Slashdot simply doesn't have many persons these days who are particularly informed on the sciences.
Although I agree with much of your post, the above statement is *patently* false -- speaking from the academic medical community, I can name several professors, postdocs, and physicians within my university that follow science.slashdot on a regular basis.
Additionally, keep in mind that plenty of people who are specialists simply don't comment because the linked article doesn't provide enough detail. As a case in point, my research centers on cancer, but I'd be cautious to comment, simply because the popular media article (from 'The Economist') doesn't provide enough hard facts & methodology details -- if it was published in Cancer or Science, one could make an informed statement, but not as is.
I'm positive that licensing draws customers in traditional non-MMORPG games -- KOTOR I & II are a great example of this.
However, the MMORPG market is totally different -- Star Wars Galaxies, the Matrix Online, and The Sims Online are all examples of MMORPGs that have powerful licenses behind them, but are relatively unsucessful when compared to Lineage, Everquest, or Dark Age of Camelot, which aren't backed by big-name licenses.
Going back to Turbine, they *do* have big-name licenses for their upcoming MMORPGS (Dungeons & Dragons / Lord of the Rings), but I doubt that this can be used to predict a subsequent success.
I'm not so sure how Turbine managed to get so much funding, given how Ascheron's Call 2 has a pretty dismal showing in the MMORPG market -- if you take a look at the the lastest MMORPG charts, you can see that although Ascheron's Call 1 peaked at 120,000 subscribers, Ascheron's Call 2 only peaked at ~50,000 subscribers, and dropped precipitously after May 2003.
Just as my two cents, I'd prefer to see funding go to the makers of Anarchy Online, Planetside, or Eve Online, which are also indie, but have a much better subscriber base & track record.
Just for a distilled textual version of the documentary, you might want to check out Gamespot's Best of E3 2004 feature.
I personally thought that the documentary was rather long, but perhaps it's only to be expected, given that "GameSpot's coverage of E3 2004 included about 1000 previews, 12,000 screenshots, and more than 1,300 movies of more than 600 games"
Most of the points in this article has been made at one time or another in various industry articles or editorials on Gamespot. However, they really *original* point that this article makes is it's final note on the importance of 'dynamic adjustments' to the difficulty of games:
A good example of this is the first time I played Quake 3. I had never played it before and decided to set up a quick death match game with just one AI-bot against me. I chose the intermediate level of difficulty, and the rules where that the first one with twenty frags would win. The game started and the AI-bot started killing me over and over again. I tried to find better weapons and figure out new tactics, but it didn't do much to help me. After a few minutes, the score was 17-0 to the AI-bot, but at that point I was beginning to see some improvements in my skills. A few seconds later I became completely ecstatic as I got my first frag. It was payback time! After that the frags just kept rolling in - I was killing him over and over again, and I felt like the hero of a movie that rose against the evil dictator in the last act. Soon the score had turned to 19-19 and it was very exciting. I finally got the last kill and won the game, which was an incredible climax. It was astonishing how I was able to improve my skills so fast, and turn the tide so that I managed to beat him in the end. What an accomplishment on my behalf!
But as you may have guessed by now, all was not what it seemed. I decided to test the AI system to see if there was any built in functionality to modify their behavior after the player. I let the AI-bot kill me 17 times in a row without fighting back, and that's when I realized that the more times I was killed, the less accurate their firing became. After 19 kills, my once worthy opponent was merely a half-wit that mostly seemed to enjoy standing still and staring into walls. It had not been my skills that had improved in my first game, but instead the AI-bot's skills that had deteriorated. I had just been too caught up in the moment to realize it. However, this experience made me realize what an extremely powerful tool this was. The game would never have been as fun for me without it, and I'm sure that many games would be more fun with it included.
Many, many games hit all the points mentioned in Hejdenberg's article (i.e. imitation, game width, etc.), but fail to be 'fun' solely because of the lack of dynamic adjustments to difficulty.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot simply doesn't have many persons these days who are particularly informed on the sciences.
Although I agree with much of your post, the above statement is *patently* false -- speaking from the academic medical community, I can name several professors, postdocs, and physicians within my university that follow science.slashdot on a regular basis.
Additionally, keep in mind that plenty of people who are specialists simply don't comment because the linked article doesn't provide enough detail. As a case in point, my research centers on cancer, but I'd be cautious to comment, simply because the popular media article (from 'The Economist') doesn't provide enough hard facts & methodology details -- if it was published in Cancer or Science, one could make an informed statement, but not as is.
Just my two cents.
rylin: The licenses are what draw customers.
I'm positive that licensing draws customers in traditional non-MMORPG games -- KOTOR I & II are a great example of this.
However, the MMORPG market is totally different -- Star Wars Galaxies, the Matrix Online, and The Sims Online are all examples of MMORPGs that have powerful licenses behind them, but are relatively unsucessful when compared to Lineage, Everquest, or Dark Age of Camelot, which aren't backed by big-name licenses.
Going back to Turbine, they *do* have big-name licenses for their upcoming MMORPGS (Dungeons & Dragons / Lord of the Rings), but I doubt that this can be used to predict a subsequent success.
I'm not so sure how Turbine managed to get so much funding, given how Ascheron's Call 2 has a pretty dismal showing in the MMORPG market -- if you take a look at the the lastest MMORPG charts, you can see that although Ascheron's Call 1 peaked at 120,000 subscribers, Ascheron's Call 2 only peaked at ~50,000 subscribers, and dropped precipitously after May 2003.
Just as my two cents, I'd prefer to see funding go to the makers of Anarchy Online, Planetside, or Eve Online, which are also indie, but have a much better subscriber base & track record.
Just for a distilled textual version of the documentary, you might want to check out Gamespot's Best of E3 2004 feature.
I personally thought that the documentary was rather long, but perhaps it's only to be expected, given that "GameSpot's coverage of E3 2004 included about 1000 previews, 12,000 screenshots, and more than 1,300 movies of more than 600 games"
Most of the points in this article has been made at one time or another in various industry articles or editorials on Gamespot. However, they really *original* point that this article makes is it's final note on the importance of 'dynamic adjustments' to the difficulty of games:
A good example of this is the first time I played Quake 3. I had never played it before and decided to set up a quick death match game with just one AI-bot against me. I chose the intermediate level of difficulty, and the rules where that the first one with twenty frags would win. The game started and the AI-bot started killing me over and over again. I tried to find better weapons and figure out new tactics, but it didn't do much to help me. After a few minutes, the score was 17-0 to the AI-bot, but at that point I was beginning to see some improvements in my skills. A few seconds later I became completely ecstatic as I got my first frag. It was payback time! After that the frags just kept rolling in - I was killing him over and over again, and I felt like the hero of a movie that rose against the evil dictator in the last act. Soon the score had turned to 19-19 and it was very exciting. I finally got the last kill and won the game, which was an incredible climax. It was astonishing how I was able to improve my skills so fast, and turn the tide so that I managed to beat him in the end. What an accomplishment on my behalf!
But as you may have guessed by now, all was not what it seemed. I decided to test the AI system to see if there was any built in functionality to modify their behavior after the player. I let the AI-bot kill me 17 times in a row without fighting back, and that's when I realized that the more times I was killed, the less accurate their firing became. After 19 kills, my once worthy opponent was merely a half-wit that mostly seemed to enjoy standing still and staring into walls. It had not been my skills that had improved in my first game, but instead the AI-bot's skills that had deteriorated. I had just been too caught up in the moment to realize it. However, this experience made me realize what an extremely powerful tool this was. The game would never have been as fun for me without it, and I'm sure that many games would be more fun with it included.
Many, many games hit all the points mentioned in Hejdenberg's article (i.e. imitation, game width, etc.), but fail to be 'fun' solely because of the lack of dynamic adjustments to difficulty.
Perfect case in point: Devil May Cry 3
Following up on Japong's post, the whole 'ads in video games' schism was also mentioned in VG Cats . . .