomfortable for me.
Other than those small details the game is typical, excellent Castlevania action.
I guess I'm one of those uncool geeks who actually likes Visual Studio. I use it 10 hours/day and it certainly makes me more productive at my job.
It's also worth noting that VS doesn't FORCE you to do anything. There's always "Win32 console project" if you want to code like that.