It is reasonable to have it in a multi-player game where players are logged into a central online service. Ladders and ranked play require some transmission of game statistics to function at all.
Since we require a mechanism to transmit that data, we can gain a lot by extending it to capture detailed game statistics as well.
The types of games that require public betas are usually online multi-player games that fit the above criteria, and the need to continue monitoring that data won't go away once the game ships. I'm not sure of a scenario where a developer would publicly beta a game that wasn't an online title, so I'm not sure where your above mentioned scenario fits in the real world.
I don't think it's a matter of work imitating games, I think it's that application developers are now going down the same usability design paths that games require.
Most people aren't required to play games, so the successful ones are the engaging ones, the games that give you a clear idea of what you need to do, and clearly present the required information. People like overcoming challenges when they think they see the way to do it.
At work people are often dealing with scenarios where they would like to do a good job, but may not have the information on what is required, or they are dealing with too many factors to filter the wheat from chaff. They may lose focus because they have forgotten what their goals are. Most of management training revolves around how to present information to people, which provides the feedback loop people need to do their jobs.
The idea that this is starting to show up in applications is an interesting, but natural step.
I own both a 360 and a Wii, and the 360 dominates my and my wife's gaming schedule, while the Wii is more of a novelty we bring out when company is over.
Saying that the 360 only innovated on graphics is selling Microsoft short. Both of us play the 360 much more because of Xbox Live arcade. Nintendo is selling old emulated games on Virtual console, Microsoft is selling new low budget indy games. Who is innovating and who is resting on their laurels in that situation?
The Wii has problems, and I hope they patch them out. The amount of effort it takes to add a controller each time is ridiculous, on 360 I just press a button. Everytime I want to download something I feel like I'm being punished by their progress bar, if it even succeeds, the 360 background downloads and works everytime. Last is the game library is still small. The party aspect is worth the price, but the longevity of play is quite short.
Right now the 360 is clearly better for us. Nintendo would have to patch their software, release some better games, and fix their online experience for me to spend more time with it.
I don't see Microsoft dropping their premium pricing, if anything I would expect a software bundle or a new version with HD-DVD, HDMI and a bigger harddrive.
The component cost of the 360 is now cheaper than the sale price: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061116-8239 .html
Microsoft can cut prices to drive sales, or they can sit and approach profitability, or they can aim for higher value at the same pricing. Dropping their price would be a statement that their console has less value than the PS3. When compared to the PS3 and its current software library, they have no incentive to drop their price until the PS3 is cheaper or actually outperforming them in the content department.
Re:Sequel requested
on
Game Writing
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I worked on Company of Heroes. For several reasons (localization, print lead times) publishers need to lock down manuals several months before the game goes gold. Since games often go through changes right up the very end, the manual will often be outdated by the time the game ships, and plenty of critical information ends up in the readme, or worse, a patch.
I recently was tasked with building a tracking document for work. I need to be able to track progress on thousands of files, and be able to view large portions of them. There are many cross-linked files, and many different categories.
I know full well it is a database problem. In fact, I got Office 2K3 Pro installed so I could evaluate Access for just this task.
After playing around with it I decided against it and used Excel (a sheet checked into source control). My reasons are as follows:
1: Not everyone in the office knows how to use Access, or even has it installed. 2: Everyone and their dog has Excel and is familiar with it. 3: My data set at its extremes will definitely fit in Excel 2k3's restrictions. 4: The List function and Pivot-tables allow me to answer every question I need to.
In the end it boiled down to time. Access might have been more robust, but this document needs to be created two weeks ago and run for 6 months before we retire it.
In my case using it checked into source control eliminates the problem of creating a shared document. I don't need (or want) multiple people editing it. In this case, Excel is the right tool, and I am happy to use it improperly.
To answer this, AMD64 processors typically draw less power, and perform better than their Intel counterparts. Welcome to the mixed up tech world of today, with Intel inside Macintoshes, IBM inside Microsoft hardware, and overheating Intel chips.
First, your complaint is muddied.
Is your complaint the common one about spearmen having a chance against tanks? Blame math. A tank attacking a fortified position will be fighting against defensive bonuses as well as the spearman. So you see little dude with a stick, but in reality the numbers of those units (memory fails on the exact values) add up to a potential chance of death.
Blame the designers, not the AI. AI is irrelevant in this case, it's a failure of the game rules, if it's a failure at all. In civ the units are merely abstractions to numbers, and complaining about tanks vs. spearmen is complaining about math.
As for you writing a better AI than Sid Meier, how would you do so? So far no programmer has come up with a good AI for Go, and I dare say that game is simpler than civilization.
Check the date. That flight occurred months prior to 9/11. US customs was annoying around that time, but no where near as paranoid as they turned later.
Slashdot Mirror
It is reasonable to have it in a multi-player game where players are logged into a central online service. Ladders and ranked play require some transmission of game statistics to function at all. Since we require a mechanism to transmit that data, we can gain a lot by extending it to capture detailed game statistics as well. The types of games that require public betas are usually online multi-player games that fit the above criteria, and the need to continue monitoring that data won't go away once the game ships. I'm not sure of a scenario where a developer would publicly beta a game that wasn't an online title, so I'm not sure where your above mentioned scenario fits in the real world.
I don't think it's a matter of work imitating games, I think it's that application developers are now going down the same usability design paths that games require. Most people aren't required to play games, so the successful ones are the engaging ones, the games that give you a clear idea of what you need to do, and clearly present the required information. People like overcoming challenges when they think they see the way to do it. At work people are often dealing with scenarios where they would like to do a good job, but may not have the information on what is required, or they are dealing with too many factors to filter the wheat from chaff. They may lose focus because they have forgotten what their goals are. Most of management training revolves around how to present information to people, which provides the feedback loop people need to do their jobs. The idea that this is starting to show up in applications is an interesting, but natural step.
I own both a 360 and a Wii, and the 360 dominates my and my wife's gaming schedule, while the Wii is more of a novelty we bring out when company is over.
Saying that the 360 only innovated on graphics is selling Microsoft short. Both of us play the 360 much more because of Xbox Live arcade. Nintendo is selling old emulated games on Virtual console, Microsoft is selling new low budget indy games. Who is innovating and who is resting on their laurels in that situation?
The Wii has problems, and I hope they patch them out. The amount of effort it takes to add a controller each time is ridiculous, on 360 I just press a button. Everytime I want to download something I feel like I'm being punished by their progress bar, if it even succeeds, the 360 background downloads and works everytime. Last is the game library is still small. The party aspect is worth the price, but the longevity of play is quite short.
Right now the 360 is clearly better for us. Nintendo would have to patch their software, release some better games, and fix their online experience for me to spend more time with it.
I don't see Microsoft dropping their premium pricing, if anything I would expect a software bundle or a new version with HD-DVD, HDMI and a bigger harddrive. The component cost of the 360 is now cheaper than the sale price: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061116-8239 .html
Microsoft can cut prices to drive sales, or they can sit and approach profitability, or they can aim for higher value at the same pricing. Dropping their price would be a statement that their console has less value than the PS3. When compared to the PS3 and its current software library, they have no incentive to drop their price until the PS3 is cheaper or actually outperforming them in the content department.
I worked on Company of Heroes. For several reasons (localization, print lead times) publishers need to lock down manuals several months before the game goes gold. Since games often go through changes right up the very end, the manual will often be outdated by the time the game ships, and plenty of critical information ends up in the readme, or worse, a patch.
They should deliver it in written form. Bound journals filled with binary.
use the right tool for the job.
I recently was tasked with building a tracking document for work. I need to be able to track progress on thousands of files, and be able to view large portions of them. There are many cross-linked files, and many different categories.
I know full well it is a database problem. In fact, I got Office 2K3 Pro installed so I could evaluate Access for just this task.
After playing around with it I decided against it and used Excel (a sheet checked into source control). My reasons are as follows:
1: Not everyone in the office knows how to use Access, or even has it installed.
2: Everyone and their dog has Excel and is familiar with it.
3: My data set at its extremes will definitely fit in Excel 2k3's restrictions.
4: The List function and Pivot-tables allow me to answer every question I need to.
In the end it boiled down to time. Access might have been more robust, but this document needs to be created two weeks ago and run for 6 months before we retire it.
In my case using it checked into source control eliminates the problem of creating a shared document. I don't need (or want) multiple people editing it. In this case, Excel is the right tool, and I am happy to use it improperly.
The MAC address will quickly become irrelevant if this takes off. You could bind unique IP's to each object on manufacture.
To answer this, AMD64 processors typically draw less power, and perform better than their Intel counterparts. Welcome to the mixed up tech world of today, with Intel inside Macintoshes, IBM inside Microsoft hardware, and overheating Intel chips.
I used to work in retail, and I generated revenue like you wouldn't believe. However, IT pays better.
having a PC goes out of fashion. As long as people have computers in their homes, as long as that is something that still sells, PC games will sell.
First, your complaint is muddied. Is your complaint the common one about spearmen having a chance against tanks? Blame math. A tank attacking a fortified position will be fighting against defensive bonuses as well as the spearman. So you see little dude with a stick, but in reality the numbers of those units (memory fails on the exact values) add up to a potential chance of death. Blame the designers, not the AI. AI is irrelevant in this case, it's a failure of the game rules, if it's a failure at all. In civ the units are merely abstractions to numbers, and complaining about tanks vs. spearmen is complaining about math. As for you writing a better AI than Sid Meier, how would you do so? So far no programmer has come up with a good AI for Go, and I dare say that game is simpler than civilization.
This thing really belongs in a console. Dedicated hardware is wasted in most PC's.
Check the date. That flight occurred months prior to 9/11. US customs was annoying around that time, but no where near as paranoid as they turned later.