When my character is presented with a puzzle, the puzzle may seem incredibly arcane and complicated at first glance, but when it is complete, I should be able to say "Ah! That makes sense. If my character had spent enough thought and observation on this puzzle, he/she could have figured it out without the need for a cheat, a walkthrough, or a brute-force." Puzzles need to make sense, or you're just torturing the player needlessly.
Likewise, game designers should not needlessly impair the player's progress. Designers should keep the characteristics of the player-character in mind and design environments accordingly. If I am playing a fireball-hurling Mage, a wooden chest should not prove too difficult for me to open, key or no key. If I am playing a human, when confronted by a waist-height fence, I should be able to hop over it if I choose instead of worrying about the silly lock. (That doesn't mean I shouldn't be looking over my shoulder when I get to the other side, watching for dogs, guards, or laser turrets.) Any player should be able to ask, at any time, "Well, why can't I do this?" and receive a better answer than "Because you're not supposed to do it that way" (e.g. "Because you won't fit there" or "Because you'll die"). Being blocked by an invisible wall for no apparently good reason is frustrating and insulting. Put some thought into it and make a game that we can get into.
Wessel notes: 'Other companies, apparently, are scared of that.'
BS. Just because a company doesn't understand how a concept might possibly work doesn't mean they're scared of it.
Does it seem to anyone that squabbling over the operating system these devices are running is a little pointless? Step back and look at this for a second: A bunch of Kenyan kids have just been given a really big gift. That's really cool. Let it be.
That's because when Google acquires something, they make it better. Like Picasa: Google bought the company, then made their product free, then shortly afterwards released Picasa2 which does everything but make sushi and is only a 3.6 MB download. Microsoft's idea of acquiring someone is redesigning the UI, putting a MS label on it, and assimilating the employees into the Collective.
You know, I get really ticked at people who pick a futuristic technology and say "it can't be done". Especially with really stupid reasons like these.
"...light sabers, like the famous laser sword Skywalker wielded, would never work.
Laser beams are made of light, and they continue until they hit something. They cannot be fashioned into sword blades a mere 2 feet long. A bigger problem: Swords made of light would pass right through one another. Instead of having a swordfight, they would slice each other immediately in half."
Fact: Lightsabers extend for a few feet and then terminate.
Fact: Lasers do not.
Conclusion A: Lightsabers could never work.
Conclusion B: Lightsabers are not laser swords! Duh!
Geesh! They make it sound like Luke and Vader are dueling with flashlights!
Y'know, it's articles like these that the Wright Brothers went up against. The authors should not say something "can't be done" based on a technology that clearly isn't right for it.
I have no idea what fictional energy lightsabers are supposed to use. Saying they're impossible because lasers don't work that way, though, is downright stupid.
"That said, this technology could also be used for less noble goals"
Technology always almost is. That doesn't stop it from advancing, for which I am glad. And overall I believe new technology is used more for good than for evil.
"Imagine soldiers in tanks who no longer see enemy soldiers, but just blips on a screen that they manipulate and shoot without any physical interaction!" If the improved reaction time will save the lives of a few American soldiers, I'm for it.
"...or 'suicide bombers' who directly drive bomb-laden delivery trucks into buildings with their brains from over a DSL connection." That would be a really stupid use of this technology. Use a remote and a screen, like for an RC car-- it's cheaper, more expedient, less finicky, and it's not like you're going to get your investment back...
"It shall be interesting to see where this technology goes." Indeed! And you are correct to point out the potential misuses of this technology, for they must be guarded against. It is certainly no reason not to proceed with research, however.
Just plain won't work
on
Internet Hunting
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
All the debate over whether this is right, whether it should be legal, whether the equipment will malfunction, is moot. I give you the sequence of events for this site:
1. Hordes of eager would-be Internet hunters sign up for service.
2. Site gets used for about a week.
3. All the animals leave because they figure out pretty quickly that going into a certain area next to the strange man's house = death.
4. No more animals = no more subscriptions = no more funding. Site goes bust and the guy finds himself a new career.
Check back a month after he switches from target-practice to live-prey. I predict the site will be out of business by then, unless the guy decides to start stocking his back yard with prey.
Ever try fighting a deer hand-to-hand? Never in a million years will you make a kill, because deer are very fast and they have very good ears. Same goes for most of the other stuff you'll be hunting.
EA deeply wants to be viewed as an entertainment company, not a software/technology
company. They believe this would increase the value of their stock because, by the
standards of entertainment companies, EA produces revenue very reliably. Moreover,
there is a nagging sense of frustration that EA is not given enough respect by either Wall
Street or the man on the street: companies like Pixar and Apple have much greater name
recognition amongst those over 40, but in fact, EA is substantially bigger in market cap
than Pixar and Apple combined!
That's because people over 40 don't play games. Duh. They buy computers and they watch movies, but they don't play games. That's not a law, but it is a trend.
Good point. The world at large is not reacting to the development of computers nearly as fast as it's happening. Just look at the stupid computer-related laws Congress passes that they wouldn't OK in a million years if they knew what they were talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
Likewise, game designers should not needlessly impair the player's progress. Designers should keep the characteristics of the player-character in mind and design environments accordingly. If I am playing a fireball-hurling Mage, a wooden chest should not prove too difficult for me to open, key or no key. If I am playing a human, when confronted by a waist-height fence, I should be able to hop over it if I choose instead of worrying about the silly lock. (That doesn't mean I shouldn't be looking over my shoulder when I get to the other side, watching for dogs, guards, or laser turrets.) Any player should be able to ask, at any time, "Well, why can't I do this?" and receive a better answer than "Because you're not supposed to do it that way" (e.g. "Because you won't fit there" or "Because you'll die"). Being blocked by an invisible wall for no apparently good reason is frustrating and insulting. Put some thought into it and make a game that we can get into.
Wessel notes: 'Other companies, apparently, are scared of that.' BS. Just because a company doesn't understand how a concept might possibly work doesn't mean they're scared of it.
Excuse me, why is this flamebait? It's true! Look it up!
Does it seem to anyone that squabbling over the operating system these devices are running is a little pointless? Step back and look at this for a second: A bunch of Kenyan kids have just been given a really big gift. That's really cool. Let it be.
That's because when Google acquires something, they make it better. Like Picasa: Google bought the company, then made their product free, then shortly afterwards released Picasa2 which does everything but make sushi and is only a 3.6 MB download. Microsoft's idea of acquiring someone is redesigning the UI, putting a MS label on it, and assimilating the employees into the Collective.
LOL! Root for a double-K.O.!
"...light sabers, like the famous laser sword Skywalker wielded, would never work.
Laser beams are made of light, and they continue until they hit something. They cannot be fashioned into sword blades a mere 2 feet long. A bigger problem: Swords made of light would pass right through one another. Instead of having a swordfight, they would slice each other immediately in half."
Fact: Lightsabers extend for a few feet and then terminate.
Fact: Lasers do not.
Conclusion A: Lightsabers could never work.
Conclusion B: Lightsabers are not laser swords! Duh!
Geesh! They make it sound like Luke and Vader are dueling with flashlights!
Y'know, it's articles like these that the Wright Brothers went up against. The authors should not say something "can't be done" based on a technology that clearly isn't right for it.
I have no idea what fictional energy lightsabers are supposed to use. Saying they're impossible because lasers don't work that way, though, is downright stupid.
First cookies, now PIE? The bad media puns just write themselves...
I am. They've earned it.
After all the above debate, Microsoft still doesn't care one way or the other what we think. :-)
Interesting article. The guy doesn't mention the reason why they backed out on the Mac port of Havok, resulting in the cancellation of Uru for Mac.
"Imagine soldiers in tanks who no longer see enemy soldiers, but just blips on a screen that they manipulate and shoot without any physical interaction!" If the improved reaction time will save the lives of a few American soldiers, I'm for it.
"...or 'suicide bombers' who directly drive bomb-laden delivery trucks into buildings with their brains from over a DSL connection." That would be a really stupid use of this technology. Use a remote and a screen, like for an RC car-- it's cheaper, more expedient, less finicky, and it's not like you're going to get your investment back...
"It shall be interesting to see where this technology goes." Indeed! And you are correct to point out the potential misuses of this technology, for they must be guarded against. It is certainly no reason not to proceed with research, however.
Put a packet logger on the connection and see if the implants say "Eeeeewwwww".
Money in lost sales, perhaps. Doesn't cost Microsoft that much to burn CD and print a manual, though.
Gotta love parodies...
[clicks stopwatch and waits to see how long it takes Paramount lawyers to knock on the doors of this upstart company]
...or too many Soviet-Russia jabs...
1. Hordes of eager would-be Internet hunters sign up for service.
2. Site gets used for about a week.
3. All the animals leave because they figure out pretty quickly that going into a certain area next to the strange man's house = death.
4. No more animals = no more subscriptions = no more funding. Site goes bust and the guy finds himself a new career.
Check back a month after he switches from target-practice to live-prey. I predict the site will be out of business by then, unless the guy decides to start stocking his back yard with prey.
Ever try fighting a deer hand-to-hand? Never in a million years will you make a kill, because deer are very fast and they have very good ears. Same goes for most of the other stuff you'll be hunting.
Bah. Anything can be a minesweeper...once.
That's because people over 40 don't play games. Duh. They buy computers and they watch movies, but they don't play games. That's not a law, but it is a trend.
Good point. The world at large is not reacting to the development of computers nearly as fast as it's happening. Just look at the stupid computer-related laws Congress passes that they wouldn't OK in a million years if they knew what they were talking about.
That's because there's no Driver's Ed for computers. And if there was, it would probably be made by Microsoft.
Why don't we just call it Firefox Internet Navigator? Not only will it be useful, but we can get sued by Microsoft and Netscape simultaneously!