I don't think asking for a PDF is, frankly, all that extreme. A.doc assumes you have a very expensive piece of specialized software (albeit very common in the business world) on your machine. Just about *everyone* has a PDF reader of some sort, and it's very easy to find them. Worse than that, Microsoft office documents are simply *dangerous*. Thanks to embedded scripting, they can contain malicious code that messes with your system once opened up.
I happen to use and like Windows, as well as lots of other proprietary code (including MS Office). And naturally, I tend to view a lot of Stallman's positions as rather extreme, although I still respect what the man does and what he stands for. But frankly, I think this position makes a lot of sense. You shouldn't pass around Office docs unless there's a very compelling reason to do so, such as if you need someone to edit it and send it back in the same format.
Better yet, online games need to stop being total grind fests. Why haven't more MMO's done that yet?
Simple. Because it's insanely hard to create enough actual content to keep up with players' demands.
Take a look at a typical first-person shooter. It has an considerable amount of content, but because the gameplay is designed to whisk the player through the environment once (maybe twice in parts), and fairly quickly at that, you end up at 6 to 14 hours as a pretty typical game length. Even then, you're still going to run into a lot of "repeater" content, such as the same types of enemies, similar looking environments, etc.
If you took the grind out of a typical MMO, you'd still probably only be looking at 20 to 40 hours of original content. With a moderate amount of grind, such as you often find in single-player RPGs, you could stretch out gameplay to perhaps 100 hours or so. Obviously, that's not enough to keep players coming back for the long-term, since the MMO business model (subscriptions) must keep players involved for even longer periods than this. There's just no practical way to give players enough original content to satiate their demands, and hold their interest for long periods of time. So, advancement through the game is deliberately slowed.
... and then you get rear-ended by the vehicle that was tailgating yours.
If the car has to brake to avoid a collision, and you get rear-ended because of it, then it seems likely it would have happened either way.
Besides, you used to hear the same sort of arguments about seatbelts. "What if I plunge into a lake and can't get out?" or, "What if the car flips upside-down, catches on fire, and the seatbelt traps me?" At this point, everyone more or less realizes that you're significantly more likely to be involved in a simple collision where you'd be thrown out through the window and onto the pavement (possibly into traffic) without your seatbelt/airbag protecting you. Seatbelts protect against a very real and common danger at the potential expense of a very unlikely scenario. This seems no different to me.
Will it be foolproof and 100% safe/effective? Well, look at airbags. They used to deploy too forcefully, and we learned via a few tragedies that kids can't be in the front seat. But at this point, you'd be insane to think that airbags don't save a lot of lives every year. It's the same thing that will happen with technologies such as these. Probably the thing to do is NOT be an early adopter, and let them work all the bugs out of the system first.
That being said (worthy goal notwithstanding), this sure sounds like a lot of hubris, calling it an "accident-proof" car, or that "no one should die in a Volvo." I seem to recall something about an "unsinkable" ship a few years ago, and look how that turned out?
What we really need (well, among other things) is to stop pretending there's some magic dividing line that separates "children" from "adults" at the age of 18 with these laws, especially since nature starts encouraging sexual activity pretty far before that (a little thing called "puberty"). One day, you're a helpless babe that needs special protection via a slew of these laws, and the next day, you're old enough to pick up a rifle and kill people for your country. Riiight...
People who perform vicious, terrible acts against other human beings, especially young children, deserve the full wrath of the law. This seems to be a backlash against too many instances of molesters given unbelievably light sentences, early parole despite being a clear risk for repeat offense, and so on. It's maddening that we have to swing back and forth like this without finding a reasonable solution in the middle.
Ah! Finally, a good point. You won't be able to get rid of your old PS2 if you want a PS3. And there are many different PS3 models, all with different capabilities. Muddying up the product line was a stupid idea.
I'd love to have gotten rid of my PS2. I got the PS3 as a gift, so I shouldn't complain, but I got the 40GB model. No backward compatibility for me, so the PS2 stays where it is for now.
And you'd better hope that the next generation of Xbox holds up better, and offers better backwards compatibility, because otherwise those $60 discs and all your DLC will be useless.
Very true, but that's not really unique to the Xbox, right? Any company that doesn't provide backward compatibility for their next console will probably get crucified, as people are investing a lot of money in game libraries. I think this feature will only grow in importance as well. Regarding the Xbox, from a technical perspective, I think it's also less difficult than between Xbox 1 and 2. They had a pretty radical shift in architecture, and so were forced to go the emulation route. I wouldn't be too surprised if the architecture for Xbox 3 was simply an evolution of the current design rather than a radical departure. This would allow much simpler and more reliable hardware-based backward compat (like the Wii).
They NEED to support common video formats, like mkv, and allow things like a MythTV Frontend to be written for it and use the full power of the GPU and cell processors. This would allow Myth, XBMC, Windows Media Center extenders, etc..
That would be nice for hackers, but... It's not just copyright-theft concerns. Opening up the console is probably the wrong business strategy for Sony, because they sell the machines at a loss. They have no intention of making powerful hardware available at below-market prices for people to use as general-purpose machines... machines for which the customers may not purchase any software that actually makes money for Sony.
Can you see how that's a losing proposition for them? If they made money on the machine itself, then sure, why not? All the better to expand your market. But then customers would be paying a whole lot more per machine (don't forget, cost needs to include overhead and R&D, not just cost of components), which would also negatively impact sales.
What I'd like to know is the real install base of the three consoles. You know, not every Xbox360 sold is actually going to a new customer due to a so-called RROD phenomenon. Is there any good data to clear that up?
Actually, at this point, MS is simply replacing every RROD at their expense with an extended warranty. So, unless someone is so anxious they can't wait three weeks or wanted to upgrade their model anyhow, then yes, we can probably assume most are new customers. Given that number should be pretty small, it probably then equates to the failure and replacement rates of other consoles, as every product, especially complex electronic devices, has *some* failure rate.
Microsoft Natural Elite (the PS/2 white one, not the USB black one with the stupid "extra functions").
I never cared for the arrow key layout or the lightweight feel of that particular model.
I use the MS Natural exclusively at work and home (older media version at home, 4000 model at work). I tend to prefer the beefier models with those extra macro/function buttons, since they utilize a larger form factor, with the arrow keys in the classic inverted T shape instead of a diamond arrangement. The additional size also gives the keyboard a little extra mass, which I like. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the extra function buttons, but since they're there, I do use them.
My wrists stopped constantly hurting after I switched to a ergonomic layout, so it seems to be doing the trick (along with short, regular breaks).
Ecchi (naughty/sexy) images of underage girls are not necessarily illegal under this new law. Specifically the PROTECT Act of 2003 states:
Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition. The law does not state that images of fictional beings who appear to be under 18 engaged in sexual acts that are not deemed to be obscene are rendered illegal in and of their own condition (illustration of sex of fictional minors).
So, the Miller test is used to determine whether or not it is obscene. So what about this test? Again, from Wikipedia:
* Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, * Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[2] specifically defined by applicable state law, * Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific).
Generally speaking, if the majority of people in a community would find these works "obscene", then it would be grounds for a conviction. For instance, typical pornography showing genitalia and sex acts is not necessarily classified as obscene under these guidelines.
So no, it doesn't automatically mean anytime a young anime girl flashes her panties, it's grounds for a conviction. Depictions of child abuse, rape, torture, mutilation, and the ole-standby: tentacles. Yeah, probably considered "obscene" by most, unless its portrayed in a way that conveys serious artistic intention (i.e. demonstrating the psychological scars of a girl abused by her father, for instance).
Stuff in the middle? Who the hell knows?
So, why did this guy get convicted? Take a look at his mug shot (which screams, "I'm going to rape your daughters" like nothing I've quite seen before), and the fact that the jury likely knew this was a parole violation for previous sex offenses, and you'll probably have your answer.
... has an understanding of the "schwerpunkt" concept
I'll admit, I had to look that one up. This refers to as a concentrated focal point during Blitzkrieg style operations. I'd guess the colloquial term would perhaps be "spearhead?"
I think it would be an absolute blast, albeit a mighty challenge, to program an AI with some of the concepts you've talked about.
Imagine, for the moment, being given complete control over the American Civil War. You would play the North under Douglas MacArthur and start with a division of Panzer tanks and two battalions of chariots from Pennsylvania. The South is split up into three different kingdoms, each headed by its own Pope, and you will need to capture their three holy cities of Pensacola, Columbus and Houston in order to win. Fortunately, swashbuckling pirates from Antigua show up every few turns to offer their services as mercenaries in your Grande Armée.
Heh, that's a pretty imaginative campaign there.:-)
That's too bad, as accurate accounts of history can be every bit as fascinating as fantasy, if told in a compelling way. It's one of the reasons I had no interest in seeing 300. The Battle at Thermopylae was an amazing story all on its own, and I didn't understand the need to embellish it.
I think there is more fun to be had giving orders when they are actually being obeyed.
You'd have hated Close Combat then. It was a feature of the AI that they'd refuse orders they felt were unreasonable (suicidal). Or sometimes they'd get stupidly brave and charge the enemy on their own, or become demoralized and scared, eliminating their effectiveness as fighting units.
"Private Murphy!" "Sir!" "Do you see that Panzer over there, the one advancing on Bravo Squad's position?" "Yes sir!" "I need to you go charge that tank and take it out! We're counting on you son!" "Uh, sir, I don't really have any AT wea..." "Get going, Private!" "With all due respect, you can go to hell, sir!"
And later that day...
"Alright Private. There's a Panzer advancing on our position, flanked by infantry and supported by an entrenched MG42, so we just need to play it cool until... Private..?" "Chaaaaaaaaarge!!!"
It was maddening at times, but it added an interesting bit of a human element to the battlefield.
...are they making an effort to be historically accurate?
I've always liked the Total War series (since Shogun) but must admit to having been caught referring to some of the "history" I learned from the games. Rome:TW is particularly bad in this regard. Granted that the player can drastically alter the outcome of history, for instance by having a massive Portuguese empire take over all of Europe by 1250 A.D., but it would still be nice to be playing with actual historically significant events and persons.
And I have a lot of hope for this one, since a good chunk of it will deal with American history which many of the developers probably know a bit more about than Roman, Japanese, or medieval European history.
Also, I wonder whether we can now start looking forward to, say, Normandy: Total Way, which would be terrifyingly awesome. As the technology has gotten better, the series has tended to move forwards in time, with the exception of Medieval 2 which revisited a time period that had already been covered.
I haven't played the games myself. But... aren't they giving you control over an entire campaign? I'm not sure how they can give you any significant freedom while still retaining historical accuracy, other than in a fairly broad sense regarding period tactics, strategies, and military technologies.
Maybe a separate historical mode that sets up battles and results in a campaign that mirrors actual history? But in that sort of mode, you'd be limited to working within the framework of a single battle, of course, to try to achieve results similar to a historical counterpart.
Nothing irks me as much as linear puzzles, where you have to solve A to get to B to get to C to get to D... Granted, some gates may be useful when they make sense -- i.e. you must figure out how to get on the space plane before you are given access to the puzzle of how to do an space walk. Even then, many of the puzzles would benefit from a way to go back to the puzzles. Like if you didn't go EVA and retrieve the broken antenna needed later in the game, you should be able to go back and do a second space trip, not being stalled on the first space trip until you have done that puzzle.
I'd agree. Too much linearity, especially in terms of adventure games, ends up feeling rather stifling. One of the big problems is when you're faced with a particular puzzle that you're having trouble with. Non-linearity allows the opportunity to go somewhere else, mull things over for a while, and come back later. The advantage of linearity (or, specifically, isolating the puzzle's scope) is that it tells the player "you have everything you need to figure this puzzle out.", which is sometimes a necessary ingredient to having the fortitude to trying all those weird combinations in your inventory. Otherwise, it's easy to give up, thinking "I must be missing some piece to the puzzle". I think the best games probably managed to balance this out.
And, naturally, the other reason for locking doors is a prerequisite amount of linearity for story advancement.
The most successful Infocom games (apart from those that played on sex) were those that had a minimum of linearity, and where you could go back and get a missing piece later. Similar with games like Baldur's Gate -- where BG and BG II succeeded due to having non-linear puzzles within each chapter, the higher amount of linearity of Planescape: Torment and Icewind Dale was probably their downfall. Oh, and let's not forget the Ultima series. Not only did bugs and bad copy protection ruin the later games, but the greatly increased linearity of the puzzles made the games tedious.
I'm a big fan of non-linear gameplay, but I've also enjoyed highly linear games as well. They just have something of a different flavor to me, and each can be enjoyable in their own way.
I was thinking that too. Maybe he's talking in hindsight.;-)
Of course, MI was pretty much all about throwing the player off for laughs. So, they apparently thought if funny to give you a rubber chicken you couldn't do anything with for a while. I also vaguely recall at one point one of the games (apparently) gave you some incredibly useful items, something like a rope, pistol, torch, and a universal skeleton key, and then, as a joke, immediately took them all away from you again.
Since when does Microsoft care about that? The real issue is that Microsoft has discovered that they may be able to lock people into Windows and Office, but they can't force people to buy new versions. Their "customers" will just keep on using Windows 2000 and Windows XP, and then Microsoft only gets a cut when someone buys a new computer, if that. And then, even then, they have to cut the price of their software for the OEMs, and so they aren't making the sort of money they like.
It would be suicide, nothing less. Customers resoundingly rejected this sort of system with DivX, and they'll do so again. People aren't completely opposed to subscriptions when they feel enough value is offered for the money, though.
In business, nothing is more attractive to a bottom line than subscriptions. Yearly guaranteed profits, nice and predictable. Nothing is scarier to a business than spending millions on a product that people may or may not want. But money is a better feedback mechanism for a business than almost anything else.
Honestly, though, I just can't see them being quite that stupid, at least not in the foreseeable future. Just because subscriptions are a wet dream for the financial department doesn't mean marketing won't stick their finger in the wind to see if people would actually go for such a scheme. People have been predicting this sort of stuff for years, and it never happens. It works at the large-scale enterprise level (it's probably advantageous there, since it's a known and regular expense), but it would be disastrous at any smaller scale.
Last.FM, for those who have been living on Mars for the last two years, is the largest online radio outlet, with millions of listeners per day.
You know, I'm not exactly what you'd call a Luddite, yet I've never heard of Last.FM. Am I the only one? I kind of doubt it.
I have a general gripe about anyone who writes "for those who have been living on Mars" anytime they reference some moderately popular company, service, or product. It smacks of arrogance, as if to say, if you don't have the same interests as I do, you're obviously disconnected from the mainstream.
Or perhaps I'm just annoyed for being called out on being a bit older and out of touch? Bah!
>>goes back to guarding lawn with a shotgun from an old rocking chair...
Governments all over the world frequently ask newspapers not to report stories. Sometimes the Government claims 'National Security' and other times they just ask nicely. Every now and then, a newspaper says no and a government scandal is born.
All you're really saying is that Western Nations aren't as blatant about their censorship...
I think the larger point is that the US and other nations with inherent freedom of the press have to ask news outlets to hold a story. In Vietnam, I'm quite certain they simply tell the press what they can and cannot say. One of those pesky little "checks and balances" Communism doesn't have to worry about.
Luke was exiled to a world that hasn't stumbled over a new idea - or a new machine - in over 5,000 years.
That is the story point you need to get across.
You do it by showing his clapped-out car. You don't do it by talking about his clapped-out car.
Exposition is dull. Exposition take time. You only have ninety minutes or so to tell your story.
Yep, it's one of the things Lucas understood best. "A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." He'd spend an enormous amount of money on these wonderful sets and special effects, but would only spend a few passing seconds on them, or be completely in the background, out of the way, part of the subconscious of the film experience.
I've seen other sci-fi films and shows, past and present, where the director seemed acutely aware of what were the big, expensive shots, and were determined to convey this to the audience of this by spending screen time according to cost rather than importance to the story.
The other thing he advocated (as you pointed out) was the concept of the "used future". A spacecraft doesn't have to be new and shiny just because it's sci-fi to *us*. It wasn't exactly new to sci-fi in general, but it was somewhat novel for film.
I can't imagine anything more boring than the movie slowing down enough to tell the audience *how* the speeder was hovering. How many times has the concept of how your car is propelled come up between you and other passengers in a car? I'm guessing, not too many times, unless they're children, right? Besides, we saw how the audience reacted when we actually learned *how* the Force interacted with people. People liked it much more without the explicit explanation.
Only because there are no Local Co-Op games for PS3 and XBox 360. Or at least, so few that there may as well be none. It's ridiculous how many games assume you're never going to want to play a game with a partner or family member.
Where the hell are all the non casual, non party local multiplayer games? There's got to be more than Dynasty Warriors!
Cue "I live alone, you insensitive clod!" jokes.
It's not a 100% overlapping market with those who own the consoles. There are also a lot of households where only one member of the family is interested in playing a console at all, or that particular game. So, you automatically shrink your potential market by some significant percentage. It's not that a single player can't enjoy such a game necessarily, but facts are facts: those development resources don't come for free... they came from work that otherwise could have been put into lengthening the single-player campaign or adding new gameplay features.
Making a game of this type, you have to make design choices up front about this right from the start. As an example, if you require a split screen, you essentially have to build the entire game with half the budget so each player can have their own view. That's a pretty big sacrifice to make, as it likely means your game is going to look significantly worse than others of the genre in single-player mode. And even beyond that, the developers must ensure the game is balanced and works well in both single player and co-op mode. How do you deal with things like disparate skill levels, for instance?
I'm not saying it's not worth the effort for some games, but looking objectively at the tradeoffs helps you to understand why more game developers don't do this.
If you just picked it up, I suggest you get EasyTutu, which allows you to play BG1 with BG2's much improved engine. Including higher resolution and all the other improvements.
Thanks for the tip - that's some really cool stuff there. I had no idea there was such an active mod community for these games, especially one capable of doing a total conversion for such a large game.
I totally appreciate your point of view... but I can hear management right now..
"That's fine, we still have India"
70% of Toca 3's cars were outsourced to India....
The [sad] truth is, no matter how unwilling you are to do something, there will always be someone grateful for it, even if they are getting paid 3x+ less than you.
I feared this day coming, and the truth is under current laws etc, anything that can be outsourced WILL be outsourced, and what are but a few ones and zeros?:-/
Our company outsources some of our artwork to Asia, but it's somewhat limited in scope. Most of the outsourced tasks are isolated in nature and have very clear "blueprints", so to speak (i.e. we need another several variants on this theme of outfit, etc). One could compare it to the difference between key animators and betweeners in traditional cell animation work, I suppose.
Knowledgeable management understands that outsourcing only works well in particular cases. You mentioned car models were outsourced. This is actually a pretty good example of something that probably does happen to work well for outsourcing. A car, especially a licensed car, is a well-defined and isolated game asset. Assuming there's a standardized starting rig and shaders (which I'd guess the local artists created), it wouldn't be too hard for external houses to crank through them. I've worked on a baseball game before, and the stadium modeling was outsourced.
None of our programming and none of our "key" art assets are outsourced, because: 1) In some cases (particularly regarding engineering) it would require handing over too much information to someone we really don't know or trust (we've had damaging PR-related leaks from external partners before). 2) They would not be able to coordinate with other team members in any way that approached what a local developer could do, especially if they're nowhere near the same timezone. Our working space is optimized for easy communication with each other. 3) They simply don't have the industry experience that our team has (many have five to fifteen years), and wouldn't be able to deliver the same quality and creativity.
In our particular situation, both inter and intra-team communication is extremely important. Game development is a highly fluid process, and it's important to be able to change directions quickly when new ideas are thought of, or when an old idea are discovered to be unfun or just unworkable. Management-think like what you described is the same sort of short-sighted thinking that directly led to the demise of many development houses. The same mentality that was used to work people until they became physically ill (yes, I know of this happening) could also be used to keep wages suppressed. We already receive lower-than-industry-average wages due to the nature of the work we do - not complaining, I knew this going in. The threat used to be with replacement by fresh college grads or whiz-kids off the streets. Now it's by outsourcing. It sounds good on paper, but it just doesn't end up working like that.
I've been hearing this for a decade now, and the threat of cheaper labor has always been there. If your company plans to outsource everything to India or China, you might as well find a new job anyhow. Management who doesn't understand the value of what an experienced developer can do is pretty much guaranteed to run the company in the ground eventually. I mentioned earlier the industry is improving / growing up. Part of this natural evolution is, to put it bluntly, the culling of companies that simply won't ever be successful due various reasons, including short-sighted management.
I just happened to have picked up Bauldur's Gate I && II recently from Amazon for some entertainment on my laptop. It's a reasonably powerful machine, but it's starting to show its age a bit as a gaming machine. So, having never played these games despite being a huge RPG fan, I picked them both up on the cheap.
Obviously, the game shows its age in some ways, but its still fantastic fun, and sometimes deeper than more modern games (requiring explicit 3D visualization of everything in the world sometimes has its disadvantages). I'm just starting out, and I'm already having a blast. I can't wait until I get a bit deeper into the story and see what unfolds. The only hangup for me was I had gotten used to the more streamlined D&D v3 rules (never played with 3.5 or 4, at least yet), so dropping back to v2 was sort of strange.
The stories about "100 hour work week" caught my eye as well. I was working in the game industry since about that time (coming up on 11 years for me), and attitudes by management certainly were a lot different then. Many companies just figured, "that's the way it is" in the industry while routinely exploiting the hell out of their workers. Most developers were young, having fun on the job and willing to work stupidly long hours, especially as one could be fairly easily replaced. Still, make no mistake, 100 hour workweeks are nothing to be proud of by either side. One side is exploiting, and the other is enabling that exploitation.
I've been through crunches - and not even as bad as others have experienced. There's nothing good that comes out of it except a burning desire to get far away from the company that just finished putting you it (at least for me). Eventually, one comes to the realization that crunches are simply the result of bad scheduling, unrealistic expectations, continually shifting targets, or a combination of this and other issues. In other words, it means your project is a mess. I've seen multiple instances of a team that, quite literally, completely disintegrated at the end of a death march. Is a single project worth destroying a development team?
Fortunately, attitudes are slowly changing in the industry for the better. Many of those who stuck through it have grown up, married, and have kids. We no longer will put up with demands to sacrifice our lives, and fortunately, occasionally have enough experience and clout to push thing in a saner direction. Some developers put through the wringer years ago are now in leadership positions, and vehemently fight against this sort of nonsense (this describes my current bosses, I'm happy to say). Keeping developers happy, not too surprisingly, is a good recipe for long-term success.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think asking for a PDF is, frankly, all that extreme. A .doc assumes you have a very expensive piece of specialized software (albeit very common in the business world) on your machine. Just about *everyone* has a PDF reader of some sort, and it's very easy to find them. Worse than that, Microsoft office documents are simply *dangerous*. Thanks to embedded scripting, they can contain malicious code that messes with your system once opened up.
I happen to use and like Windows, as well as lots of other proprietary code (including MS Office). And naturally, I tend to view a lot of Stallman's positions as rather extreme, although I still respect what the man does and what he stands for. But frankly, I think this position makes a lot of sense. You shouldn't pass around Office docs unless there's a very compelling reason to do so, such as if you need someone to edit it and send it back in the same format.
Better yet, online games need to stop being total grind fests. Why haven't more MMO's done that yet?
Simple. Because it's insanely hard to create enough actual content to keep up with players' demands.
Take a look at a typical first-person shooter. It has an considerable amount of content, but because the gameplay is designed to whisk the player through the environment once (maybe twice in parts), and fairly quickly at that, you end up at 6 to 14 hours as a pretty typical game length. Even then, you're still going to run into a lot of "repeater" content, such as the same types of enemies, similar looking environments, etc.
If you took the grind out of a typical MMO, you'd still probably only be looking at 20 to 40 hours of original content. With a moderate amount of grind, such as you often find in single-player RPGs, you could stretch out gameplay to perhaps 100 hours or so. Obviously, that's not enough to keep players coming back for the long-term, since the MMO business model (subscriptions) must keep players involved for even longer periods than this. There's just no practical way to give players enough original content to satiate their demands, and hold their interest for long periods of time. So, advancement through the game is deliberately slowed.
Hence, "grind".
... and then you get rear-ended by the vehicle that was tailgating yours.
If the car has to brake to avoid a collision, and you get rear-ended because of it, then it seems likely it would have happened either way.
Besides, you used to hear the same sort of arguments about seatbelts. "What if I plunge into a lake and can't get out?" or, "What if the car flips upside-down, catches on fire, and the seatbelt traps me?" At this point, everyone more or less realizes that you're significantly more likely to be involved in a simple collision where you'd be thrown out through the window and onto the pavement (possibly into traffic) without your seatbelt/airbag protecting you. Seatbelts protect against a very real and common danger at the potential expense of a very unlikely scenario. This seems no different to me.
Will it be foolproof and 100% safe/effective? Well, look at airbags. They used to deploy too forcefully, and we learned via a few tragedies that kids can't be in the front seat. But at this point, you'd be insane to think that airbags don't save a lot of lives every year. It's the same thing that will happen with technologies such as these. Probably the thing to do is NOT be an early adopter, and let them work all the bugs out of the system first.
That being said (worthy goal notwithstanding), this sure sounds like a lot of hubris, calling it an "accident-proof" car, or that "no one should die in a Volvo." I seem to recall something about an "unsinkable" ship a few years ago, and look how that turned out?
Or maybe ban the losers who constantly spell lose as loose.
It's gotten to the point that I involuntarily flinch every time I see the word 'looser', even in the correct context.
What we really need (well, among other things) is to stop pretending there's some magic dividing line that separates "children" from "adults" at the age of 18 with these laws, especially since nature starts encouraging sexual activity pretty far before that (a little thing called "puberty"). One day, you're a helpless babe that needs special protection via a slew of these laws, and the next day, you're old enough to pick up a rifle and kill people for your country. Riiight...
People who perform vicious, terrible acts against other human beings, especially young children, deserve the full wrath of the law. This seems to be a backlash against too many instances of molesters given unbelievably light sentences, early parole despite being a clear risk for repeat offense, and so on. It's maddening that we have to swing back and forth like this without finding a reasonable solution in the middle.
Sigh... Where did the common sense go?
Ah! Finally, a good point. You won't be able to get rid of your old PS2 if you want a PS3. And there are many different PS3 models, all with different capabilities. Muddying up the product line was a stupid idea.
I'd love to have gotten rid of my PS2. I got the PS3 as a gift, so I shouldn't complain, but I got the 40GB model. No backward compatibility for me, so the PS2 stays where it is for now.
And you'd better hope that the next generation of Xbox holds up better, and offers better backwards compatibility, because otherwise those $60 discs and all your DLC will be useless.
Very true, but that's not really unique to the Xbox, right? Any company that doesn't provide backward compatibility for their next console will probably get crucified, as people are investing a lot of money in game libraries. I think this feature will only grow in importance as well. Regarding the Xbox, from a technical perspective, I think it's also less difficult than between Xbox 1 and 2. They had a pretty radical shift in architecture, and so were forced to go the emulation route. I wouldn't be too surprised if the architecture for Xbox 3 was simply an evolution of the current design rather than a radical departure. This would allow much simpler and more reliable hardware-based backward compat (like the Wii).
They NEED to support common video formats, like mkv, and allow things like a MythTV Frontend to be written for it and use the full power of the GPU and cell processors. This would allow Myth, XBMC, Windows Media Center extenders, etc..
That would be nice for hackers, but... It's not just copyright-theft concerns. Opening up the console is probably the wrong business strategy for Sony, because they sell the machines at a loss. They have no intention of making powerful hardware available at below-market prices for people to use as general-purpose machines... machines for which the customers may not purchase any software that actually makes money for Sony.
Can you see how that's a losing proposition for them? If they made money on the machine itself, then sure, why not? All the better to expand your market. But then customers would be paying a whole lot more per machine (don't forget, cost needs to include overhead and R&D, not just cost of components), which would also negatively impact sales.
What I'd like to know is the real install base of the three consoles. You know, not every Xbox360 sold is actually going to a new customer due to a so-called RROD phenomenon. Is there any good data to clear that up?
Actually, at this point, MS is simply replacing every RROD at their expense with an extended warranty. So, unless someone is so anxious they can't wait three weeks or wanted to upgrade their model anyhow, then yes, we can probably assume most are new customers. Given that number should be pretty small, it probably then equates to the failure and replacement rates of other consoles, as every product, especially complex electronic devices, has *some* failure rate.
Just speculation, though.
Microsoft Natural Elite (the PS/2 white one, not the USB black one with the stupid "extra functions").
I never cared for the arrow key layout or the lightweight feel of that particular model.
I use the MS Natural exclusively at work and home (older media version at home, 4000 model at work). I tend to prefer the beefier models with those extra macro/function buttons, since they utilize a larger form factor, with the arrow keys in the classic inverted T shape instead of a diamond arrangement. The additional size also gives the keyboard a little extra mass, which I like. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the extra function buttons, but since they're there, I do use them.
My wrists stopped constantly hurting after I switched to a ergonomic layout, so it seems to be doing the trick (along with short, regular breaks).
Ecchi (naughty/sexy) images of underage girls are not necessarily illegal under this new law. Specifically the PROTECT Act of 2003 states:
Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition. The law does not state that images of fictional beings who appear to be under 18 engaged in sexual acts that are not deemed to be obscene are rendered illegal in and of their own condition (illustration of sex of fictional minors).
So, the Miller test is used to determine whether or not it is obscene. So what about this test? Again, from Wikipedia:
* Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
* Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[2] specifically defined by applicable state law,
* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific).
Generally speaking, if the majority of people in a community would find these works "obscene", then it would be grounds for a conviction. For instance, typical pornography showing genitalia and sex acts is not necessarily classified as obscene under these guidelines.
So no, it doesn't automatically mean anytime a young anime girl flashes her panties, it's grounds for a conviction. Depictions of child abuse, rape, torture, mutilation, and the ole-standby: tentacles. Yeah, probably considered "obscene" by most, unless its portrayed in a way that conveys serious artistic intention (i.e. demonstrating the psychological scars of a girl abused by her father, for instance).
Stuff in the middle? Who the hell knows?
So, why did this guy get convicted? Take a look at his mug shot (which screams, "I'm going to rape your daughters" like nothing I've quite seen before), and the fact that the jury likely knew this was a parole violation for previous sex offenses, and you'll probably have your answer.
... has an understanding of the "schwerpunkt" concept
I'll admit, I had to look that one up. This refers to as a concentrated focal point during Blitzkrieg style operations. I'd guess the colloquial term would perhaps be "spearhead?"
I think it would be an absolute blast, albeit a mighty challenge, to program an AI with some of the concepts you've talked about.
Imagine, for the moment, being given complete control over the American Civil War. You would play the North under Douglas MacArthur and start with a division of Panzer tanks and two battalions of chariots from Pennsylvania. The South is split up into three different kingdoms, each headed by its own Pope, and you will need to capture their three holy cities of Pensacola, Columbus and Houston in order to win. Fortunately, swashbuckling pirates from Antigua show up every few turns to offer their services as mercenaries in your Grande Armée.
Heh, that's a pretty imaginative campaign there. :-)
That's too bad, as accurate accounts of history can be every bit as fascinating as fantasy, if told in a compelling way. It's one of the reasons I had no interest in seeing 300. The Battle at Thermopylae was an amazing story all on its own, and I didn't understand the need to embellish it.
I think there is more fun to be had giving orders when they are actually being obeyed.
You'd have hated Close Combat then. It was a feature of the AI that they'd refuse orders they felt were unreasonable (suicidal). Or sometimes they'd get stupidly brave and charge the enemy on their own, or become demoralized and scared, eliminating their effectiveness as fighting units.
"Private Murphy!"
"Sir!"
"Do you see that Panzer over there, the one advancing on Bravo Squad's position?"
"Yes sir!"
"I need to you go charge that tank and take it out! We're counting on you son!"
"Uh, sir, I don't really have any AT wea..."
"Get going, Private!"
"With all due respect, you can go to hell, sir!"
And later that day...
"Alright Private. There's a Panzer advancing on our position, flanked by infantry and supported by an entrenched MG42, so we just need to play it cool until... Private..?"
"Chaaaaaaaaarge!!!"
It was maddening at times, but it added an interesting bit of a human element to the battlefield.
...are they making an effort to be historically accurate?
I've always liked the Total War series (since Shogun) but must admit to having been caught referring to some of the "history" I learned from the games. Rome:TW is particularly bad in this regard. Granted that the player can drastically alter the outcome of history, for instance by having a massive Portuguese empire take over all of Europe by 1250 A.D., but it would still be nice to be playing with actual historically significant events and persons.
And I have a lot of hope for this one, since a good chunk of it will deal with American history which many of the developers probably know a bit more about than Roman, Japanese, or medieval European history.
Also, I wonder whether we can now start looking forward to, say, Normandy: Total Way, which would be terrifyingly awesome. As the technology has gotten better, the series has tended to move forwards in time, with the exception of Medieval 2 which revisited a time period that had already been covered.
I haven't played the games myself. But... aren't they giving you control over an entire campaign? I'm not sure how they can give you any significant freedom while still retaining historical accuracy, other than in a fairly broad sense regarding period tactics, strategies, and military technologies.
Maybe a separate historical mode that sets up battles and results in a campaign that mirrors actual history? But in that sort of mode, you'd be limited to working within the framework of a single battle, of course, to try to achieve results similar to a historical counterpart.
Nothing irks me as much as linear puzzles, where you have to solve A to get to B to get to C to get to D... Granted, some gates may be useful when they make sense -- i.e. you must figure out how to get on the space plane before you are given access to the puzzle of how to do an space walk.
Even then, many of the puzzles would benefit from a way to go back to the puzzles. Like if you didn't go EVA and retrieve the broken antenna needed later in the game, you should be able to go back and do a second space trip, not being stalled on the first space trip until you have done that puzzle.
I'd agree. Too much linearity, especially in terms of adventure games, ends up feeling rather stifling. One of the big problems is when you're faced with a particular puzzle that you're having trouble with. Non-linearity allows the opportunity to go somewhere else, mull things over for a while, and come back later. The advantage of linearity (or, specifically, isolating the puzzle's scope) is that it tells the player "you have everything you need to figure this puzzle out.", which is sometimes a necessary ingredient to having the fortitude to trying all those weird combinations in your inventory. Otherwise, it's easy to give up, thinking "I must be missing some piece to the puzzle". I think the best games probably managed to balance this out.
And, naturally, the other reason for locking doors is a prerequisite amount of linearity for story advancement.
The most successful Infocom games (apart from those that played on sex) were those that had a minimum of linearity, and where you could go back and get a missing piece later. Similar with games like Baldur's Gate -- where BG and BG II succeeded due to having non-linear puzzles within each chapter, the higher amount of linearity of Planescape: Torment and Icewind Dale was probably their downfall.
Oh, and let's not forget the Ultima series. Not only did bugs and bad copy protection ruin the later games, but the greatly increased linearity of the puzzles made the games tedious.
I'm a big fan of non-linear gameplay, but I've also enjoyed highly linear games as well. They just have something of a different flavor to me, and each can be enjoyable in their own way.
I was thinking that too. Maybe he's talking in hindsight. ;-)
Of course, MI was pretty much all about throwing the player off for laughs. So, they apparently thought if funny to give you a rubber chicken you couldn't do anything with for a while. I also vaguely recall at one point one of the games (apparently) gave you some incredibly useful items, something like a rope, pistol, torch, and a universal skeleton key, and then, as a joke, immediately took them all away from you again.
Evil, those game designers. Just... evil.
Since when does Microsoft care about that? The real issue is that Microsoft has discovered that they may be able to lock people into Windows and Office, but they can't force people to buy new versions. Their "customers" will just keep on using Windows 2000 and Windows XP, and then Microsoft only gets a cut when someone buys a new computer, if that. And then, even then, they have to cut the price of their software for the OEMs, and so they aren't making the sort of money they like.
It would be suicide, nothing less. Customers resoundingly rejected this sort of system with DivX, and they'll do so again. People aren't completely opposed to subscriptions when they feel enough value is offered for the money, though.
In business, nothing is more attractive to a bottom line than subscriptions. Yearly guaranteed profits, nice and predictable. Nothing is scarier to a business than spending millions on a product that people may or may not want. But money is a better feedback mechanism for a business than almost anything else.
Honestly, though, I just can't see them being quite that stupid, at least not in the foreseeable future. Just because subscriptions are a wet dream for the financial department doesn't mean marketing won't stick their finger in the wind to see if people would actually go for such a scheme. People have been predicting this sort of stuff for years, and it never happens. It works at the large-scale enterprise level (it's probably advantageous there, since it's a known and regular expense), but it would be disastrous at any smaller scale.
Still, it would be fun to see them try.
Last.FM, for those who have been living on Mars for the last two years, is the largest online radio outlet, with millions of listeners per day.
You know, I'm not exactly what you'd call a Luddite, yet I've never heard of Last.FM. Am I the only one? I kind of doubt it.
I have a general gripe about anyone who writes "for those who have been living on Mars" anytime they reference some moderately popular company, service, or product. It smacks of arrogance, as if to say, if you don't have the same interests as I do, you're obviously disconnected from the mainstream.
Or perhaps I'm just annoyed for being called out on being a bit older and out of touch? Bah!
>>goes back to guarding lawn with a shotgun from an old rocking chair...
Governments all over the world frequently ask newspapers not to report stories.
Sometimes the Government claims 'National Security' and other times they just ask nicely.
Every now and then, a newspaper says no and a government scandal is born.
All you're really saying is that Western Nations aren't as blatant about their censorship...
I think the larger point is that the US and other nations with inherent freedom of the press have to ask news outlets to hold a story. In Vietnam, I'm quite certain they simply tell the press what they can and cannot say. One of those pesky little "checks and balances" Communism doesn't have to worry about.
Well, of course, no reason is given.
Luke was exiled to a world that hasn't stumbled over a new idea - or a new machine - in over 5,000 years.
That is the story point you need to get across.
You do it by showing his clapped-out car. You don't do it by talking about his clapped-out car.
Exposition is dull. Exposition take time. You only have ninety minutes or so to tell your story.
Yep, it's one of the things Lucas understood best. "A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." He'd spend an enormous amount of money on these wonderful sets and special effects, but would only spend a few passing seconds on them, or be completely in the background, out of the way, part of the subconscious of the film experience.
I've seen other sci-fi films and shows, past and present, where the director seemed acutely aware of what were the big, expensive shots, and were determined to convey this to the audience of this by spending screen time according to cost rather than importance to the story.
The other thing he advocated (as you pointed out) was the concept of the "used future". A spacecraft doesn't have to be new and shiny just because it's sci-fi to *us*. It wasn't exactly new to sci-fi in general, but it was somewhat novel for film.
I can't imagine anything more boring than the movie slowing down enough to tell the audience *how* the speeder was hovering. How many times has the concept of how your car is propelled come up between you and other passengers in a car? I'm guessing, not too many times, unless they're children, right? Besides, we saw how the audience reacted when we actually learned *how* the Force interacted with people. People liked it much more without the explicit explanation.
If there were Holodecks ..., who's to say how many people would want them?
I'll just go out on a limb here and say 'everyone'. Except the Amish.
Only because there are no Local Co-Op games for PS3 and XBox 360.
Or at least, so few that there may as well be none. It's ridiculous how many games assume you're never going to want to play a game with a partner or family member.
Where the hell are all the non casual, non party local multiplayer games? There's got to be more than Dynasty Warriors!
Cue "I live alone, you insensitive clod!" jokes.
It's not a 100% overlapping market with those who own the consoles. There are also a lot of households where only one member of the family is interested in playing a console at all, or that particular game. So, you automatically shrink your potential market by some significant percentage. It's not that a single player can't enjoy such a game necessarily, but facts are facts: those development resources don't come for free... they came from work that otherwise could have been put into lengthening the single-player campaign or adding new gameplay features.
Making a game of this type, you have to make design choices up front about this right from the start. As an example, if you require a split screen, you essentially have to build the entire game with half the budget so each player can have their own view. That's a pretty big sacrifice to make, as it likely means your game is going to look significantly worse than others of the genre in single-player mode. And even beyond that, the developers must ensure the game is balanced and works well in both single player and co-op mode. How do you deal with things like disparate skill levels, for instance?
I'm not saying it's not worth the effort for some games, but looking objectively at the tradeoffs helps you to understand why more game developers don't do this.
If you just picked it up, I suggest you get EasyTutu, which allows you to play BG1 with BG2's much improved engine. Including higher resolution and all the other improvements.
Thanks for the tip - that's some really cool stuff there. I had no idea there was such an active mod community for these games, especially one capable of doing a total conversion for such a large game.
I totally appreciate your point of view... but I can hear management right now..
"That's fine, we still have India"
70% of Toca 3's cars were outsourced to India....
The [sad] truth is, no matter how unwilling you are to do something, there will always be someone grateful for it, even if they are getting paid 3x+ less than you.
I feared this day coming, and the truth is under current laws etc, anything that can be outsourced WILL be outsourced, and what are but a few ones and zeros? :-/
Our company outsources some of our artwork to Asia, but it's somewhat limited in scope. Most of the outsourced tasks are isolated in nature and have very clear "blueprints", so to speak (i.e. we need another several variants on this theme of outfit, etc). One could compare it to the difference between key animators and betweeners in traditional cell animation work, I suppose.
Knowledgeable management understands that outsourcing only works well in particular cases. You mentioned car models were outsourced. This is actually a pretty good example of something that probably does happen to work well for outsourcing. A car, especially a licensed car, is a well-defined and isolated game asset. Assuming there's a standardized starting rig and shaders (which I'd guess the local artists created), it wouldn't be too hard for external houses to crank through them. I've worked on a baseball game before, and the stadium modeling was outsourced.
None of our programming and none of our "key" art assets are outsourced, because:
1) In some cases (particularly regarding engineering) it would require handing over too much information to someone we really don't know or trust (we've had damaging PR-related leaks from external partners before).
2) They would not be able to coordinate with other team members in any way that approached what a local developer could do, especially if they're nowhere near the same timezone. Our working space is optimized for easy communication with each other.
3) They simply don't have the industry experience that our team has (many have five to fifteen years), and wouldn't be able to deliver the same quality and creativity.
In our particular situation, both inter and intra-team communication is extremely important. Game development is a highly fluid process, and it's important to be able to change directions quickly when new ideas are thought of, or when an old idea are discovered to be unfun or just unworkable. Management-think like what you described is the same sort of short-sighted thinking that directly led to the demise of many development houses. The same mentality that was used to work people until they became physically ill (yes, I know of this happening) could also be used to keep wages suppressed. We already receive lower-than-industry-average wages due to the nature of the work we do - not complaining, I knew this going in. The threat used to be with replacement by fresh college grads or whiz-kids off the streets. Now it's by outsourcing. It sounds good on paper, but it just doesn't end up working like that.
I've been hearing this for a decade now, and the threat of cheaper labor has always been there. If your company plans to outsource everything to India or China, you might as well find a new job anyhow. Management who doesn't understand the value of what an experienced developer can do is pretty much guaranteed to run the company in the ground eventually. I mentioned earlier the industry is improving / growing up. Part of this natural evolution is, to put it bluntly, the culling of companies that simply won't ever be successful due various reasons, including short-sighted management.
I just happened to have picked up Bauldur's Gate I && II recently from Amazon for some entertainment on my laptop. It's a reasonably powerful machine, but it's starting to show its age a bit as a gaming machine. So, having never played these games despite being a huge RPG fan, I picked them both up on the cheap.
Obviously, the game shows its age in some ways, but its still fantastic fun, and sometimes deeper than more modern games (requiring explicit 3D visualization of everything in the world sometimes has its disadvantages). I'm just starting out, and I'm already having a blast. I can't wait until I get a bit deeper into the story and see what unfolds. The only hangup for me was I had gotten used to the more streamlined D&D v3 rules (never played with 3.5 or 4, at least yet), so dropping back to v2 was sort of strange.
The stories about "100 hour work week" caught my eye as well. I was working in the game industry since about that time (coming up on 11 years for me), and attitudes by management certainly were a lot different then. Many companies just figured, "that's the way it is" in the industry while routinely exploiting the hell out of their workers. Most developers were young, having fun on the job and willing to work stupidly long hours, especially as one could be fairly easily replaced. Still, make no mistake, 100 hour workweeks are nothing to be proud of by either side. One side is exploiting, and the other is enabling that exploitation.
I've been through crunches - and not even as bad as others have experienced. There's nothing good that comes out of it except a burning desire to get far away from the company that just finished putting you it (at least for me). Eventually, one comes to the realization that crunches are simply the result of bad scheduling, unrealistic expectations, continually shifting targets, or a combination of this and other issues. In other words, it means your project is a mess. I've seen multiple instances of a team that, quite literally, completely disintegrated at the end of a death march. Is a single project worth destroying a development team?
Fortunately, attitudes are slowly changing in the industry for the better. Many of those who stuck through it have grown up, married, and have kids. We no longer will put up with demands to sacrifice our lives, and fortunately, occasionally have enough experience and clout to push thing in a saner direction. Some developers put through the wringer years ago are now in leadership positions, and vehemently fight against this sort of nonsense (this describes my current bosses, I'm happy to say). Keeping developers happy, not too surprisingly, is a good recipe for long-term success.